The
words of one can change the minds of many.
What do you believe? What do you
just think you believe, but don’t really, when push comes to shove? People,
especially scientists, can get caught up in the intellectual debate and lose
sight of what they are trying to prove. Sometimes all it takes is a simple
question, asked by a person with unique experience and insight, to get people
to examine their core beliefs and, if they are honest, admit they were wrong. I
experienced such a moment a few years ago at a Mars exploration meeting hosted
by the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas.
The conference was all about finding
innovative new ways to support our exploration of Mars. Being selected to
attend was competitive. A call went out for those interested in attending to send
in an abstract describing a new approach, technology, or system that could be
used in the future exploration of Mars. People submitted ideas for new types of
rockets and propulsion systems, creative methods for taking landers and rovers
to and from the surface of the planet, new science instruments that were
lighter weight or required less power, etc. My abstract described how something
called an Electric Sail might be used to reduce the cost and flight time of
future robotic spacecraft traveling from Earth to Mars. It was accepted, and I
was among the hundreds of scientists and engineers that converged on Houston
for the three-day event.
As is typical for big meetings like this, there was a plenary session on the (space) age old debate, “it is better to explore Mars with robots or people?” There were more than three hundred people attending this plenary, most of whom were space scientists and engineers who, over the last several days, had been presenting or listening to others present their ideas and concepts. Everyone was primed for intellectual sparring.
The panelists debating the topic
were on a stage in the front of the room. The discussion had become heated,
with members of each side providing evidence making their case. What struck me
was both sides’ seeming inability to understand how anyone could possibly not
agree with them. After all, they had presented data supporting their
view. Having worked in aerospace for decades, I had heard the arguments and
read articles and papers on the topic. Not much new was being said.
Sitting in front of the auditorium,
facing the stage and the panelists, was a single, empty chair with a white sign
on its back saying that the seat was reserved for someone with a four-letter
name—Buzz. It did not remain empty for long.
From the front left-side entrance, the
person for whom the seat was reserved entered the room. That person was, of
course, Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. He paused, for effect
I think, before he strode forward and took his seat. Since I was not fully
engaged in the debate, and because of who he was, I was distracted from what
was being said and watched him instead. Aldrin sat there listening to the
debate for no more than five minutes before he rose from his chair.
When EF Hutton Buzz Aldrin speaks, he gets people’s attention. One by one, the panelists diverted their gazes to him and stopped talking. He was, after all, one of the few people in the world to experience what everyone in the room was discussing – walking on another world. The pause seemed to last a long time, but it was probably only a few seconds. Finally, he broke the silence.
“I’ve been part of this discussion since I was selected for the astronaut program back in the early sixties. I’ve heard both sides of the debate make their case, but I want to ask a question. I want to ask those watching, not the panelists,” Aldrin turned to speak to us in the audience. Aldrin again paused for a few moments, no doubt to raise a sense of expectation and for the dramatic effect. He then broke the silence with a question.
“If it were possible, how many of
you would sign up for a one-way trip to Mars?”
The room was silent, and a few people
looked furtively from side to side, waiting on someone else to respond. First, a
few hands went up, then more, until finally nearly 70% of the people in the
room raised theirs. I was dumbfounded. These were people who fully understood
the risks and heard him say it would be a ‘one-way’ trip. It is interesting to
note that prior to this, it seemed as if the robots versus people split among
the audience was roughly 50/50. Not anymore.
I did not raise my hand, not because
of it being a trip to Mars, but because it would be ‘one way.’ I love the
verdant planet upon which we live, my family and friends, and the ability to
enjoy the natural world, teeming with life, that is just outside my door. The
idea of spending my last days in a pressurized tin can on a desolate world is
most definitely not on my list of things to do. Go for a visit and then return
to Earth? Sure. But I would not go to Mars and stay.
When the panel resumed, the debate
aspect faded into the background and the topic changed to be something like,
‘we will send robots first, then people.’ This soon became the focus of many
discussions and permeated the meeting report that was published afterward.
To those who follow the history of
space exploration, this should not be a surprise. Before we sent Yuri Gagarin
and Alan Shepard to orbit the Earth, we sent Sputnik and Laika (the dog). Before
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin went to the Moon, we sent Surveyor (but no
mammals). When we finally go to Mars or other solar system destinations, we can
be reasonably confident the robots will go there first.
Once again, as the regular reader of
my blog posts might be beginning to understand, I am a passionate believer in
the power of the individual. This one man’s (Buzz’s) experience of walking on
another world changed many opinions in just a matter of a few minutes. People
matter. What they might say matters. We need to listen.
To learn more
about me and my writing, please visit my website: www.lesjohnsonauthor.com
No comments:
Post a Comment