COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\input kermac
C00012 00003	\yyskip
C00013 ENDMK
C⊗;
\input kermac
\ctrline{RENEWING THE SPACE PROGRAM}

\vskip .5cm
\noindent Goals
\yskip

	Much of the justification of the space program has been from
two considerations -- scientific discovery and practical return.  Since
space activities are very expensive, it has had to compete with other
means of advancing science and getting useful technology, and the Congress
has often been skeptical.

	Many Americans are disappointed that the space program has slowed
down after its initial fast start, but it is neither a lack of scientific
discovery nor a lack of economic return that disturbs us.

	Rather we are disappointed that there is no permanent space
station yet, that there has been no manned expedition to a planet,
and perhaps most of all that it appears that only space professionals will
be able to visit even low earth orbit in our lifetimes.

	In short, part of our space goals are exploration as distinct
from scientific discovery, the possibility of colonization and the
creation of a new frontier, and the possibility of personally experiencing
weightlessness and the other phenomena of a space environment.
Besides that, we are glad to take part in the achievement of the
goal of space exploration.

	I believe that enough Americans share these goals (or can
be persuaded to do so) to support a space program much larger than
can be justified by scientific or practical considerations alone.
Therefore, it is important to express these goals explicitly
in appealing for public and Congressional support.
Moreover, part of the recent change in public mood is likely to
make it more receptive to such nationally assertive goals than in the
recent past.

	More concretely, the public should be asked

	1. Do you want space colonies in your lifetime?

	2. Do you want the opportunity to visit a space station?

	3. Do you think that humanity should be more dispersed in
space, so it will survive even if the earth is damaged by war?

	4. Should there be a frontier in space where people and
groups can lead less regulated lives.

	etc.

\noindent Technology

	The NASA policy of supporting only technology that is needed
for approved missions has been robbing the future for very short
term considerations.  There needs to be a strong program in basic
space technology not tied to present missions.  A billion dollars
a year could be profitably so spent, especially since it would have
substantial secondary applications.  Examples of such technologies
are ion and other electrical rockets, nuclear rockets, a single stage
to orbit rocket, laser powered rockets, maximally austere life
support systems, maximally austere colonization systems.

\noindent Mission Style

	The space program might have accomplished more if it were
more adventurous.  Astronauts would accept the situation of an
eighteenth or nineteenth century explorer, which may become a more
appropriate model than the situation of a test pilot of a new aircraft.

	We should consider one
way missions.  It would seem that the resources that delivered
two men to the moon and provided for their immediate return could
have sent enough mass to the moon so that one or two men could
live there for many years -- supplied by smaller rockets
until the technology advanced to the point where it was convenient
to bring them back.  Thus we might only now be bringing
back the first moon expedition.

	The O'Neill proposals have attracted much support to the
space program.  However, at least in their original form they were
at the extreme of luxury - proposing to put enormous mass into space
so that people could live idyllic rural lives.  The other extreme
needs to be explored first.  Namely, what is the minimum mass
required to support a man in a self-sustaining way.  I know no
proof that it is an order of magnitude more than the
mass of the man himself - if only survival with the ability
to work is required.

\noindent Remote and Automatic Control

	We cannot count on replacing human decision-making ability
in space by computer controlled robots in the next twenty to fifty
years.  Basic scientific discoveries are needed before computer
programs can be made with and degree of ``common sense''.  Nevertheless,
the present state of the art of remote control and artificial
intelligence can make large contributions to the exploration of
the planets and other difficult environoments.

	As Minsky and I advocated in 1965, it is necessary to
change the notion of a planetary probe from a collection of
experiments sharing transportation, power and communication to
a notion of a computer with sensors and effectors, i.e. a robot.
According to the new notion, an experiment is a program using
the sensors and effectors, and new programs can be made on the
basis of the results of the first programs.

	Mobility of landers is important, could have been achieved
in the Viking mission, and would have enhanced it greatly.  It would
have only required that the arm be able to extend an anchor
connected to a winch.

\noindent Private Enterprise

	Once profitable private investments in manned space are possible,
then the rate of progress can be increased greatly.  The proposed
Solar Power Satellite may provide one such opportunity.  We should
The orbital hotel has the advantage that it will provide motivation
to many more people than turn out to be able to actually afford it.

\noindent Conclusion

	The ideas in this memorandum don't pretend to constitute a
program and are presented more concretely than they would be if there
were time to generalize them.  The object has been to indicate that
a future space program might well be quite different than a simple
continuation of the immediate past.
\yyskip
\noindent
John McCarthy\hfill \linebreak
Computer Science Department\hfill \linebreak
Stanford University\hfill \linebreak
Stanford, CA 94305\hfill \linebreak

ARPAnet: MCCARTHY\@ SU-AI\hfill \linebreak

This document is SPACE.TEX[W81,JMC] at SU-AI.\hfill \linebreak

\vfill\end