Imágenes de páginas

Some sort of interim space habitat seems, in my mind, appropriate and desirable whether Skylab survives or not. With a space habitat and storage facility available, the development and demonstration of large erectable space structures can be accelerated. These are common in concept to the needs of the immense solar power stations, direct broadcast antennas, and space colonies that are envisioned. In addition, solar power generation and transmission by microwave to the Earth can be demonstrated on a scaled basis, and the effects of prolonged periods of man living and working in space could be evaluated in greater depth. In parallel, new propulsion systems, the ion engine as an example, can be developed and refined to provide not only the ability to move large structures from low Earth orbit to higher geostationary orbit, but also to propel planetary or comet rendezvous spacecraft. Now that we have an efficient low Earth orbit transportation system, we need companion, reusable low-cost systems to take us from low to high orbits and beyond.

This approach is, of course, not original with me. But it does make eminently good sense to me. The logic of taking small steps forward on a methodical and economical basis to develop and demonstrate the tools and technology required for multiple rather than single major objectives seems clear. I believe that Congress and the administration will understand that such technology programs do not always require the substantiation of a specific end product prior to approval, even though the technology programs are themselves ambitious.

To this point, I have discussed our capabilities, our varied choices, the need for balance without undue compromise and the benefit of resource continuity on a long-term basis. We need also to address how, with so many choices matched with so many constraints, we go about the process of selecting individual programs within the framework of a total affordable program. My criteria for our future space program is relatively uncomplicated and probably offers little that is new to this committee or to NASA. It would center on three basis questions:

Are the programs straightforward extensions of concepts which are understood and of proven value, intangible as well as tangible, to society?

Are the technology initiatives broad enough to serve a variety, rather than one of the new more ambitious concepts, the true potential of which remains to be determined?

Are the programs in the aggregate affordable now and in the foreseeable future, based on projections, up or down, of the national economy? Would the investment improve the economy?

With respect to where we proceed, it seems to me that NASA has the broad outline of a logical plan that can carry us for some years to come in the form of the "Outlook For Space" study. I suggest that this committee ask that the study be reviewed, updated and refined to reflect a basic roadmap for NASA activity during the next 5 to 10 years. Once prepared, perhaps in time for next year's budget cycle, NASA could present its plan to the Office of Management and Budget and Congress to whatever depth is required to achieve tacit agreement on not only fiscal year 1980, but the thrust through at least the next 5 years or so. Obviously, there will be changes in both approach and resource availability. And it will require periodic update. But

the fundamental plan will exist and its implications will be understood. Such an approach would tend to give the space program a continuity of content and direction, with few surprises to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, and, hopefully, few reversals of planned new starts. I believe we would all benefit significantly. And I believe this committee has the stature, insight and knowledge to bring it about.

Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement.

Mr. FUQUA. Thank you very much, Mr. Adams. I would hope that you could stay to participate in some questions that I am sure will be forthcoming as soon as we finish with the other two witnesses. Mr. ADAMS. I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. FUQUA. Thank you very much for your fine statement.

I would like to correct an error on my part. The next witness is Barbara Hubbard, who is with the Committee for the Future. We are happy to have you here.


Ms. HUBBARD. I would like to submit a statement for the record and I will read from and excerpt it.

[The prepared statement of Barbara Marx Hubbard is as follows:]


The great issues of freedom have risen imperceptibly, first in the minds of a few, then among networks of the concerned, then finally under deep pressures, burst upon the scene bringing forth new leaders, movements, debate, struggle * gaining new opportunity for all.

So it was with freedom vs. monarchy; freedom vs. slavery; freedom vs. the tyranny of hunger, disease, and unemployment.

Now, in our time, there has emerged the greatest issue of freedom ever faced consciously-an issue which contains all others: the freedom to develop our full capacities as a species by opening the High Frontier—an unlimited, nonterrestrial resource base for humanity *** or restriction, adaptation to limits, increased control of our lives.

This issue is rising in our time because we are the first generation to be confronted by planetary limits of energy, resources, jobs, land, air, water * * * and we are the first to have the capacity to reach beyond these limits for an immeasurable future.

We did not choose the issue. But we cannot choose to avoid it. We are at an evolutionary crossroad. If we fail to respond to the crisis of limits NOW, the drain upon remaining vital resources of Earth will accelerate. Costs will rise. Human needs will increase, leaving us with decreasing capacity to commit the necessary resources to gain a productive base in our extended home, the universe. Therefore, I believe that the United States, in cooperation with all others who so choose, should commit, at the earliest possible date to a new national goal, an over-arching objective of sufficient attraction and human benefit to rally the knowledge, resources and public support. That goal is:

The opening of the high frontier-the establishment of the first non-terrestrial, productive base by the year 2000 for human benefit through the use of resources beyond the biosphere of Earth.

This goal is different in kind from any interim step no matter how vital. It gains access to non-terrestrial rather than terrestrial resources. It secures for us an operating base in the universe without further depleting Earth. The key is the industrial development of space itself using raw materials available from the moon and asteroids plus energy from the sun to supply energy and materials to Earth, as well as eventually people in space.

This means a "new deal" for the human species * overcoming scarcity without damaging the environment. We need not fight over limited resources, but we can work together to create new resources.

Here is the possibility of fulfilling the dream of the Declaration of Independence that all people are created equal. Perhaps, for the first time in history that dream can become a pragmatic reality.

The economic benefits of this goal, if proven feasible technologically, are unlimited. Unknown. It is an investment in the infinite.

We must not sabotage our future by demanding premature certainty. It is an evolutionary necessity to take some calculated risks. But the greater risk lies in not studying this goal now. The real danger is that we may lose our chance to evolve. The real danger is that we may become a limited species trapped in a closing system.

We are not proposing a reckless leap into the unknown. We are calling for deliberate research and development to study this goal now. Those involved stress the absolute necessity for self-correction as we learn what works and what does not. Provability is the key to technological innovation.

Furthermore, opening the High Frontier includes many key incremental steps proposed by others. By establishing an overarching objective it provides rational criteria with which to evaluate the many contending interim objectives, each with their supporters, none of which are in themselves sufficiently dynamic to win out in the battle for funds. None of the worthy milestones are of sufficient benefit alone to give direction, continuity, and purpose to the space program as a whole. The development of the High Frontier gives a profound and unending rationale for each needed step, as it emerges. Each step becomes a step to somewhere rather than nowhere.

The goal of opening the High Frontier gives birth to a world dream, a positive vision of our common future, an unlimited horizon for our children * idea that every parent can understand.

In Culture and Commitment, Margaret Mead said,


"We must place the future, like the unborn child in the womb of a woman, within the community of men, women and children, among us, already here, already to be nourished and succored and protected, already in need of things for which, if they are not prepared before it is born, it will be too late. So, as the young say, The future is Now."

The attitude I take is one of expanded parenthood. That is what futurism really means, and that is what a commitment to this goal will stimulate. An attitude of faith and hope in the potential not just of our own children, but of our world.

This attitude of hope for our species will transform history. Our image of the future is a propelling power. Dr. Edward Lindaman said at a Foothill Community College Symposium in 1976:

"The believer not only interprets history, but above all, he changes it, because he believes, because he hopes, Human freedom is the pivot of the historical event. Via human freedom, grace (the unmerited inflowing of power from God) is able to change history itself.

Freedom means being able to participate in the creation of our own future." The ultimate benefits of this goal are intangible, perhaps spiritual is the right word. I believe we will become closer to the creative intention of the universe as we learn to participate consciously in designing new worlds beyond the womb of our Mother Earth.

However, the immediate benefits of this goal will be high. Such a national commitment may not be the full answer to any problem but it may prove to be, I believe, the extra, missing element to many of our most intractible problemspoverty, war, energy, the gap between the developed and developing worlds. It will have pragmatic social and economic benefits, such as greater and more meaningful employment, a cleaner environment, a noninflationary stimulus to the economy, new initiatives for international cooperation, new models for social cooperation, new incentives for education, research and development.

A recent Harris poll on public attitudes as to what will make this country great in the future found at the top of the list "scientific research." An amazing "91 percent believe it will be a major factor in America's future success." Technological genius and industrial know-how are considered a key by 78-80 percent. This new goal will help us relearn the capacity to say yes. Yes, we can do it. The challenge of the High Frontier can stimulate the recreation of the movement for the future, the fundamental faith of the American people. Our ancestors were

the frustrated, the poor, the divinely discontent people from all races and cultures. That is our greatness. Not comfort. Not affluence, Transcendence. The capacity to overcome obstacles to life and create a better future.

As Hubert Humphrey said at the last dinner given in his honor: "If America fails, humanity fails."

If we embrace this new goal to develop the High Frontier, we will not only re-invigorate the spirit of the future, but the meaning of freedom everywhere. We all accept the idea that freedom is the right not to be constrained. But freedom means too the opportunity to do our best. Experientially, freedom lives at the edge of the possible, between the known and the unknown, beckoning individual potential.

Perhaps most important in the long run is the significance of how the High Frontier is developed by those who believe in democratic institutions and individual rights *** or those who do not the difference between the effect of the Mayflower settlers and the Conquistadores upon the New World that this continent once was.

It is vital that democracies thoughout the world join in closer cooperation to pioneer the High Frontier. This new basis for unity of free people is not in conflict with cooperation with the Soviet Union. But it will remagnetize and enhance the idea of freedom in the human mind, where the fundamental revolutions occur. The way to overcome all tyrannies is to reinvigorate democracy.

What will make it happen? How is a goal of this magnitude established? Some day only catastrophe or extreme competition will move people to new action. I believe we can decide on our own free will. But this has yet to be tested. A democracy has never been required consciously to commit to a positive social goal of this long range benefit and unknown potential.

Others say it is inevitable that we will go into space, and that we are proceeding, therefore nothing more is needed. But I fear this not so. The present Administration appears not to see value in the High Frontier goal. Serious cut backs in the Shuttle and in advanced planning are threatened. It is common knowledge that the President has set up a Committee to establish national goals in space. It operates in secrecy. I urge the Committee on Science and Technology to flush out this information. Before the President publically commits to any position, it is vital that he hear the new information from those who fully understand it. Furthermore, while there is substantial NASA support for the High Frontier goal at the working level, there is active opposition at the NASA Administrative level. Therefore support tends to go underground. People are loathe to speak in public for fear of contradicting the official posiiton. Please take this into account. The aerospace industries are dependent on the attitude of their prime customer, NASA, and are also afraid to step beyond the negative position, even when they believe it strongly.

To overcome this inertia we can only look to the people who have a vented interest in the future, to grass roots action, to a citizens' movement for the High Frontier, and to the Congress, which is sensitive to new ideas from the people. From my eight (8) years experience in citizens action in the Committee for the Future I have noticed a remarkable change in public attitude very recently, since the Bicentennial. There seems to be a reawakened faith in our future and confidence in ourselves.

A citizens movement for the high frontier is now forming with networks of concerned citizens in major fields of endeavor. New citizens groups are appearing, joining with the "ancient" Committee for the Future (1970) in this great task, such as the L-5 Society, the National Space Institute, the High Frontier Foundation and most recently the Ad Hoc Committee for House Concurrent Resolution 451 and 447.

The advocates for the future have been given their first instrument for politi. cal action in the resolution introduced by Olin Teague, with a companion resolution introduced by Barbara Mikulski, Lindy Boggs, and David Stockman. The operative clauses of the resolution are:

"The Congress hereby encourages and instructs all pertinent legislative com. mittees and executive agencies to determine how they may most effectively act in cooperation with each other and with the leadership of both Houses and with the President to achieve these urgent national goals.

"To assist in these efforts the Office of Technology Assessment specifically is requested to organize and manage a thorough study and analysis to determine the feasibility, potential consequences, advantages and disadvantages of developing as a national goal for the year 2000 the first manned structures in space for

the conversion of solar energy and other extraterrestrial resources to the peaceable and practical use of human beings everywhere."

For this study to have real meaning and to provide results which would actually permit the Congress to commit to such a national goal, it should include both a comprehensive evaluation of the social desirability and the initial critical technological research and development.

There is great value in the soft sciences study. We must learn to look at long range goals in a "wholistic" way, involving all impacted sectors of society, seeking "synergistic" benefits. We cannot solve critical problems of energy, environment, economy, etc. on a short-term, single issue basis. To continue to patch up the existing situation of increasing scarcity with stopgap solutions is deadly. Nor should we try to back into the future, pretending we are not changing, thereby excluding the majority of people from becoming involved in the decisionmaking process. Negative as well as positive views must be aired, and the dialogue must be open. This study could serve as a new model of future-oriented decision-making. In that alone it would make a real contribution.

However, if we are serious, it is also necessary to commit adequate funds for the Technical R & D to judge feasibility and to compare costs of alternative approaches, such as terrestrial based vs. non-terrestrial based solar energy. In summation, I specifically urge the Committee on Science and Technology to:

1. Vigorously support the shuttle, resisting any effort by the Administration to cut it back.

2. Increase NASA's capacity for long range planning.

3. Take expeditious action on Resolution 451 & 447 by calling hearings on it and rallying support in the House for its early passage.

4. Call together immediately following this hearing a task force of members of the Committee along with interested competent citizens and appropriate members of OTA and other interested members of Congress to design the study which the resolution requests. (Toward that end we know several well qualified individuals who could serve in an advisory capacity to OTA.)

If the High Frontier Resolution is acted upon favorably it will become a seed of a Magna Carta for the Future, extending the freedom of humanity. It states: "this tiny Earth is not humanity's prison, but is in fact only part of a vast, expanding system rich in extraterrestrial opportunities as yet far beyond our comprehension * * * high frontier which irrestibly beckons ***"

Why should we be less than those who came before us? The torch of freedom has been passed generation to generation-from Pericles Funeral Oration, to the Magna Carta, to the Declaration of Independence, to the Emancipation Proclamation and the Four Freedoms. Now it is our turn to carry forward with the High Frontier Resolution-which may become the next step for freedom.

Ms. HUBBARD. The great issues of freedom have risen imperceptibly, first in the minds of a few, then among networks of the concerned, and then finally have burst upon the scene bringing forth new leaders, movements, debate, struggle, and new opportunity for all.

So it was with freedom versus monarchy; versus slavery; versus the tyranny of hunger, disease, and unemployment.

Now, in our time, there has emerged the greatest issue of freedom ever faced consciously: The freedom to develop our full capacities as a species by opening t he high frontier-an unlimited nonterrestrial resources base for humanity-or restriction, adaptation to limits, increased control of our lives.

The issue is rising in our time because we are the first generation to be confronted by planetary limits of energy, resources, jobs, and we are the first to have the capacity to reach beyond these limits for an immeasurable future.

We did not choose the issue. But we cannot choose to avoid it. If we fail to respond to the crisis of limits now, the drain upon remaining vital resources of Earth will accelerate. Costs will rise. Human needs will increase, leaving us with decreasing capacity to commit the necessary resources to gain a productive base in our extended home, the universe.

« AnteriorContinuar »