【正文】 o sustain its space programme. In fact, spending became so tight that there was often not enough money to bring home astronauts working on the country’s Mir space station. Intensive Study5 But, in the last few years, politicians seem to have changed their attitude to space exploration, even though there is little evidence that the public have. New missions to Mars are planned, and plenty of money is being spent on other extraterrestrial activities. Last year, for instance, the . spent more on space research and development than on any other area of research, except health and the military. Intensive Study6 And spending is likely to increase in the ing years: currently, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is planning a number of missions to Mars, and it is pressing ahead with the most expensive spaceexploration project ever undertaken — the International Space Station. (Three years ago, this project — a collaboration between the ., Canada, Russia, Europe and Japan — came within one vote of being canceled by the American House of Representatives.) Intensive Study7 And the Americans are not the only ones spending huge sums on space exploration. The Europeans, Canadians and Japanese are expected to spend $9 billion on their share of the space station, and Europe has already spent huge sums developing its Ariane rockets, the most recent of which — Ariane 5 — blew up shortly after it was launched. The Russians, too, claim they are mitted to supporting the International Space Station — an expense that country seems ill able to afford. Intensive Study8 So, if there is little public support for space exploration, where does the impetus to fund these activities e from? Promoting the cause of science is one possible answer. But recently there has been considerable controversy over whether projects like the International Space Station have enough scientific value to merit the billions that have been and will be spent on it. Intensive Study9 NASA’s reasons for building the space station are “to develop new materials [and] technologies that will have immediate, practical applications”. However, for such research to be worthwhile, NASA needs private panies to develop (and help pay for) extraterrestrial research. Unfortunately, the cost of sending anything into orbit is so high that most private panies favour improving techniques on Earth. Significantly, NASA has so far not managed to get any substantial private investment to manufacture products in space. Intensive Study10 The result is that the station seems, at present, to have only one concrete objective: research into how people can live and work safely and efficiently in space. But how important is this research? And can it possibly justify the cost of this huge orbiting laboratory?11 The only purpose of studying how humans live and work in space would be to prepare for longterm space missions. At present, none are planned, and this seems unlikely to change in the near future. The main reasons for this are the costs. A manned mission to our nearest plaary neighbour Mars, for example, would cost around $400 billion. This is $50 billion more than Russia’s present Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Intensive Study12 And even if one accepts that this research is important, can it justify building a space station the size of 14 tennis courts, at a cost which is eventually expected to exceed $100 billion? Given the shortage of funds in many other areas of scientific research, it would seem not.13 So why build it? There are good political reasons for doing so. It will provide work for the thousands of unemployed defence workers who depended on the Cold War for their jobs, and who make up a substantial proportion of voters in both Russia and the . It will also help keep American/Russian ties strong — another reason NASA believes the space station is a good investment. (Critics argue that there are far cheaper ways to keep the . and Russia on good terms.) Intensive Study14 And then there is the legacy of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall may have fallen, but NASA and the . government still seem to believe in the ideal of one nation’s superiority in space. Indeed, NASA describes the space station as “a powerful symbol of . leadership”.15 It seems that the world’s politicians are caught in a timewarp. They still believe, as they did in the 1960s, that man must conquer space in order to prove he is master of his surroundings. If only it weren’t so expensive. (1002 words)Intensive StudyTextrelated informationMarsMars is the fourth pla from the Sun in the solar system, the next one beyond Earth’s orbit. Its red color inspired the Greeks and Romans to name it after their god of war, Ares, or Mars. The distance of Mars from Earth, and hence its brightness, vary considerably. At times it is the thirdbrightest object in the night sky, surpassed only by the Moon and Venus.given that— supposing that。s residents on their foreign investments, and it counts only output produced within the country. This measure is now being used more frequently as a means for evaluating the size of the economy.Textrelated informationGiven the shortage of funds in many other areas of scientific research, it would seem not.Paraphrase the sentence:?Key:—— Considering that many other areas of scientific research don’t have enough funds, it seems this research would not justify building that space station. on good/bad/speaking terms— have a good/bad/speaking relationship Examples:? I’ve always been on good terms with my neig