Against the backdrop of these sentiments, 26% of L-5’s respondents felt that public acceptance would be easily obtained while 72% thought it would be difficult, and 1% thought it would be impossible. Finally, the Forum for the Advancement of Students in Science & Technology compiled 304 written responses from students, faculty members, and professionals at 152 academic institutions in 40 states. Of these, approximately 50% indicated that they had no definite opinion on the SPS currently; 26% were unsure of their opinion or felt that further studies should be completed before they could form an opinion; 14% were definitely in support of the SPS concept; and 10% were definitely against the idea. The issues of vulnerability and control of the SPS were often raised in the written comments sent to FASST. There was much concern as to how well the SPS would stand up to either planned attacks from the enemy or natural disasters. Many felt that the SPS would require a defense mechanism to guard against possible attack but that its offensive capabilities should not be emphasized. Many of the respondents expressed the sense that a comparative assessment study was needed. Of particular concern was how SPS research would affect terrestrial solar research as well as how the two approaches match up against each other. There was also some concern that SPS funding would detract from fusion research and efforts to promote conservation. The recommendation from the participants was not to throw all funding commitments into SPS research, but that it should be a part of an overall research strategy. The problems associated with microwaves were seen as the most significant environmental hazard posed by the SPS. Those who were concerned about the effects of microwaves saw this problem to be a major “show-stopper” to the entire project. Impacts on the atmosphere were also frequently reported environmental concerns. The issue of centralization/decentralization generated considerable comment from the respondents — especially those who are opposed to the SPS’s construction. The implication that the SPS will require a strong centralized system similar to “big oil” companies and “utility monopolies” was not considered to be a plus factor. An international structure for the SPS was endorsed by many; although the degree of difficulty involved in an international organization was not overlooked, many nonetheless felt that it was vital if the SPS is to succeed. A final thought on the societal implications of the SPS that was mentioned by more than a few students was: “Who will insure the 60 satellites if each is the size of Manhattan Island?” Following the tabulation of the responses received to the white paper summaries, CEP issued a report in April 1980 that provided a detailed overview of the comments received. This “Final Report” was sent to all 412 persons who had submitted comments on the white paper summaries; these persons were asked to submit their thoughts on CEP’s “Final Report.” Generally, the 42 comments received back on this document were positive. Many of these respondents offered suggestions on additional issues that should be considered by DOE in future outreach efforts on the SPS. These included a more detailed comparative assessment of the SPS with decentralized solar technologies, a more thorough discussion of some environmental impacts such as potential wea- ther/climate changes, and more economic data. Others offered thoughts on how public outreach efforts on the SPS should be structured in the future. Specific outreach mechanisms that were suggested included using news broadcasts, running articles in broad-circulation publications such as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==