【英语科技】阿波罗登月的启发

The Apollo 11 moon landing, whose 40th anniversary is celebrated this week, is still unsurpassed as a symbol of technological achievement. Visitors to Washington DC's National Air and Space Museum can see the command module up close, and visitors to the Science Museum in London can see the very similar Apollo 10 version. Being this near to the spaceship defies belief: it looks more like a contraption from the steam age than the space age. Did this thing really go around the moon and come home again?

Forty years on, we have our own technological challenges, from finding vaccines for malaria and HIV to producing cheap, effective ways to generate energy without pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we achieve those goals?

More to the point: Neil Armstrong walked on the moon thanks to government management, government money and one of the most famous of all government ambitions. That was President Kennedy's 1961 declaration that, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space.”

Shouldn't, then, the world's governments get over their fear of trying to “pick winners” and put some serious effort behind our more modern goals? It's a tempting conclusion. I think the Apollo missions offer a more subtle lesson.

The most important contemporary benefit of the space race has been the satellite, and the obvious way to launch a satellite is the way that the Apollo lunar modules were launched, by using a set of rockets that blast off from the ground. This remains the dominant satellite launch technology to this day, and why not? Once Kennedy decided to head for the moon, rockets were the way to do it, so rockets have been the focus of government investment.

But ground-launched rockets are not the only way to get a satellite into space. One other obvious possibility is to build a much smaller rocket and carry it into the upper atmosphere using an aeroplane. This isn't a new idea: the US X-15 plane piggybacked on a B-52 bomber and its first flight predated Apollo 11 by a decade. The X-15 flew at more than 350,000ft, over 106km; 100km up generally being regarded as the beginning of “space”. Neil Armstrong was one of the test pilots. But despite being a promising approach for launching satellites, it was no good for putting a man on the moon, and the technology was sidelined.

Air-launch technologies have been making a comeback thanks to private innovators. The Ansari X Prize for the first privately funded space flight was won by an air-launch system, White Knight One and SpaceShipOne. Virgin Galactic, which has teamed up with White Knight's designers to develop a system to put tourists into space, has also expressed a hope that the system can be used to launch small satellites. And Orbital Sciences Corporation has been using an air-launched system, Pegasus, to put satellites into orbit for nearly 20 years. Such systems are more flexible – they can fly to where the good weather is, for instance – and may turn out to be cheaper in the long run.

It is too simplistic to say that Apollo was a dead end, but nor is it obvious that the project really was a giant leap in the exploration and exploitation of space. Inspirational it may have been, but Apollo also reminds us that in our urge to achieve magnificent goals, we should not overlook less glamorous alternatives.

本周，“阿波罗11号登月”迎来了40周年纪念庆典。作为一项技术成就的象征，它迄今依然是无与伦比的。前往华盛顿特区美国国家航空航天博物馆(National Air and Space Museum) 参观的人们，可以近距离观察阿波罗11号的指挥舱；前往伦敦科学博物馆(Science Museum)参观的人们，则可看到与之非常类似的阿波罗10号指挥舱。如此近距离的观察太空飞船，会令人产生一种难以置信的感觉：看上去，它更像是蒸汽时代的产物，而非来自太空时代。这个东西真的曾经环绕过月球、而后又重返地球吗？

40年过去了，我们自身在技术方面遭遇到种种挑战，从寻找疟疾和艾滋病病毒疫苗，到研发出廉价、高效且不向大气排放二氧化碳的产能方式。如果我们能够把人类送上月球，为什么我们不能实现这些目标？

我们来更深入的探讨这一问题：尼尔•阿姆斯特朗(Neil Armstrong)能在月球上行走，得益于政府的管理、政府的资金、以及政府最闻名于世的雄心壮志之一。那就是美国总统肯尼迪(Kennedy)在1961年的宣言：“我认为，这个国家应致力于在这10年内，实现把人类送上月球并使其安全返回地球的目标。在此期间，没有任何一个太空计划会比这更加震撼人心、或在长程太空探索方面更加重要。”

那么，难道世界各国政府不应该放下对试图“押宝”的担心，在我们更为近期的目标上下番苦功夫吗？这一结论颇具诱惑性。我认为，阿波罗计划带给我们的经验教训要比这更加微妙。

太空竞赛留给当代人的最大好处是人造卫星，而卫星的发射方式无疑就是阿波罗登月舱的发射方式——使用多级火箭从地面发射升空。迄今为止，它仍是占据主导地位的卫星发射技术。可不是嘛！在肯尼迪决定飞向月球时，火箭就成为了登月舱的运载技术，因此，火箭一直是政府投资的重点。

不过，从地面发射火箭并不是把卫星送入太空的唯一方式。另一个显而易见的可能选择是，制造一枚尺寸小得多的火箭，并用飞机把它送到高层大气中。这并非什么新想法：美国的X-15飞机便是搭乘B-52轰炸机升空的，其首飞比阿波罗11号早了10年。X-15的飞行高度超过35万英尺（合106多公里）；一般来说，100公里的高度被视为“太空”的起点。尼尔•阿姆斯特朗曾是X-15的试飞员之一。不过，尽管X-15是一种颇具前途的卫星发射方式，但它对把人类送上月球却毫无用处。于是，这项技术靠边站了。

拜私人创新者所赐，空中发射技术已卷土重来。白骑士一号(White Knight One)与太空飞船一号(SpaceShipOne)组成的空中发射系统，赢得了安萨里X大奖(Ansari X Prize)，这是一个为首次由私人资助的太空飞行设立的奖项。维京银河(Virgin Galactic)公司曾与白骑士的设计师合作开发了一个把游客送入太空的系统。该公司也表示，希望该系统能被用于发射小型卫星。轨道科学公司(Orbital Sciences Corporation)近20年来也一直在使用一个空中发射系统——飞马座(Pegasus)——来把卫星送入轨道。这种系统更加灵活——例如，它们可飞到天气状况较好的区域发射——而且从长期来看，它们可能会更为廉价。

如果认为阿波罗计划是死路一条，未免想得过于简单了，但要说这个项目真的是太空探索和开发领域的一次巨大飞跃，恐怕也未必如此。阿波罗计划或许是一项鼓舞人心的计划，但它也提醒我们，在我们奋力实现宏伟目标的同时，不应忽视那些不那么有吸引力的备选方式。

译者/汪洋