What do you think?
Rate this book
NASA/TREK: Popular Science and Sex in America
This wry and highly readable investigation of the role of space travel in popular imagination looks at the way NASA has openly borrowed from the TV show Star Trek to reinforce its public standing. It also celebrates the work of a group of the show’s fans who rewrite its storylines in porno-romance fanzines. Constance Penley advocates that scientific experimentation be accompanied by social and sexual experimentation, and devoted to exploring inner as well as outer space.
184 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1995
3 people are currently reading
146 people want to read
About the author
Constance Penley
23 books2 followersConstance Penley is Professor of Film and Media Studies and Co-Director of the Carsey-Wolf Center for Film, Television and New Media at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She is a founding editor of Camera Obscura and the author of The Future of an Illusion: Film, Feminism and Psychoanalysis.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
April 21, 2021
I think there is an interesting premise to this book overall, both in the NASA and the Trek sections and particularly considering how popular culture influences perceptions of science and the future of space travel. That being said, this book reads kind of like an undergrad essay that is trying to reach a 150 page requirement. I think it would've been much better as a shorter essay that maybe some kids will read in their feminism and pop culture classes or something lol. At this length, it felt way too drawn out and boring to me beyond the initial premise/thesis of each section.
Also worth noting that for the time it was published (1997), the exploration of slash fiction was probably a lot more interesting to people, and I do think it's pretty interesting to read about these pre-internet housewives devoting so much time to making their little fan videos and such lol. But we're in a time now where we've lived through tumblr, wattpad, all that shit, so reading about slash fiction is no longer really surprising or provocative in the way it may have been when this book was first published. Interesting overall premise to this book but ultimately not really worth reading the whole thing..... sorry.
Also worth noting that for the time it was published (1997), the exploration of slash fiction was probably a lot more interesting to people, and I do think it's pretty interesting to read about these pre-internet housewives devoting so much time to making their little fan videos and such lol. But we're in a time now where we've lived through tumblr, wattpad, all that shit, so reading about slash fiction is no longer really surprising or provocative in the way it may have been when this book was first published. Interesting overall premise to this book but ultimately not really worth reading the whole thing..... sorry.
April 3, 2016
THIS BOOK THOUGH.
The first half is a kind of public history analysis of NASA and its public perception. Penley names it "popular science," which I link to public history in both form and function -- and I deeply appreciate her emphasis on the public's half of the equation. Popular science (and public history) are not just the academy transmitting facts to the public, but also the public's pre-existing knowledge, opinions, and their interpretation OF the interpretation they receive. "Popular science is ordinary people's extraordinary will to engage with the world of science and technology." "NASA/Trek" is Penley's term for a conceptual blending of the two in the public's mind as a semi-utopian vision of science and space travel.
The first half isn't just science history, but is also largely structured around gender and how it has played into both NASA's behavior and the public's opinion of that behavior. Treatment of female astronauts, how they acted themselves, and public working through of the gender tensions created. All this affects the whole, and illustrates how real life hasn't achieved Star Trek's imagined utopia.
The second half focuses on the "Trek" half of the "NASA/Trek" hybrid, specifically on how fan culture interprets Trek to work through futurist anxiety, again interacting with that utopian idea. Penley narrows it down even further to K/S writers, and the significance of homosexual fan interpretations. She does all this is a fan of NASA and a friend of the K/S community, making her criticisms that much more realistic and pointed, since she can celebrate both at the same time.
The book is totally layperson-appropriate, but has the analytical chops of a journal article. It's also inclusive of gender, race, sexuality, and disability, in some areas more than others, but including everything if only by comment of presence or absence. (The best way I can explain this is that even if "no women are involved," if everyone in a group is male, gender is still massively important and should be mentioned because it is clearly at play. Same for race etc. Many other writers look at a group of straight white men and think that gives them a license to never mention marginalized groups, and that only makes the problem worse). And while I'm on my soapbox, I love that she uses film, fiction, and fanfiction to interpret public opinions and anxieties. Maybe this is typical of other disciplines, and she IS a film & media studies professor, but it's not at all typical in history and it should be used.
If I have a complaint, it's that the two halves don't quite blend. I can see the connection, but I think the fanfiction discussion of the second half is a little deep into the fandom, and it would've combined better if the Trek half was more wide-reaching (surrounding the fanfic discussion, not instead of it). The book is also almost twenty years old, so it barely touches on internet fandom/fanfic, and I can only imagine what else has happened on the NASA front since then. Mars One would come into it, I'm sure. But the thematic connections are enough for me, and it doesn't feel dated at all. The information and analysis are still gold.
The first half is a kind of public history analysis of NASA and its public perception. Penley names it "popular science," which I link to public history in both form and function -- and I deeply appreciate her emphasis on the public's half of the equation. Popular science (and public history) are not just the academy transmitting facts to the public, but also the public's pre-existing knowledge, opinions, and their interpretation OF the interpretation they receive. "Popular science is ordinary people's extraordinary will to engage with the world of science and technology." "NASA/Trek" is Penley's term for a conceptual blending of the two in the public's mind as a semi-utopian vision of science and space travel.
The first half isn't just science history, but is also largely structured around gender and how it has played into both NASA's behavior and the public's opinion of that behavior. Treatment of female astronauts, how they acted themselves, and public working through of the gender tensions created. All this affects the whole, and illustrates how real life hasn't achieved Star Trek's imagined utopia.
The second half focuses on the "Trek" half of the "NASA/Trek" hybrid, specifically on how fan culture interprets Trek to work through futurist anxiety, again interacting with that utopian idea. Penley narrows it down even further to K/S writers, and the significance of homosexual fan interpretations. She does all this is a fan of NASA and a friend of the K/S community, making her criticisms that much more realistic and pointed, since she can celebrate both at the same time.
The book is totally layperson-appropriate, but has the analytical chops of a journal article. It's also inclusive of gender, race, sexuality, and disability, in some areas more than others, but including everything if only by comment of presence or absence. (The best way I can explain this is that even if "no women are involved," if everyone in a group is male, gender is still massively important and should be mentioned because it is clearly at play. Same for race etc. Many other writers look at a group of straight white men and think that gives them a license to never mention marginalized groups, and that only makes the problem worse). And while I'm on my soapbox, I love that she uses film, fiction, and fanfiction to interpret public opinions and anxieties. Maybe this is typical of other disciplines, and she IS a film & media studies professor, but it's not at all typical in history and it should be used.
If I have a complaint, it's that the two halves don't quite blend. I can see the connection, but I think the fanfiction discussion of the second half is a little deep into the fandom, and it would've combined better if the Trek half was more wide-reaching (surrounding the fanfic discussion, not instead of it). The book is also almost twenty years old, so it barely touches on internet fandom/fanfic, and I can only imagine what else has happened on the NASA front since then. Mars One would come into it, I'm sure. But the thematic connections are enough for me, and it doesn't feel dated at all. The information and analysis are still gold.
March 3, 2020
three stars for divisiveness
the first half I found brilliant, if a little batshit (not a bad thing!) and all over the place. the way it both conveyed history and engaged with it in various productive ways was interesting on even just a formal level, and while it seemed to lose threads every so often (eg popular science, the concept of NASA/TREK, both of which surprised me when they popped back up in the little conclusion chapter), the overall argument is generative if nothing else.
the second, I mean, eh. it was probably just that it felt like a lot of summarizing to get to the good stuff (which, I get it, but felt uneven given how the first half was very good at covering the basics while getting into more nuance and detail) and carries the same assertions that I have always felt are insane premises in fan studies, even early on, which is the characterization (& binarism) of transformational (vs affirmational, and again, ik, predates the terms specifically but does v much frame things in that light) fans as uniformly women.* towards the end when it introduced more specifics (eg the section on literary homosocial mythos) it got better, but even then they seemed here and gone in a minute.
I think it's an issue of balance, mainly; the amount of depth and specificity in the /NASA half set an expectation that /TREK didn't quite meet. obviously just looking at it, the first part is MUCH longer than the second, and there were many points where I was expecting more. (the redefinition of technology in fiction was SO interesting & something I could see many more offshoots of. how does it actually compare to commercial SF, etc.) and sure, there were parts that dropped off suddenly, or reverted on earlier ambivalences (the sudden turn at the end to say slashers have "eliminated its racism" and "avoided the misogyny"** etc really threw me lmao), or were just wildly opinionated in a way that presented itself as fact, but it was fun, it was engaging, it was informative and well-grounded in criticism while also broadening horizons.
(THAT BEING SAID: if you find it hard to slash TNG that is on YOU. like, at the very least, Q is RIGHT there.)
*especially when it gets into bodies and gender — trans people existed in the 60s and certainly in the 90s, when this was written. come on, guys.
**another thing that very much bugged me: penley states a number of times that slash writers generally don't bother with women characters, for a variety of given reasons ("future men", especially 126) but mostly in response to the sexism inherent in their canonical representations but like... one, I hear this all the time still, and even if you're so concerned with canonicity you're already rewriting things, recontextualize/expand/whatever—there are other options. two, avoiding women entirely isn't avoiding misogyny.
the first half I found brilliant, if a little batshit (not a bad thing!) and all over the place. the way it both conveyed history and engaged with it in various productive ways was interesting on even just a formal level, and while it seemed to lose threads every so often (eg popular science, the concept of NASA/TREK, both of which surprised me when they popped back up in the little conclusion chapter), the overall argument is generative if nothing else.
the second, I mean, eh. it was probably just that it felt like a lot of summarizing to get to the good stuff (which, I get it, but felt uneven given how the first half was very good at covering the basics while getting into more nuance and detail) and carries the same assertions that I have always felt are insane premises in fan studies, even early on, which is the characterization (& binarism) of transformational (vs affirmational, and again, ik, predates the terms specifically but does v much frame things in that light) fans as uniformly women.* towards the end when it introduced more specifics (eg the section on literary homosocial mythos) it got better, but even then they seemed here and gone in a minute.
I think it's an issue of balance, mainly; the amount of depth and specificity in the /NASA half set an expectation that /TREK didn't quite meet. obviously just looking at it, the first part is MUCH longer than the second, and there were many points where I was expecting more. (the redefinition of technology in fiction was SO interesting & something I could see many more offshoots of. how does it actually compare to commercial SF, etc.) and sure, there were parts that dropped off suddenly, or reverted on earlier ambivalences (the sudden turn at the end to say slashers have "eliminated its racism" and "avoided the misogyny"** etc really threw me lmao), or were just wildly opinionated in a way that presented itself as fact, but it was fun, it was engaging, it was informative and well-grounded in criticism while also broadening horizons.
(THAT BEING SAID: if you find it hard to slash TNG that is on YOU. like, at the very least, Q is RIGHT there.)
*especially when it gets into bodies and gender — trans people existed in the 60s and certainly in the 90s, when this was written. come on, guys.
**another thing that very much bugged me: penley states a number of times that slash writers generally don't bother with women characters, for a variety of given reasons ("future men", especially 126) but mostly in response to the sexism inherent in their canonical representations but like... one, I hear this all the time still, and even if you're so concerned with canonicity you're already rewriting things, recontextualize/expand/whatever—there are other options. two, avoiding women entirely isn't avoiding misogyny.
November 30, 2019
I can't even bother doing a full review for this. It feels like a high school essay.
December 30, 2012
What a weird little book. I loved the first half on NASA, and slogged through the second half on Star Trek fan fiction. I'm sure the author was convinced she had a complete book here, but I am not. She either has the beginnings of a thousand page tome on sex and popular science, or she has two entirely distinct journal articles. Given her entertaining writing style, I wouldn't mind if she eventually produces the former.
April 15, 2022
I initially came across this book via a tumblr post and was fortunate to grab a copy second hand. I’m a fan of pop culture studies and their impact on fandom - and vice versa! I wish I could give this book a 4.5 stars because I think both parts “NASA” and “TREK” were engaging but the overlap between the too, or the pairing, was not all there. Which is not bad - the book was not necessarily all about Star Trek and NASA but setting the cultural scene for these two entities to come together and how space exploration was being engaged with for these couple of decades.
I would absolutely love to see a revisit/anniversary edition of this book though. Originally published in 1997 so so so much has changed in reality and the fictional world of Star Trek:
Legalized gay marriage and the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in the military.
Out actors playing out characters canonically in Star Trek; even the later 90s relationships between popular ships such as DS9’s Bashir/Garak and the documentary discussion on how in hindsight the ship should have been canon indeed.
The uphill battle NASA has continued to fight for funding and recognition and the overall commercialization/privatization of space travel (William Shatner has now actually been in space) and Space Force as a further step towards the actualization of one conception of the Federation.
Rise in popularity of fanfic sites like Archives of Our Own.
Fanzines for every fandom, ship, and character now available to purchase internationally.
And so on and so.
As a feminist, and a slasher, but not someone in STEM, overall I really did appreciate what this book was attempting to do.
I would absolutely love to see a revisit/anniversary edition of this book though. Originally published in 1997 so so so much has changed in reality and the fictional world of Star Trek:
Legalized gay marriage and the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in the military.
Out actors playing out characters canonically in Star Trek; even the later 90s relationships between popular ships such as DS9’s Bashir/Garak and the documentary discussion on how in hindsight the ship should have been canon indeed.
The uphill battle NASA has continued to fight for funding and recognition and the overall commercialization/privatization of space travel (William Shatner has now actually been in space) and Space Force as a further step towards the actualization of one conception of the Federation.
Rise in popularity of fanfic sites like Archives of Our Own.
Fanzines for every fandom, ship, and character now available to purchase internationally.
And so on and so.
As a feminist, and a slasher, but not someone in STEM, overall I really did appreciate what this book was attempting to do.
July 1, 2020
Penley doesn't connect the NASA/ and the /TREK sections as much as I would have expected, but it's a great, ridiculous, but actually pretty compelling thought experiment: Lining up NASA's misogynistic practices against Trek slash fandom's relative gender harmony to argue that the practices of the latter can bolster the former. Among other things. It's kind of an all over the place book, though almost always fun and engagingly so.
It would have benefited from more queer theory, though. Penley's observations often feed into a binary understanding of gender and make all-encompassing assumptions about gendered spaces. Like, while I'm sure Kirk/Spock slash communities were predominantly made up of women, there's no way men weren't also in those spaces, if perhaps anonymously. But unfortunately Penley doesn't make room for them.
It would have benefited from more queer theory, though. Penley's observations often feed into a binary understanding of gender and make all-encompassing assumptions about gendered spaces. Like, while I'm sure Kirk/Spock slash communities were predominantly made up of women, there's no way men weren't also in those spaces, if perhaps anonymously. But unfortunately Penley doesn't make room for them.
December 29, 2024
This book was an eye-opener as I didn't realize that there were underground publications written by female authors about the sex-life of Captain Kirk and Spock (with each other, that is). These "slashers" have published numerous fanzines of pornographic stories about Starfleet's best. The book's tagline talked about NASA and the taboo subject of sex in space. The first half of the book was about Christa McAuliffe's participation in the Challenger disaster. She apparently was the sex, be it the up to that point minimal number of astronauts in NASA. Not what I was expecting.
February 28, 2023
Plenty of good observations about early America sci-fi and the cultural phenomenon that was the space age and how it lead to, or merged with, science fiction.
Also some good observation about women and how or why they write.
It is however from the late 90's and it shows, but it is a good source as a record for or an entry into this point of time in sci-fi history.
Also some good observation about women and how or why they write.
It is however from the late 90's and it shows, but it is a good source as a record for or an entry into this point of time in sci-fi history.
November 6, 2015
nasa/:
the general cluster-frack that is NASA, especially the PR stint with the Christa McCauliffe
Nichelle Nichols, Lt. Uhura on the original show, was a successful recruiter of women and minorities for NASA
- these section was illuminating
overall the strongest part of the book was the first half
the sections on trek were lacking in the detail, perhaps because of the length of the novel itself.
however, Penley packs in a lot.
we should also consider that this book was published in 1992 and this was one of the first works about slash fandom/fandom in general.
what /trek covers: the tech/old school debate, fanzines, characterization of slash.
having read various accounts, penley does offer different case studies/fic studies within her analysis of the slash fandom - including Dreams of the Sleepers which deals with a mental connection between Kirk/Spock and certain tropes (mpreg, gender reversal, the patriarchy in different forms) and these provide a solid foundation.
Another thing lack in books like Fic by Anne Jamison is the strong grounding in social science and academia in general.
I am exhibiting some bias since i knew more about the fandom going into this book, and less about NASA. readers with different backgrounds may find the part on fandom sufficient for their curiosity.
the general cluster-frack that is NASA, especially the PR stint with the Christa McCauliffe
Nichelle Nichols, Lt. Uhura on the original show, was a successful recruiter of women and minorities for NASA
- these section was illuminating
overall the strongest part of the book was the first half
the sections on trek were lacking in the detail, perhaps because of the length of the novel itself.
however, Penley packs in a lot.
we should also consider that this book was published in 1992 and this was one of the first works about slash fandom/fandom in general.
what /trek covers: the tech/old school debate, fanzines, characterization of slash.
having read various accounts, penley does offer different case studies/fic studies within her analysis of the slash fandom - including Dreams of the Sleepers which deals with a mental connection between Kirk/Spock and certain tropes (mpreg, gender reversal, the patriarchy in different forms) and these provide a solid foundation.
Another thing lack in books like Fic by Anne Jamison is the strong grounding in social science and academia in general.
I am exhibiting some bias since i knew more about the fandom going into this book, and less about NASA. readers with different backgrounds may find the part on fandom sufficient for their curiosity.
April 26, 2014
I enjoyed this relatively short book which is critical of NASA's misogyny and contractor oriented policies. It points out that the Teacher in Space Program was a PR stunt by choosing the candidate with the most symbolic value. In the early stages of the Mercury program a group of individuals was "found to be more resistant to radiation, less subject to heart attacks, and better able to endure extremes of heat, cold, pain, noise, and loneliness." It was the 25 women pilots and so the program for women was abruptly curtailed. It also didn't help that they weighed less, and required less food and oxygen. The second part of the book is a literary criticism of Star Trek slash fiction. This was the most enjoyable part because I was barely aware it existed. The entire book is an interesting look at the idea of woman's place in society from the male dominant idea of the past several thousand years to a more equal system of the hopeful future.
February 26, 2011
A witty, informative account of how NASA and Star Trek have shaped how we approach "popular science," sexuality, and gender in the real world and fictional world. A little out of date (obviously), but the dated information doesn't carry enough weight--or, in the case of the Challenger, was partially echoed not long after by Columbia--to detract from what Penley is exploring. I was pleasantly surprised by this book (hence the review!), especially by Penley's effort to contextualize the information into a sort of parallel literary canon.
January 26, 2014
Some interesting anecdotes and analysis, but I wish it had been better organized or broken into more chapters. And then I would have skipped some of them.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews