微信號：dtc816(←長按複製)
愛國公眾號，轉播正能量，致力於傳遞是世界各地網民的看法。
Why people stillworry about the falling Chinese space station — despite the low odds
為什麼人們仍然擔心墜落的中國空間站——儘管可能性很小
In 2016, Chinaannounced that its first human station, Tiangong-1, would make an uncontrolledreentry into Earth’s atmosphere, and given the module’s large size and density,some big pieces might survive all the way to the ground. It’s predictablygarnered a lot of attention, and the panic just won’t go away.
Of course, therehave been the standard frantic articles about the 「doomed」 station 「spiralingout of control.」 Some stories have insinuated that the station will fall in NewZealand’s backyard — though it’s far too early to know where it’s going toreenter. Others have hyped up the idea that toxic debris will rain down onEarth. It’s all hogwash.
2016年，中國宣布它的第一個載人空間站「天宮一號」將失控重新進入地球大氣層，考慮到這個組件的體積和密度，一些大的碎片可能會一直存留直到地面。它不出所料的引起了很多關注，而恐慌也不會消失。
當然，有一些關於「註定要失敗」的空間站「急遽失控」的慌亂文章。一些故事含沙射影的暗示，空間站將墜落在紐西蘭的後院--儘管現在還太早難以得知它會回落到哪裡。另一些則大肆宣揚有毒的碎片會灑落地球上。這都是廢話。
As a spacereporter, I find this frustrating because I know how often objects fall toEarth without us being able to control them. The truth is Tiangong-1 is thelast thing anyone needs to worry about. Yes, the module is a bit bigger thanmost satellites that fall back to Earth, but the odds of any pieces falling onyour head are minuscule — less than your chances of getting hit by lightning.In fact, you can read all the reasons why you shouldn’t be scared of the spacestation in our article. A lot of other reporters have done some great reportingon this topic, too. But despite all of the information that’s available, I』ve runinto an interesting problem: people are still scared when I tell them the odds.
It’s somethingthat’s baffled me. Multiple people have asked about this, and even after Iexplain the situation, they still seem uneasy. Earlier this year, for instance,my co-worker Russell Brandom sent me an article about Tiangong-1’s demise. Ipointed him to our article, and told him everything was going to be fine. Hispanic didn’t subside. 「Even a small chance of being killed by space debrisseems like too much,」 he told me.
作為一名太空記者，我覺得這很令人沮喪，因為我知道如果沒有我們的控制，目標就會經常墜落到地球上。事實上，天宮一號是人們最不需要擔心的事情。是的，這個組件比大多數衛星返回地球時要大一點，但是任何碎片落在你頭上的機率極小——比你被閃電擊中的機率要小。事實上，你可以閱讀我們文章中不應該害怕空間站的所有理由。許多其他記者也對這個話題做了一些很棒的報導。但是，儘管有這些信息，我還是遇到了一個有趣的問題:當我告訴人們這個機率的時候，人們還是很害怕。
這讓我很困惑。很多人都問過這個問題，甚至在我解釋了這個情況之後，他們似乎仍然感到不安。例如，今年早些時候，我的同事拉塞爾·布蘭登給我發了一篇關於天宮一號終結的文章。我指給他看我們的文章，告訴他一切都會好起來的。他的恐慌並沒有平息。他告訴我:「即使是被太空碎片殺死的可能性也很小，但那些碎片看起來太多了。」
Russelltechnically has a small chance of being hit by space debris all the time —well, an infinitesimal one. A person’s lifetime risk of being hit by reenteringspace debris is about one in a trillion, according to the AerospaceCorporation, a nonprofit research organization that provides guidance on spacemissions. Tiangong-1 isn’t going to drastically increase those odds.
從技術上來說，拉塞爾有很小的機率被空間碎片擊中——嗯，一個無窮小的概率。一個為太空任務提供指導的非營利性研究機構——航空航天公司的數據顯示，一個人一生中被再進入的太空碎片擊中的風險大約是萬億分之一。天宮一號不會大幅增加這個機率。
So why is thespace station still scaring people? I think most of the problem began with thefirst reports in 2016 that Tiangong-1 was 「out of control.」 It’s true: Chinadoesn’t have the ability to maneuver the space station from Earth anymore, andits orbit is slowly decaying. But this idea of an uncontrollable space stationprobably inspired visions of a huge chunk of metal spiraling wildly towardEarth. Plus, US companies nowadays often come up with ways to safely de-orbitlarger pieces of metal they send to orbit. 「There are a lot more controlledreentries than 20 years ago, and for more massive objects, [companies and countries]take more care,」 says Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at Harvard andspaceflight expert.
那麼為什麼空間站還是讓人們感到害怕？我認為，大部分問題始於2016年的第一次報導——天宮一號「失控」。 這是真的:中國再也沒有能力從地球上操縱空間站了，它的軌道正在慢慢變低。但是，這種無法控制的空間站的想法可能激發了一大堆金屬在瘋狂地向地球灑落的景象。此外，美國公司現在經常會想出辦法，安全地將他們送入軌道的大塊金屬碎片脫離軌道。哈佛大學的天體物理學家、航天專家喬納森·麥克道爾說:「與20年前相比，有更多的受控制的重返，對於更大規模的物體，[公司和國家]要更加小心。」
Still,uncontrolled reentries happen all the time. The upper stages of SpaceX’s Falcon9, Russia’s Soyuz, or Europe’s Ariane 5 rockets don’t always do a controlledde-orbit after every launch. Those pieces range from two to four tons, sothey’re not quite as massive as Tiangong-1. But a rocket piece about the samemass as the Chinese space station made an uncontrolled fall to Earth this year.The upper stage of a Russian Zenit rocket fell over Peru in January, and it’sabout eight tons, close to the size of Tiangong-1. A tank or two made it to theground, but no injuries were reported.
然而，不受控制的再進入時有發生。SpaceX公司的獵鷹9號、俄羅斯的聯盟號或歐洲的Ariane 5號火箭的上一級火箭在每次發射後並不總是都能進行控制。這些碎片的範圍從2噸到4噸不等，所以它們不像天宮一號那麼大。但是，一枚與中國太空站相同質量的火箭，今年卻失控墜落。今年1月，俄羅斯一枚澤尼特火箭的上一級在秘魯上空墜落，大約有8噸，接近天宮一號的大小。一或兩個倉到達地面，但沒有人員傷亡報告。
Granted, the Zenitupper stage is mostly comprised of empty fuel tanks, and Tiangong-1 is denser.「It’s got a lot of heavy equipment, so it’s not like a rocket stage that’s abig empty tank,」 says McDowell. 「People are worried more [about if] it mightreach the ground.」 That may be the other piece of the puzzle, too: the idea ofa space station falling to Earth is more menacing than a piece of a rocket oran average satellite.
當然，澤尼特的上一級主要由空燃料箱組成，而天宮一號則更密集。麥克道爾說:「它有很多重型設備，所以它不像火箭的部分是一個巨大的空罐。」人們更擔心的是它是否會落到地面。這也可能是另一個難題:空間站墜落到地球的想法比火箭或普通衛星的墜落更具有威脅性。
I』ve started towonder if this isn’t just another example of how our brains aren’t very good atassessing real-world risks. Our brains are very sensitive to risk. That’s whatkept us alive back when everything around us was a legitimate risk toourselves. This backfires today because we hear about all sorts of things thatseem dangerous but aren’t likely to harm us at all.
我開始懷疑這是不是我們大腦不擅長評估現實世界風險的又一個例子。我們的大腦對危險非常敏感。當我們周圍的一切對我們自己是一個合理的風險時，就是這些讓我們活著。這在今天去相反，因為我們聽到了各種看似危險但不太可能傷害我們的事情。
Novelty definitelyplays a role. This is the same reason many people are far more worried aboutplane crashes (which aren’t common anymore) than car crashes (which happen allthe time). Plane crashes seem rare and terrible, and so they stick in our mindsmore; car crashes, while tragic, don’t grab our attention. It’s easy to feelfrightened by terrorist attacks, which seem catastrophic, but we’re actuallymore likely to be killed by falling furniture.
新奇的事物無疑起著一定的作用。這也是為什麼許多人更擔心飛機失事(這已經不常見了)，而不是擔心車禍(這種情況經常發生)。飛機失事似乎很少見，也很可怕，所以它們更能留在我們的腦海裡;而車禍雖然很悲慘，但並沒有引起我們的注意。人們很容易對恐怖襲擊感到恐懼，這似乎是災難性的，但實際上，我們更有可能被掉落的家具砸死。
The Nobel Prize-winningpsychologist Daniel Kahneman is famous for suggesting that our brain runs twosystems: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is your quick, intuitive, emotionalresponses, like being afraid when you hear that a space station could fall onyour head. System 2 is the deliberate, reasonable response that takes a lot ofcognitive energy, like slowing down to calculate the probability that the spacestation will actually fall on your head. You can’t stop System 1 from running,and emotions are powerful. Unfortunately, not a lot of people take the time todo the calculations, and so they remain afraid.
諾貝爾獎得主、心理學家丹尼爾·卡尼曼因提示我們的大腦運行著兩個系統而聞名:系統1和系統2。系統1是你快速、直觀、情緒化的反應，比如當你聽到空間站可能掉到你頭上時的恐懼。系統2是經過深思熟慮的，理性的反應，需要大量的認知能量，比如緩慢的計算空間站會落到你頭上的概率。你無法停止系統1運行，情緒是強大的。不幸的是，沒有多少人花時間去計算，所以他們仍然害怕。
So, Russell’s fearof even a small chance of space debris falling on him is a great example ofSystem 1 out of control. I told him this. 「Are fears ever rational?」 he asked.「I feel like you’re just afraid of the things you’re afraid of.」 It’s a goodpoint. Every time I pass over the Queensboro Bridge in New York, I think aboutour car swerving and plunging into the East River. It’s not likely to happen,but I』ll forever worry about it even if someone tells me the odds.
所以，拉塞爾對哪怕是很小的空間碎片墜落的恐懼都是系統1失控的一個很好的例子。我告訴他這一點。「恐懼是理性的嗎？」他問道。「我覺得你只是在害怕你所害怕的東西。」這是一個很好的觀點。每當我經過紐約的昆斯伯勒大橋，我就會想我們的車突然轉向然後竄入東河裡。這是不可能發生的，但即使有人告訴我機率很低，我也永遠會擔心。
The good newsabout Tiangong-1 is that people won’t have to worry for much longer. TheEuropean Space Agency estimates that the station will likely come down sometimebetween March 29th and April 9th, though those dates are still subject tochange. Once it falls, the risk will be eliminated. But if you want to scareyourself with space debris, there’s always NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope:unless NASA sends another mission to Hubble, the observatory will have to comedown at some point, too — and it’s even heavier than Tiangong-1.
關於天宮一號的好消息是，人們不用擔心太長時間了。歐洲航天局估計空間站可能會在3月29日到4月9日之間的某個時候降落，儘管這些日期仍有可能發生變化。一旦它墜落，風險就被消除了。但如果你想用太空碎片來嚇你自己，還有NASA的哈勃太空望遠鏡:除非NASA向哈勃發送另一項任務，否則望遠鏡也會在某一時刻落下來——它甚至比天宮一號還要重。
Kaggy
Cause it isn’tzero.
And people stillbuy the powerball despite the low odds as well.
Posted on Mar 11,2018 | 9:26 AM
因為機率不是零。
而儘管機率同樣很小，人們卻還是會買彩票。
peanutLove
That’s thanks tothe high levels of poverty in the U.S. The Powerball odds as bad as they are,are still better odds than they have of ever making decent money.
Posted on Mar 11,2018 | 5:29 PM
這要歸功於美國的高度貧困。儘管彩票的中獎率很低，但仍然比他們賺到像樣的錢的機率更高。
farrellj
Also sad is thatstudies have shown that the poorer lotto players play more often for the actualexpectation of winning money than just for occasional fun.
同樣令人難過的是，研究表明，較窮的樂透購買者更多地是為了期望贏得獎金而玩，而不僅僅是為了偶爾的娛樂。
kamikrazee
If it hit Trump,it would be strong evidence for the presence of God in the universe, and thathe/she has a sense of humor.
Posted on Mar 11,2018 | 10:36 AM
如果它擊中了川普，那將有力地證明上帝存在於宇宙中，而且他/她有幽默感。
Sensifr
"It’s allhogwash"
Indeed, it’s allfear-mongering, sensationalist, yellow journalism garbage; and when it isn’tjust a tabloid rag kind of click-baiting it does look like a concerted andfixated propaganda: trying to belittle China (so many "newspapers"trying to turn that story into a "political symbol" of a"fail" [sic], while voluntarily omitting to report the known factsabout this prototype space station), the kind part of the daily jingoistpropaganda designating anything China as a threat for the US/Western public
Posted on Mar 11,2018 | 10:47 AM
「這都是廢話」
的確，這都是杞人憂天，聳人聽聞，黃色新聞的垃圾；當它不只是點擊誘餌式的文摘時，它的確看起來像是協調好的和固定的宣傳: 試圖貶低中國(很多「報紙」試圖把這個故事變成一個「失敗」的「政治符號」， 而自願地忽略了關於這是個空間站雛形的已知事實)，這是日常沙文主義宣傳的一部分，將中國的所有東西視為對美國/西方公眾的威脅
People areHORRIBLE at assessing risk. I am reminded of that with every story I read aboutschool shootings. For example, a student is 6 times more likely to die in aSCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT than a school shooting. The number of deaths from schoolshootings is less than the number of toddlers who drown IN FIVE GALLON BUCKETS.Meanwhile, what we eat, whether we exercise, smoking, medical malpractice… evenfalling down – remain REAL risks of death.
Annual Deaths byCause of Death
(Average per year,or most recent year for which data could be found)
Heart Disease :614,348
Cancer : 591,699
Falling down :556,000
MedicalMalpractice : 250,000
Respiratorydisease : 147,101
Suicide : 44,962
Suffocation :35,600
Car crashes :32,166
Drowning : 3,536
Fire : 3,362
Bicycle Accidents: 818
Bus Accidents :295
School BusAccidents : 138
Heat or Drought :112
Thunderstorm, fog,hail107
Winter Weather :103
Flooding : 80
Tornado : 66
Lightning : 65
Drowning (in 5gallon buckets) : 27
School shootings :23, wind : 107
Winter Weather :103
Flooding : 80
Tornado : 66
Lightning : 65
Drowning (in 5gallon buckets) : 27
School shootings :23
Coastal (stormsurge, rip current) : 13
Hurricane orTropical Storm : 9
Earthquake,Tsunami, Volcano : 9
Mass Movement(avalanche, landslide) : 5
Terrorism (in theUnited States) : 5
Wildfire : 2
Shark attack : 1
人們害怕評估風險。每當我讀到關於校園槍擊的故事時，我都會想起這一點。例如，學生在校車事故中死亡的可能性是學校槍擊事件的6倍。學校槍擊事件造成的死亡人數要少於溺死在五加侖桶裡的幼兒數量。同時，我們所吃的東西，運動，吸菸，醫療事故，甚至跌倒，都有死亡的風險。
每年因故死亡(平均每年，或可以找到數據的最近一年)
心臟病:614348
癌症:591699
墜落:556000
醫療事故:250000
呼吸系統疾病:147101
自殺:44962
窒息:35600
車禍:32166
溺水:3536
火災:3362
自行車事故:818
公共汽車事故:295
校車事故:138。
熱或乾旱:112。
雷雨、大霧冰雹：107
冬天的天氣:103
洪水:80
龍捲風:66
閃電:65
溺水(5加侖桶):27。
校園槍擊事件:23
風:107。
沿海(風暴潮，離岸流):13。
颶風或熱帶風暴:9。
地震，海嘯，火山:9。
群眾運動(雪崩、滑坡):5。
恐怖主義(在美國):5。
野火:2
鯊魚攻擊:1
Drapery
Its easy to jumpto conclusions reading stats like these. I just quickly googled US school busaccident numbers they include deaths for the occupants of busses but alsoanyone hit by the school bus. And bus deaths are far more likely to occur inthe smaller vehicle thats hit
讀這樣的統計數據很容易得出結論。我只是快速搜索美國校車事故的數字，其中包括校車司機的死亡人數，還有被校車撞死的人。而公共汽車事故中的死亡更有可能是發生在被撞擊的小型汽車上。
Drapery
An importantdistinction between the causes is whether we have control (or how much control)over the prevention. Eg we can easily avoid fire deaths by installing smokealarms, and being safe with fire at home
While Im notworried about the satellite (despite living in NZ), the lack of control isn’t agood feeling
一個重要的區別是我們是否有控制權（或有多少控制權）。例如我們可以通過安裝煙霧報警器和在家安全用火來避免火災死亡。
雖然我並不擔心衛星(儘管生活在紐西蘭)，但缺乏控制並不是一種好的感覺。
Andy Gates
Trousers! They’redeadly. People hop around trying to get the other leg in and fall over and itends badly. I think trousers kill more people than cyclists do in the UK, butthe media doesn’t hype the two-legged menace so… shrug.
Posted on Mar 12,2018 | 6:44 AM
褲子!它們是致命的。人們跳來跳去，試圖把另一條腿伸進去，然後摔倒，結果很糟糕。我認為在英國，褲子殺死的人比騎自行車的而死的人更多，但是媒體並沒有炒作兩條腿的威脅，所以……聳肩。
Vegan Butcher
I’m not worried,I’m just concerned.
Posted on Mar 11,2018 | 12:27 PM
我不擔心，我只是煩惱。
itamblyn
I think part ofthe fear stems from a lack of control. There are behaviours which make dyingfrom a lightening strike more probable. The same is true for crossing thestreet or heart disease. Humans don’t like situations where they have nocontrol over the outcome. This is one of those situations.
我認為部分恐懼源於缺乏控制。有些行為比被雷擊致死更為可能。過街或心臟病也是如此。人們不喜歡他們無法控制結果的情況。這是其中一種情況。
nicemod
I think part ofthe fear stems from the way we discuss it.
When we talk about"parts of a rocket," parts implies that they’re not as big as anentire rocket, which is something we’re somewhat familiar with. (Familiar inthe sense that we』ve seen pictures of them in the news, though I find when Isee them contrasted next to more familiar objects I am still frequently surprised/intriguedjust how giant they are.)
When we talk abouta satellite, I think that familiarity diminishes a bit. Satellites can beanywhere from pumpkin sized (Cubesats) to school-bus sized (Hubble) andanywhere in between. I think the idea of what constitutes a satellite to mostpeople is a bit fuzzy, and if they think about it at all, they don’t thinkabout it crashing into their house.
When we talk abouta space station, that idea is less fuzzy. We know it’s big enough. We know thatpeople (many people!) fit inside! The ISS has dimensions comparable to afootball field. Some of us are old enough to remember Mir and Skylab and thoseimages are very familiar, because they’re relatable. When we talk about a spacestation, I think those people that are likely to be concerned are so simplybecause the idea of a can big enough to house 10 people is something they canimagine.
我認為部分恐懼源於我們討論它的方式。
當我們談論「火箭的部分」時，部分意味著它們沒有整個火箭那麼大，這是我們所熟悉的。(我們在新聞中看到過他們的照片，但我發現當我看到他們與更熟悉的物體形成對比時，我仍然經常驚訝/好奇他們是多麼的巨大。)
當我們談論衛星時，我認為熟悉度會降低一點。衛星可以從南瓜大小(立方體衛星)到校車大小(哈勃)，以及介於兩者之間。我認為對大多數人來說，衛星的概念有點模糊，如果他們想起來，他們就不會想到它會撞到他們的房子。
當我們談論空間站時，這個概念就不那麼模糊了。我們知道它足夠大。我們知道，人們(很多人!)足以呆在裡面! 國際空間站的尺寸與足球場相當。我們中的一些人已經足夠大，可以記住和平號空間站和天空實驗室，這些圖像是非常熟悉的，因為它們有關聯。當我們談論空間站的時候，我想那些可能會擔憂的人是如此簡單，因為一個大到能容納10個人的物體的概念是他們可以想像的。
外國網友怎麼看
全面了解「外國人眼中的中國」中國看世界！世界看中國！
↑↑↑ 長按二維碼關注