5 pages needed in 8 hours

8

War and Space in the 20th Century

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of Chapter 8, you will be able to:

• Describe the ways that science shaped warfare as well as how military conflict shaped
science during World War I and World War II.

• Explain how splitting the atom led to today’s nuclear fears.

• Assess the scientific and cultural significance of the space race within the political context
of the Cold War.

• Understand the story behind

NASA

.

186

CHAPTER 8Section

8.1 Chemistry and Physics in War

Introduction

The relationship between science and war became increasingly close in the 20th cen-tury, with a transition from a “chemists’ war” in World War I to a “physicists’ war” in World War II. As in our other investigations, the scientific activity did not sim-
ply impact the culture at large (in this case, the way war was waged). Throughout his-
tory, nations, tribes, and individuals have engaged in warfare in an attempt to protect
or impose their rule on the world. In doing so, these leaders have used every military
advantage at their disposal, including scientists. The history of the relationship between
technology, science, and war extends back millennia. In this chapter we will focus on the
20th century, specifically World War I and World War II, a time when science reshaped
warfare, warfare and the political organizations that waged it re-created science, and this
reciprocity gave humans the power for the first time to literally destroy the world. There
was a reciprocal relationship here too as warfare and the military dramatically shaped
the direction of science. With science proven as such an essential component of modern
warfare, we then turn to the Cold War, when scientific achievements in space became a
measure of the progress, potential, and power of a nation.

8.1 Chemistry and Physics in War

World War I began on June 28, 1914, when a Serbian terrorist assassinated Aus-tria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Due to a variety of causes this event was the spark that led the world into its first global war six weeks later.
The Central Powers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria.
Against them were the Triple Entente Powers of Britain, France, and Russia. Four years
after the start of the war, the United States entered on the side of the Entente, and its entry
helped secure victory by 1919.

World War I was notable for many reasons, one being new technologies. It was a tran-
sition point in the history of warfare as the older methods of trench combat met with
devastating new weapons of destruction such as machine guns and dynamite. Millions
of men starved, froze, and languished in the mud in the hastily dug trenches, barely sur-
viving the conditions only to charge bravely into a near suicidal field of combat. Often
they met the onslaught of machine-gun fire. With this new weapon, a well-bunkered
enemy could decimate the opposing force. First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill
said, “The mechanical danger must be overcome by mechanical remedy,” and the Entente
forces discovered that remedy with the use of the tank (Churchill, 2005, p. 303). Though
the tank was the response to the automatic-fire capability of the machine gun, command-
ers used it far less effectively in World War I than they would several decades later in
World War II.

187

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Chemistry and Physics in War

The Nobel Prize

You might have noticed that a number of the scientists mentioned in this
book are Nobel Prize winners, and you may be asking what exactly they
have won. This is an important question because it highlights our theme of
the reciprocity between science and culture. The prize began as the inspira-
tion of Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel (1833–1896), who made his fortune
in the late 19th century as the inventor of dynamite. Nobel himself was born
into poverty but through his investigations he discovered a way in which
nitroglycerine could be safely detonated. He called this controlled deto-
nation dynamite, and his patents brought him extreme wealth; however,
neither his achievement nor his scientific and inventive genius brought
him satisfaction. The popular press labeled him the “merchant of death” as
dynamite became a devastating way to “mutilate and kill,” and this haunted
the final days of his life (Fant, 2006, p. 207). In an attempt to turn his deadly
invention into a way to benefit world culture, Nobel bequeathed his fortune
to create a foundation of prizes that honored physics, chemistry, medi-
cine, literature, and peace. Each year since 1901 the Nobel Foundation has

awarded these prizes, which have now become the most prestigious measure of achievement in these
fields. Determination of the winners is a complex process—for example, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded
by a committee selected by the Norwegian Parliament. The winners, called the laureates, earn far more
than a gold medal and a diploma. Along with the prestige comes a huge sum of money that fluctuates
each year and in 2011 was over $1.5 million (http://nobelprize.org).

Reflective Question:

1. In what ways do you think that a prestigious and monetarily significant prize like this can serve to
influence achievements in science, literature, and peace?

Photos.com/Thinkstock

The Chemists’ War

The war was shaped by scientific
weapons as well, so much so that
World War I is often called the
“chemists’ war” because these
professionals dominated the sci-
entific experts with their abili-
ties to create weaponized gases
and explosive devices (Kevles,
2001). The Germans were the
first to make large-scale poison
gas weapons for use in chemi-
cal warfare while U.S. army and
navy projects utilized almost
40 different college and uni-
versity laboratories throughout
the United States in support of
new weapons that promised a

During World War I, chemists were hired to create toxic gases to use
as weapons. Shown here are workers spreading sand and chloride
of lime to neutralize an area contaminated by mustard gas.

Library of Congress

http://nobelprize.org

188

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Chemistry and Physics in War

military advantage. Over 1 million people died from poison gas attacks, starting with the
first in France on April 22, 1915 (Brown, 2006).

In a significant way an inventory involved with home technologies played a vital war
in the chemical battles during World War I—for example, the creation of gas masks.
The most notable person in this effort was African American inventor Garrett Morgan
(1877–1963), who is also credited with creating the nation’s first traffic lights in Cleveland,
Ohio. Though his gas masks did not completely overcome the threat by the chemists’ gas
attacks, it did present one very important countermeasure for security.

Biographical Spotlight: Garrett Morgan

In 1907 Garrett Morgan was a sewing machine repair shop owner in Cleveland, Ohio. An inventor,
he developed significant mechanical improvements to sewing machines, such as zigzag stitching.
In 1912, Morgan, upon hearing that firefighters struggled to breathe while fighting noxious fires,
developed a “breathing device,” which he patented two years later as his Morgan Safety Hood. To
show off his invention, he traveled the country engaging in publicity stunts that grabbed news-
paper headlines. In one of the stunts, he sat inside a tent filled with fumes toxic enough to kill and
survived by breathing in his mask. In the South, to overcome racism, he hired white salesmen who
pretended to be Morgan, while he traveled along as their “Indian” assistant.

Morgan gained national attention in 1916 after a devastating explosion in a tunnel under Lake Erie.
Morgan and his brother donned Morgan Safety Hoods and made four trips into thick toxic fumes
and gases to rescue the miners who were trapped inside the tunnel. After that, orders came from
police and fire departments across the United States. Unfortunately, reflecting the culture of the
time, some departments withdrew the orders upon learning Morgan was African American. During
the next year he made modifications, and his gas mask became standard operating equipment for
all American troops heading to the trenches of Europe in World War I.

Morgan also is known for his invention of a traffic signal, for which he was granted a U.S. patent in
1923. In 1997 the U.S. Department of Transportation created the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and
Transportation Futures Program to encourage students to study engineering.

Morgan is just one of a significant line of African American inventors. Most notable are Lewis Latimer,
a General Electric engineer who invented and patented a carbon filament which improved Edison’s
lightbulb; Granville Woods, who formed the Woods Railway Telegraph Company and was respon-
sible for inventing a telephone transmitter which improved the clarity of sound; Shelby Davidson, an
employee of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Post Office, who invented adding machines; and Alfred
Cralle, a Virginia businessman who invented the ice cream scoop (Fouché, 2005).

Reflective Questions:

1. Of Morgan’s two main inventions—the gas mask and the traffic light—which do you think was the
most significant, and why?

2. Can you think of any other inventors who risked their own lives to sell their ideas? Who are they and
what did they invent?

189

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Chemistry and Physics in War

Atomic Structure

While one of the greatest fears created by scientists in World War I was that of the gas cloud,
it would be another type of devastating cloud, this time created by physicists, which defined
the horrors of World War II, known as the “physicists’ war.” The physicists’ cloud was the
result of gaining remarkable new knowledge about the structure of the atom. The idea that
all matter is made up of the discrete particles called atoms represented one of the major
discoveries in the history of science. By the 1890s scientists still conceived of atoms as bil-
liard balls, irreducible elements that were the basic building blocks of nature, but an entire
subatomic universe was nearing discovery (Bowles, 2006, p. 281). Most notably Marie Curie

(1867–1934), a French physicist and chem-
ist, and her husband, Pierre (1859–1906),
identified and named radioactivity. They
also discovered two new elements that
like uranium also emitted radiation. They
named the first polonium after their native
country Poland, and the other they called
radium. Marie and Pierre won the Nobel
Prize in Physics in 1903 for this work.

Along with radioactivity, scientists began
learning more about the inside of the atom.
In 1887 J. J. Thomson (1856–1940), a Brit-
ish physicist, discovered the existence of
the electron. New Zealander Ernest Ruth-
erford (1871–1937) identified two differ-
ent types of rays in uranium radiation and
developed a general theory of radiation,
stating that it was actually the disintegra-
tion of atoms. Rutherford then probed the
atoms with X-rays and discovered that
there was a solid mass inside, which he

called the nucleus. The modern atomic model emerged out of his work, and astonishingly it
appeared to mirror the way that planets revolve around a sun. The negatively charged elec-
trons revolved around the positively charged nucleus, which contained nearly all the mass
of the atom in its protons and electrons. This was Rutherford’s model of the atom, called the
solar-system model (Bowles, 2006, pp. 281–290). There was one more vital atomic particle
yet to be discovered, and the power to manipulate it fundamentally changed the world.

The Neutron

The discovery of the neutron is now considered one of the most significant scientific find-
ings of the 20th century. In 1920 Rutherford argued that there was another particle inside
the atom that shared space with the protons, and though he called them neutrons no
one could experimentally prove that they existed. In 1932 Marie Curie’s daughter, Irène
Joliot-Curie (1897–1956), and her husband, Frédéric Joliot-Curie (1900–1958), provided
key evidence that led scientists to prove the existence of the neutron. In 1935 Irène and
Frédéric won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, thus making Marie and Irène the first mother
and daughter to win their own Nobel Prizes.

Shown here are physicists Pierre and Marie Curie in
their Paris laboratory. This photo was taken shortly
after they won the Davy Medal in 1903.

Photos.com/Thinkstock

190

CHAPTER 8Section

8.2 Atomic Politics Leading to Nuclear Fears

Why was the neutron so significant? Leo Szilard (1898–1964) was one of the first to envi-
sion a new use for neutrons. He conceptualized the possibility of releasing atomic energy
through a chain reaction that began with the bombardment of neutrons. He further specu-
lated that a devastating bomb could be made from this process. One year later he fled
Nazi persecution in Berlin and immigrated to Britain, where in 1934 he applied for and
received a patent on an atomic bomb. In 1937 he moved to the United States where he
took a central place in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II. Through
Szilard’s work an important transformation had taken place. Theoretical subatomic phys-
ics was ready for practical applications. The nucleus of an atom held a tremendous energy
reserve, which would be released if the atom could be split (Bowles, 2006, pp. 288–291).

8.2 Atomic Politics Leading to Nuclear Fears

Atomic politics reached critical mass the day that German physicists Otto Hahn (1879–1968), Lise Meitner (1878–1968), and Fritz Strassman (1902–1980) at the Kai-ser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry designed a tabletop device that split a ura-
nium atom. In 1938, on the eve of World War II in which the German army led by Hitler
began a conquest of Europe, their achievement led many physicists worldwide to begin
exploring the implications of this phenomenon, one of which was a nuclear bomb (Kev-
les, 2001). When the uranium atom split, not only were large amounts of energy created
but also neutrons were released. Scientists like Szilard speculated that if the conditions
were set up and controlled correctly, a chain reaction could occur with the expelled neu-
trons from the first split atom causing other nearby uranium atoms to do the same. This
process could perpetuate itself, and if left unchecked, would unleash a terribly destruc-
tive power. As Hitler’s armies continued to subdue European resistance, many elite Ger-
man scientists fled to the United States to escape the horrors of Nazi anti-Semitism. These
included Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) and Eugene Wigner (1902–1995). By this time Einstein
was already living in the United States, having left Europe in 1933, and with his Jewish
roots, he had no intention of returning. Once in the United States, physicists like these
began a campaign to beat the Germans to the development of a nuclear bomb. After Japan
surprised America with a December 7, 1941, attack on U.S. naval bases at Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, the pace of nuclear experimentation intensified, and efforts to develop a nuclear
bomb became known as the Manhattan Project.

Did You Know? Lise Meitner

Lise Meitner (1878–1868) was only the second woman to earn a physics doctorate from the University
of Vienna and the first German woman to hold a full professorship in physics. In 1938 she escaped Ger-
many because of her Jewish heritage. In 1944, her colleague Otto Hahn won the Nobel Prize in Chem-
istry for his work in nuclear fission. Some say Meitner should have won it, too (Fergusson, 2011).

The Manhattan Project
American nuclear experimentation actually predated the Japanese attack. At Columbia
University in New York City, physicists researched uranium fission and thought that they

191

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Atomic Politics Leading to Nuclear Fears

could create a chain reaction using a pile of uranium and graphite blocks, but they lacked
both substances to test their hypothesis. The U.S. government stepped in to assist, and in
June 1940 President Franklin Roosevelt (1882–1945) formed the National Defense Research
Committee (NDRC) with MIT engineer Vannevar Bush (1890–1974) as its leader. Several
universities also contributed to this work, including Columbia University, Princeton Uni-
versity, the University of Chicago, and the University of California. By 1942 the program
acquired the code name Manhattan Project and was “unprecedented in its concentrated
expenditure of human resources for the manufacture of a single product—atomic bombs”
(Hughes, 1989, p. 385). The project began with scientific research at the University of Chi-
cago in a place called the Metallurgical Laboratory, which was a code name to disguise
its use for nuclear research. The university president suspended the university’s football
games for academic reasons and designated the west stands at Stagg Field as the site for
the secret nuclear research (Holl, Hewlett, & Harris, 1997). There beneath the football field
in the squash court, the research team built the world’s first atomic pile, named Chicago
Pile 1 (CP-1).

On December 2, 1942, with an audience of 42 scientists, these physicists created the world’s
first nuclear chain reaction. It was small and controlled, and the scientists celebrated by
opening a bottle of Chianti and passing it around to those watching the momentous occa-
sion. Despite the success no one at the time knew if it was the first controlled chain reaction
or not, as the Germans might have beaten them to it. But, after the war was over it became
clear that on that cold December day, the squash court was home to the world’s first
nuclear research reactor (Bowles, 2006, p. 290). Three years later, after continued intense
development work by the Manhattan Project, scientists at Los Alamos in New Mexico
readied an atomic bomb for the military. President Harry Truman (1884–1972) authorized
the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki in August 1945. Close to
100,000 people died in each bomb drop, and radiation exposure killed untold thousands
more over time. Two days after Hiroshima the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. One
day later in the wake of the Nagasaki destruction, the Emperor of Japan offered his sur-
render. World War II ended in 1945, but the debate over humankind’s nuclear capabilities
was just beginning.

Did You Know? Oppenheimer and the Bhagavad-Gita

Those who worked on the Manhattan Project were well
aware of the frightening power they were unleashing.
Robert Oppenheimer managed the massive team, and
they successfully achieved their goal on July 16, 1945,
in Alamogordo, New Mexico, when they detonated the
first nuclear test bomb. After the nuclear blast Oppen-
heimer recalled: “We waited until the blast had passed,
walked out of the shelter and then it was extremely
solemn. We knew the world would not be the same. A
few people laughed, a few people cried, most people
were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scrip-
ture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that
he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now, I am become
Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that one way or another” (Rhodes, 1986).

Photosdisc/Thinkstock

192

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Atomic Politics Leading to Nuclear Fears

Nuclear Utopia

Typically the work of theoretical physicists does not capture widespread attention. But
when the public learned about the discovery of radiation, the promise of harnessing the
power bound in the nucleus spawned dreams of brave new worlds where radiation would
cure diseases and create wondrous utopian atomic-powered cities (Weart, 1988). Soon
after the discovery of radiation and the transmutation of atoms, many people believed
these events would usher in a new golden age. Frederick Soddy himself did much to fuel
this idea. In 1909 he published a popular book called The Interpretation of Radium in which
he expressed the utopian possibilities for the future. He wrote, “A race which could trans-
mute matter would have little need to earn its bread by the sweat of its brow. . . . Such a
race could transform a desert continent, thaw the frozen poles, and make the whole world
one shining Garden of Eden” (Soddy, 1909, p. 183). Throughout the early part of the 20th
century, some believed radiation to be an elixir. Many scientists who carried a radium
substance in their pockets found that it burned their skin. Physicians then began using it
to treat skin cancers and tumors. However, by 1937, Rutherford suggested that as opposed
to healing rays they might become rays of death as weapons of mass destruction (Weart,
1988, p. 43). World War II demolished the idea of nuclear utopia forever.

Nuclear Power and Catastrophe

There are some very important positive effects of
nuclear knowledge, including the ability to generate
electricity without atmospheric emissions. Nuclear
power is responsible for 14% of all electrical power
generation in the world with France the highest,
producing 75% of the nation’s needs. However, even
though these nuclear plants are clean in the sense
that they do not emit pollution like a coal plant, they
do come with inherent dangers to society.

The by-product of the nuclear reaction in power
plants is radioactive waste, which is hazardous to both

humans and the environment and needs to be stored in underground containers until it decays to a
safe level. The time required for it to become safe varies, with some highly concentrated radioactive
waste taking thousands of years to decay. There is also a risk of accidents at a nuclear plant.

In the United States the most significant accident was at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979.
No one died, but there was a partial core meltdown, and 144,000 people were evacuated. Significant
cultural fear was left in its wake, including concerns about the possibility of the continued release of
radiation from the damaged reactor and the silent fears about long-term health effects such as can-
cer. Further exacerbating these concerns were confusing reports issued by the government regard-
ing the amounts of radiation released (Houts, 1984).

There has been a spike in the number of antinuclear protests since the Three Mile Island accident.
The medical community is still debating the health effects of exposure to low-level radiation, with
some suggesting that while people are living to older ages, the cases of immune system diseases
(asthma, cancer, allergies, etc.) are dramatically increasing. Joseph J. Mangano, from the

iStock/Thinkstock

(continued)

193

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Atomic Politics Leading to Nuclear Fears

Nuclear Fear
Once the nuclear age began, for the first time humans had the power to destroy the entire
Earth. This was an idea that existed in the culture long before it was a reality. Most notably
the idea of the mad and dangerous scientist hearkened back to Goethe’s Faust (see Chap-
ter 7 Closing). The same concerns of misguided science were a central theme of Mary Shel-
ley’s Frankenstein, though readers tend to forget that the title of the book was the name of
the scientist, not the monster. This is a telling indication of the sometimes blurred distinc-
tion between the symbolic image of scientists and monsters. The image is a familiar one
to children as well. For example, in the Batman comics, Professor Radium was a brilliant
nuclear physicist who mistakenly transformed himself into an evil monster using radia-
tion as a weapon against humanity (Bowles, 2006, pp. 170–176).

Nuclear fear was not just about the atomic bomb. More ominously and invisibly, there
was real evidence to prove that radiation was extremely harmful to the human body.
Though physicians found that radium was a treatment against cancer, excessive exposure
proved deadly. In the 1920s watchmakers experimented with radium on their timepieces
because the luminous paint glowed in the dark. “Radium girls” painted the radioactive
material on the watches and became very sick from the dangerous exposure (Clark, 1997,
p. 1). These sicknesses included anemia, the weakening of bones so arms or legs might
snap under normal pressure, and a host of different cancers. The beginnings of radiation
toxicology began in the 1930s.

After World War II ended in 1945, nuclear fear continued as the Soviet Union also gained
nuclear capabilities. Though the United States and the Soviet Union did not directly

Radiation and Public Health Project, has called this the “atomic era legacy” (Mangano, 1999). Three
Mile Island also affected the future of nuclear power in the United States. At the time of the accident
there were 47 other nuclear plants in the planning stages, and since 1979 none of those have been
built (Gray & Rosen, 2003).

Another significant accident occurred at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986. Most recent
was the Fukushima accident in Japan in March 2011, which released large quantities of radiation
into the atmosphere. Despite the risks, nuclear power is still a viable source of electrical production
in the United States, with 104 commercial reactors in existence. Because of the Fukushima accident,
though, a slowly growing acceptance of nuclear power dramatically declined. In the wake of this
disaster, only 43% of the U.S. population is in favor of nuclear power, as opposed to 57% in 2008
who wanted new nuclear plants (Cooper & Sussman, 2011). As a comparison, in 1977, 69% of Ameri-
cans wanted nuclear power.

Reflective Question:

1. With nuclear power, the benefit, or the collective good, that results from it (energy) can serve a wide
area. However, the potential risk is quite local. How do we as a society deal with this? Who should
make the decision on where nuclear power plants and nuclear waste dumps are constructed?

Nuclear Power and Catastrophe (continued)

194

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Atomic Politics Leading to Nuclear Fears

go to war with each other, the open ideological
hostilities between democracy and communism
kept the world on tense alert during this period
known as the Cold War. Nuclear stockpiles in
both nations grew in destructive power each
year. A statement from President John Kennedy
(1917–1963) in 1961 reminding everyone that “[e]
very inhabitant of this planet must contemplate
the day when this planet may no longer be hab-
itable,” served to heighten these fears and the
desire for personal fallout shelters (Weart, 1988,
p. 215). In July 1961 Kennedy gave a speech stat-
ing that families should do all that they could
to protect themselves in case of a nuclear attack
and the subsequent lingering effects of radiation.
Soon thereafter, news magazines began running
advertisements depicting frontier-like heroes liv-
ing in their own bomb shelters, and the govern-
ment started distributing fallout shelter booklets.

The Environmental Movement

The cultural response to the powers of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy included the
rise of the environmental movement and scientific activism. This did not just focus on
the perils of nuclear radiation. However, nuclear concerns were a significant part of the
environmental movement, including the radiological waste produced by reactors and the
potential for a meltdown accident. The “green movement” began to specifically address
concerns about nuclear reactors in the 1960s. While the public initially voiced protests
over the construction of the new power reactors in 1960, by the early 1970s, some scientists
had also entered the movement.

The environmental movement quickly attained political clout and widespread public sup-
port, and in the late 1960s and early 1970s, legislators signed new regulations into law
(Vaughn, 2011). In 1969 Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, which
required all federal agencies to make official statements about any activities that might
adversely affect the environment. The tide was turning against nuclear research.

The term environmentalism did not take its current meaning until 1970 when the first Earth
Day celebration was held, which drew 20 million people. Though its meanings are many
it is essentially the crusade to save the Earth from perceived threats by humans and their
science and technology. The U.S. federal government responded by establishing key reg-
ulatory agencies and laws in the 1970s. These included: the Environmental Protection
Agency (1970), the Clean Air Act amendments (1970), the Federal Environmental Pes-
ticide Control Act (1972), the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), and the Toxic Substances
Control Act (1976). The Atomic Energy Commission itself disbanded in 1975 and was
transformed into the new Nuclear Regulatory Agency (Bowles, 2006).

Shown is an illustration from the

Department of Defense

booklet Fallout
Shelter Designs, which was distributed to
local and state civil defense organizations
in the 1960s.

Department of Defense

195

CHAPTER 8Section

8.3 The Cold War and Space

Did You Know? Nuclear Power

Today the United States is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power and accounts for 30% of all
nuclear generation of electricity across the globe.

8.3 The Cold War and Space

The political and ideological competition between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War played an essential role in the creation of both nations’ space programs—which eventually became known as the space race. In the 1950s,
though these two superpowers had not directly gone to war with each other, they were
building stockpiles of nuclear weapons that had the capability of destroying the world.
From the experiences in World War II, American political and military leaders knew
how important scientific and technological advantage was in tipping the balance of
global power.

Soviet Science and Culture

To understand American science in the post–World War II years it is also essential to
understand its relationship to the world, and in particular to the Soviet Union. Leading
the Communist Party from 1927 to 1953, Joseph Stalin transformed every aspect of the
Soviet Union including its science. Stalin considered himself an expert in biology and
evolution as well as political science, linguistics, and philosophy and was confident that
he could revolutionize Soviet science and develop the strongest political and scientific
empire in the world (Bailes, 2008).

Stalin’s reign is remarkable for the contradictory realities it spawned. While the Soviet
Union was one of the first nations to realize the importance of science for national power,
the government also routinely imprisoned or killed its leading scientists because of ques-
tionable commitment to communist-sponsored philosophies of science. In many ways the
culture of the Soviet state shaped its science. Scientists frequently balanced the rigors of
their profession with the knowledge that their lives were in jeopardy if they promoted
opinions unsanctioned by their government. During the years of the Stalin “terror,” many
intellectuals who deviated even slightly from the Stalinist vision were outcast to prison
camps where they were either shot or condemned to a life of hard labor.

The Soviet scientific and technical elite were decimated by these waves of terror. Targets
included the main architect of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, the head of the space program
that eventually launched Sputnik, three Nobel Prize–winning physicists, two presidents
of the Agricultural Academy, the director of the Pulkovo Observatory, the director of
the Leningrad Astronomical Institute, a leading specialist in animal and plant ecology, a
director of the Microbiological Institute, directors of the Khar’kov Physics Institute, and
the biology dean at Moscow University. These and many others were all victims of the
Stalin terror and were sent to Soviet prison camps.

196

CHAPTER 8Section 8.3 The Cold War and Space

Not surprisingly, this prison system tremendously restricted the capabilities of Soviet
scientists. By 1953 when Stalin died, the Soviets had fallen behind the United States in
terms of scientific and technological capability. The areas where Soviet scientists did make
impressive gains, such as the H-bomb, were attributable to the individual genius of the
scientists themselves who had the rare capability to overcome the repressive system in
which they worked (Kitching, 1994).

After Stalin’s death Khrushchev gained power and quickly condemned the Stalin terror.
He made the rehabilitation of political outcasts a top priority, and scientists were ele-
vated into the new privileged elite in the country as thousands emerged from the prison
camps. The Communist government became a leading force in fostering science and tech-
nology. Party leaders argued that scientific and technical expertise would help to propel
the Russian state into world dominance. As the 22nd Party Congress specifically stated,
“[S]cience will play an ever greater role in the building of communism” (Kharatyan, 1962,
p. 38). Achieving this would help the Soviet Union to attain its goal of dominating the
world both politically and socially. In October 1957, the Soviet Union took a significant
step toward achieving that goal.

Sputnik

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, a 23-inch-diameter, 183-pound
ball containing a radio transmitter, into space. By doing so the Soviet Union became the
first nation to put an object into orbit around the Earth. Sputnik I made 1,440 orbits, each
one taking a mere 96 minutes. One month later Sputnik II was launched, along with the

first Earthly creature ever to go
into space—a dog named Laika
(she also became the first space
casualty as the Soviets did not
plan for her to ever return to
Earth; Siddiqi, 2000).

The Russian success became a
cultural watershed moment. As
the visible dim blinking of this
Soviet craft passed over rural
America, it made the Cold War
seem more real and heightened
a sense of fear that the United
States had fallen behind the
Soviet Union in the realm of sci-
ence. Edward Teller, often called
the “father of the hydrogen
bomb,” said that Sputnik repre-
sented “a battle more important

and greater than Pearl Harbor” (De Groot, 2006, p. 69). This comment was quoted fre-
quently by politicians and journalists as a way to convey the magnitude of these Soviet
satellites and made all Americans culturally aware of its significance (Gallicchio, 2007).

Laika was the female dog sent to outer space by the Soviets as a
passenger aboard Sputnik II. She was commemorated in this stamp.

iStock/Thinkstock

197

CHAPTER 8Section

8.4 From NACA to

NASA

8.4 From NACA to NASA

With the launch of Sputnik the “space frontier” opened up, and as with all fron-tiers, to those who reached it first and staked a claim went the potential for power and control. The possibility for Soviet military control of space seemed
to point to the surest way for the United States to lose not only the Cold War but also the
strength of its democratic way of life. Sputnik became the “shock of the century” (Dickson,
2011). At the time of Sputnik’s launch, the United States did not even have a governmental
organization focused on space. The closest agency was the National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics (NACA), founded in March 1915, with a chartered mandate to “supervise
and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solu-
tion” (Bilstein, 2008, p. 100). Though NACA was vital for airplane research, it appeared
hopelessly unable to respond to the Sputnik threat.

By the 1950s NACA was one of the leading institutions in the world for aeronautical
research, with affiliated centers in Virginia (Langley Research Center), California (Ames
Research Center), and Ohio (Lewis Research Center). However, the launch of Sputnik com-
pletely changed the priorities of the nation in the skies. A Washington Post article urged the
creation of a new “NACA in space,” but many believed the agency to be too conservative
and unimaginative to lead the nation into the uncharted territory of space (Anon, 1958).
President Eisenhower agreed with this assessment, and eventually, in the wake of Sput-
nik he disbanded NACA completely and established the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958 (Bowles, 2010). This date was significant as it
was three days before the one-year anniversary of Sputnik I, thus marking the genesis of
the American space age.

The Flying Field

In his autobiographical novel Look Homeward, Angel, American novelist Thomas Wolfe (1900–1938)
described the summer of 1918 when, as a young man, he went looking for work in Hampton, Vir-
ginia. There at a place called the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, commonly known as
the “Flying Field,” he observed gangs of workers engaged in “grading, leveling, and blasting from the
spongy Earth the ragged stumps of trees” (Wolfe, 1957, p. 121). What these men achieved was the
construction of, at the time, the only American civilian aviation laboratory. The laboratory became
the first center of the newly created NACA.

The “Flying Field” was named for aviation pioneer Samuel P. Langley, a Harvard professor of astron-
omy and secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. He devised incredible flying experiments in the
1890s, but never achieved flight itself. Instead it was two bicycle mechanics from Ohio, Orville and
Wilbur Wright, who performed the first controlled, heavier-than-air flight in December 1903. While
the Wright brothers were the pioneers of flight, it was the United States government, at the NACA
Langley Research Center, that worked to perfect and improve aircraft for commercial and military
applications. The Wright brothers continued to innovate after their initial success and sold airplanes
to wealthy investors and worked to make them effective weapons for war.

198

CHAPTER 8Section 8.4 From NACA to NASA

The Apollo Program

In 1958, the United States launched its first satellite into space—Explorer I. Even with this
success, there were continued fears that the United States had somehow lost its scientific
edge to the Soviet Union. Many Americans knew the power of science could create vast
weapons of mass destruction such as the atomic bomb, and the Soviet Union was catching
up to the United States, as evidenced by the detonation of its own atomic bomb in 1949.
The Soviets then followed with the Sputnik satellite in 1957, and yet another first went to
the Soviet Union on April 12, 1961, when Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (1934–1968) became
the first human to travel into outer space. Two years later Soviet Valentina Tereshkova
(1937– ) became the first woman in space.

To reclaim its position of leadership, and to give NASA a compelling and ambitious
goal, President John F. Kennedy announced a visionary plan a little over a month after

Women in Space

On June 17, 1963, the Soviet Union’s Valentina Tereshkova
became the first woman to orbit the Earth, and yet NASA simply
dismissed the achievement, referring to it as a publicity stunt. In
large part the reason was a cultural understanding of gender in
the United States. Considered the “weaker sex,” women were to
be protected, not put into harm’s way in the dangerous frontier
of space. In the early days of the space program NASA never seri-
ously considered a woman astronaut because of concern that if a
woman died, all public support for the program would erode. The
gender roles were very distinct: “Within the civilian space agency,
the macho ethos of test pilots and military aviation survived
intact. The tacit acceptance that military jet pilots sometimes
drank too much (and often drove too fast) complemented the
expectation that women wore gloves and high heels—and did
not fly spaceships” (Weitekamp, 2005, p. 3).

There was a group of women that sought to challenge these gender distinctions. In the early 1960s, the
Lovelace Women in Space Program put 13 women through the same rigorous training and testing
regimen as the male Apollo astronauts. One noted participant was Geraldyn “Jerrie” Cobb, who was an
accomplished pilot. Unfortunately, NASA withdrew its support for this privately funded project. Cobb
and others testified in Washington, DC that they faced sexual discrimination; however, this was two years
before the 1964 Civil Rights Act made this illegal. At the same hearing John Glenn, the first American
to orbit the Earth, testified that women could not qualify as astronauts. This gender-exclusive policy
remained until 1978, when women were first accepted for the Space Shuttle program. Physicist Sally
Ride (1951– ) became the first American woman in space in 1983 on the seventh shuttle mission. At 32
years old, she also became the youngest American to go into space at that time. In 1995 Air Force Colonel
and former test pilot Eileen Collins (1956– ) became the first woman to pilot a shuttle mission (the sixty-
third shuttle flight), and in 1999 she became the first to command a mission. As a tribute to the women
who participated in the Lovelace Women in Space Program, she invited 11 of the 13 survivors to her first
launch, taking a memento from each into space (http://history.nasa.gov/flats.html).

iStock/Thinkstock

http://history.nasa.gov/flats.html

199

CHAPTER 8Section 8.4 From NACA to NASA

Gagarin’s flight into space. On May 25, 1961, Kennedy delivered his “Urgent National
Needs” speech to a Joint Session of Congress.

This was a very important speech for several reasons. First, it gave NASA the direction,
funding, and commitment it needed to begin pursuing flights to the Moon. Second, it
firmly made the association that this was more than just a technical or scientific endeavor,
as Kennedy discussed the Soviet Union’s head start and the political and military race to
achieve supremacy. Finally, he justified the expense and risk by addressing the nature of
humans itself and the cultural ideals embedded in the foundations of the United States
that democracy must exist everywhere people went—including space. Though Kennedy
himself would not live to see his vision of landing on the Moon realized, as an assassin’s
bullet killed him in 1963, his dream lived on—beginning with the Apollo program.

NASA’s Apollo program became the centerpiece of a massive national effort unifying
academia and industry, with the goal of reaching the Moon and returning to Earth before
1970. One of the first steps was creating a home for the astronauts on Earth, the Manned
Spacecraft Center in Houston, Texas (it became the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Cen-
ter in 1973). This NASA center took responsibility for training the astronauts, designing
the spacecraft, and hosting Mission Control. However, Houston was not where the Apollo
craft would eventually launch. Instead, NASA constructed launch facilities at Cape Canav-
eral, Florida (later known as the NASA Kennedy Space Center).

Some of the early NASA workers became media stars. One of them was German engineer
Werner Von Braun, who gained popular fame when he partnered with Walt Disney in the
mid-1950s working first as a technical director and commentator for television films about
space. With 42 million viewers, the episode on “Man in Space” is still one of the most
watched programs of all time. However, von Braun’s former Nazi associations were diffi-
cult to forget. According to his biography, the head of the manned space program, Robert
Gilruth, “used to get drunk and complain to others about ‘that damned Nazi’ even after
they began working together” (Neufeld, 2008, p. 368). Von Braun loved the United States
and for the most part was embraced by the burgeoning Disney media sensation; however,
the FBI remained suspicious of him. Von Braun wrote, “I don’t like being treated like a
foreign spy. . . . Everywhere I go, the FBI has me followed. I can’t even go to the bathroom
without an FBI man tailing me. . . . My telephone is bugged, and the FBI reads more of my
mail than I do” (Neufeld, 2008, p. 288).

From NASA, the American people saw a bold, unprecedented adventure to an object in the
sky that had elicited wonder for millennia. NASA’s Apollo program became “the ultimate
adventure for the American people because it fed into the frontier spirit that imbues much
of their society” (Woods, 2011, p. 3). In the process Project Apollo transcended the technical
feat itself to become a cultural yardstick to measure the progress of civilization. In its wake,
an often used phrase was “If we can put a man on the Moon, then why can’t we [cure can-
cer, stop crime, end hunger, etc.].”

Another aspect of the Apollo culture was the astronauts themselves. These were daring test
pilots who were used to risking their lives every day as they stepped into the cockpits of
advanced aircraft. An example was John Glenn, who became the first American to orbit the
Earth on February 20, 1962. NASA achieved greater success when Apollo 11 astronaut Neil
Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the Moon on July 20, 1969. At the moment his foot

200

CHAPTER 8Section 8.4 From NACA to NASA

touched the surface, he spoke
these famous words: “That’s
one small step for [a] man, one
giant leap for mankind” (Han-
sen, 2005, p. 493). In total six
Apollo launches landed on the
Moon, with 12 astronauts walk-
ing on its surface and returning
to Earth. Despite this remark-
able success, celebrated with
ticker tape parades in Times
Square for the early returning
astronauts, once the race to the
Moon was over and the United
States claimed victory, public
interest in the lunar program
slowly diminished.

The Last Apollo Mission

On December 14, 1972, two men awoke on the surface of the Moon to the music of Richard Strauss’s
Thus Spake Zarathustra. This was to be the last day that any human would spend on the lunar surface in
the 20th century (Bowles, 2006, p. 215–117). NASA had chosen this music for Apollo 17 astronauts Gene
Cernan and Jack Schmitt’s wake-up call because of its association with Stanley Kubrick’s science fiction
film 2001: A Space Odyssey, which had premiered four years earlier. The underlying themes of Strauss’s
symphony and Kubrick’s film seemed most appropriate for the superhuman effort required for these
men to land, walk, play, and perform scientific research on the Moon. After Apollo 17 the government and
NASA adopted a new vision of space flight that immediately ended the momentum it had generated
since Kennedy declared it a national goal of vital political and technical significance. The new vision was
to keep astronauts in low Earth orbit and only send unmanned probes deeper into the solar system. In
the wake of this changing vision, the Apollo program came to an inglorious conclusion. Astronaut Cernan
said, “Apollo was over and NASA’s golden age of exploration was fast fading into glimmering memory”
(Cernan & Davis, 2009, p. 342). Humans abandoned the spaceflight missions beyond low Earth orbit, and
the infrastructure that had been built to achieve these endeavors came crashing down.

Reflective Question:

1. How do you think the ending of the Apollo program affected space exploration?

The Space Shuttle

The return of Apollo 17’s crew from the last Apollo mission marked a new era, signify-
ing the beginning of a fundamental transformation in NASA’s vision, away from lunar
exploration. NASA developed new “unmanned” spacecraft and an idea for a “reusable”
rocket that was far different from Apollo. While the Apollo craft offered a one-time voy-
age into space with all of its components burning up in the atmosphere except for a small
return crew module that splashed down into the ocean, the space shuttle reused nearly
everything except its solid rocket boosters. Unlike the ocean splashdown, the space

This image, taken at Tranquility Base during the Apollo 11
mission, shows Buzz Aldrin working at the Lunar Module.

NASA

201

CHAPTER 8Section 8.4 From NACA to NASA

shuttle glided down to Earth,
landing on a runway like a reg-
ular airplane. The other main
difference was that the space
shuttle could only ascend to
low Earth orbit and not ven-
ture any further into space. Its
first operational flight launched
from the Kennedy Space Center
on April 12, 1981, and by the
time of its last mission in 2011,
the 135 launches had focused
on deploying satellites, launch-
ing interplanetary probes, and
conducting zero gravity science
experiments.

The Multicultural Shuttle

It is important to note that the shuttle program came to represent the diversity of American society
itself. While the early astronauts were all white males, this dramatically changed by the 1980s. In
June 1983 Sally Ride became the first American woman in space, and two months later Guion Blu-
ford became the first African American in space. Hispanics also made their first ventures off the Earth
in this decade with Frank Chang-Diaz’s trip in 1986. By the 1990s minority women began making
their presence felt in space as well. In 1992 Mae Jemison became the first African American woman
in space, and one year later Ellen Ochoa became the first Hispanic woman. The other important way
that the shuttle mirrored American society was with the inclusion of a senior citizen. NASA did so
with a notable name from the past as John Glenn became the oldest human to fly in space at age
77. The final multicultural achievement was the 2002 shuttle flight of J. B. Herrington, the first tribal
registered Native American to fly in space (http://history.nasa.gov/space_shuttle_firsts ).

Reflective Question:

1. What are other ways you think NASA could have reflected multicultural America in shuttle flights?

The space shuttle has also become a cultural icon, appearing in films such as Moonraker
(1979), Armageddon (1998), and Space Cowboys (2000). The Apollo program also gained the
attention of Hollywood in 1996 when the film Apollo 13 received nine Academy Award
nominations. The U.S. Postal Service has also honored the program on several stamps.

Unfortunately, the space shuttle gained the most public attention during two horrendous
accidents. The first was when the Challenger exploded two minutes into its tenth launch on
January 28, 1986. It became one of the most traumatic moments ever captured on live televi-
sion. This mission included the first “teacher in space,” Christa McAuliffe (1948–1986), and
millions of schoolchildren across the nation were watching the launch live on television.

Though the space shuttle returned to operational duty, tragedy again marred the program
when the Columbia, during the 107th shuttle mission, disintegrated while reentering the
atmosphere over Texas on February 1, 2003. Columbia had been the first shuttle in space.

The space shuttle Challenger touches down on the runway.
Note how the landing mirrors that of a regular airplane.

Comstock/Thinkstock

http://history.nasa.gov/space_shuttle_firsts

202

CHAPTER 8Section 8.4 From NACA to NASA

Reliance on the Soyuz
The space shuttle era came to an end in 2011. Although the United States still has astro-
nauts and is still participating with the International Space Station (ISS)—which has been
continually staffed by international shifts of astronauts since November 2, 2000—the
United States ended the space shuttle program without a replacement.

The ISS was built in pieces through many different shuttle voyages and is truly an interna-
tional cooperative effort between NASA (United States), the Canadian Space Agency, the
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, the European Space Agency, and the Russian Federal
Space Agency. In the years between the end of the space shuttle and the preparation of the
next transport vehicle, the only way that Americans will have to get into space is by relying
on the Russian Federal Space Agency’s rocket known as the Soyuz. It is an ironic end to the
space race in that for the near future the United States has abdicated its human transport
needs into space to an agency from the former Soviet Union. China is also currently active in
space with the launch of Shenzhou 5, which carried its first crewed mission in October 2003.

However, NASA and its mission are still alive. Current NASA administrator Charles
Bolden said in July 2011, “As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administra-
tor, I’m here to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the
next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success—and failure is not
an option.” Specifically the Space Launch System (SLS) program will develop a launch
vehicle designed to take humans beyond low Earth orbit to destinations like the Moon,
asteroids, and ultimately the planet Mars.

Biographical Spotlight: Myrna Steele—A Woman at NASA

Myrna Steele was a physicist who worked at NASA’s only nuclear reactor, Plum Brook Station, where
she was one of only five women at the male-dominated reactor in the late 1960s. On top of that she
was a trained physicist among a group that consisted mostly of engineers and technicians. Her job
was to physically set up the experiments in the reactor.

Though she eventually became a respected colleague, she initially had to confront prejudice about
her background. She said that at first all of the Plum Brook engineers thought of physicists as
“damned useless eggheads,” and Myrna worked hard to dispel this belief.

An even more difficult hurdle for her to overcome was the fact that she was a woman working in
a male-dominated culture. Myrna said that when she first began working at Plum Brook the other
engineers “picked on me. I blushed on command, which they thoroughly enjoyed.” The men played
many pranks on her. For example, there was only one unisex changing room where workers could
put on the protective gear to go into the reactor. Sometimes she would return to the changing room
after working a 12-hour shift and find her shoes over 100 feet in the air, dangling from the polar
crane. She said, “The guys would know whether I had on slacks or whether I had on a dress. If I had
on slacks, it never happened.” As the months went on she said that she blushed less often and began
to turn some of the practical jokes back on her coworkers. To teach a lesson to some of the more
notorious pranksters she baked chocolate-chip brownies with laxative pills in them. The men left her
alone after that, and she was considered, in her words, “one of the guys” (Bowles, 2006, pp. 189–190).

Reflective Questions:

1. How is Myrna an example of gender discrimination?
2. If you were in Myrna’s position, how would you have handled the situation? If this situation took

place today, what might be some other ways to address the sexual harassment in the workplace?

203

CHAPTER 8

Chapter Closing

Chapter Closing

In this chapter we have explored the twin themes of war and space. While seemingly disparate topics, they were intertwined in significant ways during the 20th century as each also impacted the culture at large. World War I and World War II saw the use of
new technologies to wage great destruction on the battlefield. Examples such as machine
guns and chemical weapons changed the nature of modern warfare. Just as the chemists
took the lead in World War I, the physicists developed even more frightening weapons in
World War II by taking advantage of the awesome power pent up in the subatomic world.
The atomic bombs dropped on Japan ushered in the nuclear age and a corresponding
fear that for the first time humans had the power to literally obliterate themselves off the
face of the Earth. After this war, in the mid-20th century military and ideological conflicts
between the superpowers (the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-
lics), known as the Cold War, extended into space. Fearful that a military advantage here
might serve as a tipping point in future conflicts, both nations strove to achieve daring
feats above the atmosphere. From the Soviet Union’s successful orbit of Sputnik in 1957
to America’s landing on the Moon in 1969, war, space, and the national cultures that sup-
ported them became intimately linked.

204

CHAPTER 8Chapter Closing

Image copyright Susan Law Cain, 2014. Used under license from Shutterstock, Inc.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

Hemera/Thinkstock

NASA

U.S. National Archives

Image copyright Alan Freed, 2014.
Used under license from Shutterstock, Inc.

U.S. Airforce

NASA

1945:
Hiroshima

and Nagasaki

1919: World War I Ends

The Manhattan P roject
in 1942 leads to the

creation of the atomic
bomb. In August 1945,

U. S. President Harry
Tr uman authorizes

atomic bombs to be
dropped in the

Japanese cities of
Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Soon

afterwards, Wo rld
War II ends.

1958:
National

Aeronautics
and Space

Administration
(NASA)

In October of 1958,
NACA is replaced

with NASA and the
American space

age begins.

The first world war ends in 19 19 when the countries
that formed the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia
and later, the United States) defeat the Central Pow ers
(Germany, A ustria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire,
and Bulgaria). New weapons such as machine guns,
poisonous gas and dynamite are used during this war,
deeming it the “chemists ’ war.”

NACA is founded
in March 19 15 and
the scientists that

work for this
U. S. gove rnment

agency focus
primarily on flight.

1961: Fear of
Nuclear Attacks

1957:
Sputnik

After Wo rld War II, the
fear of nuclear attacks
and knowledge of
radiation effects makes
many families build
their own bomb
shelters. In July 1961,
U. S. President John
Kennedy urges families
to protect themsel ve s
from nuclear attack s
in a speech.

1981:

Unlike the Apollo
spacecrafts, the
Space Shuttle
is unmanned
and reusable. It
is first launched
on April 12, 1981
at the Kennedy
Space Center
and its last trip
into space is
in 2 011.

In the midst of
the Cold War,
the Soviet
Union wins the
“Space Race”
when they
are the first
to launch a
demo satellite
into space .

1
9
1
5

1
9
8
5

1969:
oon

On July 20,
1969, American

astronauts in
the spacecraft
Apollo 11 land
on the surface

of the moon.

1915:
National
Advisory

Committee
for Aeronautics

(NACA)

Timeline 8.1: War and Space

205

CHAPTER 8

Concept Check

Concept Check

1. Which of the following was not a notable product of an African American inventor?
A. gas mask
B. traffic signal
C. lightbulb
D. adding machine

2. Which of the following women was notable for winning a Nobel Prize, as was
her daughter?

A. Marić
B. McClintock
C. Cori
D. Curie

3. Who was one of the first scientists to split a uranium atom?
A. Lise Meitner
B. Albert Einstein
C. Marie Curie
D. Leo Szilard

4. In which of the following did a fear of radiation not appear?
A. Batman comics
B. Frankenstein novels
C. presidential speeches
D. watchmaker paints

5. What was the name of the first American satellite sent into space?
A. Sputnik
B. Vanguard
C. Apollo
D. Explorer

Answers
1. C. The answer can be found in Section 8.1, Garrett Morgan.

2. D. The answer can be found in Section 8.1, The Neutron.

3. A. The answer can be found in Section 8.2, Atomic Politics Leading to Nuclear Fears.

4. B. The answer can be found in Section 8.2, Nuclear Fear.

5. D. The answer can be found in Section 8.4, The Apollo Program.

206

CHAPTER 8

Key Terms to Remember

Key Ideas to Remember

• World War I was known as the “chemists’ war” because scientists during this
time created weaponized gases and explosive devices.

• World War II was scientifically defined by the physicists who developed the
atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project.

• Though nuclear weapons provide the capability to destroy the Earth, nuclear
knowledge enables the creation of inexpensive and clean electrical power (though
this comes with the problem of storing nuclear waste and the potential for accident).

• NASA is the U.S. organization tasked with managing the nation’s activities in
space as well as performing advanced aviation research. Founded in 1958, it
replaced the NACA, which focused solely on airplanes.

• The space race between the United States and the Soviet Union inspired much of
the early space activities, including the first orbiting satellites and manned mis-
sions to the Moon.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Do you feel that the knowledge of how to split an atom is good or bad for society?
Explain your answer.

2. Does nuclear fear still exist? If so, what are some examples you have seen in the
news?

3. Give an example of how the environmental movement has shaped culture and
vice versa.

4. What was the importance of landing men on the Moon? Should we go back?
Why or why not?

5. Does NASA still have relevance in a post–space shuttle era? What should be its
primary mission?

6. If you could meet one of the women scientists discussed in this chapter, who
would you select and why? What questions would you ask her?

Key Terms to Remember

Apollo NASA’s program of sending men
to the Moon, which it achieved on July 20,
1969, when Neil Armstrong stepped onto
the lunar surface. Apollo ended after its
last mission in December 1972.

atom The smallest component of an ele-
ment. It has a nucleus at its center which
contains positively charged protons and
neutrons. One or more negatively charged
electrons surround it and are bound
through chemical attraction to the nucleus.

chemical warfare The use of chemistry to
develop gases and other substances into
weapons.

Chicago Pile 1 The world’s first nuclear
reactor, which went critical on December
2, 1942.

Cold War The conflict between the United
States and the Soviet Union from 1945 to
1989 that pitted the forces of American
democracy against Russian communism.
While the nations never directly attacked
each other, they clashed militarily in
smaller nations such as Vietnam and com-
peted to outdo one another in space and in
the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.

electrons See atom.

207

CHAPTER 8Key Terms to Remember

Lovelace Women in Space Program
A short-lived program in the 1960s to
train women to be astronauts.

Manhattan Project The name given to the
program during World War II in the United
States which created the atomic bomb.

NACA The National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics, founded in March 1915,
with a chartered mandate to “supervise
and direct the scientific study of the prob-
lems of flight with a view to their practical
solution.” President Eisenhower disbanded
it in 1958 and replaced it with NASA.

NASA The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, established on Octo-
ber 1, 1958, to coordinate and direct Ameri-
can efforts in space and continue aviation
research on Earth.

nucleus See atom.

protons See atom.

radiation The process by which energy
is emitted as waves or particles from a
substance.

Soyuz The Russian Federal Space Agen-
cy’s rocket used for sending astronauts
into space.

space race The competition between the
Soviet Union and the United States to gain
superiority in space.

space shuttle NASA’s launch vehicle that
replaced the Apollo program. There were
135 space shuttle missions between 1981
and 2011, when the space shuttles were
retired.

Sputnik The first satellite to orbit the
Earth, launched by the Soviet Union on
October 4, 1957.

Research Paper: Week 8 (25% of your grade)

We have covered a great deal of time and geographical locations in our class. For the final paper you are to select the central topic of one of our weeks and write a paper that makes an argument as to why this was a period of most overall significance in the history of science. Significance should be measured by its impact on the time in which it occurred, and not by a measure of science today. For example, Ptolemy’s model of the universe is not followed today, but this does not discount the importance of his work in the period in which he lived. Therefore, an argument could be made for any of our weekly topics. Your work is graded not on which week you select, but instead the quality of your argument as to its significance.

Your introduction must have a strong thesis statement. I like what the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina has to say on this: http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/thesis-statements/

 

Technical and Formatting Requirements: With this assignment, you will learn how to do proper and adequate research and write a short paper with a central thesis statement. This paper is at least FIVE complete double-spaced pages of text (Times New Roman, font size 12), not including bibliography or title page, and you must cite a minimum of FOUR sources plus our textbook. These sources are as follows:

a. TWO primary sources from the era in which you are writing about. As a reminder, a primary source “is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event.”

http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

.

b. TWO scholarly secondary sources from peer reviewed journals or books. These must be from reputable publishers (such as university presses for books or databases like JSTOR) as found in the APUS library. What is a secondary source? “A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event.” http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html. Web sites are not approved research for this assignment. Exceptions are scholarly websites and documents available through the APUS Online Library (Wikipedia and other sources like it are not considered a valid academic source).

I will submit all of the final papers into TurnItIn which is a plagiarism checker. If I find evidence of plagiarism, I will give you a zero for the paper. To ensure this does not happen make sure you familiarize yourself with the meanings of plagiarism (see the policies section of this syllabus), take careful steps in your note taking process to avoid a potential for a mistaken plagiarism, and then finally submit your own paper to TurnItIn prior to the course deadline. This review will serve as an important check for you.