Neil M. Maher’s Apollo in the Age of Aquarius raises the prospect of adjusting our understanding of the tumultuous 1960s by approaching the era from a novel perspective. Coincidentally, Americans who lived through that decade experienced the impact of two apparently disjunctive forces. The first was the climax (and eventual collapse) of widespread faith in technocracy and its component parts: science, technology, professional expertise, and top-down planning. The second was the rapid (and mostly unforeseen) rise of new social movements that were driven by an instinct to humanize institutions, laws, organizations, and individual states of consciousness. Historians have commonly noted the similarities and distinctions among the various bottom-up movements, the tensions, cross-pollinations, and casual associations that loosely united—and occasionally divided—the subversive constituencies. Yet, with the exception of the counterculture, scholars have generally avoided examining any relationships between 1960s reform movements and technocracy. Now Maher is attempting to fill this investigative gap by revisiting criticisms of NASA’s moon landing program by selected movement representatives. He is also attempting to construct an alternative historical synthesis for the legendary 1960s, in which yesterday’s Age of Aquarius resembles today’s Age of Fracture. Still, the nagging question is this: How can a study that is so resourceful and industrious in gathering enticing facts and anecdotes also be so thematically confusing in its disjointed narrative? The answer is that the book’s mission is muddled from the start. Not only does Maher try to accomplish too many things, but his approach lacks precision and his claims are often not borne out by the evidence. His opening argument that the “space race and the social and political movements of the 1960s era . . . were mutually dependent on each other for popular and political support” is unconvincing (p. 2). Surely the civil rights and antiwar movements did not require NASA’s presence to make their points, build their followings, or draw attention to their crusades; the same can be said about second-wave feminism and the counterculture.

中文翻译：

---

杂项的月亮

尼尔·马赫 (Neil M. Maher) 的《水瓶座时代的阿波罗》(Apollo in the Age of Aquarius) 提出了一种前景，即通过从新颖的角度接近这个时代，调整我们对 1960 年代动荡的理解。巧合的是，经历了那十年的美国人经历了两种明显不同的力量的影响。第一个是对技术统治及其组成部分的广泛信仰的高潮（并最终崩溃）：科学、技术、专业知识和自上而下的规划。第二个是新社会运动的迅速（而且大多是不可预见的）兴起，这些运动是由将制度、法律、组织和个人意识状态人性化的本能驱动的。历史学家普遍注意到各种自下而上的运动、紧张局势、异花授粉、以及松散地联合——偶尔分裂——颠覆性选民的非正式协会。然而，除了反主流文化之外，学者们普遍避免考察 1960 年代改革运动与技术统治之间的任何关系。现在，马赫正试图通过重新审视选定运动代表对 NASA 登月计划的批评来填补这一调查空白。他还试图为传奇的 1960 年代构建另一种历史综合，其中昨天的水瓶座时代类似于今天的断裂时代。尽管如此，令人烦恼的问题是：一项在收集诱人的事实和轶事方面如此足智多谋和勤奋的研究怎么会在其脱节的叙述中在主题上如此混乱？答案是这本书的使命从一开始就是混乱的。马赫不仅试图完成太多事情，而且他的方法缺乏精确性，而且他的主张往往没有证据证实。他的开场论点是“太空竞赛以及 1960 年代时代的社会和政治运动”。. . 相互依赖以获取民众和政治支持”并不令人信服（第 2 页）。当然，民权运动和反战运动不需要 NASA 的存在来表达他们的观点、建立他们的追随者或引起人们对他们的十字军的关注。第二波女权主义和反主流文化也是如此。相互依赖以获取民众和政治支持”并不令人信服（第 2 页）。当然，民权运动和反战运动不需要 NASA 的存在来表达他们的观点、建立他们的追随者或引起人们对他们的十字军的关注。第二波女权主义和反主流文化也是如此。相互依赖以获取民众和政治支持”并不令人信服（第 2 页）。当然，民权运动和反战运动不需要 NASA 的存在来表达他们的观点、建立他们的追随者或引起人们对他们的十字军的关注。第二波女权主义和反主流文化也是如此。