tries not participating would have substantial reasons to block or attempt to block the development of the SPS.” On the other hand about 12% of the respondents felt that the SPS’s development could cultivate international cooperation. And one individual reflected another trend of popular sentiment: “. . .regarding the SPS, I hope we don’t end up giving away the system a la the Panama Canal!” On the other hand, the responses received by the L-5 Society to its mailings were much more positive towards the SPS concept. Of the 850 responses reported by the L-5 Society, about 83% were favorable regarding the potential of the SPS concept as a major energy source. This result generally reflected the view of many L-5 members that the SPS could serve as a “driver” for space exploration; that is, for the members of this group who generally advocate human settlements in space, the SPS is a stepping stone to the stars. The impacts of power satellites on the environment was thought to be moderate by 60% of L-5's respondents; another 37% thought the impacts would be insignificant, while 1% considered the impacts “intolerable.” The SPS was seen as clean, of low impact, and safely “off the Earth” by its supporters. The critics thought it would have unknon impacts, would be damaging — many cited microwave worries — or would deplete Earth resources in construction. Radio-TV interference and a lack of space in the geostationary earth orbit were also cited. Regarding the costs of the SPS, 30% of L-5’s respondents felt that the SPS would be cheap, 65% saw the costs as being tolerable, and 3% felt the price tag was too high. The SPS idea was described by some commenters as a feasible energy technology that would provide a clean, constant, unlimited energy supply forever. Added benefits were an employment source, an opportunity for free enterprise, and a method of expanding resource development into space. In opposition, the SPS was regarded as an unsure or infeasible energy technology that would be expensive, unreliable, and take too long to develop. When asked who should develop the SPS, the top-ranked answers included: federal agencies, combinations of government and industry, private industry, and international units (in that order of preference). Since national rivalries and international bureaucratization could become a major hindrance to SPS development, many saw international ownership of the SPS as a desirable option. When asked about the need for international cooperation on the SPS, 63% welcomed it as an opportunity for peaceful cooperation, 30% thought it would be an unwelcomed problem, and 5% thought it would kill the project. Generally, though, the L-5 respondents seemed to feel that international involvement means complications for sure, but possible rewards for the earth as a whole. It was also acknowledged that the SPS has military implications, but that fact was seen as having both positive and negative aspects. When asked about the possibility that power satellites may form the basis of sophisticated weapons systems, 13% thought this to be an advantage, 55% thought this would be no problem, and 31% considered this a major concern. It was also the sentiment of respondents that a mechanism was needed to assure nonaggressive use of the SPS. Amid the social comments, there were those seeing the SPS as a thing to excite the nation, leading off to a New Frontier. On the other side, there was condemnation of technology and an assertion of the need to work on Earth problems first. Politically, the possibilities of a leadership role for the U.S., freedom from foreign rule, and energy self-sufficiency were noted as was power for the developing Third World. Stimulation of R&D funding, of high technology, of a future as unlimited as science fiction, was thought to derive from SPS development.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==