opportunity. There are possible associated uses for beam guidance - airplanes for example - and it should be possible to distribute the funding load for this research over many organizations. Perception of Science The perception of research projects, and therefore of all of science and engineering, is a very complex issue. The factors that interest the public are often not important scientifically, but must be addressed. Scientists have had bad experiences with being associated with “big science” before and will therefore be cautious about becoming involved with another “unlimited cheap energy” project, especially after the fiasco with cold fusion. A scientist is known by his work and would most likely avoid over-hyped projects for this reason. The program outlined in this report builds slowly on its successes and so avoids any single “huge leaps for mankind” that could ruin the organization in case of failure. To illustrate this, consider the cases of the Apollo, Hubble and Space Shuttle programs. In the 1960s the US invested huge sums of money in a program to send people to the moon. New technologies were developed from scratch for the project. The public only knew about the main factors involved - the basic mission and the success or failure of each part of the mission. As the public saw success, they approved of the project and the huge cost of the project became less important. This made scientists happy. Very happy. The Hubble Space Telescope was another mega-project, though not on the scale of Apollo. Here the public again expected a “success”. The initial problems with the mirror created the impression of a failed mission and, no matter how much work was done to improve the quality of subsequent images, it is consigned in the public's perception as a failure. The Shuttle, despite accomplishing few of its stated objectives of frequent launch and high scientific and commercial application, is perceived as a successful venture by the public. This shows how important the level of public knowledge of any project is. Because of the volatility of public opinion, scientists will be very careful about becoming associated with “big science”. This is particularly true in these days of shrinking budget. If the project is defined in terms of its long term goals alone, there must be a long-term financial commitment and good initial feasibility work. For a project driven largely by science it will be easy for scientists to utilize the capabilities of the platforms flown without having to associate themselves with enormous space structures proposed for fifty years in the future. Either way a significant scientific input in space power studies can be assured. Given current funding restrictions it appears as though the scientifically driven alternative is the more realistic. Conclusions The prospectus for the near term is quite straightforward. Proving technology and examining atmospheric properties on a small scale will meet with little opposition, and quite a bit of support from those in fields directly related. Good coordination in order to ensure real scientific content and open access to results are also important. The complex engineering tasks and management structures involved in ISPO could exist without significant scientific input, but this would be to ignore the possibilities for research that these activities offer, at least in the short term. Thus science can be used as a partial justification for ISPO's activities at this stage, and the results of research as a significant part of the payback. In the longer term ISPO will have a reduced scientific content, and at this stage its funding must be seen to be independent of other scientific budgets and any scientific participation will probably be limited to exploiting the large constructions in space. Experiments related to space power could be carried out within ISPO or with the help of outside scientists acting as consultants to the organization, while others will still be free to suggest independent experiments on the platforms. 5.5.3 General Public The general public is important to the Space Solar Power Program because the support of the public is vital to the future and binding of such a project. Therefore, we must consider the reactions of the public, and take steps to educate the public about the Space Solar Power Program. We must also formulate policy to guide the educational and informational interactions of the ISPO with the public.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==