The Political Construction of Space Satellite Technology

Abstract

Whatfactors determine the nature and pace of technological development? The literature on social construction of technology and actor-network theory suggests that assembling "coalitions" of support and conveying a certain "rhetoric " of technology are important to moving technology forward They are especially crucial strategies for advocates of large-scale, government-supported technologies. These strategies are illuminated by cases of U.S. space satellite development: meteorological satellites, land satellites, and the Earth Observation System . Developing a new technology is almost always a complicated affair, given the myriad technical uncertainties. The expense of large-scale technologies increases economic uncertainties. When a technology has government as its primary developer, a host of political uncertainties compound the dilemma. Political problems arise when one agency is responsible for development and another agency or industry is the user, when there is debate over the role of the government, and when users disagree among themselves and with the developer agency. Such issues, as well as the short-term electoral pressures felt by many public officials, add political uncertainty to government-sponsored technological change. They make the design of the technology problematic. Political conflict can prevent a technology from being successfully developed ; or, if developed, fruitfully applied. Government, Politics, and Social ConstructionAuthors who discuss the social construction of technology see little merit in the view that technology has a life of its own, or develops autonomously.

The Rise and Fall of Carbon Emissions Trading

“…'Time-efficient' satellite-based methods of surveillance have been used in a variety of land-use monitoring, regulatory and forensic applications in Australia and overseas for some time (Lambright, 1994). Satellite surveys at a resolution of ~30m have taken place across Australia since 1972, allowing states to monitor land-use changes without personal visitation or aerial surveillance.…”

Seeing and Knowing the Earth as a System : An Effective History of Global Environmental Change Research as Scientific and Political Practice

“…Doel (2003) also traces current interdisciplinary modes of conducting research in environmental science to the problem orientation found in military institutions, such as the geophysics programmes at Lamont, Scripps, and Woods Hole, which were considered to be novel modes of research at the time. Global observation systems have also been interpreted in the context of global conflict, and an extensive body of literature on the formation of the satellite systems of NASA and others shows how environmental concerns have been used to promote expensive technological systems since the end of the Cold War (Lambright, 1994, Litfin, 1994. It has also been argued that the expensive nature of these systems has fostered interdisciplinary cooperation, thus producing global data (Kwa, 2005a).…”

“…Finally, considering the substantial literature on the history of geophysical research (Launius et al, 2010, Aronova et al, 2010) and the International Biological Program (1964-1974 (Kwa, 1987), the use of novel technology (Lambright, 1994, NOAA, 2007, and climate science (Demeritt, 2001, Gramelsberger andFeichter, 2011), surprisingly little research has been directed specifically towards the history of the global environmental change research programmes (WCRP, IGBP, IHDP, and DIVERSITAS), particularly when one considers that these organisations have coordinated thousands of researchers, in international and interdisciplinary research networks, for more than 30 years. Most accounts of this history are provided by participants (e.g.…”

System Development in the Federal Government: How Technology Influences Outcomes

“…The openness of U.S. political institutions allows a large number of actors to participate in policymaking. In policies for large technical systems, these actors usually include members of Congress, the Office of the President, executive agencies, the research community, and industry (Cohen & Noll, 1991;Hamlett, 1992;Lambright, 1994). Program advocates must build broad coalitions of these actors to launch their programs.…”