What do you think?
Rate this book
The Long Space Age: The Economic Origins of Space Exploration from Colonial America to the Cold War
An economic historian argues that privately funded space exploration is not a new development, but a trend beginning with the astronomical observatories of the nineteenth century
Over the last half-century there has been a rapid expansion in commerce off the surface of our planet. Nations and corporations have placed hundreds of satellites that provide billions of dollars’ worth of communications, scientific, global positioning, and commercial services, while construction has been completed on humanity’s ninth and largest space station. On the planet itself, government agencies, corporations, and individuals plan for the expansion of economic development to the lunar surface, asteroids, and Mars. The future of space exploration seems likely to include a mix of large government funded missions as well as independent private-sector missions.
The Long Space Age examines the economic history of American space exploration and spaceflight, from early astronomical observatories to the International Space Station, and argues that the contemporary rise of private-sector efforts is the re-emergence of a long-run trend not a new phenomenon.
Over the last half-century there has been a rapid expansion in commerce off the surface of our planet. Nations and corporations have placed hundreds of satellites that provide billions of dollars’ worth of communications, scientific, global positioning, and commercial services, while construction has been completed on humanity’s ninth and largest space station. On the planet itself, government agencies, corporations, and individuals plan for the expansion of economic development to the lunar surface, asteroids, and Mars. The future of space exploration seems likely to include a mix of large government funded missions as well as independent private-sector missions.
The Long Space Age examines the economic history of American space exploration and spaceflight, from early astronomical observatories to the International Space Station, and argues that the contemporary rise of private-sector efforts is the re-emergence of a long-run trend not a new phenomenon.
272 pages, Hardcover
Published April 25, 2017
17 people are currently reading
222 people want to read
About the author
Alexander MacDonald
185 books10 followersThere is more than one author by this name on Goodreads.
Alexander MacDonald is a military historian and author
See also:
Alexander MacDonald, Canadian bishop, 1859-1941
Alexander MacDonald, Scottish war poet, 1698–1770
Alexander MacDonald, Scottish antiquary, 1791-1850
Alexander MacDonald, 1878-1939
Alexander MacDonald is a military historian and author
See also:
Alexander MacDonald, Canadian bishop, 1859-1941
Alexander MacDonald, Scottish war poet, 1698–1770
Alexander MacDonald, Scottish antiquary, 1791-1850
Alexander MacDonald, 1878-1939
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 8, 2020
Summary: The book does actually cover the period after the cold war. I like that it lays out the costs and puts the context of space spending into a much longer history that pre-dates the launches in the 60s. Very cool.
p. 4 - It talks about the idea that space observators (early exploration) was funded privately.
p. 19 - gives the totals spent along with an adjustment for inflation. He also gives the GDP equivalent, which is kind fo important to get a sense for just how much that wealth might have meant to the period.
p. 28 - John Adam was a huge proponent of space. He saw it as part of our relationship with knowing God.
p. 69- It's like he's hinting at the idea that income disparity drives some of the best environments for spending on space exploration. There is something to this as the concentration of wealth is required for the types of decision making, given a non-corporate structure of spending.
p. 79 - This is very instructive in speaking about Lowell, he's donating 25% of income (Don't know what he had in assets and if that was passive and active income, likely most of his income is passive). They do say his inherentence gave him $100k annually per year in 1903 terms. He's giving up $25k to fund the effort. Be interesting to have known the taxation implications on this as well.
p. 82 - George Ellery Hale - this guy raised so much money for space research, it's crazy. he just basically courted every rich person of the period and tried to get some sort of inheritance allocation. Amazing!
p. 105 - Dr. Robert H. Goddard - This guy was great at the actual science, but his real skill was getting funding. Wow, these stories are incredible and worth making one feel something to aspire to as far as requisitioning capital to a particular endeavor. He saw military funding as crucial after reading war of the worlds. That was smart, as the Cold War had just resulted in a desire to spend loads of money on blowing things up. His research is a mix as a result.
p. 153 - He's leaving his patents and partnership with the Curtis Wright foundation. They are partnering with the Gugginheims to make sure that any royalties from the patents go to increasing research in space.
p. 208 - He talks about getting the rich to fund space as a re-emerging trend rather than a novel one. That's fair
p. 216 - He's putting his book in the context of those that think it should only be private. The period where it wasn't private at all saw the biggest advance in putting people into space.
So the solution is likely in between, maybe depends on how you get the most talented people. Whatever system does that wins.
p. 223 - the bequest from Elias Loomis (a memoir of Elias Loomis) was the largest from Yale at the time. I may need read more on this in general.
p. 4 - It talks about the idea that space observators (early exploration) was funded privately.
p. 19 - gives the totals spent along with an adjustment for inflation. He also gives the GDP equivalent, which is kind fo important to get a sense for just how much that wealth might have meant to the period.
p. 28 - John Adam was a huge proponent of space. He saw it as part of our relationship with knowing God.
p. 69- It's like he's hinting at the idea that income disparity drives some of the best environments for spending on space exploration. There is something to this as the concentration of wealth is required for the types of decision making, given a non-corporate structure of spending.
p. 79 - This is very instructive in speaking about Lowell, he's donating 25% of income (Don't know what he had in assets and if that was passive and active income, likely most of his income is passive). They do say his inherentence gave him $100k annually per year in 1903 terms. He's giving up $25k to fund the effort. Be interesting to have known the taxation implications on this as well.
p. 82 - George Ellery Hale - this guy raised so much money for space research, it's crazy. he just basically courted every rich person of the period and tried to get some sort of inheritance allocation. Amazing!
p. 105 - Dr. Robert H. Goddard - This guy was great at the actual science, but his real skill was getting funding. Wow, these stories are incredible and worth making one feel something to aspire to as far as requisitioning capital to a particular endeavor. He saw military funding as crucial after reading war of the worlds. That was smart, as the Cold War had just resulted in a desire to spend loads of money on blowing things up. His research is a mix as a result.
p. 153 - He's leaving his patents and partnership with the Curtis Wright foundation. They are partnering with the Gugginheims to make sure that any royalties from the patents go to increasing research in space.
p. 208 - He talks about getting the rich to fund space as a re-emerging trend rather than a novel one. That's fair
p. 216 - He's putting his book in the context of those that think it should only be private. The period where it wasn't private at all saw the biggest advance in putting people into space.
So the solution is likely in between, maybe depends on how you get the most talented people. Whatever system does that wins.
p. 223 - the bequest from Elias Loomis (a memoir of Elias Loomis) was the largest from Yale at the time. I may need read more on this in general.
March 3, 2018
(I'm writing this review of the book as a mass-market book - if it were intended as a purely academic work, I would probably rate it more highly)
Although it’s a good book that makes interesting points, I feel there’s a mismatch between the work and a mass-market audience that might leave a lot of readers disappointed. The book reads like a dissertation project, which I believe will probably be
* too dry
* too focused on listing supporting evidence instead of a clear and compelling flow, and
* too insistent on the significance and novelty of the author’s findings
to be an enjoyable read for most, even those with a layman’s interest in the subject.
The author’s main findings were that
* Rather than being a new phenomenon, private investment in space dates back more than 200 years, to cutting edge observatories financed by wealthy donors
* Signaling, not prestige, is the demand-side driver of space exploration
I found the first point to be the most interesting one, and the author does provide good evidence. I still didn’t walk away feeling completely convinced that the new perspective the author gives is the “right” one. As a reader I also got really bogged down in anecdote after anecdote about how individual observatories came to be financed.
The difference between signaling and prestige seemed too subtle to be as interesting to me as the first point. While I get the difference, it doesn’t seem big enough for me to know that it’s actually a novel idea.
Overall a good book that makes an interesting argument, but one that I feel will seem like "work" to most readers.
Although it’s a good book that makes interesting points, I feel there’s a mismatch between the work and a mass-market audience that might leave a lot of readers disappointed. The book reads like a dissertation project, which I believe will probably be
* too dry
* too focused on listing supporting evidence instead of a clear and compelling flow, and
* too insistent on the significance and novelty of the author’s findings
to be an enjoyable read for most, even those with a layman’s interest in the subject.
The author’s main findings were that
* Rather than being a new phenomenon, private investment in space dates back more than 200 years, to cutting edge observatories financed by wealthy donors
* Signaling, not prestige, is the demand-side driver of space exploration
I found the first point to be the most interesting one, and the author does provide good evidence. I still didn’t walk away feeling completely convinced that the new perspective the author gives is the “right” one. As a reader I also got really bogged down in anecdote after anecdote about how individual observatories came to be financed.
The difference between signaling and prestige seemed too subtle to be as interesting to me as the first point. While I get the difference, it doesn’t seem big enough for me to know that it’s actually a novel idea.
Overall a good book that makes an interesting argument, but one that I feel will seem like "work" to most readers.
September 14, 2020
Alex MacDonald’s contrarian book The Long Space Age challenges the dominant narrative of American space exploration as an inherently governmental activity. MacDonald, who was recently appointed Chief Economist at NASA, argues that private space enterprises like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are not an entirely new phenomenon, but something of an American tradition. As evidence, he points to the American astronomical observatories of the 19th century and Robert Goddard’s experimental rockets in the 1920s as two examples of space efforts that were driven by individuals and predominantly funded by the private sector.
The decision to incorporate astronomical observatories into the overall narrative of American space history is an interesting one. MacDonald argues that telescopes and robotic space missions, while very different technologies, are effectively equivalent in motivation and complexity: They both extend our vision into space and are of considerable complexity. Some observatories, like the Lick Observatory or the Palomar Observatory, were even similar in cost (in 2015 GDP-ratio equivalent terms) to major NASA missions, such as the Messenger probe to Mercury or the Mars Exploration Rovers.
MacDonald’s framework of the “Long Space Age” thus broadens our understanding of the history of space exploration. To quote the author, “In the long historical perspective, the American movement out into space is much more than the story of “one giant leap” by its government in service of geopolitical competition; it is a cumulative story of the many small steps of its people, some taken with the support of their government, but many of the most important supported by private resources and individual will alone.”
The decision to incorporate astronomical observatories into the overall narrative of American space history is an interesting one. MacDonald argues that telescopes and robotic space missions, while very different technologies, are effectively equivalent in motivation and complexity: They both extend our vision into space and are of considerable complexity. Some observatories, like the Lick Observatory or the Palomar Observatory, were even similar in cost (in 2015 GDP-ratio equivalent terms) to major NASA missions, such as the Messenger probe to Mercury or the Mars Exploration Rovers.
MacDonald’s framework of the “Long Space Age” thus broadens our understanding of the history of space exploration. To quote the author, “In the long historical perspective, the American movement out into space is much more than the story of “one giant leap” by its government in service of geopolitical competition; it is a cumulative story of the many small steps of its people, some taken with the support of their government, but many of the most important supported by private resources and individual will alone.”
September 11, 2023
The thesis of this book can be summed up in a few sentences. MacDonald makes the argument that most space exploration has been funded by wealthy, private individuals or the foundations that they establish throughout American history with the publicly-supported advent of NASA in the 1950s and following Apollo program being an outlier. He takes about 200 pages to prove his point, with the first 100 basically being a list of astronomical observatories in the 1800s and the Robber Barons/Captains of Industry that established them to signal their magnificence and wealth. I feel like this part could have been about 10 pages. The rest of the book was a lot more interesting and focused more on Robert Goddard and the different funding sources that he had for his rocket development efforts. MacDonald points out that the current trend towards more private funding in space exploration is actually more inline with historic trends, including funding from excessively rich men like Elon Musk, J Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson. It’s an interesting argument and definitely reframed how I think about the commercial space industry, but MacDonald writes like the economist he is and doesn’t make any concessions towards a public audience.
February 2, 2018
Fascinating and potentially important historical work. Treats observatories, early rocket experiments, the cold war, and touches on recent efforts. I particularly like his theme of the importance of 'signaling' in how both private and public funds are spent. He makes but does not emphasize that individuals want to do these things and so they find ways to fund them, while the ways vary. Recent efforts are just mentioned, and it is a US only work. A but dry in spots but a must read for serious students of space policy
June 15, 2025
The book covers 3 periods of time in "the Long Space Age".
1. 19th century - early 20th century during which telescopes and observatories were developed and supported by a lot of private individuals.
2. Robert Goddard's effort to develop rockets in the first part of 20th century, using funding from private sources, funding from Smithsonian and also from the military.
3. Space race with the Soviet Union in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Here the work is funded almost exclusively by the US government because of the Cold War.
The author's main thesis is that the role of private funding is a significant driver to space exploration.
This idea of philantrophic support of space exploration is relevant now as we find ourselves at an important junction of history. The recent (Fy26) US budget in examination by congress has greatly reduced funding to science through NSF and NASA, together with the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. In order to bridge this funding gap, many institutions are putting together concerted effort to raise private funds to allow continued operations. At the same time, private companies, like SpaceX and Blue Origin are working hard on launch vehicles and systems which are surpassing the most capable systems from NASA and beyond. The re-emergence of private interest in space exploration has been revived.
The author put forward a very important question in the conclusion: "How then should we balance the increasing role and initiatives of private-sector American spaceflight capabilities with the responsibility of government investment to promote the public good? This is the critical question of American space policy for the early twenty-first century." We will need patience to see how the space policy will play out in the coming decade.
Although the book presents a good thesis, the content and the presentation tends to be quite dry, and there seems to be some repetition in the content. Finally, it would be good if the author adds a section to talk about the new comers to the space exploration, like SpaceX, and nations like China and India.
1. 19th century - early 20th century during which telescopes and observatories were developed and supported by a lot of private individuals.
2. Robert Goddard's effort to develop rockets in the first part of 20th century, using funding from private sources, funding from Smithsonian and also from the military.
3. Space race with the Soviet Union in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Here the work is funded almost exclusively by the US government because of the Cold War.
The author's main thesis is that the role of private funding is a significant driver to space exploration.
This idea of philantrophic support of space exploration is relevant now as we find ourselves at an important junction of history. The recent (Fy26) US budget in examination by congress has greatly reduced funding to science through NSF and NASA, together with the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. In order to bridge this funding gap, many institutions are putting together concerted effort to raise private funds to allow continued operations. At the same time, private companies, like SpaceX and Blue Origin are working hard on launch vehicles and systems which are surpassing the most capable systems from NASA and beyond. The re-emergence of private interest in space exploration has been revived.
The author put forward a very important question in the conclusion: "How then should we balance the increasing role and initiatives of private-sector American spaceflight capabilities with the responsibility of government investment to promote the public good? This is the critical question of American space policy for the early twenty-first century." We will need patience to see how the space policy will play out in the coming decade.
Although the book presents a good thesis, the content and the presentation tends to be quite dry, and there seems to be some repetition in the content. Finally, it would be good if the author adds a section to talk about the new comers to the space exploration, like SpaceX, and nations like China and India.
November 11, 2024
Came to this via the Odd Lots podcast. This book brought an incredible economic lens to a topic (space policy) that I have a varying degree of interest in. I found the long exploration of telescope development in the 1800s to be fascinating, as was the early 1900s development of rocketry. I also learned a lot about space policy in the mid-to-late 1900s that I just didn't know.
The title comes from including the first two with the third, and framing NASA's current approach as a counter narrative to the despair common with many who lament the growth of SpaceX and Blue Origin. (ie: "the government should be doing this themselves!")
The book never got too "sciency" for me, as it always centered the economics for these ventures to make his point about who historically has funded and pushed space exploration forward. (spoiler, not the government) I could see others not appreciating the meticulous telescope by telescope detail. I like lists.
I ended up down a number of Wikipedia side quests while reading, specifically: "Large Strategic Science Missions", the two Voyagers, Europa Clipper (just launched, arriving 2030), Titan (Dragonfly probe launching in 2028, arriving 2034), and the Habitable Worlds Observatory. (coming in the 2040's) Plus Artemis, the most relevant of all!
A different book could delve deeper into the broader administrative/economic policy which allows for the privatization of profit from the government contracting with the private sector like this.
The title comes from including the first two with the third, and framing NASA's current approach as a counter narrative to the despair common with many who lament the growth of SpaceX and Blue Origin. (ie: "the government should be doing this themselves!")
The book never got too "sciency" for me, as it always centered the economics for these ventures to make his point about who historically has funded and pushed space exploration forward. (spoiler, not the government) I could see others not appreciating the meticulous telescope by telescope detail. I like lists.
I ended up down a number of Wikipedia side quests while reading, specifically: "Large Strategic Science Missions", the two Voyagers, Europa Clipper (just launched, arriving 2030), Titan (Dragonfly probe launching in 2028, arriving 2034), and the Habitable Worlds Observatory. (coming in the 2040's) Plus Artemis, the most relevant of all!
A different book could delve deeper into the broader administrative/economic policy which allows for the privatization of profit from the government contracting with the private sector like this.
December 12, 2018
人类何时开始？为什么开始探索太空？
1958年美国艾森豪威尔任期内，由James Killian 领导的PSAC（Presidential Science Advisory Committee）出台一份名为“Introduction to Outer Space"的报告，报告中对美国进行太空探索重要性的论述给出四项理由：
一、人类探索未知世界的强烈冲动与好奇心；
二、加强军事上的自卫能力；
三、增强国家荣誉感；
四、科技发展有助于进一步认识宇宙。
作者针对上述理由列举了诸多不同的观点：
一、所谓的冲动和好奇来自某些人（John Quincy Adams，GeorgeElleryHale， Robert Goddart）而非作为整体的人类；而如此“冲动”的归根结底是经济因素；
二、太空探索的军事动机不可与发展科技相提并论，从50年代起，众多政客都从军事视角来看到太空科技的重要性；冷战时期国家荣誉感亦很突出；
三、参与太空项目的大多是科学家，但是其中科技发展并不单纯而是在为政治服务。
一本大众可以接受的学术著作。
1958年美国艾森豪威尔任期内，由James Killian 领导的PSAC（Presidential Science Advisory Committee）出台一份名为“Introduction to Outer Space"的报告，报告中对美国进行太空探索重要性的论述给出四项理由：
一、人类探索未知世界的强烈冲动与好奇心；
二、加强军事上的自卫能力；
三、增强国家荣誉感；
四、科技发展有助于进一步认识宇宙。
作者针对上述理由列举了诸多不同的观点：
一、所谓的冲动和好奇来自某些人（John Quincy Adams，GeorgeElleryHale， Robert Goddart）而非作为整体的人类；而如此“冲动”的归根结底是经济因素；
二、太空探索的军事动机不可与发展科技相提并论，从50年代起，众多政客都从军事视角来看到太空科技的重要性；冷战时期国家荣誉感亦很突出；
三、参与太空项目的大多是科学家，但是其中科技发展并不单纯而是在为政治服务。
一本大众可以接受的学术著作。
November 23, 2019
Great historical view of space exploration
This is a needed change in how we view space exploration. It’s also short and to the point, which is unusual for an academic book like this.
This is a needed change in how we view space exploration. It’s also short and to the point, which is unusual for an academic book like this.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews