Book 3   Unit 9

                                    Text A    Space Politics

It is expected that the discovery of possible life-forms from the planet Mars will revive public interest in space exploration. But is public support for the international space effort necessary, given that politicians seem determined to press ahead with it anyway?

The race to the moon, which was won by the Americans in 1969, was driven almost entirely by politics.The rivalry between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union meant that the two countries were determined to be the first to put a man on the moon. President John F. Kennedy promised that America would win this race and, as one of the most popular presidents in American history, he inspired a nation to think of space exploration as the ultimate test of America's superiority over her Soviet enemy.

America's success as the first nation to reach the moon, coupled with continuing Cold War rivalry, created much public support for the space programme and Washington was able to fund many more missions. During the 1970s, the moon was visited again, unmanned missions were sent to Mars and, for the first time, man-made craft were put on paths that would take them out of the solar system.

But, by the 1980s, public support for space exploration was declining. It faded almost entirely after the Challenger space shuttle disaster of 1986, and the U.S. government was under pressure to scale back its space programme. Politicians reacted by demanding cuts in spending, which put the future of many space missions in doubt.

In Russia, funding was also a problem. The end of the Soviet Union meant the country could no longer afford to sustain its space programme. In fact, spending became so tight that there was often not enough money to bring home astronauts working on the country's Mir space station.

But, in the last few years, politicians seem to have changed their attitude to space exploration, even though there is little evidence that the public have.New missions to Mars are planned, and plenty of money is being spent on other extraterrestrial activities. Last year, for instance, the U.S. spent more on space research and development than on any other area of research, except health and the military.

And spending is likely to increase in the coming years: currently, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is planning a number of missions to Mars, and it is pressing ahead with the most expensive space-exploration project ever undertaken -- the International Space Station. (Three years ago, this project -- a collaboration between the U.S., Canada, Russia, Europe and Japan -- came within one vote of being canceled by the American House of Representatives.)

And the Americans are not the only ones spending huge sums on space exploration. The Europeans, Canadians and Japanese are expected to spend $9 billion on their share of the space station, and Europe has already spent huge sums developing its Ariane rockets, the most recent of which -- Ariane 5 -- blew up shortly after it was launched. The Russians, too, claim they are committed to supporting the International Space Station -- an expense that country seems ill able to afford.

So, if there is little public support for space exploration, where does the impetus to fund these activities come from?Promoting the cause of science is one possible answer. But recently there has been considerable controversy over whether projects like the International Space Station have enough scientific value to merit the billions that have been and will be spent on it.

NASA's reasons for building the space station are''to develop new materials [and] technologies that will have immediate, practical applications''. However, for such research to be worthwhile, NASA needs private companies to develop (and help pay for) extraterrestrial research. Unfortunately, the cost of sending anything into orbit is so high that most private companies favour improving techniques on Earth.Significantly, NASA has so far not managed to get any substantial private investment to manufacture products in space.

The result is that the station seems, at present, to have only one concrete objective: research into how people can live and work safely and efficiently in space. But how important is this research? And can it possibly justify the cost of this huge orbiting laboratory?

The only purpose of studying how humans live and work in space would be to prepare for long-term space missions.At present, none are planned, and this seems unlikely to change in the near future.The main reasons for this are the costs. A manned mission to our nearest planetary neighbour Mars, for example, would cost around $400 billion. This is $50 billion more than Russi's present Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

And even if one accepts that this research is important, can it justify building a space station the size of 14 tennis courts,at a cost which is eventually expected to exceed $100 billion? Given the shortage of funds in many other areas of scientific research, it would seem not.

So why build it? There are good political reasons for doing so. It will provide work for the thousands of unemployed defence workers who depended on the Cold War for their jobs, and who make up a substantial proportion of voters in both Russia and the U.S. It will also help keep American/Russian ties strong-- another reason NASA believes the space station is a good investment. (Critics argue that there are far cheaper ways to keep the U.S. and Russia on good terms.)

And then there is the legacy of the Cold War.The Berlin Wall may have fallen, but NASA and the U.S. government still seem to believe in the ideal of one nation's superiority in space. Indeed, NASA describes the space station as''a powerful symbol of U.S. leadership''.

It seems that the world's politicians are caught in a time-warp.They still believe, as they did in the 1960s, that man must conquer space in order to prove he is master of his surroundings.If only it weren't so expensive. 

                             太空政治

    火星上可能存在生命的发现有望重新唤起公众对于外层空间探索的兴趣。但鉴于政治家们似乎已决心努力推进国际性的外层空间探索，公众对它的支持是否还有必要呢？

    1969年美国人获胜的那场登月竞赛几乎完全是受政治驱动的。美国和前苏联之间的竞争意味着两个国家都决心抢先将人送上月球。约翰·肯尼迪总统保证美国将赢得这场竞赛。作为美国历史上最得民心的总统之一，他激励国民将外层空间探索视为美国对其敌人苏联所具优势的最终考验。

    美国是第一个成功到达月球的国家，加上冷战竞赛持续不断，因而赢得了公众对太空计划的大力支持，华盛顿也就能够为更多的航天任务提供资金。20世纪70年代，又是再次登月，又是往火星发送无人飞船，又是将人造飞船首次送上飞离太阳系的轨道。

    但是，到了80年代，公众对于外层空间探索的支持已日见衰退。在1986年“挑战者”号航天飞机遇难之后，这种支持便几乎完全消失了，美国政府被迫必须缩减其太空计划。政治家们的反应是要求削减开支，这使得许多航天任务的前途变得渺茫。

    在俄罗斯，资金也是一个问题。苏联的解体意味着这个国家再也无力维持其太空计划。事实上，经费十分紧缺，经常没有钱将在该国“和平”号空间站上工作的宇航员接回家。
但是，近年来政治家们似乎改变了他们对于外层空间探索的态度，尽管公众并没有表现出什么改变的迹象。新的火星之行计划已经制订，大量资金正用于其它的外星活动。例如，去年美国花费在太空研究和开发上的资金就超过了除保健和军事之外的其它任何领域。
在今后几年中花费的资金很可能增加：目前，国家航空航天局正在计划多次飞往火星的航天任务，还在努力推进一项有史以来耗资最多的外层空间探索计划---国际空间站。（三年前，这项计划---美国、加拿大、俄罗斯、欧洲和日本之间的一项合作----以一票之差险些被美国众议院取消。）

    在外层空间探索上花费巨资的并不只有美国人。预计欧洲人、加拿大人和日本人在他们分工负责的空间站上要支出90亿美元，而欧洲已经花费巨资研制阿丽亚娜火箭，其中最近的一枚---阿丽亚娜五号---发射后不久即发生爆炸。俄罗斯人也声称他们将不遗余力地支持国际空间站，但看来这笔钱该国并无能力承担。

    如果公众对于外层空间探索不予支持，那么资助这些活动的动力从何而来呢？促进科学事业的发展是一种可能的回答。但是，对于国际空间站之类的计划所具有的科学价值是否抵得上已经投入和将要投入的几十亿美元花费，最近争议颇多。

    国家航空航天局建立宇宙空间站的理由是“开发具有直接的实际用途的新材料[和]新技术”。但是，要使这样的研究真正有用，国家航空航天局需要私营公司去开展（并出资）宇宙研究。遗憾的是，将任何东西送上轨道的费用极高，大多数私营公司都宁可在地球上改进技术。值得注意的是，国家航空航天局迄今尚未获得任何可观的私人投资在太空中制造产品.
结果，这个空间站眼下似乎只有一个具体目标：研究人们如何在太空中安全高效地生活和工作。但这项研究有何重要性呢？这项研究能够证明这个大型轨道实验室值得花钱去造吗？
研究人们如何在太空中生活和工作的唯一目的将是为长期的宇宙飞行任务作准备。目前，还没有这类长期计划，而这种情况在近期内看来也不可能改变。其中的主要原因是费用。例如，一次前往我们最近的行星邻居火星的载人飞行就要耗资约4,000亿美元。这比俄罗斯现在的国内生产总值还要多500亿美元。

    即使有人承认这项研究是重要的，是否就有理由建造一个最终耗资预期超过1,000亿美元、面积有14个网球场那样大的空间站呢？鉴于其它许多科研领域资金匮乏，这样做似乎没有理由。

    那为什么还要建造呢？这样做有很多政治上的理由。它将为以前靠冷战得到工作而现在失业的数以千计的国防工作人员提供工作，而这些人在俄罗斯和美国的选民中都占有相当大的比例。它还将有助于加强美俄关系---这是国家航空航天局认为空间站是一项有益投资的另一个原因。（批评家们认为要保持美俄友好关系有低廉得多的办法。）

    除此之外还有冷战留下的后遗症。柏林墙也许已经倒塌，但是国家航空航天局和美国政府似乎仍然信奉一国称霸太空的理想。事实上，国家航空航天局把空间站描述为“美国领导地位的有力象征”。

    全世界的政治家们似乎犯了一种时间错位。他们仍像20世纪60年代时那样相信，为了证明自己是周围环境的主宰，人类就必须征服太空。但愿代价不那么昂贵就好了。