pale blue dot -carl sagan-第40部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



It　is　alleged　that　〃spinoff〃　will　transpire—huge　technological　benefits　that　would　otherwise　fail　to　e　about—thereby　improving　our　international　petitiveness　and　the　domestic　economy。　But　this　is　an　old　argument：　Spend　80　billion　（in　contemporary　money）　to　send　Apollo　astronauts　to　the　Moon；　and　we'll　throw　in　a　free　stickless　frying　pan。　Plainly；　if　we're　after　frying　pans；　we　can　invest　the　money　directly　and　save　almost　all　of　that　80　billion。

The　argument　is　specious　for　other　reasons　as　well；　one　of　which　is　that　DuPont's　Teflon　technology　long　antedated　Apollo。　The　same　is　true　of　cardiac　pacemakers；　ballpoint　pens；　Velcro；　and　other　purported　spinoffs　of　the　Apollo　program。　（I　once　had　the　opportunity　to　talk　with　the　inventor　of　the　cardiac　pacemaker；　who　himself　nearly　had　a　coronary　accident　describing　the　injustice　of　what　he　perceived　as　NASA　taking　credit　for　his　device。）　If　there　are　technologies　we　urgently　need；　then　spend　the　money　and　develop　them。　Why　go　to　Mars　to　do　it？

Of　course　it　would　be　impossible　for　so　much　new　technology　as　NASA　requires　to　be　developed　and　not　have　some　spillover　into　the　general　economy；　some　inventions　useful　down　here。　For　example；　the　powdered　orange　juice　substitute　Tang　was　a　product　of　the　manned　space　program；　and　spinoffs　have　occurred　in　cordless　tools；　implanted　cardiac　defibrillators；　liquid…cooled　garments；　and　digital　imaging—to　name　a　few。　But　they　hardly　justify　human　voyages　to　Mars　or　the　existence　of　NASA。

We　could　see　the　old　spinoff　engine　wheezing　and　puffing　in　the　waning　days　of　the　Reagan…era　Star　Wars　office。　Hydrogen　bomb…driven　X…ray　lasers　on　orbiting　battle　stations　will　help　perfect　laser　surgery；　they　told　us。　But　if　we　need　laser　surgery；　if　it's　a　high　national　priority；　by　all　means　let's　allocate　the　funds　to　develop　it。　just　leave　Star　Wars　out　of　it。　Spinoff　justifications　constitute　an　admission　that　the　program　can't　stand　on　its　own　two　feet；　cannot　be　justified　by　the　purpose　for　which　it　was　originally　sold。

Once　upon　a　time　it　was　thought；　on　the　basis　of　econometric　models；　that　for　every　dollar　invested　in　NASA　many　dollars　were　pumped　into　the　U。S。　economy。　If　this　multiplier　effect　applied　more　to　NASA　than　to　most　government　agencies；　it　would　provide　a　potent　fiscal　and　social　justification　for　the　space　program。　NASA　supporters　were　not　shy　about　appealing　to　this　argument。　But　a　1994　Congressional　Budget　Office　study　found　it　to　be　a　delusion。　While　NASA　spending　benefits　some　production　segments　of　the　U。S。　economy—especially　the　aerospace　industry—there　is　no　preferential　multiplier　effect。　Likewise；　while　NASA　spending　certainly　creates　or　maintains　jobs　and　profits；　it　does　so　no　more　efficiently　than　many　other　government　agencies。

Then　there's　education；　an　argument　that　has　proved　from　time　to　time　very　attractive　in　the　White　House。　Doctorates　in　science　peaked　somewhere　around　the　time　of　Apollo　11；　maybe　even　with　the　proper　phase　lag　after　the　start　of　the　Apollo　program。　The　cause…and…effect　relationship　is　perhaps　undemonstrated；　although　not　implausible。　But　so　what？　If　we're　interested　in　improving　education；　is　going　to　Mars　the　best　route？　Think　of　what　we　could　do　with　100　billion　for　teacher　training　and　salaries；　school　laboratories　and　libraries；　scholarships　for　disadvantaged　students；　research　facilities；　and　graduate　fellowships。　Is　it　really　true　that　the　best　way　to　promote　science　education　is　to　go　to　Mars？

Another　argument　is　that　human　missions　to　Mars　will　occupy　the　military…industrial　plex；　diffusing　the　temptation　to　use　its　considerable　political　muscle　to　exaggerate　external　threats　and　pump　up　defense　funding。　The　other　side　of　this　particular　coin　is　that　by　going　to　Mars　we　maintain　a　standby　technological　capacity　that　might　be　important　for　future　military　contingencies。　Of　course；　we　might　simply　ask　those　guys　to　do　something　directly　useful　for　the　civilian　economy。　But　as　we　saw　in　the　1970s　with　Grumman　buses　and　Boeing/Vertol　muter　trains；　the　aerospace　industry　experiences　real　difficulty　in　producing　petitively　for　the　civilian　economy。　Certainly　a　tank　may　travel　1；000　miles　a　year　and　a　bus　1；000　miles　a　week；　so　the　basic　designs　must　be　different。　But　on　matters　of　reliability　at　least；　the　Defense　Department　seems　to　be　much　less　demanding。

Cooperation　in　space；　as　I've　already　mentioned；　is　being　an　instrument　of　international　cooperation—for　example；　in　slowing　the　proliferation　of　strategic　weapons　to　new　nations。　Rockets　demissioned　because　of　the　end　of　the　Cold　War　might　be　gainfully　employed　in　missions　to　Earth　orbit；　the　Moon；　the　planets；　asteroids；　and　ets。　But　all　this　can　be　acplished　without　human　missions　to　Mars。

Other　justifications　are　offered。　It　is　argued　that　the　ultimate　solution　to　world　energy　problems　is　to　strip…mine　the　Moon；　return　the　solar…wind…implanted　helium…3　back　to　Earth；　and　use　it　in　fusion　reactors。　What　fusion　reactors？　Even　if　this　were　possible；　even　if　it　were　cost…effective；　it　is　a　technology　50　or　100　years　away。　Our　energy　problems　need　to　be　solved　at　a　less　leisurely　pace。

Even　stranger　is　the　argument　that　we　have　to　send　human　beings　into　space　in　order　to　solve　the　world　population　crisis。　But　some　250；000　more　people　are　born　than　die　every　day—

which　means　cans　that　we　would　have　to　launch　250；000　people　per　day　into　space　to　maintain　world　population　at　its　present　levels。　This　appears　to　be　beyond　our　present　capability。



I　RUN　THROUGH　such　a　list　and　try　to　add　up　the　pros　and　cons；　bearing　in　mind　the　other　urgent　claims　on　the　federal　budget。　To　me；　the　argument　so　far　es　down　to　this　question：　Can　the　sum　of　a　large　number　of　individually　inadequate　Justifications　add　up　to　an　adequate　justification？

I　don't　think　any　of　the　items　on　my　list　of　purported　justifications　is　demonstrably　worth　500　billion　or　even　100　billion；　certainly　not　in　the　short　term。　On　the　other　hand；　most　of　them　are　worth　something；　and　if　I　have　five　items　each　worth　20　billion；　maybe　it　adds　up　to　100　billion。　If　we　can　be　clever　about　reducing　costs　and　making　true　international　partnerships；　the　justifications　bee　more　pelling。

Until　a　national　debate　on　this　topic　has　transpired；　until　we　have　a　better　idea　of　the　rationale　and　the　cost/benefit　ratio　of　human　missions　to　Mars；　what　should　we　do？　My　suggestion　is　that　we　pursue　research　and　development　projects　that　can　be　justified　on　their　own　merits　or　by　their　relevance　to　other　goals；　but　that　can　also　contribute　to　human　missions　to　Mars　should　we　later　decide　to　go。　Such　an　agenda　would　include：

·U。S。　astronauts　on　the　Russian　space　station　Mir　for　joint　flights　of　gradually　increasing　duration；　aiming　at　one　to　two　years；　the　Mars　flight　time。

·Configuration　of　the　international　space　station　so　its　principal　function　is　to　study　the　long…term　effects　of　the　space　environment　on　humans。

·Early　implementation　of　a　rotating　or　tethered　〃artificial　gravity〃　module　on　the　international　space　station；　for　other　animals　and　then　for　humans。

·Enhanced　studies　of　the　Sun；　including　a　distributed　set　of　robot　probes　in　orbit　about　the　Sun；　to　monitor　solar　activity　and　give　the　earliest　possible　warning　to　astronauts　of　hazardous　〃solar　flares〃—mass　ejections　of　electrons　and　protons　from　the　Sun's　corona。

·U。S。/Russian　and　multilateral　development　of　Energiya　and　Proton　rocket　technology　for　the　U。S。　and　international　space　programs。　Although　the　United　States　is　unlikely　to　depend　primarily　on　a　Soviet　booster；　Energiya　has　roughly　the　lift　of　the　Saturn　V　that　sent　the　Apollo　astronauts　to　the　Moon。　The　United　States　let　the　Saturn　V　assembly　line　die；　and　it　cannot　readily　be　resuscitated。　Proton　is　the　most　reliable　large　booster　now　in　service。　Russia　is　eager　to　sell　this　technology　for　hard　currency。

·Joint　projects　with　NASDA　（the　Japanese　space　agency）　and　Tokyo　University；　the　European　Space　Agency；　and　the　Russian　Space　Agency；　along　with　Canada　and　other　nations。　In　most　cases　these　should　be　equal　partnerships；　not　the　United　States　insisting　on　calling　the　shots。　For　the　robotic　exploration　of　Mars；　such　programs　are　already　under　way。　For　human　flight；　the　chief　such　activity　is　clearly　the　international　space　station。　Eventually；　we　might　muster　joint　simulated　planetary　missions　in　low　Earth　orbit。　One　of　the　principal　objectives　of　these　programs　should　be　to　build　a　tradition　of　cooperative　technical　excellence。

·Technological　development—using　state…of…the…art　robotics　and　artificial　intelligence—of　rovers；　balloons；　and　aircraft　for　the　exploration　of　Mars；　and　implementation　of　the　first　international　return　sample　mission。　Robotic　spacecraft　that　can　return　samples　from　Mars　can　be　tested　on　near…Earth　asteroids　and　the　Moon。　Samples　returned　from　carefully　selected　regions　of　the　Moon　can　have　their　ages　determined　and　contribute　in　a　fundamental　way　to　our　understanding　of　the　early　history　of　the　Earth。

·Further　development　of　technologies　to　manufacture　fuel　and　oxidizer　out　of　Martian　materials。　In　one　estimate；　based　on　a　prototype　instrument　designed　by　Robert　Zubrin　and　colleagues　at　the　Martin　Marietta　Corporation；　several　kilograms　of　Martian　soil　can　be　automatically　returned　to　Earth　using　a　modest　and　reliable　Delta　launch　vehicle；　all　for　no　more　than　a　song　（paratively　speaking）。

·Simulations　on　Earth　of　long…duration　trips　to　Mars；　concentrating　on　potential　social　and　psychological　problems。

·Vigorous　pursuit　of　new　technologies　such　as　constant…thrust　propulsion　to　get　us　to　Mars　quickly；　this　may　be　essential　if　the　radiation　or　microgravity　hazards　make　one…year　（or　longer）　flight　times　too　risky。

·Intensive　study　of　near…Earth　asteroids；　which　may　provide　superior　intermediate…timescale　objectives　for　human　exploration　than　does　the　Moon。

·A　greater　emphasis　on　science—including　the　fundamental　sciences　behind　space　exploration；　and　the　thorough　analysis　of　data　already　obtained—by　NASA　and　other　space　agencies。

These　remendations　add　up　to　a　fraction　of　the　full　cost　of　a　human　mission　to　Mars　and—spread　out　over　a　decade　or　so　and　done　jointly　wit