LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN SPACE INDUSTRIALIZATION, SATELLITE SOLAR POWER, AND SPACE HABITATS

NUMBER 16 A NEWSLETTER FROM THE L-5 SOCIETY DECEMBER, 1976

Published monthly by L-5 Society, Inc.. at 1620 N. Park Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719. Subscription price: L-5 Society members, $3.00 per year, includedin dues ($20.00 per year. students $10.00 per year). Subscription price to non-members available on request. Single copies, when available, $1.00 each.Send Form 3579, ADDRESS CHANGES AND SUBSCRIPTION ORDERS to L-5 SOCIETY. 1620 N. PARK AVE., TUCSON, AZ 85719. Applicationto mail at second-class postage rates is pending at Tucson, Arizona. ©1976 L-5 Society. All Rights Reserved.

SPACE SOLAR POWERExcerpted from Grumman AerospaceHorizons.

Investigations performed by GrummanAerospace Company and its associates --Arthur D. Litt le, Raytheon, andSpectrolab -- over the past five yearsindicate that space solar power is feasibleand economically practical. The collectionof solar energy in Space at the preferredsynchronous orbit (22,000 miles abovethe equator) is essentially continuous.No storage systems are required, incontrast to ground-based collectorsystems.

The Satellite Solar Power Station(SSPS) design calls for a large space solarpower collector, assembled in space, tobe stationed in a geosynchronous orbit(one that makes the SSPS virtually fixedover a given point along the equator).From this orbital position it wouldtransmit the collected solar power via amicrowave beam to a six-mile-diameterreceiving antenna, or rectenna, on theEarth. There the microwave energy wouldbe converted to electricity and feddirectly into the power grid.

The station itself consists of two largerectangular solar panels, each measuringapproximately 3½ miles long by 2¾ mileswide by 200 yards deep, interconnectedby a single large mast. Centered betweenthese solar panels is a microwave antennasome 900 yards in diameter.

Mounted on the huge panels are vastarrays of solar cells, making these solarpanels very much the same in everyrespect but size as those used to powernearly every spacecraft and satellite todate.

The solar cells are laid out in vastarrays along the bottom surface of eachdepression in the solar panel structure.To concentrate additional sunlight on asolar array, the immediately adjacentsides of the structure are covered with areflectively coated sheet of lightweightKapton plastic. Thus, as the panel isbathed in the Sun’s rays, the solar cellsreceive both the direct radiant energyand that reflected from the Kapton-linedsidewalls, effectively doubling the amountof solar energy absorbed by the cells.

Each solar cell, through a photovoltaicprocess, converts the Sun’s radiant energyto direct-current electricity which flowsalong the conducting panel structure andmast to the microwave antenna. Therotatable antenna transmits a beam ofmicrowave energy to the receiving stationon the ground, where it is converted tousable electricity.

There is relatively little energy loss inthis transmission, and the power canreadily be generated at frequencies thatpreclude interference with other bands.Microwave energy can also be transmittedthrough clouds and heavy rain with lessthan a five percent loss. It is also safe.

Rectenna array over farmland (lower right) receives microwave transmission, andinverters (center) convert it to usable electricity which is distributed overconventional power transmission lines.

Siting studies indicate that therectenna is best located on low-value landor offshore near large metropolitan areas.Actually, a key advantage of space solarpower derives from locating the rectennanear the power users, thereby minimizingthe transmission costs. Of course, withsolar power you also avoid the need formining equipment, delivery trucks, andother costly elements.

The heart of the SSPS system conceptis the solar cell and the microwave link.Solar cells today can deliver electricpower with an efficiency of 13 percent;in the future we can reasonably expect toget 16 to 17 percent.

Silicon, the basic material used in solarcells, is quite plentiful. The technologyhas a sound base of experience as a resultof the many solar devices produced forspacecraft that have been successfuIlyorbited.

Solar cells today are relativelyexpensive, but the key to a drasticreduction in their cost is high-quantityproduction. A single solar power satellitewill require many times the amount ofsolar cells that have been produced for allprevious solar cell applications combined.This tremendous boost in production isexpected to drop the cost of a solar cellto one-fiftieth of today’s cost.

Microwave transmission in Space doesnot require the use of a vacuum-tube typeof amplifier such as a klystron, sinceSpace itself is a vacuum. Instead, we canuse a more efficient device, theamplitron, to transmit the microwaveenergy. Such devices have demonstratedvery high efficiency, reliability, and longlife, and are extremely lightweight.

- 2 -

In terms of efficiency, the entiretransmission chain-from the distributionof power to the space-borne microwaveantenna, to the beaming of MW energyto Earth, and finally to the conversion ofthe microwave to DC power-is expectedto achieve a level of better than 65percent. Recent tests at NASA’sGoldstone, California, facility haveconfirmed the microwave link’sefficiency.

While the theoretical efficiency of thesolar-to-electric power transfer betweenSpace and Earth appears to meet therequirements, there is still the matter ofdetermining the best way to get this hugesatellite solar power station into orbit.

In terms of mass alone the task isstaggering -- a 5,000-megawatt SSPSmight weigh as much as 40 millionpounds. But there have been developeda number of ways in which this mightreasonably be accomplished. Onepromising method involves a systemwhose principal stages are shown onpages 8-9.

The Space Shuttle, slated to becomeoperational in the early 1980s. offers thebasis for beginning the total space solarpower enterprise with certain keyexperiments and also provides a means fortransporting elements of a Solar PowerDevelopment Lab into orbit.

Of course, the Shuttle Orbiter’spayload (65,000 lb) and cargo bayvolume were not designed fortransporting so large a mass into Space.Were the satellite structure built --primarily of truss-work -- on the groundand put into the Orbiter’s bay, therewould be much wasted space. An

alternative is to build the structure inSpace and to use another payload vehiclewith a larger, more efficient, cargocapacity. Such a vehicle might take theform of a large cylindrical can with apayload of 160,000 lb which wouldreplace the piggy-back Orbiter on theSpace Shuttle.

Looking further ahead to the need fortransporting SSPS elements in meaningfulquantity within a reasonable build-upschedule, plans are made for a Heavy LiftLaunch Vehicle (H.L.L.V.) that can carry400,000 lb in a single launch into a near-Earth orbit.

Once the mass of basic constructionmaterial is brought by the H.L.L.V. intolow Earth orbit (below, and thereforeunaffected by, the Van Allen RadiationBelts), manufacturing of the SSPSstructure can be started in Space.

Some human maintenance of the spacefacility will be required, but it is expectedto be minimal over the projected 30-yearlife of the system. While it is quite clearthat placing an SSPS in orbit would be agreat undertaking, it would result in thecontinuous delivery, over a 30-yearperiod, of 5000 MW of power-roughlyenough to power a city the size of NewYork. The design in fact calls for puttingup enough stations in orbit to meet 10percent of the annual incremental electricpower requirements of the U.S.

Despite its enormous scale,

By using spools of material, eitheraluminum or composite strip, smallstructural elements would be made in theform of triangular cross-sections and thenbuilt up into complete beams.Continuing this process, all the structureneeded could be produced.

In general, manufacturing the SSPSin Space would require little humanpower. Work vehicles fitted witharticulated manipulators, operating fromspace stations also used to house a smallwork crew, could assemble the entiresatellite structure.

complexity, and technological challenges,the SSPS provides a great manyadvantages. Among these are: rapid pay-back (estimated at two years) of the netcost of the energy to build the system;delivery of environmentally “clean”power into the regular power grid; andproduction of a significant volume ofpower (one SSPS would provide theequivalent of 200,000 barrels of oil perday or, over a 30-year period, $36 billionworth of electricity).

INTERVIEW WITHPETER GLASER

Once the huge structure is assembled,the next step is to move it from low Earthorbit to the high, or synchronous, orbit.To do this will mean traversing the VanAllen Belts whose intense radiation couldseriously damage the exposed solar cells.The idea for avoiding this exposure is tomount the solar cells on blankets ofmaterial that are rolled up like windowshades during the orbit-changing phase,thereby shielding them from theradiation. Once the SSPS attains thedesired orbit, the blankets of solar cellswould be rolled out and available toreceive the Sun’s energy.

Carolyn Henson

Peter Glaser is a Vice President ofArthur D. Little, Inc., and the originatorof the solar power satellite (SPS) Concept.

I’d like to know what’s happeningwith the Grumman study on spaceindustrialization.

The abundant solar energy in Spaceshould be further used to move the SSPSinto its high orbit. The design calls for a

The space station study whichGrumman Aerospace and myself havebeen carrying out on behalf of MarshallSpace Flight Center has looked veryhard at the kinds of problems one mightencounter in constructing the satellitesolar power station in orbit. It hasincluded considerations of constructionbases. Also, attention is being paid tospace processing -- what can one do inspace which would be of real interest.

Solar Electric Propulsion System, orSEPS, in which the Sun’s energy is usedto drive an ion engine. Applying a low-level but continuous acceleration, theSEPS would propel the entire satellitesolar power station up to synchronousorbit.

There, an attitude-control systemcomprised of jet thrusters similar to theones used on our Lunar Module, wouldbe used to nudge the huge satellite intoits operating position, with antennapointed toward the Earth-based rectennaand solar arrays broadside to the Sun.Because the satellite’s orbital path will beaffected by various forces in Space --including gravity gradient, solar pressure,the interactive pull of the Sun and Moon,and motion due to the Earth’s ellipticity --it will require periodic adjustments tokeep its proper station and orientationwith respect to the rectenna. Estimatesare that about 100,000 Ibs of fuel peryear would be sufficient to keep the SSPSin proper position.

I’ve read some interesting things aboutvapor deposition of silicon solar powercells. Is that being considered as apossibil i ty?

This possibility is an example of suchkinds of processes. Whether or not aspecific one would be the way to go isprobably too early to tell, because, as faras l understand, studies of this particularapproach are still in the very early stagesof investigation.

How many people does the Grummanstudy estimate will be needed on site toassemble a power satellite?

I really don’t have the number.Remember, the first steps are not reallyto make the whole satellite but ratherto make the first small-scale test object,which may be just a few hundredkilowatts or a few megawatts. And thequestion is, how would you go aboutassembling these small test objects, learnfrom them, and then apply the learning tothe bigger ones? So it’s really hard to gofrom where we are today to a full scalesatellite without a lot of learning on theway.

So you are planning an evolutionaryapproach, then?

I think it is the reasonable approach,because there are some very toughproblems. It isn’t just a matter ofassembly, but what kinds of componentsyou would be willing to produce in spaceand, as you know, there are studies alongthese lines. Can we produce girders andother structural components to be usedto produce satellites from rolledaluminum coils? I think these are ofgreat interest.

Another one is: should we attempt to,for example, produce silicon solar cells ina space station or construction base, orshould we carry the material from Earth?All of these involve not just technologybut a lot of economics.

There have been studies on the use oflunar resources to produce oxygen topropel solar power satellites from lowEarth orbit to geosynchronous orbit Isyour study group considering the use ofluner materials?

Our study is much too near term forthose considerations. You really have tolearn to crawl before you can walk.

You’re basically concentrating onassembly, then?

At this moment it is too early toconsider whether you’d like to use lunarmaterials. I’m sure that will be a veryimportant topic, however, once we’vedone some of this earlier work.

Are you familiar with the solarpower satellite proposals of James E.and Ronald N. Drummond? (see L-5News, August, 1976, p. 8.)

I believe they certainly are interestingand should be studied further. Theparticular Sun-synchronous orbitcertainly has some advantages,

- 3 -

although it does involve a much shortertime for the microwave beam to reachreceiving antennas. The multiplexing thatcould be involved may introduce someadditional complexity.

Whether this is the right orbit orgeosynchronous is the right orbit is amatter one will really have tounderstand and study-and I thinkthis approach, especially his suggestion ofusing dielectric power conversion,indicates that the more people start tothink about satellite solar power, we canlook forward to novel ideas, and out ofthat eventually will come what I hope isthe optimum solution.

It’s only by doing the work andtrying various approaches we will developthe optimum solution.

WIRELESS POWER-TRANSMISSION TESTAIMS AT HARNESSING SUNJohn F. Mason, reprinted with permissionfrom Electronic Design, Dec. 6. 1975.

For 75 years, engineers have tried totransmit power through the air withoutbenefit of wires or other man-madeconduits. Now a group of engineers in thein the Mojave Desert are doing it everyfew weeks via microwave signals.

They are from the California Instituteof Technology’s Jet PropulsionLaboratory, in Pasadena, and Raytheon’sMicrowave and Power Tube Division,Waltham, Massachusetts. Their work isbeing sponsored by the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration’sOffice of Applications and Office ofEnergy Programs.

The distance covered and the powertransmitted in the Mojave experimentsare both small (a little over 30 kW. ofd.c. output over 1.54 km.), but thetechniques for improving both are beingdefined.

The ultimate goal is to developequipment capable of efficientlytransmitting power captured by a solar-energy collector in space to a receivingstation on earth. Such a proposal wasfirst made in 1968 by a team consistingof Arthur D. Litt le, Raytheon, Grummanand Textron.

A more earthly application might beto beam power to a high-altitude,stationary, electrically powered,unpiloted helicopter -- say, at 50,000 feet-- that would relay television signals forweeks or months at a time without havingto land.

Point-to-point transmissions on Earthare, of course, possible applications, buthighly improbably, according toRaytheon’s consulting scientist WilliamC. Brown, who developed the rectifyingantennas used in the current experiments.

“The attenuation and scatteringthrough many miles of rain would be aproblem,” he says. “To replace high-power transmission lines, the powerdensity in the beam would be far abovesafe exposure limits. The economics

might also be questioned.”There could be isolated applications,

Brown continues, that might be practical-for example, where power could beprofitably transmitted over deep canyonsor bodies of water. But the main goal isto capture clean, nonpolluting energyfrom the Sun. Earth-orbiting stationswould collect solar energy, convert it tomicrowave radiation and beam it toreceiving stations on Earth.

“A typical satellite using a microwavebeam at a 10-cm. wavelength couldprovide 10,000 MW.,” says Peter E.Glaser, vice president of Arthur D. Little,Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Anetwork of such satellites could generateenough power to meet a significantportion of the foreseeable U.S. energydemands.”

The space station would require anenergy-collecting area of at least 70 Sq.km. of solar photovoltaic cells, accordingto Raytheon’s Brown. “The area neededfor ground-based ‘rectenna’ arrays, as theantenna elements are called, measuressome 40 to 59 km.,” he says.

The immediate goal of the currentexperiments is to test the high-powerperformance of a reception-conversionarray rather than an over-all system.Existing transmitting equipment is beingused, consisting of a klystron with amaximum output of 450 kW. at 2.388GHz., a 26-m. diameter (85 ft.) parabolicreflector antenna, and a 30.5-m. tall (100ft.) collimation tower locatedapproximately 1.54 km. (1 mile) fromthe antenna. The equipment is part of theVenus station, a research anddevelopment facility of NASA’s DeepSpace Network at Goldstone nearBarstow, California.

Thus far the Mojave Desert tests haveshown, JPL says, that the presentrectenna array concept should beadequate for a somewhat weather-

dependent, yet highly efficient, receivingmechanization for a high-powermicrowave power transmission link. Toimprove the system, a number ofinnovations are needed, JPL says: diodeswith higher conversion-efficiency, abetter array impedance match andsimplified techniques for massmanufacturing and assembly.

Collecting the PowerThe transmission of power via

microwave differs from transmission ofcommunication signals, in that a greaterpercentage of the power must be received.You can amplify weak communicationsignals but not power.

In the space station, a series ofmicrowave generators would be combinedin a subarray about 15 meters square, andthe latter would form part of thetransmitting antenna, adcording to PeterE. Glaser.

The generator design, Glaser says, isbased on use of a crossed-field devicesuch as an Amplitron, which has thepotential of high efficiency, highreliability and very long life. Eachgenerator subarray must be provided withan automatic phasing system, so that theindividual radiating elements of theantenna are in phase. These subarrayswould be assembled into a slotted-waveguide phased-array transmittingantenna, about one km. in diameter, toobtain a microwave beam. Thedistribution within the beam could bedesigned to range from uniform toGaussian.

In the ground experiment microwavepower is being received and rectified witha Schottky barrier diode detector.However, the diode operates at a powerlevel of +39 dBm., and the output is d.c.Although other power output forms,such as pulsating d.c. or even low-frequency a.c. (60 Hz.), can be obtained,

TRANSMITTER DIAMETER - 26 m RANGE (TRANSMITTER TO RECEIVER) - 1.5 km

MICROWAVE FREQUENCY - 2388 MHz SYSTEM EFFIClENCY - 82.5%

- 4 -

d.c. was selected for system simplicity atthis time.

The function of the receiving systemis to collect the incident RF and convertit to d.c. This is done by building thereceiving antenna in the form of a planararray of half-wave dipole rectennaelements over a ground plane facing thetransmitter incident beam. Each dipolehas an integral low-pass filter, dioderectifier and RF-bypass capacitor.

The dipoles are d.c.-insulated fromthe ground plane and appear as RFabsorbers in parallel to the incoming RFwave. Their d.c. outputs are in a paralleland series combination to produce thedesired output voltage and current levels.

The size of the dipoles and theirconfigurations are adjusted so that whenthey are in combination with thetransformed d.c. load impedance thearray provides a match for the incomingRF wave. The dipoles are 0.74 h long;they are spaced 0.6 h apart in atriangular lattice and are 0.2 h from aground plane.

The low-pass filter design representsa compromise between insertion loss atthe fundamental and the proper rejectionat the harmonics. The harmonics must betrapped and phased properly to result inmaximum RF-to-d.c. conversion (inverseFourier Transform).

The RF-bypass capacitor in therectenna performs the dual function of asmoothing filter for removing RF andharmonic ripple from the d.c. output andresonating the diode capacitance so thatthe proper impedance match between thediode and the low-pass filter is obtained.

Collection efficiency approaching 90per cent in the 3-GHz. region is expectedultimately for the rectenna, Brown says.The present efficiency of the rectennasat Goldstone is 82 per cent. A principalreason for this optimism is the very highpotential rectification efficiency of theGaAs Schottky barrier diode when itsdepletion layer is optimally designedfor this application and when rectifiercircuits using such improved diodes arealso optimally designed.

The physical capture area of thearray, including the interstices betweensubarrays, is 24.5 m2 (263.5 ft.2). Eachof the seventeen subarrays is positionednormal to the beam from the Venusstation antenna. All subarrays lie in thesame plane. The seventeen separate d.c.load and instrumentation wires from eachsubarray are routed to a central load andinstrumentation complex, located in andnear the collimation tower supportbuilding.

Additional tests of the ground systemare planned to determine performancevs. frequency, incident polarization,treatment of the interstices and theeffects of various environmentalconditions, including rain, snow andangle-of-incidence variations.

SOMETHING NEW IN THE STELLAR LINEUP

Strung across the sky like a string of pearls, thirty power satellites in geosynchronousorbit could be added to the stellar scene if a BAC study should lead to building of thespace-based power units

BOEING GIVEN CONTRACTFOR STUDY OF SPACE-BASEDSOLAR POWERBill Rice, Boeing News

A study of space-based solar powerconcepts designed to determine whichmay be worthy of further technologystudies and, possibly, systemsdemonstration, has been assigned toBoeing Aerospace Company by theNational Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration.

The contract, awarded by NASA’sJohnson Space Center and valued atapproximately $970,000, is in twostudy phases. The first, of five monthsduration, will address itself to theselection of viable solar energyconversion candidates and to the locationof their construction in space.

The second phase, to run sevenmonths, will be aimed at refining costestimates and at the reduction of satellitemass.

Over the past several years, Boeingand other aerospace firms havedeveloped a number of concepts for thegathering of the Sun’s energy in space andfor the beaming of this energy to Earthfor use here as electricity. These conceptsinclude:

-The orbiting of a series of hugereflectors measuring miles in length andwidth which would reflect the Sun’s raysinto central furnaces, or solar cavities.These furnaces would heat gases which,in turn, would drive generators whichproduce electricity.

-The orbiting of huge fields of solarcells-again measured in miles-whichwould transform solar rays intoelectricity.Equal to Coulee Dam

In both concepts -- and there are severalcandidates proposed for each approach --the satellites would beam the electricalpower to Earth as microwaves whichwould be received by large antennaarrays. The microwaves would be

- 5 -

reconverted to electrical energy and fedinto the nation’s power system. Thesesatellites each would have the capacity toproduce power on the order of thatproduced by Grand Coulee Dam orseveral nuclear plants.

The power satellites would bestationed in geosynchronous orbit some23,000 miles (37,000 kilometers) abovethe Earth. At this height, the satellite, asviewed from the ground, would appearstationary.

Weighing thousands of tons andcovering many square miles in area,these satellites will be too massive to beconstructed on Earth and launched intoorbit. Boeing, under its new contract,will attempt to determine whether it willbe better to assemble these large spacestructures in low Earth orbit and thentransfer them to geosynchronous orbitor whether it would be better to assemblethem in geosynchronous orbit.

The study is part of a systematicNASA investigation into the feasibility ofthe solar power satellite concept and ofthose systems needed to support it.Nondepletable Source

The overall concept offers the hope oftapping an alternate energy source which,unlike fossil fuels and nuclear fission, isnondepletable. However, for it to beviable, it must be capable of producinglarge amounts of energy at a pricecompetitive with other energy sources.

In addition to the Johnson solarpower satellite concept, Boeing presentlyis conducting power-satellite-relatedstudies in the areas of:

-Low-Earth-orbit transportation of asort which would carry massive amountsof material into space at low cost.

-Orbital transfer systems whichwould be used to ferry men and materialinto space at low cost.

-Fabrication and assembly of largespace structures.

-Development of advanced-technology solar cells.

MOVEMENT INTO SPACE: A VIEW FROMPart 1 of Interviewswith Dr. Timothy Learyand Captain Robert FreitagElizabeth Robinson

In October 1976, the well-knownconsciousness proponent of the 1960’s,Dr. Timothy Leary, and Captain RobertF. Freitag, Deputy Director, AdvancedPrograms, National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA), presentedtheir views in separate interviews, on themovement into space-by citizens, freeenterprise and government.

These interviews addressed severalaspects of the movement into space: (1)space migration and evolutionaryphilosophy; (2) citizens’ space migration;(3) the urgency of space migration; (4)the concept of cooperation and controlin space; and (5) the effects of spacemigration on the future of humanity.Part I of these interviews will focus onthe philosophy of the space movementand citizens’ participation in it.

Dr. Leary was released from prison inthe spring of 1976. A Harvard psychologyprofessor who engaged in earlyexperimentation with the effects of“psychedelic” drugs, Dr. Leary foundhimself a popular leader of theconsciousness movement in the sixties.To some, he was a hero; to others, athreat. He became ward of the prisonwhen a half ounce of marijuana wasfound in his car as he crossed the borderfrom Mexico to the United States. Withanother relatively minor drug charge,Leary spent several years in prison. Whilethere, he developed an interest in space.

Since his release, Dr. Leary has beenlecturing around the country tothousands of college students and otheraudiences about his threefold cause --“S.M.I.2L.E. ” “S.M.I.2L.E.” is anacronym for Space Migration, IntelligenceIncrease, and Lifespan Extension.

Evolution and Space Migration“The movement from Earth to Space. . .is a genetic imperative . . . ”

Tucked away from the crowds he hadcome to address in Washington, D.C.,Dr. Leary settled into a chair and beganto explain his concept of space migration.

I have no concept of it [of my own].The work of O’Neill and the Amesconferences, the L5 Society, and theanthropologists and the sociologists whohave been working on these matters arevery convincing to me. . . I’m simplybroadcasting their messages.

In your lectures, you have linked newfrontiers with new ideas and newphilosophies Would you elaborate onyour concept of migration in terms ofchange?

I believe it to be the destiny of thehuman species and of planetary life

itself to migrate-that we’re notterrestrial, we are predestined to leave thewomb planet and to move through post-terrestrial space.

Do you believe, as one person wrote,we either “grow or die”?

Yes. Not grow in size, but grow inintelligence, speed and precision.

What do you see as the relationshipbetween human evolution and spacemigration?

They are completely intertwined. It isour evolution or destiny to migrate fromthe planet as it was our destiny to leavethe water and become amphibian, andthen later land creatures. I believe thesequence from sea to shoreline to land toair to space is built into our DNAblueprint.

- 6 -

Do you see a relationship betweenhow we view the future, space migration,and our image of ourselves as people?

Yes, after reading the scientific papersabout space migration, I becameconvinced that we are not basicallyterrestrial, that we are seeded and spendour immature larval state within theembryonic confines of a planet. Butwhen we can attain the escape velocityto evolve, we will leave the nurseryplanet, and find our adult evolutionarystatus as mobile entities within the solarsystem, and eventually within the galaxy.

You have also called this movementinto space a “birth into the universe. “Do you think this “birth” will inspire thecreation of another cosmic myth, similarto those of the ancient Greeks andRomans?

TWO WORLDSYes, I think of the fact that we are not

designed to spend all of our years on theearth-our now-larval creature is ready tomutate. It’s more than a. myth-it’s agenetic reality. The myths of Homer andVirgil are simply terrestrial migratorymyths celebrating the movement fromthe east to the west, along theMediterranean and across the Atlantic,but the movement from earth to space islike the movement from water to land.It’s a genetic imperative.

Captain Freitag was asked to commenton the belief held by Dr. Leary andothers that the movement into space isthe next step for humanity’s evolution.

I believe it’s an alternative, notnecessarily the alternative. I think, as Imentioned earlier, that the oceans offertremendous possibilities and habitatsunder the ocean, for mining or forindustry, which means removing some ofthe objectionable parts of our societyfrom land and putting them under theoceans.

Later in the interview, Captain Freitagwent in to greater de tail on thephilosophical basis of the spacemovement. He brought out a paper fromhis desk.

I spent some time writing this severalyears ago; it’s a quote from a talk I gave:

“Turning for a moment to philosophy, I seetwo very striking facts about our world oftoday. One is the explosive growth of theworld’s population of the twentiethcentury, and the other is the advent ofspace exploration. I feel intensely that thesetwo events do not coincide by accident.Some inner motivations are leadinghumanity to new and unknown shores.Therefore, we are gathering our strengthand reorganizing our social structures.

“As I mentioned, life is a force which haspersisted on earth for three billion years,and it’s spread across this planet like agrassfire . . but three billion years it tookit to spread. It’s gone out to touch themoon, and it’s now touching the otherpoints of the galaxy. This life will survivefor many millions of years more, and itwill continue to expand and to weave itsway out into the Cosmos.

“Almost instinctively, humanity willfollow this push, and settle on otherplanets. I believe that’s going to happen.Thus, our population explosion may not bea bizarre mistake of nature at ail, as someclaim. It may be just preparation for spacetravel which is part of our destiny becausethe solar system could not be conqueredby a mere three billion beings.”

So I agree with what he [Dr. Leary] issaying. I disagree violently with this timescale . . . that it’s a now thing. It is not anow thing. I go on to say:

“We are convinced beyond doubt thathumanity will colonize the planets. Whenwe will start this-whether it be 1984, 2001,or a couple of centuries later. and whetherit be done by the United States, or theSoviets, or a joint project involving all thenations in the world-l don’t know. ButI am profoundly sure that humanity will goon these voyages.”

Now, I believe in what he’s saying --eventually. What I’m trying to get acrossis that too many people today are tryingto make this something that’s happeningnow. I don’t mean to be a footdragger,but it’s just got to take time.

Is this strictly a personal view youhave expressed concerning thephilosophy of moving into space?

No, I think parts of it are definitelyshared by NASA. The colonization of theplanets is probably something that we dosee. But let me say that a view not too farfrom the one I expressed is shared by agreat number of people in NASA,particularly the people in the planningarea. I think it’s significant that we(i.e., NASA) don’t disagree with whatwas in that quote. . . just how you goabout doing it and what is done.

The Consciousness Movement ofthe Sixties and the SpaceMovement of the Seventies“You cannot create anything externallywhich you have not experiencedinternally.”

Dr. Leary, most people know you interms of what you did in the six ties andthe consciousness movement. Would youexplain the relationship between theconsciousness movement of the six tiesand the movement into space?

I see human events as beinggenetically predetermined. It wasinevitable that the first generation ofyoung people after Hiroshima woulddevelop a consciousness movement whichwould allow them to detach their bodiesand their nervous systems from the blindrobot direction of the Human Ant Hill.It was inevitable that the secondgeneration after Hiroshima would use theexpanded and liberated consciousness ofof the preceeding generation to create anexternalization of the internal visionwhich the consciousness movementproduced.

What made it inevitable that theconsciousness movement develop afterHiroshima and Nagasaki?

The terrestrial ballgame was over withHiroshima. There could be no moreterritorial warfare; no more imperialconflict; no more technologicalcompetition on the planet. We hadoutgrown the planet with Alamagordo.

In order to leave the planet, we haveto detach our nervous systems and getcontrol of our own bodies, andessentially, to mutate beyond the Hiveof Domestication that characterized ourspecies before 1960.

Since 1960, almost every Americanhas been somewhat involved in someform of rebirth or consciousnessexperience. The Gallup poll recentlydemonstrated that over half of allProtestants have had rebirth experiences,which are watered-down versions of theconsciousness movement of the 1960’s.

- 7 -

What makes it inevitable for thesecond step to occur (i.e., spacemigration)?

Once human beings have becomedetached from their commitment toinsectoid or hive directions and searchwithin their own neurology, the visionswhich emerge inevitably point to thepost-territorial destiny of our species. Butpost-territorial visions could not betolerated before humanity had attainedthe technological sophistication whichwas demonstrated in the nuclear fissionexperiments.

I believe that these sequences oftechnology-both inner and outer-arequite routine and standard on allbiological planets. There’s nothing thatunique about the human species, norabout our planetary development hereon Earth.

So the inner consciousness movementwas just the preliminary step to themovement in to space?

Yes. You cannot create anythingexternally which you have notexperienced internally. Everything thathumanity had done externally with ourmachines, with our technology, with ourmaterial structures, have always beenpreceeded by a neurological or innervisionary revelation.

To illustrate this point, I cite the caseof Albert Einstein, who, we are told,continually attempted to imagine or toexperience, what it would be like to be aphoton . . . that is, to be traveling at thespeed of light. Once he could (throughself-hypnosis) coax his nervous system tooperate in speed-of-light terms, it wasobviously a simple matter for him tounderstand and then write the equationswhich have so revolutionized our physics.

The Einstein story makes the pointthat physics, chemistry, and engineeringshould be experienced-and usually haveto be experienced-before the equationsare written. Physics and engineeringwithout the experiential is adepersonalized and inhuman enterprise.

And there are other scientists whohave had such experiences?

Well, I don’t know. I think there arenever more than a handful -- five or ten --scientists alive at any one time in humanhistory. The rest are engineers orreproducers. I suppose that everyscientist has had to have some way ofturning on his nervous system toexperience what he was thinking about.Certainly, Darwin did this in his epic-making voyages to the Pacific.

Captain Freitag of NASA was asked ifhe saw any connection between theconsciousness movement of the six tiesand the present space migrationmovement. He commented:

Absolutely no connection whatsoever.I think it was just timing. There may besome connection by inspection. Werespace not available to them, if technology

had not demonstrated to the world thatspace was a viable place to go, that samemovement would have found anotheroutlet.

That outlet might have been migrationto Timbuctu; it might have beenmigration under the oceans; it might havebeen an outlet in some othermanifestation-music-or a thousand andone spiritual things. It might have been agreat religious movement; it might havebeen something else -- anticommunism --you can name anything you want.

Space happens to be an outlet. Ithappens to be a very pleasant outlet; ithas many desirable features; and it ishappening. So I think it is a coincidence.That coinc idence-again-may besomething that some great planner abovehas gone beyond and laid out.

There would have been another outletif it had not been space. If we had killedthe first man in orbit in the sixties, andkilled the second man in orbit, thisprogram would be dead, we would knowwithout any doubt that it’s impossibleto go into space.

Grassroots in Outer SpaceDr. Leary, what is the virtue of

establishing a colony? Who wants to goto a colony?

Well, it’s like a butterfly . . . acaterpillar becoming a butterfly andlearning how to fly . . . like a bird in thenest just getting ready to flap its wingsand soar out over the air. Nothing is moreexciting than to be in a position whereyou are just about to live out yourpredetermined destiny.

Do you think there should be acitizens’ space migration movement?

I think that there should be manysuch movements. I think that every groupof people who share any sort ofcommunal vision which they want toexternalize should band together; raisethe money; and generate the energy toset up their own space habitat.

The Mormons should do it; theCatholics should do it; the vegetariansshould do it. It’s not just one big citizens’group.

Diversity -- just as the Plymouthmothers and fathers joined together tobuild their Mayflower -- exactly thatmodel should be used. There should beno reliance on big government or bigindustry or big citizens’ groups.

We should encourage diversity. Weshould get the Salvation Army; the ladies’softball league; the Sierra Club; and theNational Rifle Association-let them havetheir own space cylinder. That’s fantastic.I’m all for it.

What to Do for an Encore?According to Dr. Leary and others

involved in the space movement, thereseems to be tremendous growth in thepublic's interest in space. Captain Freitag,do you have a similar impression?

I don’t accept that as what’s reallyhappening . . . we’re seeing a resurgence.You recall the interest in space in 1967,‘68, and ‘69, which was extremelybroad. We’re just beginning to get backup to a small percentage of the interestthat we had in the country at that time.What happened in my opinion, is thatafter the lunar landing, we foundourselves in the position of “What areyou going to do for an encore?” Peoplelost interest.

like “let’s build cities under the ocean.”Why isn’t there a great migration to gounder the oceans just like Leary says wewant to go into space? It turns out thatonly about 10 or 15% even want toexplore the ocean, let alone buildhabitats under the sea to mine those greatresources. They don’t want to do it.

In the first place, we wound down thespace program to something far lessdramatic. There will never be anything inour lifetime as dramatic as putting a manon the moon-that’s a once-in-an-epochfl ight.

You can land on Mars, or you can landon another planet. But it will nevercompare to the threshold we steppedover when we landed on the Moon.That’s the first time humanity left thisplanet.

So two-thirds of the people thinkspace is great, just like they thoughtaviation was great in the last fifty years.So, I think, with that motivation, peoplewill move out into space. But it will notbe a grassroots migration; it will be a verylogical, step-by-step process. I don’t wantto say controlled. It will be highlyvoluntary and highly supportive, it willbe highly disciplined and highlyorganized, because that is the only waythat you could ever survive in space.

At that time, we also had three or fourthings going on. We had a very greatupswing in Viet Nam; it totallypreoccupied the nation’s interest. As faras government was concerned, we werepumping $40 billion a year into VietNam. You couldn’t put large amountsof money into space, spending that kindof money.

What do you think NASA and theU.S. government should be doing as far asspace colonization and industrialization isconcerned, Dr. Leary?

At long last, we started paying theprice of inflation, which came about atthat point in time. The civil rightsproblems, the assassination of Dr. King,and the campus riots took the interestaway from space.

I’m not that concerned with NASAand the United States government.Everything they do is fine. NASA issimply a bureaucratic agency serving theAmerican people. And, the government --shocking as this may sound -- is simply aservant of the American people. So, Ithink it’s a citizens’ situation . . . it’s afree enterprise situation . . . it’s amainstreet, grassroots situation.

Meanwhile, there was nothing reallygoing on in space, because we had madea very conscious decision to phase out theApollo program and move into the SpaceShuttle which would take a decade tobring into being. In that period, there wasonly extremely minor activity goingon . . . minor new activity. There was agreat expansion of the continuing activity-spreading communications throughoutthe world and so forth. So now, we’rebeginning to understand what this newcapability of space is. We see a resurgenceof interest in it.

Far from worshipping and beingsubservient to NASA and thegovernment, I think it’s for them to listento us; we’ll tell them what to do. We’lltell them what we want. Neither thegovernment bureaucracy or NASA hashad that foresight in the past. It’s up tous to tell them; they are our servantsand our employees.

Hanging Out in Space

Captain Freitag, do you believe that acitizens’ grassroots movement in to space,privately funded, is a possibility?

I think it’s got to be institutionalized,and I use that term again on the basis thatin order just to exist in space, it’s such atremendous effort . . . billions andbillions of dollars. . . It’s many, manytimes anything this world has ever tried todo-not only us (the United States), buteveryone else. The program is hundreds oftimes the size of the Apollo program. Youdon’t do this with grassroots movements.

Space and the OceansCaptain Freitag:

It’s a strange thing-we started off thisconversation talking about the popularityof space. All during the period of theApollo program, we kept track of polls,typically run by Congressmen, on howpopular the space program is. If youaverage all the polls taken during thatdecade when we were reaching for themoon, you seem to find that roughly 65%of the people wanted to go into space.That’s two out of three people who thinkthat space is good.

There were times, like after the Apollofire, when maybe it was 15%; there weretimes, like after the lunar landing, whenit was nearly 100%.

In that same period, you take polls

If you can go out there and hang outby your fingernails like the colonists didat Massachusetts in 1620, where thenatural environment allowed them tosurvive, then you have a chance for agrassroots movement. But you have totake all those things you are accustomedto here on Earth out to space with you --and they’ve got to be there first.

I'm talking about just the simplethings like heat, light, energy, and air, andthe things that you take for granted here.By the time that is done, for every poundof people you take out, you take out

- 1 0 -

hundreds of pounds of equipment tokeep them alive.

If you don’t have it done right, youwill kill them psychologically almostimmediately, cause there is nothing to doout there until you have this big activitythere. To generate that from a grassrootsfinancing point is like saying we’re goingto establish something comparable to thegovernment of the United States on apurely voluntary basis.

Even the United States with all theirresources can’t do it by themselves. Wedon’t know how to do it yet. How can agrassroots movement do it, if you haven’tgot those chances? Now, eventually, Ithink it will happen, but not until afterthe exploration has been done.

NASA’s Catch 22What do you think NASA and the

government should do, Captain Freitag?I think what we need to do is to

establish a very broad research program,probably sponsored by NASA, in whichwe’d establish two, three, four hundredgrants around the country to hundreds ofuniversities examining all the problemsassociated with building a colony inspace, with building a permanent habitat;and doing the basic research on whatwould be necessary to make that happen.

How do you develop advancedpropulsion? How do you process lunarmaterials? Start this by training hundredsof people at college age level. By the timetheir careers mature in the next thirty toforty years, they and their students andtheir disciples will eventually haveenough of a base, broadened throughoutthe entire country, to attack the problemof technology. I may sound like apessimist, but I’m not. I’m an optimist.It’s this office which is furnishing themoney to keep O’Neill busy. We needthat type of work.

But at the same time, we’ve just got tokeep our feet on the ground, because ifwe go too far on out in the future, welose our connection with pragmaticpeople who say “What have you done forme lately? . . . Have you done somethingthat is economically profitable? Haveyou done something which is ofsociological benefit to the millions ofpeople on earth today, not to a small fewin the future? Have you done somethingto lessen international tensions. . . orwhat?”

It isn’t what you could do . . . it’swhat have you done.

Space is for the Birds

Dr. Leary was asked to comment onthe politics involved in the movementin to space.

I think that most partisan politics is aprimitive mammalian reaction involvingcontrol of territory and herd or tribevertical dominance. I think that once themigration to space has been made, withthe accessibility and unlimited access to

space, territorial politics and partisancompetitions for dominance will betremendously minimized.

Bureaucrats want to controleverything and limit everything to theirown province. . . that’s just one of thegivens. We must not worry about failing.We are being forced off the planet justlike birds are forced out of the nest. Wecan’t fail . . . cannot make mistakes.

You see, migration from the old worldto the new was inevitable. Certain peopletried to control it; certain people tried tohave monopolies; certain bureaucrats triedto limit it . . . sure. But nothing couldstop it. Nothing could prevent themigration, and eventually, theindependent liberation of the New Worldpeople.

I do feel space migration is anintelligence test of one’s understanding ofgovernment. There’s a naive assumptionthat space belongs to NASA, or thatspace belongs to the government inWashington. It doesn’t: we, the peopleof the United States, have the final sayon who will go to space and how we willgo.

I’m not at all intimidated bybureaucrats in NASA, their fears, or theirparanoia about my interest. I want tosupport NASA and government officialswho are leading us into space; on theotherhand, I have no sense ofintimidation.

NASA bureaucrats are my servants . . .and the servants of every taxpayer. Ifthey act too paranoid, we’ll fire them. Ifthey act open-minded and creative, we’llpromote them.

Moving Out into the Cosmos“Life has reached out. . . and touchedfive planets.”

Captain Freitag, would you commenton Dr. Leary’s statements that humanityis being forced off this planet and thatnothing can prevent the migration of*‘The New World people?”

I can comment on that three ways. Inthe first place, he starts off by saying thatwe’re being forced off the planet. Icouldn’t disagree more; we are not beingforced off the planet. What he is talkingabout there is the “limits to growth”theory. I think that the limits to growthhaven’t even been explored. We’re fourbillion people on this planet today, and I

have perfect confidence that this planetcan support 20 or 30 billion. I think wewill solve that problem of populationexplosion by technology and byeducation long before we’re forced offthis planet. I disagree with anyimplication that there’s a limit to growthand that we’re being forced off theplanet.

The second point, which is probablymore significant, is the inevitability ofexploration. It is no more inevitable thanthe inevitable migration to the SouthPole or North Pole. Those two placeshave been on this planet since day one;they’ve been explored; they’re rich inresources. But they are not habitable.

Now, technology can make themhabitable-we have proven that. Peoplehave lived at the South Pole year round.But there’s nobody beating the bushes togo to the South Pole; and there’s nobodybeating the bushes to go to a lot of thedeserts and uninhabitable areas of thisearth. No one is trying to live at the topof the Himalayas.

Space is an extremely hostileenvironment without protection. Theimplication of space as a docile placewhere great masses of the populationwould go is just not an accepted thesis atthis point in time.

I think the time will come when thereis a demand to go to space to do things --and to do some monumental things -- thatwe just cannot do here on Earth. I thinkmanufacturing a space station is one ofthe ideas I’m talking about. Solar powersatellites inevitably could be done inspace. I really think it will be done withour supporting base on Earth first. Butmigration for the sake of moving outinto space is just not a natural thing

Now, I believe-and I’ve been quotedmany, many times on this-that there is anatural philosophical movement whichsays, “Yes, we’re going to explore andwe’re going to move out into theCosmos.” I don’t want to be negativeabout it.

Just in these last three years, life hasreached out and touched five planets thathave never been touched by life before --and we have actually walked on theMoon. In a whole lifetime. . . in thewhole eons of time, nothing [like this]has happened. There is some great forcethat is moving us in that direction.

To be concluded next issue.

This bumper sticker is available from Criteria, see the first letter on page 15.

- 1 1 -

Conferences, Classes, Papers Called For...1977 PRINCETON-AIAA CONFERENCE, MAY 9-12,1977

Session Title Special TopicMaterial Resources Lunar Data

Lunar Polar OrbiterAsteroidal DataAsteroidal Missions

Rocketry and Earth to LEO (inv.)Trajectories Above LEO (inv.)

Trajec. (inv.)Mass-Drivers Review thru 7/76 (inv.)

MIT work 76-77 (inv.)Model tests (inv.)MD Reaction Engines

Chemical Processing Review thru 7/76(3 additional papers)

Large Space Structures

industrial Operationsin Space

Human Factors

Products of SMF

6 papers, 15 min. eachConcluding with 2invited papersPhysiological params.PsychosocialEcosystemsAny topicSSPS SurveyTelescopes, labs, etc.Exploration1 contrib. paper

Systems

Social SystemInteractions

Systems AnalysisEconometric AnalysisEconomic Management

StructuresEducationInternational and

Legal Considerations

Summary SessionAntropological

Notes: 1) Dates were changed to 9-12 May after September A&A announcement.2) Some topic and speaker changes may still be made, but probably not

major rearrangements (main committee meetings done).

FUTURISTICS CONTEST CLASS BEGINS ON SPACEDEADLINE COLONIES AND TRAVEL

The 1977 Contest in Cultural As part of the Adler PlanetariumFuturistics will focus on three areas: (Chicago) 1976-77 program ofalternative cultural patterns on Earth;anthropological considerations in thedesign of the first orbiting extra-terrestrial community for 10,000residents; and long range implications ofthe transition into extraterrestrial living.Considerations such as heterogenizationand symbiotization in post-terresterialcultural evolution and post-sapiensbiological evolution may be included.

Either essay or fiction format may beused. Selected papers will form asymposium at the 1977 AAA annualmeeting. April 1, 1977, is the contestdeadline. Rules are available by sendinga self-addressed, stamped envelope toCarol Motts, Speculative AnthropologySociety, 10151 Heather Court,Westminister, California 92683.

instruction in Astronomy and Navigation,James Seevers is teaching a courseentitled “Space Colonies and SpaceTravel,” January 13 - March 17. Thecourse announcement reads:

“The possibility of building and livingin space colonies during our owngeneration has apparently arrived.Repeated studies show that large, wheel-shaped, spinning space stations-housingand feeding 10,000 people of all ages andskills-are already feasible and can evenpay for themselves by building orbitingsolar power stations for Earth. We willstudy carefully how such colonies may bebuilt in lunar orbit (using a 200-peoplebase on the moon), what the pleasuresand problems of living in space would be,and how solar power stations could

- 1 2 -

supply energy to Earth. Finally, we willexplore humanity’s hopes of traveling toother planets and perhaps even beyondthe solar system to the stars.”

For further information, call (312)322-0304 or write to the AdlerPlanetarium, 1300 South Lake ShoreDrive, Chicago, Illinois 60605:

SEARCH FOREXTRATERRESTRIALINTELLIGENCE

“Who are We?” “How did we gethere? ” “Are we alone in the Universe?”The answers to these questions havebroad, scientific implications, as well asdeep philosophical, sociological andtheological meaning. The Search forExtraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) hasbegun . . .

The Forum for the Advancement ofStudents in Science and Technology(FASST), and the student programsdivision of the American Institute ofAeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)invite you to take part in the search byparticipating in a special symposium,“THE SEARCH FOREXTRATERRESTRIALINTELLIGENCE (SETI)” to be held atthe Ames Research Center, near SanFrancisco, February 24-25, 1977.

Conference speakers and specialdiscussion groups will highlight thesymposium dedicated to learning currenttechnological approaches for locatingextraterrestrial civilizations andevaluating possible ramifications ofdiscovering and contacting extraterrestrialintelligences upon Earthkind.

The program will involve the followingtopics: The Cosmic Picture: Is anyonereally out there?; The Origin of Life:Chemical and biological considerations;Evolution of Technological Civilizations;The Search Begins: Methods andtechnology needed; Cultural Implicationsof Detection and Contact withExtra terrestrial Intelligences.

Directed primarily toward college anduniversity students, the symposiumwelcomes participation by interestedprofessionals and faculty. A wide crosssection of disciplines will be involved, i.e.,anthropology, theology, life science,engineering, sociology, physics andastronomy.

Registration fee is $10.00. This feeincludes tour, symposium materials, andspecial banquet with guest speaker.

The program is being developed byAIAA/FASST in cooperation with theAmes Research Center’s SETI andEducational Programs staff.

For further information, contact:FAAST/SETI, 1785 MassachusettsAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.Phone: (202) 483-2900 or the AmesCenter (415) 965-5543.

AAS/AIAA CONFERENCE --INDUSTRIALIZATION ANDCOLONIZATION OF SPACESan Francisco Bay AreaOctober 18, 19, 20, 1977

The American Astronautical Society,in conjunction with the AIAA TechnicalCommittee, announces a multi-dimensional conference on theindustrialization and colonization ofspace. The conference will focus oncommercial activities in space over thenext ten years.

There will be technical sessions onLarge Space Structures (piloted andunpiloted); Manufacturing for Profit;and Economical Transport Systems.Sessions are also planned to discuss SpaceLaw; Space Community Planning;Psycho-Social Considerations for SpaceCommunities; and Economic Realities ofSpace.

Papers may consider-but are notlimited to-the following subject areas:

TechnicalLow-cost fabrication and assembly

techniques for large structures in spaceOptimum shapes of large space structuresLimits of size in spaceMaterials for large, light-weight space

structuresShielding techniques for communitiesDesign considerations for solar storm

sheltersRadiation considerations: low-Earth orbit

vs. geosynchronous orbit vs. cis-lunarorbit

Identification of tools needed forassembly of structures in space

Automated fabrication and assembly vs.human fabrication and assembly

High capacity power alternatives for in-space use

Control of in-space manufacturing qualityNecessary research before commercial

production plants can be implementedMethods of increasing the number of

experiments in orbitIn-space inter-system interfacing

techniquesLow-cost transportation techniquesTechnique for high frequency launch to

orbit and rendezvousTechniques for rescue and/or return of

personnel

Lunar base and launch track -- FieldEnterprises.

Single person transport modes for in-space assembly

Low orbit to high orbit transportalternatives: Cost-effective solutions

Materials resources obtainable from extra-terrestrial sources

Space LawProperty rights in spaceFreeports for commercial space useThe status of privately owned space

objects and coloniesLegal ties of a space community to EarthInternal legal options for space coloniesThe impact of existing and imminent

treaties on commercial spaceoperations

The legal framework for intra-spacecabotage

Rights of multi-national corporations inspace

Rights and protection of informationfrom space

Rights of entrepreneurs in spacecommerce

Space Community PlanningArchitectural and structural considerationsDesigning humans into the systemPerson selection techniquesAnalogies of Earth communities with

space communitiesInternal economic flow considerationsWays of making the community

economically self-sufficientEffect of various G-levels on human

activities, manufacturing processes,and agricultural efficiencies

Design of a typical roomAnticipated internal and external traffic

flowsModerate to large community shapesIntra-community transportation methodsFood production in space communitiesRecreational activities and facilitiesSpace medicine and health care

Psycho-Social Considerations forSpace CommunitiesThe effects of packing on human

behavior in spaceTo what human need level should a space

community strive to satisfyAnticipated boundaries of stay-time in

spaceRanking of services for human needs in

spaceDesign considerations for the human

element

Economic Realities of SpaceNear-term economic justifiers of space

activitiesPerceived risk factors in industrializing

and colonizing spaceHow to finance medium to large scale

space venturesMajor cost drivers in costing space

communitiesEconomic trade-offs: low Earth orbit vs.

geosynchronous orbit vs. cis-lunarspace

Economic trade-offs: large unified

- 1 3 -

space structures vs. smallerindependent space structures

Effects of population numbers andphysical mass on colony cost

Economic priorities of commercialspace activities

Earth needs for space goods and servicesBootstrap profit makersWhat private industry needs to invest

large amounts in space research

Abstracts of 200 to 500 words shouldbe forwarded prior to 1 May 1977 to theTechnical Program Chairman: Paul L.Sigler, EARTH/SPACE, Inc., 4151Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California94303. Authors will receive notificationby 1 June 1977 of acceptance of papers.

Artist’s conception of lunar mine andmass driver -- National Geographic.

ORBITAL STATIONS?Phillip Parker

Acamedician Georgi Petrov, in aninterview with Pravda on the 3rd ofSeptember 1976, said that the “flightmade by Boris Volynin and VitelyZholobov on the Salyut-5 space stationrepresents a substantial contribution tothe development of cosmonautics. Hesaid that space technology, making useof the high vacuum and weightlessnesswould also occupy a considerable placein orbital space stations, much of whichmight be of industrial significance.

“In time,” he stated, “I think it willprove expedient to build stationsdesigned for years and even decades ofhuman service by changing crews oftwenty to thirty. In due course there willprobably be super-large, multi-purposeorbital complexes with crews of onehundred or more. Naturally, these wouldbe constructed from componentsdelivered from the Earth bycomparatively small rockets. Theconstruction of such craft is, of course,a matter of the next few decades. Buteach new experiment in the cosmosbrings the time nearer.”

The Salyut-5 crew remained in orbitfor forty-eight days, landing in theSoyuz-21 spacecraft on August 24. TheUSSR has announced that several foreigncosmonauts are in training for futureinternational flights in the 1978-1983time frame. These cosmonauts are fromother socialist countries.

US/SOVlET MULTILATERALSPACE STATION DISCUSSEDLeonard David, Washington

NASA and the USSR Academy ofSciences have agreed on a wide range ofcooperative space efforts for the future,including the possibility of an inter-national space station.

Led by Dr. A. M. Lovelace, DeputyDirector of NASA and Academician B.N. Petrov, Chairman of the SovietInterkosmos, U.S. and Soviet techniciansoutlined the first stages of a renewedinterest in future space cooperation. TheOctober 19-22 meeting calls for“consideration of the feasibility ofcreating a future international orbitalstation, on a bilateral or multilateralbasis.”

The international space station conceptwould follow a number of smallercooperative programs, with earlyattention paid to a “Salyut-Shuttle”program. Agreement has centered arounduse of a Soviet Salyut space station and aU.S.-launched Space Shuttle, for aprojected 1981 rendezvous and dockingand for “conducting a program of jointscientific and applied experiments andinvestigations.”

ADVERSARY FORMATFOR SPACE COLONY COURSE

Vid Beldavs, on special assignmentfrom Cummins Engine Company, isdesigning a course entitled “SpaceColonization and National Priorities”that will utilize an adversary hearingformat. He will be teaching the course atCOE College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The students will be divided roughlyinto three groups- (1) committee, (2)advocates for, and (3) advocates against.Each group will have to prepare and doresearch in support of their respectiveroles. At the onset of the course thestudents will go through a structuredbrainstorming/consensus-making processto reach a decision on important goals forthe country. These goals arrived at byconsensus will serve as the criteria againstwhich the various proposals will bejudged.

The course will last approximately onemonth, meeting two to three hours a day,three times a week. The final output ofthe course will reflect the pro and conarguments as well as the finalrecommendation by the “committee.”The intent at this time is to send thereport to interested members of Congressas well as persons involved in the spacecolonization effort.

Speculative AnthropologyCarol J. Motts, active L-5 member, hasorganized Speculative Anthropology, anewsletter covering cultural futuristics

and space technology. It is billed as “Theforum of the Speculative AnthropologySociety,” and carries news and articles onactivity and speculation in the field. Tosubscribe, send a check or money orderto Carol J. Motts, SpeculativeAnthropology Society, NewsletterDept., 10151 Heather Court, Westminister,CA 92863.

Anthro-TechAnthro-Tech: A Journal of

Speculative Anthropology is a newnewsletter that directs itself to the studyof humanity in a technological world.The study of human life in space is oneof the main themes of Anthro-Tech. Weencourage contributions of articles by L-5readers to the newsletter. Both scientificand speculative articles will be consideredfor publication. The subscription rate is$3.00 for four issues. Requests forsubscriptions should be sent to DarleneThomas, Lock Haven State College, LockHaven, Pennsylvania 17745. Pleaseindicate if you wish to start asubscription with the first issue, whichwas published Fall, 1976.

The catalog of slides available fromthe Society didn’t make it into this issue;we’ve been buried by orders from ourChristmas mailing and haven’t put ittogether yet; rather than hold up thenewsletter we prefer to mail the slidebrochure separately, so look for it inyour mail soon.

Special mention just has to be madeat some point of Vid Beldavs (seearticle above). Seems a week doesn’tgo by without a phone call from himwith news about NASA or ERDA’splans for space industrialization or thelack of same. V for Victory, Vid.

Existing L-5 local chapters and thosein the process of formation (or re-formation) should let us know when andwhere they plan to meet. If we can havethe information by the first of themonth, it can be announced in thatmonth’s L-5 News.

Deadline for other material-articlesand longer news reports-is two weeksearlier.

The November issue was not actuallymailed until December 2, but it lookslike the December L-5 News will beentrusted to our postal friends on aboutDecember 22. We hope to eventuallypull that date up (earlier) by about oneweek.

If you have a June 1976 L-5 News,it’s a collector’s item. We are no longershipping that particular back issue exceptin xerographic form. Back issues are

- 1 4 -

$1.OO each, printed or xerographed.Other items for sale by the Society

are . . . (deep breath) . . . the two BernalSphere postcards (interior and exteriorviews), 15¢ each or 50 (of one kind) for$3.00; posters on the same subjects,$3.50 each (two or more, $3.00 each);slides: nontechnical set, $8.00 (16 slides),technical set $8.00 (16 slides),supplemental set, $4.00 (8 slides), lectureinformation packet, $1.83; High Frontierby G. K. O’Neill, $7.50 (special price, seebelow); reproductions of publishedand unpublished articles are 50¢ per titleplus 7¢ per page -- send a self-addressed,stamped envelope for a list of what isavailable (if you can’t wait, order the“complete set” of copies of previouslypublished materials for $5.82).

Important: please add $2 handling toany order.

The regular retail price of Dr. O’Neill’sbook is $8.95, but our $2 handling chargeenables us to offer it for an apparentlylower price.

WEST EUROPEAN BRANCH --ORGANIZERS REQUIRED!

In November 1976, the WestEuropean Branch of the L-5 Society wasone year old and the current coordinatorPhillip J. Parker, has been in office forthe same time. The office of coordinatoris now open and applications are invitedfrom members for the position.

Duties of the coordinator includeservicing membership enquiries, preparingthe branch newsletter, dispatching bothU.S.A./W.E. newsletters, maintaining thecash flow accounts, exchangingcorrespondence with members in WestEurope/U.S.A., liaison with L-5 SocietyHQ, preparing publicity and doingpublicity stands and generally lookingafter L-5 interests in West Europe. It isessential that the coordinator have accessto a typewriter and a duplicatingmachine.

If you would like to becomecoordinator, please write to Phillip J.Parker, Director, L-5 Society (WestEurope), 40 Lamb Street, Kidsgrove,Stoke-on-Trent, ST7 4AL, England, U.K.

Enclosed please find our contributionto bumper-sticker art. The message willnot be lost on you, since you were amongthe first to see the sense in space colonies.If you are interested in having more ofthe same, contact us-we are selling themat cost: $2.00 each [see page 11].

The sticker was created to express ourviewpoint during a conference held herein the cities (Space Colonization andExploration -- December 4 and 5, 1976).Criteria was, and still is, based uponexperimentation within the builtenvironment; our interest in spacecolonization is more recent, but equallyserious. Question: are there any L-5ers inour vicinity?

Lee DunnetteCriteria100 First Street NorthMinneapolis, Minnesota

55401(612) 338-4761

I would like to comment on some ofthe cost comparisons recently publishedin the L-5 News. These comparisons arelikely to be meaningless. Unless a greatdeal of care is taken to ensure that allground rules, assumptions, and costingmethodologies used to derive the valuesbeing compared, are truly equivalent,invalid results are probable. To illustrate:suppose a system with no fuel cost (e.g.,a solar power plant) is estimated to cost$2000/KWe. This value must beamortized over a 30-year plant life,including interest costs. Analyst A selectsa discount rate of 7½%, resulting in acapital charge factor of 0.838, andcomputes the busbar power cost asfollows:

cost in mills/kWe =

1000 x $2000/kWe x .0838 per year

8766 hours/year x 0.9 plant factor

= 21 mills/kWe

The 7½% discount rate reflects a typicalcost of money for a constant-dollaranalysis (no inflation). Utilities presently,

in our inflating economy, pay 10% to12% for their money and include taxesand insurance in their capital costs,resulting in a representative capitalcharge factor of 0.15. Thus a $2000/kWesystem if bought today by a utility wouldbe calculated to have a busbar cost ofcapital investment of about 38 mills/kWh.

Another analyst might consider a$2000/kWe system (today’s estimate)available 20 years in the future, in aneconomy inflating at 5% per year, andwould calculate a capital cost in then-year dollars of $5307/kWe. With the0.15 capital charge and a plant factor aslow as 0.6, the estimate of busbar powercost is 151 mills/kWh.

These examples do not exceed therange of assumptions, ground rules, andmethods used by various analysts.Further differences clearly exist indegrees of technical conservatism, costestimating conservation, and in handlingof such matters as operating costs, profit,distribution costs, amortization ofdevelopment costs, and governmentsubsidy.

My view is that cost comparisons,between today’s depletable energysources and the various possibilities forfuture nondepletable energy sources, arenot constructive. Someday we have tomove to nondepletable systems. Costand technical uncertainties for all suchsystems are great enough that a rationalselection cannot be made now. Anynondepletable system that exhibitspromise of technical feasibility andeconomic practicality (the SPS clearlyfalls in this class) should be pursuedvigorously until a valid reason is foundto discard it. Estimates of the time todevelop nondepletable systems andimplement them on a large scale areroughly equal to the estimates of usefullifetime remaining for depletable energysources. Selection of a “best”nondepletable option today is not arational strategy. What if we found outyears later that we couldn’t make it workwork?

Gordon R. WoodcockBellevue, Washington

I am writing for two reasons: first,I hope the L-5 Society will not confine its activities merely to establishing EarthOrbital Space Colonies, but will also goeven further-to the stars. It is never tooearly to want to go further, and there isplenty of room in the Universe for otherideas and approaches. I believe the L-5Society will never disband.

Secondly, I want to answer those whopush space colonies because they willsolve all our problems. No, space colonieswill not end: war, hate, over-population,evil, pollution, politics, or stupidity.These things happen because we arehumans. And if they are solvable, it couldeasily be done here on Earth.

But there is a very good and necessaryreason for us to build these marvelousthings in space: because we are civilized.And all civilizations build for a higherpurpose, rather than mere utility.Examples of this abound, but let us lookat those lovely cathedrals which rise sofantastically into the sky. From the endof the Roman Empire until the crusades,nothing substantial was built, for thepeople knew the world would come toan end 1,000 years after Christ. But thedreadful day came and behold, the Earthremained intact! In less than threehundred years, every village had its owncathedral. Everyone labored to raise thesestone temples, noble and peasant alike.And everyone could enter these churches(except for the infidel!), irregardless ofclass or nationality. Cathedrals were builtbecause the people believed in the future.

And we, of the L-5 Society, believe inthe future. We will work to preserve ourbeloved Earth, but we shall also strike outfor the stars! And space colonies shall bejust one more manifestation ofhumanity’s need to drive forward.

P.S. About immortality: our children,monuments, books, and artifacts make usimmortal. If we each lived 1,000 years,progress would come to a standstill, forwe change only because we fear theoblivion of death. Besides, we’d be justas destructive and neurotic as today!

Elaine MeinelNew York, New York

L-5 SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP FORM (please type or print)N L 6 1 2

N A M E :

L-5 SOCIETY1620 N. PARK AVE.TUCSON, AZ 85718

COMPLETE ADDRESS:

A F F I L I A T I O N ( O P T I O N A L ) :

TITLE OR POSITION (OPTIONAL):

I am am not interested in being active locally. P h o n e ( o p t i o n a l )

__ Please enroll me as a member of L-5 Society ($20 per year regular, $10 per year for students). A check or money order isenclosed. (Membership includes L-5 News, $3 to members; the balance -- $17 or $7 -- is a tax-deductible donation.)

__ Please enter the above as a nonmember L-5 News subscriber ($20 per year). A check or purchase order is enclosed.

__ Enclosed find a donation of $ . (Donations to L-5 Society are tax-deductible.)

- 1 5 -

I have noticed that the idea of usingrabbits for food on the L-5 colony hasbeen brought up in the last few issues ofthe newsletter. I feel that this idea shouldbe more carefully examined. A rabbit isby no means an ideal animal to use as faras converting waste materials to food isconcerned. After you take away the bigfeet and the ears, there isn’t much left toeat on your average hare. The famousability of rabbits to “multiply” is alsogreatly exaggerated as they refuse tobreed if the slightest disturbance in theirenvironment occurs. If a cat walks bytheir hutch, they will become nervousand unsociable.

As a suitable substitute for rabbits Iwould suggest that eternal friend ofscience, the guinea-pig. It eatsapproximately the same kind of materialsas a rabbit, but it is composed mostly ofedible parts and has a much more reliablebreeding cycle (which is usually 1 litterof 2, every 3 months). Both animals,however, suffer from the samedisadvantage. They produce largequantities of droppings that would beabsolutely useless for anything, unlessyou wanted to start showers of meteoriteswith them.

Don HuttonBurlington, Ontario

MAILING LISTWe have received some worthy

requests to exchange mailing lists.Also, local chapters of L-5 Societyhave requested lists of members intheir areas.

To protect the privacy of thosewho abhor unsolicited mail, we requestanyone who does not want to be listedin distributions of our mailing list tospecifically inform us of thatpreference and we will warn ourcomputer. Semper fidelis

It is true that rabbits butcher out toonly about 50% of live weight. However,of that amount, 90% is directly usablefood (the remainder being bone andgristle). Chicken and beef, on the otherhand, are full of big bones and gristle.According to Professor Ken Olson, aspecialist in rabbit raising, rabbit meathas a larger percentage of edible foodthan that of any other domesticanimal.

As far as food conversion is concerned,rabbits are highly efficient in convertinggrain and alfalfa. A given acreage plan tedin an alfalfa/grain mixture could produceas much rabbit protein as the sameacreage in grain alone. (Soybeans wouldproduce about 50% more protein. )

Having raised rabbits for many years,I am impressed by their health and abilityto multiply. Perhaps they are morereluctant to breed in Canada. It shouldbe noted that the rabbits were firstdomesticated in West Africa about 1000years ago; as they are native to a tropicalregion they may have health andbreeding problems in northern climates.

Guinea pigs, first domesticated in theAndes, may be worth raising for food astheir diet and feed conversion arecomparable to that of rabbits Their lowreproductive rate is a problem, though.Commercial rabbitries in the SouthwestU.S. produce, on the average, 42 fryerrabbits from each doe. If guinea pigs arelimited to 8 young per year, a far largerinventory of breeders will be required.Their small size also increases the expenseof butchering.

Rabbit meat is more expensive thanchicken meat because chickens are raisedon such a large scale that their raisingand butchering has become largelyautomated. (Chicken meat is also cheaperbecause the high quality protein theyneed comes largely from fish meal. Inspace, in the absence of massive oceans toharvest, chickens might be far moreexpensive than plant-eating animals)

No organic gardener would let you getaway with that remark about rabbit andguinea pig manure! -- CH

In the October L-5 News, one of thechief objections put forward by KeithHenson concerning Bob Parkinson’sproposal to establish a permanent Lunarcolony was that obtaining continuoussolar energy would be impossible sincethere is a fourteen day Lunar night, andthat it would be too expensive to buildnuclear power stations to make the baseeconomically feasible.

On this count, he is wrong, for thereis a place where the sun shinescontinuously: near the Lunar South Pole,by the Leibnitz mountains. A Lunarcolony could operate easily at this point.(See H. E. Ross, Space Flight, vol. 17, pp,409-410).

Dr. G. Matloff, NYUNew York, New York

I have certainly always regarded spacetravel as the means to insure the survivalof the human race as a species. I figuredseed groups of people relocated onplanets here or in other stellar systemswould be the means of that survival.I had assumed that the great mass ofhumanity was doomed. I am nowconvinced that the exploitation of evenour immediate spatial neighborhood is ameans of achieving universal affluence --Jerry Pournelle’s “survival with style.”

I hadn’t realized just how pessimisticI was until I became optomistic. I’m busywith extensive professional, educational,and family activities; but I’ll make timefor activities in this effort.

Bruce R. QuayleUtica, Michigan

I would like to second the suggestionthat the L-5 Society change its name to“Space Colonization Society” made byDavid M. Fradin in his letter to the editorin the September issue. Our organizationis now entering a period of rapidexpansion which can be accelerated byenabling association of our major goalwith our name. Perhaps a survey ofsuggested names through the newsletterwould be appropriate.

John MoranLos Angeles, California