A Western Mormon in Washington: James C. Fletcher, NASA, and the Final Frontier more

A Western Mormon in Washington, D.C.: James C. Fletcher, NASA, and the Final Frontier Roger D. Launius The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 64, No. 2. (May, 1995), pp. 217-241. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199505%2964%3A2%3C217%3AAWMIWD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J The Pacific Historical Review is currently published by University of California Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucal.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. http://www.jstor.org Wed Mar 28 10:33:30 2007 A Western Mormon in Washington, D.C.: James C. Fletcher, NASA, and the Final Frontier ROGER D.LAUNIUS T h author is chief historian, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wmhington,D. C. James C. Fletcher, the only person ever to head the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on two occasions (1971-1977 and 1986-1989), is generally recognized as one the most influential administrators from the first three decades of space flight.' Among his other attributes, whether for good or ill, Fletcher's approach toward directing the U.S. space program owed something to his western American and Mormon conceptions of the world. This heritage came into play throughout Fletcher's NASA career as an underlying philosophy of why humans should explore space. There were three interrelated philosophical assumptions that helped inform Fletcher's ideas on space exploration, all arising from his background and experience. The first was the idea of the American frontier in a Turnerian sense and its attendant images of territorial discovAllied to this ery, exploration, colonization, and exploitati~n.~ imagery of frontier conquest for Fletcher was an intellectual frontier of expanding knowledge and the progress of understanding about nature and, by extension, about divinity. Second, Fletcher was committed to using the space program as a means 1. Caspar W. Weinberger assigned Fletcher great significance in formulating post-Apollo space policy in an interview with the author on September 10, 1991, Washington, D.C. 2. Frederick Jackson Turner, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History,"in TheFmntier in Amen'can Hirtmy (New York, 1920), 1-38. Pacific Historical Review 01995 by the Pacific Coast Branch American Historical Association 217 218 Pacific Historical Review to seek out extraterrestrial intelligence, in part because of his Mormon belief in many worlds with many peoples. Finally, the peculiarly Mormon stewardship principle, conservation ethic, and zionic/utopian ideal prompted Fletcher to emphasize space exploration as a means of helping to preserve the Earth and to make it something better than what it already was. Some of Fletcher's ideas about the frontier and what it meant in the development of the American nation were romantic notions, some were grounded in esoteric religious ideas, some emerged from other perspectives, and some were much broader in acceptance than he might have been willing to admit, but all reflected the peculiar background of Fletcher as NASA administrator and affected his priorities for charting a course for the U.S. space program. Recognized as one of the most significant molders of U.S. space policy since 1971, in part because of his longevity as NASA administrator, Fletcher also responded to the intellectual underpinnings of his region and his religion in shaping space policy. James Chipman Fletcher was born of pioneering Mormon stock, the oldest son of Harvey and Lorena (Chipman) Fletcher on June 5, 1919, in the unlikely setting of Millburn, New Jersey. His father, like many other Mormon intellectuals during the first part of the twentieth century, had left his native Utah in the isolated mountains of the Wasatch to pursue a technical education. After completing his training, Harvey Fletcher began work as a scientist at the Physics Research Division of the Bell Telephone Laboratory, although he later took an opportunity to return to Utah and join the faculty of Brigham Young University. The Fletchers had five other sons and a daughter besides James, all of whom were exposed to an intellectually enriching environment. They each completed academic degrees and four of the boys, including James, earned Ph.D. degrees in science. The other son became an attorney. When James Fletcher finished high school in 1937, he attended Brigham Young University, but soon transferred to Columbia University, where his father was teaching at the time, and completed his B.A. in physics in 1940.3 3. Much of the biographical information in this and the succeeding paragraphs of this section is taken from Dan Partner, "New Guy at the Space Works," Fletcher and NASA 2 19 Like virtually all Americans of his generation, Fletcher had his graduate education interrupted by World War 11. He at first went to work as a civilian research physicist with the U.S. Navy at Port Townsend, Washington, laboring to develop equipment that would neutralize the magnetic field of ships' hulls and help protect them from mines. After a short stint as a research assistant at a Harvard University laboratory, Fletcher received a fellowship from Princeton University in late 1942 and assisted with war-related research in physics. Soon after World War I1 he completed his Ph.D. in physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), one of the foremost institutions in the nation in aerospace-related physics research. As a newly minted Ph.D., Fletcher in 1948 took a position as director of the theory and analysis laboratory in the electronics division of Hughes Aircraft Company in Los Angeles. "I went into business to try it for a year," he recalled in 1965, but "stayed 15 years."4 He was involved in several Department of Defense projects and played significant roles in developing the Falcon airto-air missile and the F-102 Delta Dagger intercepter for the Air Force. In the process, Fletcher demonstrated exemplary technical and management skills. These brought him to the associate director position of the Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation in 1954, where he handled the guided missile division. As the space race developed in the mid-1950s, Fletcher oversaw the transformation of his missile division into the Space Technologies Laboratories, a major subsidiary of Ramo-Wooldridge, and became involved in the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and the Pioneer 4 space probe. He continued his emphasis on space-related business by founding in 1958 the Space Electronics Corp., at Glendale, California, which developed and produced the Able Star stage of the military's Thm-Able launch system. In 1960 his company merged with the Aerojet-General Corporation and Fletcher was given an important post in the new ~ o m p a n y . ~ Denver Post, April 25, 1971; "Fletcher,James C(hipman)," C u m t Biography, 1972 (Bronx, N.Y., 1973), 146149; "James C. Fletcher, NASA Administrator," NASA Biogmphical Data, May 1986, NASA Historical Reference Collection, Washington, D.C. 4. Natwni Business, LIII (July 1965), 65. 5. "Aerojet Bets on Space-General Corp.,"Missiles and Rockets Uuly 3, 1961), 16; "ProposalsAre NotJudged on Technical Content Alone.. .," Spar8 Age Nmus (Nov. 7, 1960), 18, 21, 23. 220 Pacific Historical Review On July 1, 1964, Fletcher resigned from his industry position to become president of the University of Utah located in Salt Lake City. The move represented an opportunity to return to his family's home state and to the center of his religious tradition. It was also the culmination of a longstanding dream to return to academia, made possible by his success in business. By that time his investments, patents he registered as a working scientist, and his corporate salary and consulting fees had made him a wealthy man. He explained that he wanted to contribute something more to society than technological advances in weaponry. "There comes a time when you can do what you feel is important," and that time came for him in 1964. "Beyond a certain point," he said, "more money becomes ~nimportant."~ Fletcher guided the University of Utah during a period when the American educational system was in persistent upheaval. Political activism associated with civil rights, the antiwar movement, and a host of other social issues tore American campuses asunder. While this type of unrest was not as pronounced in sleepy Utah as at Berkeley or Columbia, Fletcher had to deal with some student unrest and political activism. Frank E. Moss, a U.S. senator from Utah between 1959 and 1977, commented in 1971 that while Fletcher was president, the University of Utah "had its share of lively student protests, of sitins and cop-outs. But Dr. Fletcher rode out these campus storms, quietly, day-byday, never letting the lid blow off, and never repressing basic freedoms either."7 Fletcher's efforts were appreciated, one journalist concluding that the Utah educator helped to work "out mutually respectful student, faculty, and administration relationships. Despite student sit-ins and controversies concerning blacks, he kept a dialogue going, and averted violence by students or repressive actions by public officials."*A telling anecdote about Fletcher emerged from his University of Utah tenure. When he first arrived in his office at the university, Fletcher placed an 6. N n w e k , LXIV (Dec. 7, 1964),68-69. 7. Hearing Befm the Committee on Amnautical and Space Sciences, Nomination of Dt: James C. Fletcher to be Administmtor of t h National Amnautics and Space Administmtia, 92 Cong., 1 sess. (March 10, 1971), 6. 8. John Wilford Noble, "New Director of Space Agency: James Chipman Fletcher," New York Times, March 2, 1971. Fletcher and NASA 221 ashtray on his desk. Although he neither smoked nor drank, in concert with Mormon health restrictions, Fletcher used the ashtray to send a message to the Mormon dominated local society that he was tolerant of other views and would not force his morals, politics, or whatever on others. A colleague at the university characterized Fletcher as "practical, sensible, devoid of vanity and willing to talk candidly about any issue, even those which might be embarrassing to either the university or him~elf."~ While president of the university, as well as during his aerospace business career, Fletcher gave considerable time to government service, sitting on a variety of advisory committees and task forces. Most important, he had enjoyed a longstanding relationship with NASA, as well as with its predecessor organization, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). In 1951, for example, he was invited onto the NACA Subcommittee on Stability and Control. In mid-1958 Fletcher renewed his association with the NACA, offering to serve on another committee for the organization. In 1967 Lyndon Johnson appointed him to the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), to which he had been a consultant since the committee was first organized in 1958. In that capacity he frequently visited Washington and met with senior government, industry, and university officials associated with the formulation of scientific and technological policy at the highest levels of government.1° It was largely because of these associations that Fletcher was first considered and later settled upon as the fourth NASA administrator in March 1971. He recalled that the recruiting process began in late 1970 when President Richard Nixon's Science Advisor, Edward E. David, approached him about the 9. "University Chief Named NASA Head," Washington Stal; Feb. 28, 1971; Thomas G . Alexander, "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement," Dialogue:A J o u m l o M o n m n Thought, XIV (1981), 78-88. f 10. John E Victory to James C. Fletcher, Dec. 14, 1951,John E Victory Papers, Special Collections, United States Air Force Academy Library, Colorado Springs, Colo.; James C. Fletcher to Hugh L. Dryden, July 28, 1958; Hugh L. Dryden to James C. Fletcher, Aug. 6, 1958, both in NASA Historical Reference Collection. 222 Pacific Historical Review possibility, David, of course, knew Fletcher from his work with PSAC. He was also recruited by another Westerner, David Packard, formerly of Hewlett-Packard, whom he knew from industry and who was then serving as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense. When news leaked that Fletcher was a finalist for the NASA post in mid-February 1971, the Utah congressional delegation especially, and several other western politicians, lobbied for his appointment, at least in part because of the greater stature it would give the region and certainly because of the prospect his position gave for western business fortunes. Certainly this support was a factor in the President's decision to send Fletcher's name forward." At the time Fletcher was recruited, the NASA administrator's job had been vacant for five months, since Thomas 0.Paine had resigned to take a job with industry on September 15,1970, and an acting administrator had been serving. It had been widely rumored in Washington that the White House had wanted Paine out of NASA because he was adamant in demanding increased funding for NASA while the administration wanted to hold the space agency's budget at a flat $3.2 billion a year. Indicative of Nixon's approach was his March 7, 1970, statement that endorsed the goals of the space program but cautioned that ' h e must also recognize that many critical problems here on this planet make high priority demands on our attention and our r e s ~ u r c e s . ' ' ~ ~ As Paine's replacement, Nixon wanted someone who was either in agreement with his goal of a smaller, less costly space program or a manager who would be pliable. "NASA is-or should be-making a transition from rapid razzle-dazzle growth and glamor to organizational maturity and more stable operations for the long term:' said a White House memo of February 8, 1971. 11. James C. Fletcher interview by author, Sept. 19, 1991, NASA Historical Reference Collection; "Fletcher Contender for NASA Administrator Post," Space Business Daib, Feb. 16, 1971. 12. "Space Program Text," Congressional Quarter4 (March 13, 1970), 768; Thomas 0. Paine to Richard M. Nixon, "Problems and Opportunities in Manned Space Flight," Feb. 26, 1969, NASA Historical Reference Collection; Robert P. Mayo to Richard M. Nixon, "Proposed Budget Amendment for the Space Program," March 3, 1969, Records of the Office of Management and Budget, Record Group 51, National Archives, Washington, D.C. (hereafter cited as RG 51, NA). Fletcher and NASA We need a new Administrator who will turn down NASA5 empirebuilding fervor and turn his attention to (1) sensible straightening away of internal management and (2) working with OMB [the Ofice of Management and Budget] and White House to show us what broad but concrete alternatives the President has that meet all his various objectives. In short, we need someone who will work with us rather than against us, and will seek progress toward the President's stated goals, and will shape the program to reflect credit on the President rather than embarra~sment.~~ 223 White House staffers thought Fletcher would be a frugal manager, especially when compared to his chief competition, Frank G. Jameson, president of Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical, who had vowed to stump hard for the space program as a national priority. The White House staff thought he would have been another Paine. Fletcher placed no conditions on his acceptance of the job and appeared willing to acquiesce in a somewhat more restrained space program than during the 1960s. Moreover, as a member of the PSAC, Fletcher had endorsed a space program that was solidly scientific in purpose and deemphasized human flight, by far the most costly aspect of space exploration.14 Nixon made Fletcher's nomination public on February 27, 1971, and the Senate confirmation process began. Almost everyone applauded Fletcher's impressive credentials as scientist, aerospace industry executive, and educator but questioned his political sav-his ability to swim with the sharks-and to lead NASA well during a difficult period of retrenchment after Apollo. Indicative of this concern, one unnamed Washington official was quoted as saying that "Before he finishes rasslin' with them,. ..he may long for the tranquility of those Mormon hills."15 Even so, the confirmation hearing on March 10, 1971, was not particularly arduous. Utah Senators Wallace E Bennett and Frank E. Moss were helpful in lining up support for his nomination in advance, and to most of the hard questions asked at the hearing, Fletcher was able to plead ignorance and promise 13. Clay T.Whitehead to Peter M. Flanigan, Feb. 8, 1971, RG 51, NA. 14. Fletcher interview by author, Sept. 19, 1991; WashingtonBst, Feb. 17, 1971; Homer E. Newell, Beyond the A t m o s p h : Early Years of Space Science (Washington, D.C., 1980),397. 15. "Tasks Pile Up for New NASA Chief," Business Week (March 6, 1971), 90; Christian Science Monitm; March 1, 1971; Space Business Daily, March 2, 1971, pp. 8-9; Houston Chronich, March 8, 1971. 224 Pacific Historical Review further study. The hearing lasted a grand total of sixty-five minutes, with a fifteen-minute break thrown in for a rollcall vote, and Fletcher's bid for the NASA job was approved. He was sworn in on April 27, 1971, and served until May 1, 1977. Following the Challenger accident on January 28, 1986, President Ronald Reagan asked Fletcher to return to NASA to reorganize the agency. When he finally stepped down again on April 8, 1989, Fletcher was only three months shy of his seventieth birthday.16 As NASA administrator Fletcher had some difficult as well as rewarding times. He was a quiet but generally successful salesman, seeking to demonstrate the importance of what NASA was doing and battling proponents of other government programs for a greater share of the federal budget. While he was not a hardcore space activist like Thomas Paine, he was willing to work quietly within the system in a pragmatic way, laced with principle, to obtain what he thought were important goals. In this process he exemplified features of his western and Mormon background in the three broad categories already mentioned. The first, while it may have been recognized as mostly rhetoric by those who heard him, the myth of the American frontier served as a powerful touchstone of Fletcher's activities. The second was a commitment to using the space program as a means to seek out extraterrestrial intelligence. The third was the application of Fletcher's Mormon stewardship principle, conservation ethic, and zionic/utopian ideal in support of applied scientific space activities. The image of the American frontier has been an especially evocative and somewhat romantic, as well as popular, argument to support the aggressive exploration of space since the launch of Sputnik I in 1957. The popular conception of "westering" and the settlement of the American continent by Europeans from the East has been a powerful metaphor for the propriety of space exploration and has enjoyed wide usage by NASA boosters. 16. Hearing B.fm the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences (March 10, 1971); Wall StreetJoumal, Feb. 25, 1977; Today, March 16, 1977; Hearing B$m the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,99 Cong., 2 sess. (April 23, 1986); James C. Fletcher to George Bush, March 21, 1989; George Bush to James C. Fletcher, April 11, 1989, both in NASA Historical Reference Collection. Fletcher and NASA 225 Astronaut then senator John Glenn captured some of this tenor in 1983 when he summoned images of the American heritage of pioneering and argued that the next great frontier challenge was in space. "It represents the modern frontier for national adventure. Our spirit as a nation is reflected in our willingness to explore the unknown for the benefit of all humanity, and space is a prime medium in which to test our mettle.''17 From Captain Kirk's soliloquy-Space, the final frontier'at the beginning of each Star Tvk episode to John Kennedy's speech about setting sail on "this new ocean" of space, the frontier allusion has been a critical component of space program promotion. Although it is an inaccurate analogy in many ways, it remains singularly popular. Western historian Patricia Nelson Limerick, for one, has argued that the frontier myth, used as a happy metaphor by many, should be seen as a pejorative reflection. She contends that it denotes conquest of place and peoples, exploitation without environmental concern, wastefulness, political corruption, executive misbehavior, shoddy construction, brutal labor relations, and financial inefficiency. Limerick suggests that when some speaker compares NASA advance into space with the old western American frontier, someone from the space agency should punch the speaker "for insulting the organization's honor. It's a wonder no. one-no shuttle pilot, mission coordinator, mechanic, or technician-said, 'Now cut that out-we may have our problems, but it's nowhere near that bad.'"ls James Fletcher ignored the negative images conjured up in some minds by the analogy of the frontier. For all his hardheaded practicality, for all his understanding of science, he was caught up in frontier allusion and made specific connections to his pioneering ancestors in Utah. He commented: History teaches us that the process of pushing back frontiers on Earth begins with exploration and discovery is followed by permanent 17. John Glenn, Jr., "The Next 25: Agenda for the U.S.," L!XE Spectrum (Sept. 1983), 91. See also James A. Michener, "Looking Toward Space," Omni (May 1980), 57-58, 121; James A. Michener, "Manifest Destiny," ibid. (April 1981), 48-50, 102-104. 18. Patricia Nelson Limerick, "The Final Frontier?" Wilson Quarter&, XIV (1990), 83. See also Ray A. Williamson, "Outer Space as Frontier: Lessons for Todax" Western Folklore,XLVI (1987), 255-267; Stephen J. Pyne, "Space: A Third Great Age of Discovery," Space Policy, IV (1988), 187-199. 226 Pacific Historical Review settlements and economic development. Space will be no different.... Americans have always moved toward new frontiers because we are, above all, a nation of pioneers with an insatiable urge to know the unknown. Space is no exception to that pioneering spirit.Ig He mixed the frontier analogy with Mormon ideals when describing for the Mormon publication, Church News, a favorite Sunday school class on the Old Testament in which he had participated, drawing "a parallel between Abrarn leaving Ur and settling in Haran, and the desire of mankind in modem times to push back frontiers." He thought "That Godgiven desire will likely result in the colonization of space and a manned voyage to Mars by the end of the century."20 In accepting the frontier myth's applicability to space flight, Fletcher was like many other Americans, but in his ability to turn those conceptions into reality he was strikingly different. He explicitly tied those conceptions of the frontier to specific NASA programs, especially the Space Shuttle. Fletcher cast the decision in the context of the West and as something that had to be built to pioneer the space frontier. "The covered wagon and the railroads were not just transportation systems of their day," he remarked in 1974, "they helped earlier generations of Americans open a continent. In similar fashion, the Space Shuttle will open the new realm of near-Earth space for all mankind." He concluded, "there is no new frontier in space for America and for mankind without the Sh~ttle."~' Without question Fletcher's central role in the controversial 1972 decision to build the Space Shuttle set the course for that program and for the agency through the 1980s. He was motivated by a variety of considerations, important among them being the practical and economical features of a reusable launch system. Equally significant, Fletcher believed that not to win approval for the shuttle might have spelled the end of NASA as a viable agency, as a series of flat budgets over a period of only a few years would have enabled inflation to hollow out the space agency's programs and make its dissolution probable. One journalist astutely commented on Fletcher's championing of the 19. USA Today, July 28, 1987. 20. Salt Lake City Church , k s , May 26, 1986. 21. James C. Fletcher, "Are SKYLAB and the Space Shuttle Worth the Investment?"Governmat Executive Uan. 1974), 42. Fletcher and NASA 227 shuttle as a defensive measure for the organization he headed: "If it comes up a winner [in gaining approval of the shuttle], NASA will remain a highly visible agency. If it does not, its budget will continue to shrink and it will lose that special place that flights to the moon have given it in the bureaucracy and the public eye."22 Fletcher's comparison of the Space Shuttle to the railroad of more than a century earlier was perhaps a more appropriate, and more negative, image than he would have liked to admit. The western railroad and the Space Shuttle both engendered intense economic contests, lucrative contracts, and "no-holds barred" political struggles for primacy and perquisite^.^^ Indicative of this reality of the frontier experience in regard to the shuttle, if not to the myth, Fletcher fell victim to the political pressures of individuals and groups who wanted him to use his office to further the economic well-being of his intermountain region and the people of his religion. Fletcher, for example, tried unsuccessfully to keep regional and religious politics out of the contract decision process for the solid rocket booster for the Space Shuttle. On February 23,1973, he wrote a stinging rebuke to Utah Senator Frank E. Moss, chair of the Senate Space Science and Applications Committee, on improprieties engaged in by a member of the senator's staff trying to influence the decision. One of your staff-I think you probably know who I am referring towent so far as to insinuate sometime ago that I had a moral, if not a spiritual obligation to acquiese on [sic] some of [the] business issues previously raised by President [N. Eldon] Tanner [of the Mormon church]. This person voiced an unthinkable opinion to the effect that my Church membership took precedent [sic] over my Government responsibilities. Knowing that you share similar sentiments with me in the clear separation of Church and State, I would like to request that you take 22. Claude E. Barfield, "Space Report/NASA Gambles Its Funds, Future on Reusable Shuttle Program," NationulJouml, I11 (1971), 539;John M. Logsdon, "The Space Shuttle Decision: Technology and Political Choice," Journal of C o n t e m p m ~ Butinas, VII (1978), 13-30; John M. Logsdon, "The Space Shuttle Program: A Policy Failure?" Science, CCXXXII (1986), 1099-1105; James C. Fletcher interview by John M. Logsdon, Sept. 21, 1977, NASA Historical Reference Collection. 23. Bruce Mazlish, ed., The Railroad and the Space Program: An ExpLmatwn in Histmica1 Analogy (Cambridge, Mass., 1965); Robert W. Fogel, Railroads and Amaican Economic Gmwth: Essays in Econometric H i s t q (Baltimore, 1964). 228 Pacific Historical Review this unpleasant matter under advisement with the individual in question and explain just how serious and unconscionable those references were.24 While Fletcher sought total honesty in the contract competition-there seems to be no evidence for anything to the contrary-he eventually agreed to award the solid rocket booster contract to Utah's Morton Thiokol, in no small part because of pressure from regional politician^.^^ While Fletcher flatly denied having done anything improper, and the contract decision was upheld in the routine appeal process that always follows large government acquisition decisions, there seems little question that he was susceptible to pressure from western (especially Utah) politicians because of .~~ his local political allegiances and religious p r i ~ r i t i e sAside from a passing debate over the contract at the time, very few people were concerned about the Thiokol contract and Fletcher's western connection until the Challenger accident on January 28, 1986. In the ensuing investigation, Fletcher came under especially intense criticism when investigators found that it was a defective O-ring design in the Morton Thiokol boosters that caused the accident. Some believed, with some justification, that the shuttle in general and the Thiokol-built solid rocket boosters in particular had probably been Fletcher's poorest management decision and had fundamentally hurt the prospects of space exploration. Even were there no evidence of bias, and Fletcher was officially exonerated of any wrongdoing, Morton Thiokol would possibly not even have been in serious contention for the shuttle's solid rocket booster contract had Fletcher, fresh from 24. James C. Fletcher to Frank E. Moss, Feb. 23, 1973, James C. Fletcher Papers, Special Collection, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 25. James C. Fletcher to Frank E. Moss, Feb. 22, 1972, Jan. 12, 1973, Fletcher Papers; "Solid Rocket Motors for the Space Shuttle," Cong. h c . (Feb. 8, 1972), S 1400-S 1401. 26. Bob Allnutt to Frank E. Moss, "ComptrollerGeneral Meeting with William L. Walker, Governor of Mississippi, on Lockheed Protest of NASA Selection on Thiokol for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor Contract,"June 12, 1974, Frank E. Moss Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City; NASA Aocurement: The 1973 Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motm Contmctor Selection (Washington, D.C., 1986); Space Shuttle: NASA's h a r e m a t of Solid Rocket Booster Motors (Washington, D.C., 1986). Fletcher and NASA 229 the presidency of the University of Utah, not been at NASA and thereby susceptible to local political pressure.27 The frontier metaphor, as well as the long-standing reality of western political power, continued to inform space policy even after Challenp In Fletcher's second term as NASA administrator, 1986-1989, he pressed every year to obtain the funding necessary to build a Space Station, mandated in a presidential edict in 1984. In so doing he again responded to the frontier image of exploration and empire. "The compulsion to know the unknown built our nation:' one NASA official had said in 1982. "That instinct drove Lewis and Clark to press across the uncharted continent." Fletcher accepted the argument of a Space Station as the next step in exploration. Like the image of the pioneer settlement or army post on the American frontier, the Space Station offered a haven from the rigors of the 'tvilderness" and a jumping off point for forays into the unknown. Fletcher used this same metaphor in advocating the presentday effort to develop the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) to return to the Moon-this time to establish a permanent colony-and then to go on to Mars.28 In tandem with the metaphorical frontier of the nineteenth century, Fletcher also subscribed to an intellectual frontier that fostered scientific activities. Fletcher thought that the long-term benefits of the space program in terms of science and discovery were too often subsumed under the short-term realities of money and other problems. He warned in 1975 that 'We must somehow keep the dreams of space exploration alive, for in the long run they will prove to be of far more importance to the human race 27. Philadelphia Enquirer; Dec. 8, 1986; Nau Yo& Times, Dec. 8 and 19, 1986; Alex Roland, "The Shuttle's Uncertain Future: Final Frontier (April 1988), 24-27; Anson Shupe, The Darker Side of Virtue: Corruption, Scandal and the Mormon Empire (Buffalo, 1991), 141-160; Joseph J. Trento and Susan B. Trento, Prescription f w Disaster: From the Glmy of Apolla to the Betrayal of the Shuttk (New York, 1987), 105-131. 28. Howard E. McCurdy, The Space Station Decision: Inmmental Politics and Technological Choice (Baltimore, 1990), 1; Howard E. McCurdy, "The Decision to Send Humans Back to the Moon and on to Mars," Feb. 1992, NASA Historical Reference Collection; James C. Fletcher, "A Strategy for Mars: The Case for Mars 111-Keynote Address," in Carl Stoker, ed., The Casef w Mars III: Stmtegia forExphtirmG a e m l Interest and Overvieru (San Diego, Calif., 1989), 2-1 1. 230 Pacific Historical Review than the attainment of immediate material benefits.'' He added: Like Darwin, we have set sail upon an ocean: the cosmic sea of the Universe. There can be no turning back. To do so could well prove to be a guarantee of extinction. When a nation, or a race or a planet turns its back on the future, to concentrate on the present, it cannot see what lies ahead. It can neither plan nor prepare for the future, and thus discards the vital opportunity for determining its evolutionary heritage and perhaps its survival.2g For Fletcher, scientific advancement was a necessary part of any rationale for the space program. Learning more about the universe was an important aspect of what it meant to be a human being, he thought, and seeking understanding of what was incomprehensible was required of any proponent of Mormon theology. Fletcher subscribed to the scriptural admonition of the Mormon Doctm'w and Covenants to "seek learning, even by study and also by faith."30 Fletcher believed he was acting in harmony with all of these ideas when, as NASA administrator, he initiated or fought to continue several scientific space missions since assessed as among the most significant ever undertaken. He supported some truly meaningful scientific projects: the Voyager I and I1 space probes that went to the outer planets, the Viking landers to Mars, two Pioneer spacecraft that traveled to Venus, and the development of the Hubble Space Telescope, finally launched on April 24, 1990, about a year after he left NASA as administrator for the second time.31 Fletcher captured something of the spirit of his attitude toward the exploration and conquest of the frontier theme in an 1974 letter to Jonathan Eberhart, an editor for Science News. He told Eberhart that humanity had to push outward the bounds 29. James C. Fletcher, NASA and the uNow"Syndrome (Washington, D.C., 1975), 3, 9. 30. Doctrine and Couaants of the Church ofjesus Christ of Latter-dq Saints (Salt Lake City, 1968), Sec. 88:118. 31. Edward Clinton Ezell and Linda Neuman Ezell, On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958-1978 (Washington, D.C., 1984); Linda Neuman Ezell, NASA 1: Historical Data Book, Vol. 1 1 Program and Projects, 1969-1978 (Washington, D.C., 1988), 221-228; Robert W. Smith, The Space Telescope: A Study of NASA, Science, Technoha, andPolitics (Cambridge, Mass., 1989); Fletcher interview by author, Sept. 19. 1991. Fletcher and NASA 231 of the frontier, both figurative and literally, and that it was important to express to others "the excitement and emotion of exploration and discovery." I agree with you about man's going to the moon, the near planets and ultimately the outer limits of the solar system. In my own judgment, there is a driving force in man to explore. This drive cannot be stifled. It has probably been with us since before Homo Sapiens, perhaps even as long ago as the earlier hominoids. It seems to me that this drive grows stronger as man continues his development in the civilization process. Fletcher commented that for Americans there has always been a "great excitement associated with exploration and discovery, whether in space or in basic science." He then expressed dismay that some policy makers did not understand this exploration imperative and concluded by asking the question, "If we have the knowledge and resources to go to a new place in the universe, why not go?" For Fletcher, there was no question what the answer should be, his background and belief system was too attuned to the frontier myth not to go.32 The metaphor of both the American frontier of the nineteenth century and the intellectual frontier of expanding knowledge through space exploration leads nicely into Fletcher's second major emphasis for the space program, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The Mormon faith explicitly asserts the existence of life on other planets. In a June, 1830, revelation, Joseph Smith, Jr., the founding prophet of Mormonism, described an encounter between Moses and God in which Moses was told about the enormity and populousness of the universe. In this supposed revelation God told Moses: And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. But only an account of this Earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold there are many worlds which have passed 32. James C. Fletcher to Jonathan Eberhart, Aug. 23, 1974, NASA Historical Reference Collection. 232 Pacific Historical Review away by the word of my power. And there are many also which now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.33 Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie concluded, in a systematic compilation of Mormon theology, that "we are blessed with the knowledge that ours is not the only inhabited earth:'34 Established early on as a part of the Mormon faith, therefore, was the idea of a plurality of worlds inhabited by other beings. Moreover, Mormonism, at least by the early 1840s, had developed a theology of eternal progression and the potential of attaining the status of godhood wherein loyal members would be able to "create worlds without end" and to people them with beings of their own creation. Associated with Mormon temple concepts, the religion during the period developed sophisticated theological constructs concerning the nature of godhood and the possibility of more than one deity, the immortality and progression of humanity to godhood, and the nature of eternity. Some of these ideas were well outside the mainstream of American Christian tradition but they became an integral part of Mormonism's temple cu1tu1-e.35 Fletcher was committed to the ideas expressed in the Mormon temple and believed that humans were not the only intelligent beings in the universe. He was interested in the probability of finding other civilizations in space and commented on it repeatedly. Indicative of these statements is one he made in 1975: Although the discoveries w shall make on our neighboring worlds will e revolutionize our knowledge of the Universe, and probably transform e human society, it is unlikely that w will find intelligent life on the other 33. Pearl o Oreat Price (Salt Lake City, 1968), Moses 1:33-35; Robert Paul, f f ''Joseph Smith and the Plurality of Worlds Idea," Dialogue: A Journal o M m n Thought, XIX (1986), 13-36. 34. Bruce R. McConkie, M m n Doctrine (Salt Lake City, 1958), 196. 35. David John Buerger, "The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowf ment Ceremony," Dialogue: A Jouml o M o m n Thought, XX (1987), 33-76; David John Buerger, "The Fullness of the Priesthood: The Second Anointing in Latterday Saint Theology and Practice," ibid., XVI (1983), 10-44; George D. Smith, "Concepts of Deity: A Brief Overview from Yahwist Writings to the Mormon Jehovah-IsJesus Doctrine,",John Whitmer Historical Association lournal, VII (1987), 28-34; Sterling M. f ~ c ~ u r r i The TheobgzcalFoundationso the h m n Religion (Salt Lake City, 1<65), n; 19-48. Fletcher and NASA 233 planets of our Sun. Yet, it is likely w would find it among the stars e of the galaxy, and that is reason enough to initiate the quest.... We should begin to listen to other civilizations in the galaxy. It must be full of voices, calling from star to star in a myriad of tongues. Though we are separate from this cosmic conversation by light years, we can certainly listen ten million times further than we can travel. He then concluded: "It is hard to imagine anything more important than making contact with another intelligent race. It could be the most significant achievement of this millenium, perhaps the key to our survival as a species."36 More recently, Fletcher remarked that "intelligent life on other planets around other suns is a likely possibility:' and his own calculation was that the universe probably has 5 billion worlds capable of supporting life as humans understand it. NASA, he believed, should prosecute one of the "more adventuresome undertakings such as communicating with other intelligent life in the universe and establishing colonies in space-perhaps before the end of this cen t ~ r y . " ~ ' Fletcher's Mormon background came into play very directly here, his emphasis in searching for extraterrestrial intelligence representative of a more modern perspective on science in the Mormon church. In the 1940s and 1950s, before the space age had really begun, Joseph Fielding Smith, a Mormon apostle and later church president, had expressed a conservative approach toward space exploration. While conceding that other planets in the universe were indeed inhabited as established in Mormon doctrine, he thought it was inappropriate "that mortals should seek dominions beyond this earth while they dwell in mortality. Here we are, and here we should be content to stay." He eschewed space flight as contrary to God's will and commented that "The Lord will permit men to go just so far and no farther; and when they get beyond the proper bounds, he will check them.'' Fletcher and other scientists, intellectuals, and technologists that were a part of the church successfully challenged Smith's conservative philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s, and by the time that Fletcher became the NASA head there was no 36. Fletcher, NASA and the "NownSyndrome, 7. 37. "Interview,James Fletcher," Omni (Dec. 1987), 22; James C. Fletcher to Jonathan Eberhart, Aug. 23, 1974; James C. Fletcher, "Space: 30 Years into the F u t ~ r eActa Astronautics, XIX (1989), 855-857. ,~ 234 Pacific Historical Review further controversy about the religious propriety of space flight and search for extraterrestrial i n t e l l i g e n ~ e . ~ ~ Accordingly, while at NASA during his first term as administrator, Fletcher supported, as important agenda items, efforts to search for life beyond Earth. For instance, an important mission of the Viking Mars lander was the search for evidence of any kind of life on the planet. After his predecessor had lost a more ambitious and expensive program in the late 1960s, Fletcher guided to successful conclusion a more modest project to land spacecraft on the Martian surface. Launched in 1975, the Vikings 1 and 2 spent nearly a year cruising to Mars, placed orbiters in operation around the planet, and then landed in 1976. Fletcher was ecstatic that they both made the trip successfully, but he had hoped that they would lay to rest the prospect of whether or not there was life on Mars. They did not. While the three biology experiments included on the landers discovered unexpected and enigmatic chemical activity in the Martian soil, they provided no clear evidence for the presence of living microorganisms in soil near the landing sites. Most people are also aware of the gold disks affixed to the Voyager spacecraft that were explicitly designed to tell other intelligent beings that life existed on Earth, a decision that Fletcher supported prior to leaving NASA in 1977. He also supported the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program, which NASA was involved in with several partners to use radiotelescopes to comb the skies for any signs of broadcasting from beyond Earth.39 While heading NASA a second time during 1986-1989, Fletcher energetically championed the idea of an ambitious Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) that would return people to the Moon by 2000, establish a lunar base, and, then, using the space station and the Moon, reach Mars by 2010. Announced by President George Bush on the steps of the National Air and Space Museum on the twentieth anniversary of the first lunar 38. Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City, 1958), 191-192; Fletcher interview by author, Sept. 19, 1991. 39. Fletcher, NASA and the "Now"Syndrome, 22; Ezell and Ezell, On Mars, 1-4, . 5142,235-236,404414; L+ &yond Earth O' t h Mind of Man (Washington, D.C., 1973); Philip Morrison, John Billingham, and John Wolfe, The Search /or Extmtmestrial Intelligence: SETI (Washington, D.C., 1977); Fletcher, "Space," 855-857. Fletcher and NASA 235 landing, a fundamental part of SEI was the creation of a permanent presence of humans beyond the Earth and eventual contact with extraterrestrial intelligence. More than two years before the President's speech, Fletcher had begun laying the groundwork, establishing a special Office of Exploration to coordinate all activities relative to what became know as SEI. He continued to support these efforts until he left NASA in 1989.40 None of these activities, Fletcher would have been quick to point out, were pie-eyed "space cadet" initiatives. They were moderate scientific attempts that cost little either in terms of time or resources and could yield potentially incredible results. To date, however-in contrast to some popular conceptions that argue about government conspiracy to keep contact with extraterrestrials a secret-these efforts have not registered any contact with extraterrestrial life.*' The last of Fletcher's priorities to be discussed, though it was probably not the last in his mind, was the application of space technology to help solve practical problems on Earth. Without question Fletcher emphasized the practicality of NASA satellites for communications, weather forecasting, Earth resources management, and a host of other functions that had immediate purpose. He would have been drawn to this goal had he not been a Westerner and a Mormon-many people have ballyhooed the importance of applications satellites over the years for a variety of reason-but Fletcher placed a particular spin on it that harkened back to his Mormon heritage. He accepted the Mormon theological idea of stewardship: all things are owned by God and humanity simply held stewardship over them. It was only through adherence to stewardship principles 40. Fletcher, "A Strategy for Mars," 2-11; White House Office of the Press Secretary, "Remarksby the President at 20th Anniversary of Apollo Moon Landing:' July 20, 1989, Bush Presidential Files; White House Office of the Press Secretary, Feb. "Fact Sheet: Presidential Directive on National Space Poli~y,~ 11, 1988, Reagan Presidential Files; McCurdy, "Decision to Send Humans Back to the Moon and on to Mars,* 56, all in NASA Historical Reference Collection. 41. See Frank Drake and Dava Sobel, Is Anyone Out T h ? The Scientific Seanh for Extmtmtrial Infzlligence (New York, 1993). 236 Pacific Historical Review that Mormons could create a utopian community called Zion and dwell together in righteousness. Individuals were expected to use their resources wisely, not to waste them, and to be accountable for their choices. In the Great Basin, especially, but also earlier, the Mormons developed a frontier conservation ethic based on scarcity and the judicious use of natural and other resources. This stood in contrast to a more prevalent frontier mindset of abundance and wastefulness that has been difficult to overcome in twentiethcentury America.** Fletcher was especially interested in the stewardship aspects of his work with NASA. He commented ad injnitum and probably ad nauseam on the practical return for the people of the world of space satellites and explicitly made the connection between them and not only the preservation of Earth but also its improvement, including restoration of the pristine environment. He had a special affinity for what NASA referred to as applications satellites, those orbiting Earth for communications, meteorology, Earth resources survey, or geodetic observation. He told a Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences in 1973, for instance: As you know, NASA is called the space agency, but in a broader sense, we could be called an environmental agency. It is not just that space is our environment, but it is rather that, as you have seen, virtually everything we do, manned or unmanned, science or applications, helps in some practical way to improve the environment of our planet and helps us understand the forces that affect it. Perhaps that is our essential task, to study and understand the Earth and its environment.43 The tangible response was the transformation of NASA into a much more diverse and practically oriented agency during Fletcher's first term with an emphasis on applications satellites to assist in making the planet a better place on which to live. 42. Fletcher interview by author, Sept. 19, 1991; Jeanne Kay and Craig J. Brown, "Mormon Beliefs about Land and Natural Resources, 1847-1877," Journal o Histon'cal Geogmphy, I11 (1985), 253-267; Dan L. Flores, "Zion in Eden: Phases f of the Environmental History of Utah," Envinmmental Review, VII (1983), 325-344; Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: WaM Aridity, and the Gnnuth of the Ammican West (New York, 1985), 74-83. 43. James C. Fletcher, Spaceship Earth: A look Ahead to a Better Li/i (Washington, D.C., n.d.), 28. Fletcher and NASA 237 Throughout both of his terms as NASA administrator Fletcher emphasized that applications satellites contributed directly and tangibly to the welfare of the planet even in a constrained fiscal situation. He was challenged by some who wanted a huge human space flight program and who saw Fletcher's commitment to applications satellites as dangerous to it, but Fletcher parried their arguments. He confided in 1971 that 'We will go beyond the Moon, but probably with unmanned flights."44It seems likely that while many other people would have pressed for applications satellites in the early 1970s and made the environmental, if not the stewardship, connection, Fletcher's Mormon background conditioned h i m to make arguments on their behalf based on environment and stewardship that were uncommon for most people with his politically conservative ideas. Most of Fletcher's fellow poltical conservatives in modern America have held that nature is cornucopia and that Americans can be distinquished from others on Earth as the "people of plenty." On the other hand, those who are politically liberal have been characterized as generally more ecologically minded, viewing nature as limited and fragile. That Fletcher, himself a conservative political figure, held a generally more liberal view of the environment made him an anomaly in Republican Washington during the 1970s. His Mormon heritage goes a long way toward explaining this apparent c ~ n t r a d i c t i o n . ~ ~ In advocating applications satellites, Fletcher was also a constant opponent of what he identified as the most pressing problem facing NASA in the 1970s, "the fact that this country seems to be on an antitechnology kick." He commented, "I admit we might have spent too much on technology during the peak period of the Apollo program and in connection with Vietnam. Now we are overreacting." Fletcher had hit upon an important debate that was taking place in the latter 1960s and early 1970s over the proper role of electoral authority versus technological expertise in the democratic process. At the beginning of the 1960s U.S. leaders expressed a strong consensus that the ability 44. Space Business Daily, March 2, 1971, p. 8. 45. Aaron Wildavsky, The Rue of Radical Egalitarianism (Washington, D.C., 1991); David M. Potter, People ofPlenty: Economic Abundance and the Natiunul Chamcter (Chicago, 1954). 238 Pacific Historical Review of science and technology, coupled with proper leadership and the inspiration of a great cause, could solve almost any problem of society. It was that faith that sparked the 1961 Kennedy decision to go to the Moon and to empower experts, in this case aerospace engineers, with the decision-making responsibility and wherewithal to execute the Apollo program. By 1970 this commitment to scientific and technological answers had waned and a resurgence of an almost populist belief in the right, indeed the duty, of ordinary citizens to control all affairs, including those of a scientific and technological nature, was gaining currency.46 Fletcher, of course, believed that science and technology possessed the possibility of resolving most of the world's problems if they were used properly by a powerful, benevolent government. Some of this sprang, no doubt, from his Mormon values of obedience to a powerful organization and the church's stewardship ideas about using well all at humanity's disposal. Among other initiatives, he encouraged such things as the television series "The Six Million Dollar Man" because it presented a forum for demonstrating the use of technology for good. NASA was nevertheless caught in the middle of this grass-roots revolt aimed at a reemergence of direct political management of technological and scientific affairs. It was an issue that has affected major aspects of public policy ever since, changing fundamentally how individuals perceive "big government" and its management of issues ranging from medicine to nuclear power.47 Fletcher's own ideas on the motivations of the space program evolved over time, of course. The three basic themes 46. "Antitechnology Bias," Air Force Magazine (Sept. 1971), 53; David Halberstam, The Best and Brightest (New York, 1973), 57, 153; Walter A. McDougall, ...The Heavens and the Earth: A Blitical History of the Space Age (New York, 1985), 344345. 47. James C. Fletcher, Space and Man's Envimnmat (Washington, D.C., 1973), 1-5; James C. Fletcher, "The Space Program-A Social Enigma: in William E. Frye, f ed., Impact o Space Exploration on Society (Tarzana, Calif., 1966), 41-47; James C. Fletcher, "The Space Age: The Age of Accelerated Change" (Speech given at B W Campus, Education Week, June 11, 1969); James C . Fletcher to John Donnelly, "Ideas for $6 Million Man," Aug. 5, 1974, all in NASA Historical Reference Collection; Sylvia Doughty Fries, "Expertise against Politics: Technology as Ideology on Capitol Hill, 19661972,'' Science, Technobgy, & Human Values, VIII (1983), 6-15. Fletcher and NASA 239 founded on his western and Mormon conceptions, however, seem to have remained important in his own mind throughout the nine years that he served as NASA administrator. While he might have given those priorities differing orders in his personal queue depending on time and circumstance, there is little doubt that he took them all seriously. That he acted directly in response to them is highly likely. Would the history of NASA and the U.S. space program have been fundamentally different since 1971 had Fletcher not been present with his western and Mormon cultural heritage? An answer to that would require some sophisticated counterfactual analysis that is problematic at best.48 Even without such an analysis, however, a conclusion that many of Fletcher's efforts as NASA administrator sprang from values and traditions that harkened back to his Mormon u p bringing and his beliefs about the pioneer experience on the American frontier seems justified. Calmly and sincerely he expressed on many occasions a certainty of the connection between the space frontier and the western frontier, using the symbolism and offering an interpretation of the space program as another instance of American exploration and colonization. He also brought a sense of idealism, honesty, and even on occasion naivete to his position at NASA that stood in marked contrast to the political-insider, wheeler-dealer image of James E. Webb, the NASA administrator during most of the Apollo program, or to the blustery "spacecadet" impression left by Thomas 0.Paine, Fletcher's immediate predecessor. Fletcher also displayed a certain pragmatism, informed by principle, toward the political process in Washington that recognized the realities of economics and society and acknowledged the necessity of compromise. While many of his priorities and personal beliefs can be legitimately criticized, they were shared by others of his generation and background. NASAs accomplishments, he believed, were very real and without great cost-only about one percent of the total federal budget each year since Apol10.~~ 48. Steve Fuller, Social Epistemology (Bloomington, 1988), 226232; William Lynch, "Arguments for a Non-Whiggish Hindsight: Counterfactuals and the 1 Sociology of Knowledge," Social Epistemology, 1 1 (1989), 361-366. 49. Fletcher interview by author, Sept 19, 1991. The budgetary figure is from the Report ofthe Advismy Committee on theFutuw ofthe US. SpaceRqgram (Washington, D.C., 1990), 5. 240 Pacific Historical Review Assessments of Fletcher's performance have ranged from extremely positive to exceptionally disapproving. In a negative assessment,journalist Gregg Easterbrook called him "the NASA Rasputin" and charged him with mismanagement of the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs. He also noted that "Fletcher taught the agency institutional selfdeception" by making overly hopeful promises of system performance and "failures and derision have been its corn pan ion^."^^ Overly positive was the characterization of another Westerner, Barry Goldwater, who praised Fletcher's "superb grasp of management, finance, organization, and a thorough understanding of the science involved. Under the present management of NASA it has become a smooth working, intelligently financed organization knowing exactly where it is going." He suggested that there were too many circus ringmasters in Washington and too much flash over substance; Fletcher had been a valuable corrective to the r a z ~ l e d a z z l eOthers have viewed Fletcher as capable, but dull. .~~ The Wall Street Journal asserted that Fletcher was "a competent but unexciting manager" who "had no flair for politics or publicity. He lacked the forcefulness of former administrator James Webb, who piloted NASAs massive buildup through Congress, or the charisma of Wernher Von Braun, who for more than a decade excited the American public with bold visions of space e ~ p l o r a t i o n . " ~ ~ Fletcher's legacy, therefore, is divided. Still, the reach for the stars that he made, tempered with the pragmatism that he showed in curbing more immediate goals, ensured the survival of the space agency and set the course for future attempts to achieve longer-term objectives, including the potential of space exploration. Fletcher brought a vision of a frontier-type move into space to NASA that was moderated by what he considered a momentary faltering in the public commitment to and funding for space exploration. He tried to hold the agency together, ensure its viability, and to plan for and to conduct-insofar as possible-a worthwhile space program. He offered this epitaph 50. Gregg Easterbrook, "The Case against NASA,"New -ublic 19. 51. Wall Street Journal, March 7, 1977. 52. Zbid., Feb. 25, 1977. (July 8, 1991), Fletcher and NASA 241 for his leadership of NASA in 1989: "Does Fletcher live in a dream world? Is he a hopeless visionary? Rather than try to answer, let me remind you of some words in the Book of Proverbs. And they are: 'Where there is no vision, the people perish.'"53 Not long before he died on December 22, 1991, Fletcher said he believed that without a forward-looking space program, without a dream like space exploration to fire the imagination and call people to be something more than they already were, he maintained that the United States would stagnate. He predicated his efforts during both terms at NASA on that belief. Influenced by a wide range of ideas and conceptions from a variety of sources, Fletcher still embraced a set of ideals and images that can be traced in part to his western and Mormon background: the frontier imagery of an earlier era, a belief in extraterrestrial intelligence and a commitment to searching for it, and adherence to the stewardship principle calling for environmental responsibility. Imperfectly conceived and executed, perhaps, these ideas and ideals nevertheless informed Fletcher's decisions as head of the U.S. civilian space program.54 53. Fletcher, "Space,"857. 54. Fletcher interview by author, Sept. 19, 1991.