Space Settlement

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

L-5 Mews May 1977

SpaceSettlementSpecial Issue of the L-5 NewsVolume 2, Number 5 May, 1977

Contents:Developing Space Policy 1

Jack Salmon

Arthur Kantrowitz ProposesA Science Court 4

L-5 interview by Eric Drexler

Boeing Designers Answer QuestionsAbout Satellite Solar Power 6

Norie Huddle

Spacelab 10

L-5 in Congress - Part 2 12

What’s Availablefrom the L-5 Society? C-l

Bernal Sphere C-2Don E. Davis, artist

ERDA 21

Inside the L-5 Society 21

Bibliography 22Jesco von Puttkamer

Published monthly by L-5 Society, Inc. at 1620N. Park Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719. Subscriptionprice: L-5 Society members, $3.00 per year,included in 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 SUBSCRIPTIONORDERS to L-5 SOCIETY, 1620 N. PARKAVE., TUCSON, AZ 85719. Second classpostage paid at Tucson, Arizona. ©1977 L-5Society. All Rights Reserved.

BOARD OF DIRECTORSKonrad K. Dannenberg, Leonard David,Edward R. Finch, David M. Fradin,Carolyn Meinel Henson, H. Keith Henson,Mark M. Hopkins, Barbara Marx Hubbard,Norrie Huddle, Magoroh Maruyama,Jim Oberg, Phillip Parker, Jack Salmon,Romualdas Sviedrys, J. Peter Vajk,William H. Weigle.

Front cover:BERNAL SPHERE INTERIOR.A series of concentric buildings andgalleries at each end are constructedaround the axis of the Bernal Sphere.This fish-eye view is from the edge of thezero-gravity conical safety net whichencloses the structures. The foregroundarea between the windows of the buildingand the poles that secure the net is wildand overgrown with vegetation. This areais too steep for residences and is not asfully shielded from cosmic rays. Thespokes are structural supports withelevators inside (Drawing by Don E.Davis, mechanical color separations byJonathon Nix).

lettersI would like to comment on Jim

Oberg’s questions regarding the Moon, inthe March L-5 News.

He raised the question ofenvironmental effects of the use of alunar mass-driver, both on the Moon itselfand on the regions of space available foruse by spacecraft.

Regarding the latter, recent work hasmade it clear that the lunar-launchedmass stream will be very well-defined inits trajectory characteristics, and will bepredicted well in advance. Thus, it needpose no more of a hazard to navigationthan any other type of space traffic.

Regarding the former, Oberg suggeststhat the mass-driver could affect the lunarrotation. The mass-driver, in operationaluse, will exert a force of some 100,000newtons parallel to the lunar surface,equivalent to a weight of ten tons at theEarth’s surface, or of 36,000 tons at thedistance of the Moon.

The lunar rotation keeps one sideturned towards the Earth. This is not theresult of any delicate balance, upset bysmall continuous forces. Instead, itfollows from the distribution of masswithin the Moon (to be technical, theratio of its moments of inertia). It is anextremely stable arrangement. The Moonitself has mass approximately 7.3 x 1019

tons, which is, as mentioned, notcompletely even in its distribution. Theunevennesses amount to far more than36,000 tons, and one result is that theMoon oscillates slightly around this stableequilibrium. These are the so-calledphysical librations. Yet these oscillationsor librations amount to only some twominutes of arc in the lunar rotation,which is so small that it was not evendetected till 1838. So I can only suggestthat trying to influence the lunar rotationby means of a mass-driver, is like tryingto cause an iceberg to topple over byblowing on it.

Oberg also suggests that it might beuseful to provide a tenuous lunaratmosphere, so as to facilitate lunarlanding, point-to-point transport (as byaircraft), and communication (by meansof an ionosphere). The merits of such aproposal are not at all clear.

To begin, the lunar gravity is not allthat bad, and in the absence of detaileddesigns it is difficult to say whether thesaving in propellant mass would not beoffset through the extra mass requiredfor an aeroshell or heat shield,parachutes, and the like. Compare (forexample) the Viking lander to the rathersimilar Surveyor lunar lander of a decadeearlier.

Regarding lunar aircraft in the Obergatmosphere, one may begin by askingwhat would happen if the Earth had noatmosphere. As it is, a 747 or other long-range jet takes off with something like

half its gross weight consisting of fuel.If there were no atmospheric oxygen, itwould also need to carry that, too. Itsmass-ratio would then be very much likethat of a rocket, and a simple calculationshows that if equipped with rocketengines, it could attain nearly enoughvelocity for a transcontinental flight justby flying like an ICBM. So once again itis not clear whether the Obergatmosphere would make travel by lunaraircraft all that much easier than travel byrocket.

Finally, Bob Farquhar of NASA-Goddard has done a great deal of veryfine work on lunar libration-pointcommunications satellites. These wouldprovide much more reliable and efficientcommunication than any lunarionosphere, for use by an extensive lunarcommunity. Thus, they would be the

lunar counterparts of our Earthsidecommunications satellites, which ofcourse have already replaced most formsof ionospheric communication over theEarth.

I note also that Oberg wonderswhether it would still be possible to use amass-driver in the presence of hisatmosphere. The answer is very simple:No.

T.A. HeppenheimerHeidelberg, Germany

Thinking of the food supply problemsthat have been discussed in the L-5 Newsrecently, I might have a workablesuggestion as far as meat goes, We areraising quail (sort of a hobby . . . ). Thebreed we have (Coturnix: Pharoh D-1)lays one egg a day, reaches “laying age”in six weeks and full size in eight weeks.They are as prolific as bunnies-andtastier than chicken. I will keep recordand weights, etc., and let you know howthey size up as a food source.

I was also wondering what sources areunder consideration on L-5 (for L-5?).Sometimes it would seem that a lot offood sources are being overlookedbecause they are non-western foodsources. There are a lot of things that areedible (and highly palatable), that areoften overlooked because they areunknown. Over 30% of the world’spopulation delights in sweet manioc(casaba), a tuber that is grown in thetropical regions. I don’t know what kindof potential it has as an L-5 crop, but Ihave the idea that most of the researchershaven’t looked into it. (My opinionatedopinion!) Has anyone looked into thepossibility of raising fish? I know of onevariety, Tilapia, that does not requiremoving water and lives on algae. I alsounderstand that it breeds fairly well.

Shirley Ann VarugheseSouth Somerville,New Jersey

(More letters on page 24)

Developing Space PolicyThe international implications of space development by nations or corporate entities are extensive. Can a policybe designed for organization, law, and security in space?

(Prepared for presentation at the XVIIIAnnual Convention of the InternationalStudies Association, March 16-20, 1977)

rise of a politically powerful technocraticelite dominating centralized energysystems (see bibliography: Lovins).

When one surveys the alternativetechnologies and strategies usuallyrecommended for energy policy itbecomes quite clear that the industrializednations perceive the situation as indeeddesperate. The most obviously desperate“solution” is that of aggressive war,hinted at in 1974 by American officialsclaiming that the enormous consumptionof the industrialized societies somehowcreates in them a “right” to continuetheir consumption pattern and thereforea corresponding “duty” of resourceholders to supply the needed materials.This “duty” would of course be enforcedby military means if needed. Given thateven the Arabs have limited supplies ofpetroleum, and the possibilities of majorwar inherent in such actions, this is atbest a short-term, politically expensiveand exceedingly dangerous solution.

Slightly lower on the desperationscale come such proposals as that ofbulldozing and boiling major portions ofseveral American states in order tosecure energy from oil shale, overlookingboth the magnitude of environmentalproblems created and the probabilitythat the herculean efforts required wouldconsume nearly as much energy as theywould produce. Massive coal mining maybe nearly as costly, although more likelyto produce useful output. Nuclear powerhas failed miserably of its early promisesof cheap, clean and limitless power, andeven its proponents speak of “Faustianbargains.” Fusion power, once devoutlysought, seems increasingly to resemblefission power: it probably wil l produceradioactive waste products in significantquantity, and massive thermal pollution.It would also contribute to the continued

Recognition of the great biologicaland social dangers of the “normal”solutions proposed has produced a wholeschool of “scarcity politics.” Its membersrange from the relatively sanguineSchumacher and Lovins to the pessimisticHeilbroner or Ophuls, and the trulyfrightening visions of the Paddocks orHardin (for all references, seebibliography). Their prescriptionsfrequently involve draconian populationcontrol and reduction programs, drasticreorientation of social and politicalvalues, and very different types oftechnology. It is true that, as Lovinsclaims, the actions needed to accomplish“alternative technology” solutions are nomore drastic than those required tocontinue policies of “growth as usual”but the latter policies have the greatadvantage of falling within what Piragesand Ehrlich have called the “dominantsocial paradigm.” Kuhn and others haveamply il lustrated our intellectual andsocial preferences for change byincremental processes; the scarcity schoolis proposing something far moresweeping.

Yet we face a tremendously importantquandary: if the developed nations are tomaintain the lifestyles to which they havebecome accustomed, and even more ifthere is to be any possibility at all forthird, fourth, and fifth world nations torealize human dignity, we must not onlymaintain but enormously increase ourenergy production. Energy supplies areseen by industrial societies as necessaryto maintain a rather plush lifestyle; to themajority of the world’s nations, access tovast supplies of relatively inexpensiveenergy is essential if there is to be anypossibility of escaping the developmental

Jack D. Salmon

dungeon in which they now languish.Social and political preference is then

strong, even extreme, in favor of inincreasing the availability of energy. Butecology teaches us that it is not possibleto do only one thing: increased energyuse will perturb the total environment,at possibly disasterous cost. At somepoint not too far in the future (at presentrates of growth, perhaps little more thana century), continued energy use basedon fossil and nuclear fuels will bring theplanet up against the ultimate barrier:the ineluctable working of the SecondLaw of Thermodynamics and consequentplanetary thermal balance changes, withpossible consequences includingextinction of the human species. There isa simple, basic fact: a finite planet cannotcontain infinite growth. At some point,growth must stop; the only significantchoices open to us are those of when andunder what conditions growth will stop.

It is not then possible to solve theproblems of the human condition on ourplanet by means of applyingconventional, or even somewhatunconventional, technological solutions.Selected techniques such as geothermal,ocean thermal, wind and solar power cancertainly help and should be pursued, butthey cannot solve the world energyproblem. If the developing nations are tocontinue population growth and aspire toimproved material standards of living,most alternate energy sources can’t evenhelp very much. The demand will simplybe too big, and environmental costs maywash out much of the nominal gains.

But technological optimism-the beliefthat humanity will somehow find atechnological solution to virtually allproblems, if it is really needed-possessestremendous social inertia; it won’t stopbeing part of our dominant socialparadigm because of mathematical

- 1 -

impossibility. And it’s even possible, tothe amazement and perhaps the dismayof at least some members of the scarcityschool, that there is a feasibletechnological solution which has arelatively short lead time (perhaps twentyyears), promises not only vast supplies ofenergy but other valuable side benefitssuch as less environmental damage, andhas a high content of adventure andglamour.

The High Frontier

The possible solution is an outgrowthof the technology and science of the lastdecade; prior to about 1970 it wouldhave been science fiction, or at bestspeculative science. Technologydeveloped for the Apollo Moon voyages,coupled with geological findings on theMoon and recent spectroscopic analysesof some asteroids, provided the neededtechnological advances and data base.Professor G.K. O’Neill of Princeton in1969-70 assigned his freshman physicsseminar a problem: “Is a planetarysurface the right place for an expandingtechnological civil ization?” From theinitial surprising findings flowed otherquestions and supporting results, leadingto what is now a well-developedconceptual design for development ofhuman civilizations in space. One of themajor activities of these industrialsocieties would be construction of verylarge solar power stations to orbit theEarth and supply electricity to the planetby means of a microwave relay. Thisenergy would be provided by ourneighborhood fusion reactor, the Sun, ininexhaustible quantities for millions ofyears into the future, and would do so atminimal environmental and thermal costto the planet. This additional energywould permit the developing nations toimprove their status and the developednations to maintain theirs. If the observedpattern of declining population growth inindustrial societies holds, the populationgrowth problem should eventually and“naturally” be reduced somewhat. Thereis even the possibility, if the conceptproves out in all aspects, that a significantproportion of the human populationcould move completely off the planet,thus relieving the world of still moreenvironmental and energy burdens.

This concept is a technologicaloptimist solution to all the conventionalscarcity problems. By importing energyto the Earth at very low material,environmental and thermal cost the“limits to growth” barriers are pushedback considerably. This buys time toaccomplish other requirements if neededFurther, the possibility of less stressfuland more rapid industrialization of thedeveloping countries, coupled with thepossible longer-term migration ofsignificant numbers of people to off-planet locations, may greatly aid insolving the problems of populationgrowth and world social inequality. It is

even arguably possible that peace wouldbreak out on Earth, since incentives tocovet one’s neighbor or one’s neighbor’sresources would seem to be less, whilethe adventures of the high frontier wouldabsorb national energies. Shouldapocalyptic war happen, parts of therace might survive in space and beginagain.

Problems on the High Frontier

There is now a growing literature oftechnical and economic analysis of theconcept, most supporting its feasibility.R&D programs are underway in bothgovernment and private agencies, acitizen’s lobby exists, internationalagencies (including the UN) are takinginterest -- for a concept which first cameto public notice only four years ago, avery respectable record. But there hasbeen little attention paid to problems ofinternational polit ics, polit ical ororganizational dynamics, and socio-political consequences in general.Technological solutions are useless ifsociety cannot provide the supportneeded; if the costs are too high, that

“Space industrialization willprobably be adopted, if at all,primarily because of the energycomponent of the system.”

support neither will nor should beforthcoming (Ford Foundation, ch. 1; Loving).

Among the necessary elements ofsupport for space industrialization areseveral factors directly related tointernational politics. This article willoffer a preliminary examination of threesuch factors; international law,international organization, and nationalsecurity policies.

National Security implications ofSpace Industrialization

One reason the U.S. is currently shortof oil is that for many years a system oftariffs and import quotas keptimportation of foreign oil to a minimum,encouraging consumption of oil producedfrom domestic wells. This policy, whichsomeone has called “drain America first,”was justified on the grounds thatdevelopment of domestic energy sourceswould make the U.S. independent offoreign sources in time of war. “ProjectIndependence” has been explicitlyjustified on the same grounds. Additionalexamples of national concern over thesecurity of energy sources could easily becited from Japan, France, the UnitedKingdom, and others. But as theAmerican example shows, we need notassume that policies urged on the grounds

- 2 -

of national security necessarily help thatcause.

Space industrialization will probablybe adopted, if at all, primarily because ofthe energy component of the system.For economic and social reasons,provision of abundant and low-cost energyenergy is of very high priority; fornational security reasons, obtaining theenergy is a high priority but carries withit the requirement that vital energysources be protected against destructionor capture. Analyses of the probabilitythat American troops could capture, holdand produce Arab oil fields under hostileaction suggested that the bet was ratherpoor; little more has been heard of theidea. Might solar power satellites (SPS)have similar status?

There are a number of components inthe complete system, all essential tosuccessful operation and growth: Earth-based launch and microwave receptioninstallations; the mining and mass-launcher facilities on the Moon; theindustrial colony; the SPS itself. All arevulnerable to sabotage, but this is trueof any major installation and wouldpresumably be dealt with by normal anti-sabotage methods. There is no obviousreason why sabotage would be moresuccessful here than in any otherpower system.

Direct attack on the lunar facilitiesor the colonies would, if mounted fromEarth, have a long lag-time due to thedistances involved. ABM systems couldprobably be designed to work under thefavorable conditions of vacuum and longwarning times; the availability of vacuumand massive electrical power suggests thepossibility of laser-based defenses, alreadyunder study for use in the moretroublesome atmospheric environment.Direct attack on the Earth launchfacilities or microwave reception systemdo not seem in principle any differentfrom attacks on existing power plantsand distribution centers: there is noknown guaranteed defense in either case,only the general deterrent posture for thesuperpowers or the conventional defensesavailable to all nations.

The weakest point is the SPS itself.The SPS and its ground antenna are theonly system elements which, if destroyed,would cause immediate loss of energy.Destruction of the other components --industrial colony, Earth and lunar launchfacilities -- would have only delayedeffects. All SPS designs are large andrelatively fragile targets, close to Earth(approximately 22,000 miles or less), andin fixed orbits. They appear to berelatively easy targets, and theirdestruction would have large andimmediate effects on national defenseand economic systems. This makes themhigh value targets of the type to whichan enemy would devote enough of hisstriking force that defense would be verydifficult, and successful defense unlikely.

But destruction of an SPS would be

a major, unambiguous act of war, andpresumably would not occur unless corenational interests had become involved.To the extent that deterrence works,SPSs should be protected; if deterrencefails, SPSs are simply another item on along list of hard-to-defend targets. Majornuclear or fossil-fueled generating plantsare also vulnerable, although morenumerous and less significant asindividual targets.

The best, and perhaps the onlyeffective, defense for SPSs may be similarto the defense currently used by theU.S. and the U.S.S.R. for their cities andindustries: a mutual vulnerability sonaked that each side holds the other’scities as hostages for good behavior.Alternatively, to build upon thefunctionalist argument, an SPS systemwhich is internationalized and producespower for several nations may therebybecome a common good immune torational destruction. I will return to thispoint later.

But national security policies mustdeal with many situations short of war:diplomatic pressure or economic rewardsand punishments are normal parts ofinternational relations. Use of “the oilweapon” by some members of OPEC hasproven sufficient to alter the foreignpolicies, or affect particular actions, of anumber of nations. It is this fact, morethan fear of a cut-off in time of actualwar, which gives great impetus to theattempts by a number of nations toreduce their dependence on foreignenergy supplies.

An SPS system under national controlwould serve very well as a peacetimeenergy supplier, quite beyond theinfluence of any other nation. The Suncannot be “turned off,” there is nomonopoly on space solar power by oneor a few nations due to a peculiarconcentration of the resource in a fewareas; tankers cannot be harrassed orshipping lanes closed; the price cannotbe affected by foreign action. Because itsinput is from a self-renewing source of(for practical purposes) infinite capacity,investment in this option is differentfrom strategies based on exploitation offossil resources, which would becomeincreasingly expensive and increasinglylimited over time. Because the systemoutput is electricity, an energy formwhich could be used to synthesize otherenergy forms, such as hydrogen, the SPSsystem could be a fundamental buildingblock in a varied and quite “independent”energy system.

Although there is clearly need formore detailed study, a first pass nationalsecurity evaluation suggests that the spaceindustrialization/SPS system has a veryfavorable potential. If it is possible todesign an internationalized SPS in sucha way that it cannot be an effectiveeconomic weapon and becomes lesssignificant or attractive as a target, wecan have the best of both worlds.

An international public policyfavoring an internationalized SPS systemrequires creation of a suitable legal andorganizational matrix.

A Legal Regime for Space

Over a period of several centuriesthere developed a net of national andinternational law to govern the activitiesof both states and private individuals onand in the sea. Because of thetechnological l imitations which existeduntil quite recent times, the legal regimeof the sea dealt with the margins of theocean (territorial waters), a narrow layerat the top of the ocean within whichfisheries were conducted, and with rulesfor navigation and passage oninternational waters. The sea floor anddeep ocean activities in general wererarely important enough to be legallynoticed. But recent technologicaldevelopments, economic pressures, andnational security concerns have combinedto produce not only interest in butconsiderable conflict over a restructuredand extended law of the sea. In particular,the political and economic demands ofthe poorer nations for a share of the

“Space law is still a rather newfield with few precedents, vestedinterests or entangling rules.”

oceans’ wealth have been resisted by thewealthier nations who possess thetechnology necessary to exploit theocean and gather its wealth.

Space law has a similar, if shorter,history (Lay and Taubenfeld, ch. 3). It has grown rapidly but incrementally,following technological feats whicharoused a need for some legalintegument, and has roots in severalareas: arms control and national security,desire to advance internationalcooperation (Kash), economic needs,political rivalry, and even civil damageclaims (who is responsible if a chunk ofFrench satellite falls on Cousin Hermanin Chicago?). It seems reasonable toassume that serious consideration ofspace colonization will arouse the sametype of questions as have arisen sincetechnology made it possible to exploitocean resources more fully. The outcomeof law of the sea negotiations may thusbe quite significant for space law as well.

However, the differences between sealaw and space law may be as significantas the similarities. In particular, spacelaw is still a rather new field with fewprecedents, vested interests or entanglingrules (Finch; Lay and Taubenfeld). Suchprinciples and practices as do exist arequite broad and generally enabling as

much as restricting. This adolescent statemay benefit space colonization: if therecan be described soon an appropriate,architectonic model to organize and guidedevelopment, decisions may be made andprograms established in the near future,and with some confidence.

The complex and interdependentnature of large-scale spaceindustrialization makes it desirable thatour conceptual models deal with wholesystems. A legal equivalent of thesystems design method much used inNASA’s engineering development maybe appropriate, in which one attemptsto construct an integrated model of allrelevant systems and then optimizeperformance of the total system ratherthan maximize the performance of aparticular part. This of course requiresthat social, political and economicfactors be part of the analysis, integratedwith technological designs. Although thiswould be one of the largest projects ofsocial analysis ever proposed, it is notin principle impossible and is in fact atype of world order model (Falk;Mendlovitz). NASA has stressed theadditional values produced by spaceprogram “spinoffs” into the civil ianeconomy, such as biomedical devices,ceramics and systems engineering; asocial science project of this magnitudemight well prove quite valuable for itssecondary social and methodologicalresults as well as for its primary purpose.The study might show insuperabledifficulties and avoid diversion of vastresources into a doomed program; if theresults are promising, problem areas andsolutions would have been illuminatedand the project both improved andspeeded (Bobrow).

The legal profession is probably themost advanced non-technologicalprofession in space matters. Severalinternational treaties, both bi- and multi-lateral, already cover a number of specifictopics. National and international legalconferences meet frequently, theAmerican Bar Association has aCommittee on Aerospace Law, there isa legal subcommittee of the UNCommittee on the Peaceful Uses ofOuter Space, and legal panels have beenprominent features in more technically-oriented conferences (e.g., theInternational Astronautical Federation).

Who owns resources in space? Whocan own them? Under what conditions?How may they be used? How areeconomic costs and benefits to beapportioned? These questions must bedealt with in international public policyfor space, as they are now being threshedout in maritime law.

Our chief current source of space lawis the 1967 “Treaty on PrinciplesGoverning the Activities of States in theExploration and Use of Outer Space,Including the Moon and Other Celestial

(Continued on page 13)

- 3 -

Arthur Kantrowitzproposes

A Science CourtAn idea that has been around for a while, and is now gaining widespread support, the science court is discussedin depth by Dr. Kantrowitz, its originator.

L-5 INTERVIEW by Eric Drexler

Dr. Arthur Kantrowitz, a member ofthe L-5 Society, is chairman of AvcoEverett Research Laboratory and seniorvice-president of Avco Corporation. Hisresearch work has included physical gasdynamics, magneto-hydrodynamicspower, high power lasers, cardiac assistdevices, strategic technology, and socialcontrol of technology.

Drexler: What purpose would ascience court serve?

Kantrowitz: The science court is aprocedure intended to produce astatement of the scientific facts whenthese facts are necessary for the makingof public policy. To a great extent it hasbeen discussed in terms of problems: theproblems of our environment, theproblems of nuclear power, and so on.However, I think that as far as peoplewho are interested in large-scale spaceprograms are concerned, it should beregarded as a procedure which might havesome utility in assessing the facts aboutthe benefits and the costs of, for example,a space industrialization program. Itmight help change a situation in whichmany people will reject theseopportunities without having examinedthe technology in sufficient detail to findout “what is wrong with it.” It is on thedifficulty of starting anything new, posedby the tactic of ridicule (which hasalways been the tactic against anythingreally new and important), that it ishoped that the science court procedurecould have an impact.

Could you give an example of this?If, for example, one would ask any of

the leading proponents of spaceindustrialization to defend his claimsagainst a tough cross-examiner, in thepresence of scientific judges who areneutral toward the question, who are notbiased against it or in favor of it, and if,for example, someone like Peter Glaser

would claim that he could produceelectrical energy from a solar satellitefor so much a kilowatt-hour, he could bechallenged to substantiate his claim indetail. The question would not bewhether his claim sounds good, but wheredid this number come from, and wheredid that calculation come from, and whatextrapolations are involved, and so on.I think that this would be a service to thespace industrialization program.

How would the court operate?I would say that the key rules in this

system are that you deal with facts only,that we don’t make any political or valuejudgments, or make anyrecommendations of that sort, that youseparate advocates from judges, and thatyou do the whole thing in public. Thoseare the only rules that everybody seemsto be agreed upon. The procedure wasworked out by a task force of thepresidential advisory groups and isreported in more detail in the August20 issue of Science magazine.

A factual statement might be that aten gigawatt satellite solar power stationwould cost a certain amount to set up.We won’t say whether such things are agood idea or not. We won’t get into thequestion of whether or not conservingenergy is good for your soul, but onlywhether you can produce energy thisway, or conceivably how much energyyou could save by certain conservationmeasures.

The procedure would start after thecase managers had been chosen on bothsides. They would screen suggested judgesfor prejudice and, if both sides acceptedthem as unprejudiced, and if both sidesaccepted the details of the procedure,then it could go forward. We would tryto see if they could be mediated to getagreement on statements of fact, but ifnot then each side would be asked tosubstantiate their claims in detail andwould be cross-examined. If finally no

- 4 -

agreement could be made, then thejudges would write a statement of whatthey thought the facts were on thatparticular question.

How are equivalent decisions madetoday? What would the science courtreplace?

Well, there certainly is a processtoday. How it goes, in dealing withcomplicated technical issues, is quitevariable. For example, one way is by areferendum such as recently was held inCalifornia on nuclear energy, in whichthe public votes on whether nuclearpower shall go forward. I think mostly itvotes from confusion. Few people todayhave spent the enormous amount of timethat is necessary to understand thetechnology of nuclear power.Nevertheless, everybody votes about it,despite an enormous uncertainty aboutwhat the facts are. That way has theadvantage that the whole thing is done inthe open. Frequently it is not done in theopen. Decisions about technical mattersare frequently made by political figureswho sometimes use the confusion aboutthe facts to make their lives morecomfortable, to conceal value judgmentsthat they’d rather not discuss in theopen, and to avoid the uncomfortableneed to exercise real leadership. If, forexample, our new president wouldundertake to lead the country into anadventurous space program, I think hewould go down in history as a very greatleader. However, if you consider whathe would have to undertake to do this,you realize that it would be almostimpossible. To convert a scientific andengineering community that has becomeused to extreme conservatism back to anadventurous policy would be almostimpossible for him. However, if, forexample, the satellite solar power stationhad gone through such a procedure andthe facts that were delivered by acredible procedure were that this is a

practical, cost effective, environmentallyacceptable way of getting all the powerwe might need, then indeed it wouldmake life much easier for a politicalleader who wanted to be courageous tomake the decision, “let’s go thisadventurous way.”

The science court has been rathercontroversial. What have some of theobjections been?

The objections that have been raisedto the science court divide into severalclasses. First, there are those who saythat you can’t do it because you cannotseparate facts from values or political ormoral judgments, that wherever there isany uncertainty people will inevitably bebiased in their judgment of the technicaluncertainty by the way they want theanswer to come out. I would respond tothat class of criticism by saying that theseparation of facts from values isfundamental to all science, that you canonly do science on those observations ofnature on which all people can agree.People will not agree so generally onvalue considerations. I think that one ofthe things that has gone wrong thatleads to the pessimism and conservatismthat we have today is the intrusion ofvalue-laden arguments into what arepurportedly factual discussions. How Iwould respond to people who say thatYOU can’t do it is that it is high time thatwe tried as best we can to separate outthe factual questions, to deal with themas best we can, and to perfect ourmethods of eliminating prejudice. Ithink that if you set out consciously toseparate facts from values you will dobetter than is done today, when noattempt is made to make that separation,when it is not considered unethical tointroduce your politics in distorting thefacts as submitted to the public.

The moral scientist will lie?The moral scientist will lie, or one

could put it as the students at theUniversity of Moscow do. They have thestandard description of philosophy thatstudents have developed the world over,that it is like searching for a black cat ina dark room. They also take courses inMarxist philosophy, which they identifyas searching for a black cat that isn’tthere in a dark room. Then they takecourses in Marxist-Leninist philosophy,which they have identified as searchingfor a black cat that isn’t there in a darkroom and periodically announcing,“I’ve got it!” That epitomizes to mymind better than anything I know therole of the ideologue in the distortion offacts. The invasion of what purports tobe science fact as purveyed by one listof Nobel Prize winners or by another listof Nobel Prize winners opposing them isjust the distortion that the students ofMoscow University were complaining of.It is the ideologue driven by the pressureof his ideology to find the black cat.

Regarding the objection that youcan’t find unbiased judges (and thatmight have some truth in it) I think thatif you submit the judges to a screeningprocess, where both sides will acceptthem as unprejudiced, you’ll be betteroff than when you don’t have such aprocedure. That is a procedure copiedfrom the law. While nobody could arguethat there will be no traces of biaspresent, it might be an improvement overwhat we’ve got, where there are no suchprotections,

A third criticism is summarized byasking “Who guards the guardians?” Thebest answer I can make is that thisprocedure should always be done inpublic. In fact, it should be done morethan in public, one should make an

aggressive effort to interest the public inthese scientific questions, which arereally basic to their understanding ofwhat their future is going to be like,through an effort to capitalize as best asone can on the drama that is inherentin a confrontation between two peoplewhere one is stating a fact whose validityis very important to him, he’s built hislife around it, and another man has hiscareer based on exhibiting how well hecan take apart this statement. One canhave some confidence that after aprocedure like that is over, and after allthe blood has been wiped up, that indeedpeople have been motivated to get all thefacts out. I think that the questionsthat would be dealt with are so importantto the future that we should have aprocedure that will achieve the credibilitythat it gets by public exposure. Of courseit is true that if such a procedure goes onday after day after day, the public willlose interest in the whole thing tosome extent unless it is very cleverlystaged, which I don’t think it will be.Nevertheless, it should attract moreinterest than such procedures do nowwhen they are closed to the publiccompletely.

A frequent objection has been thatthe science court will declare that theEarth is flat. The possibility that aprocedure of this sort might reproducesome of the features of medieval andrenaissance church courts is really basedon a misapprehension. Those courtsattempted to impose upon science thevalues of the medieval church. They hadno concern with the separation ofscientific fact from religious dogmas, sothey were quite a different thing.

A very wise woman who has thought a

(Continued on page 16)

Boeing designersanswer questions about

Satellite Solar PowerGordon Woodcock and Ralph Nansen, two men in the forefront of SPS design, tell why satellite solar power isthe way to go, and give tentative answers to some environmental questions.

Interview by Norie Huddle, with Carolyn Henson

Ralph Nansen is the Satellite Solar Powerprogram manager for Boeing AerospaceCompany in Seattle, and GordonWoodcock is the SSPS study manager.They were interviewed by Carolyn andNorie at the American lnstitute ofAeronautics and Astronautics annualmeeting in Washington, D.C.

Carolyn: A lot of people questionwhy it is necessary to put solar powerstations out in space when you cancollect solar energy here on Earth. Couldyou comment on this? Why would youwant to have these in addition to, say,the central towers here on Earth, whichI understand that Boeing is working on.

Woodcock: A lot of people areworking on the central tower concept,including Boeing. It’s a little closer intechnology, of course. There are reallytwo main reasons for going into space.The first has to do with the basicdiff iculty in the uti l ization of solarenergy: you have to spread out oversuch a large area to collect the amountyou need. In space you need about one-sixth of the area that you do on theground, in terms of the actual collectors.First, because the sunlight is more intensebecause there is no atmosphere; second,the shadow periods, although they doexist, are very brief and represent lessthan one percent outage factor; third,more subtle but very important, is thatwe can point our collectors at theSun, whereas on the Earth you have tolive with whatever direction the groundhappens to be pointing. The Sun goesacross the sky and you have to track itwith all these mirrors.

Carolyn: So tracking presents aserious problem with Earth solar power?

Woodcock: It does, but certainly asolvable problem. It has been solved.

Carolyn: But it costs a lot.W o o d c o c k : I t c o s t s s o m e t h e

second reason for going into space, againrelated to the large areas required bycollectors, is that the design loads areso close to zero that we’re having a littletrouble defining just what they are. It’salmost certain to be true that the actualdesign loads on one of these structureswill be imposed by the assembly processrather than by the operational process.

Carolyn: You don’t have to worryabout windstorms or birds sitting oncollectors or things like that?

Woodcock: If all we had to worryabout was the satellite itself, thatadvantage would be enormous. But wedo have to have a ground receivingstation, and, interestingly, by theestimates we have worked out so far (wehaven’t worked on the ground receivingstation very hard), ninety-five percent ofour total system mass is in the groundand only five percent is satellite. That’sbecause the ground receiving station doeshave to withstand gravity and wind loads.

Carolyn: What is the ratio of the areataken up by a ground receiving stationversus an equivalent-sized solar powerstation on Earth?

Woodcock: The rough cuts we’vetaken of that are ten to one in favor ofspace-based power. It turns out,interestingly enough, that the total areaof the ground receiving station is quitecomparable to the total area of asatellite. There is no fundamental reasonwhy this is true, it is more of acoincidence than anything else.

Now, the reason that I say ten to oneInstead of six to one is that because ofthe situation of having to track the Sunacross the sky, with a ground solar powerplant, something less, I believe, thanfifty percent of the land covered actuallyis collector; the rest is space betweencollectors. So there is a big difference.

Really, you’re putting this in thecontext of an “either-or” situation, andthat’s not exactly right. To begin with,

- 6 -

ground solar power is closer intechnology and, second, it lends itselfnaturally to intermediate load service.The space system lends itself naturallyto base load service and would beconsiderably less well suited tointermediate load. The two tend,therefore, to be complementary.

Carolyn: Shifting here, what kindsof power costs can people expect fromsolar space power, what kinds ofenvironmental advantages, and whatkind of time frame can we expect to seethis happening in, if work proceeded ina reasonable fashion with no delays infunding or anything?

Woodcock: W ell, starting from thetop, the concept involves the placing oflarge power stations in a geostationaryorbit, which collect solar power andconvert it to electricity, beam it to Earthon radio waves, reconvert it to electricityfor commercial use on the ground. Eachstation would be able to produce on theorder of 10,000 megawatts of usefuIpower. That is, for example, enough torun New York City. So, a reasonablenumber of satell ites-say, fifty to onehundred, would be enough to run thewhole country, if that were necessary.The benefits of the satellite system haveto do with its relatively benignenvironmental impact, which is true ofmost solar energy schemes. Its ability torun day or night and not be bothered byweather or sunlight, its relatively smallconsumption of resources to constructthe station because of the advantages ofconstruction and collection of solarenergy in space, and finally, becausethere doesn’t seem to be any kind ofcapacity limit that we can find. That is,however much energy you need, youcan get it from this source. The onlylimit we know of is that if energyutil ization by man grows indefinitely,eventually you reach a point whereyou’ve got a thermal burden problem on

the Earth. What I mean is the Earthreceives a certain amount of energyfrom the Sun in a natural manner. Inour utilization of all energy sources(except ocean thermal difference andground solar power), we releaseadditional heat into the environment. Ifyou project the current growth ratesfor the use of energy for about 150 years,you get to the point where the artificialinduction of energy into the Earth’senvironment -- power consumption -- becomes about one percent of thenatural energy source. Somewhere alongthere you begin to expect some difficultywith climate change. (The Sun’s input ofenergy to the Earth varies a few percentfrom time to time anyway.) Now, it’sprobably unlikely that the energyconsumption on the surface of the Earthwill grow that much for reasons ofpopulation limits and other factors. And,interestingly, the satellite form of power,although it does impose a thermal burdenbecause the electric power that is utilizedeventually turns to heat after you haveused it, has very little waste thermalheat-it is dumped in space, not on theEarth.

As to the costs involved, I don’t thinkwe’re in a position to make firm quotes.We’ve made a number of estimates andthe range we’ve published in terms of thecost of electricity in 1975 dollars rangesfrom about 25 mills per kilowatt hour toabout 75, and that’s a roughrepresentation of the uncertainty that wepresently see. (These are bus bar costs.You’d have to add about 10 or possibly15 mills to that to get retail costs.) Thatjust about compares with the range ofretail costs today. You find that thehydro projects in the Pacific Northwestand other locations, where the capitalcosts of the facilities have already beenwritten off, run for operating costs of3 to 4 mills. There the retail rates arearound 15. . . I think I pay around 18.Some people in Seattle pay a little lessthan 15. The other extreme, in thecontinental U.S., tends to be in the NewYork City area, where people pay 80 to90. Now these satellites would behave inone respect like hydro power, becausewe use the typical accounting scheme ofdepreciating them over thirty years; thereis no reason to think they’d be shut offat the end of thirty years. And after thattime, they’d look like hydropower, withan operating cost in the 3 to 5 mill range.

You asked about time. That’s a veryinteresting question. If you take thelargest known oil reserves in the world,Saudi Arabia’s, and you divide theirknown reserves by their currentproduction rate, they’re going to lastforty years at the current productionrates. Presumably, most of the othersources will be gone by then. Nownobody knows for sure how much thereis yet to be found and there are a bunchof elegant theories with bell-shapedcurves and all that sort of thing. By the

end of the century, oil will be in shortsupply, and by the middle of the nextcentury, it will probably, for all practicalpurposes, be gone, except for feedstocksfor certain plastic industries and so forth.The range of scenarios we’ve looked atfor constructing a system of this naturerange from: (1) having a full go ahead forthe whole system, which wouId takearound twelve to fifteen years. Thereisn’t any indication that there will beany such “go” signal in the nearfuture. (2) A development that goesthrough some sort of pilot developmentphase, which most new energy sourcesdo, looks more in the twenty to twenty-five year range. But there aren’t anytechnological barriers preventing usfrom starting any such program. Wedon’t have to invent a means of doingthis or that.

“We‘re talking about scaling upspace operations by somethingon the order of thousands. Andthere is no reason why thatcan’t be done. . . ”

Norie: What do you see as the majorobstacles for getting this programunderway?

Woodcock: I can see two. One is thecredibility gap. We’re talking aboutscaling up space operations by somethingon the order of thousands. And there isno reason why that can’t be done, but itcertainly causes people to be concernedabout the feasibility. The truth of thematter is that our space operationstoday are on a very, very small scale. Theannual NASA budget, for example, isjust about equal to the annual profit ofthe world’s largest oil company. That isan interesting statistic that most peopledon’ t know.

The second problem has to do withthe fact that the development cost tobring in this type of solar power isprobably higher than for the other kindsto which people have been exposed. Partof this is because we have to virtuallycreate a new industry of spaceindustrialization. The development costis not high in comparison with thebenefits; in fact, when you envision awhole program of this nature, then thecost of electric power derived from thiskind of source-assuming you expand itto a useful size, lots of satellites gettinglots of power-becomes quite low. If youtry to recover all your development costsit raises the cost by a few percent. Iwould guess, however, that the totalinvestment in this kind of a system

would not be larger than it has been forother kinds of high technology newenergy. I haven’t seen any figures for thetotal development costs of fusion energy,but I would guess they are comparable.From what I know of the developmentof nuclear energy as a practicalcommercial source of energy, I wouldguess they are comparable. It’s verydifficult to get a good handle on thenuclear developments because there wasa lot spent for weapons and it’s hard todetermine what the technology transferis.

Carolyn: I wonder if you couldcomment on the traffic requirements forground launched satellites.

Woodcock: One of the things thatconcerns people about this concept is thefact that the transportation system we’vefound to be economically practical forthis purpose involves the use of a fullyreusable rocket system, not ninetypercent reusable, like the Shuttle, butcompletely reusable; about twice thesize of the Saturn 5 Moon rocket,operated up to as many as ten launchesa day. Now this is a somewhat startlingrequirement to most people; in theSaturn program we launched at most fourvehicles a year. Even the Shuttle willprobably fly about every two weeks onceit gets into the operational phase. So tenlaunches a day is kind of mind-bogglingto people used to the space business. Thevehicle we’re talking about is fifteenmillion pounds fully fueled, so ten liftoffsa day is about 150 million pounds a day,and that’s a pretty big number. But ifyou take any of the large commercialairports and look at the vehicles theylaunch -- commercial aircraft which weighon the average about 350,000 pounds --they typically launch (if you can use thatterm) about 500 flights a day, and thetotal there is about 15 million pounds aday. So it’s not at all outside ouroperational experience for fl ightsystems; we just don’t launch spacevehicles at that rate. But there is noreason why we couldn’t. In fact, thefleet size requirements for doing thoseten launches a day, because of thepotential of fast turn-around, is on theorder of a few dozen vehicles.

Norie: What position are you at now?Where do you go from here in terms ofresearch?

Woodcock : The program is. youcan’t even call it a program. Studies havebeen funded by NASA over the past twoor three years. And there were somestudies before that -- l think the firststarted in 1971 or 1972. A typical levelof effort would employ six to fifteenpeople, depending on the size of thestudy and how long it was conducted.These studies and some key technologydemonstrations, particularly in the areaof microwave power transmission haveconvinced quite a number of people atNASA that the thing is technicallyfeasible. The economic factor is still a

little too uncertain to determine if it iseconomically feasible or not. At any rate,this year the study that we areconducting is at slightly under themillion dollar level. There is anotherstudy that will be of a comparable level,issued from a different NASA center.They’ll probably have that one underwayin March or April so the level of studyand the level of technology activity hasgone up. The responsibility of theprogram may be transferred from NASAto ERDA and, in fact, some of thefunding was money from ERDA thatcame through NASA. Now I might pointout that the study was contracted intwo phases: the first phase is undercontract and the second phase is onoption. So the government has notcontracted at the present time to spendthe whole $975,000, although we expectthat they will. The planning that has beendiscussed for after the current phase ofstudy involves approximately anotheryear of study, part of which would begovernment in-house-looking over whatthe contractors do and making their ownassessment. At that point, NASA istalking about what they call a“technology-advancement decision,” nota decision to do the program, but adecision to fund the development anddemonstration of the key elements,particularly in the areas of spaceconstruction, energy conversion andpower transmission.

The position we expect to findourselves in at the end of the currentstudy is that it is technically feasible andthat it is or is not economically feasible.In the latter case, I suppose we wouldquit. But the trend of our figures now isin the direction of improvement ineconomical feasibility, rather than thereverse. So I think we’ll probably findourselves in the position of saying yes,we think it is technically andeconomically feasible but here are someissues that need to be answered by testsbefore we can be sure.

Carolyn: What in the work thatBoeing is doing is different from theGlaser work?

Woodcock: In terms of the concept,not very much. The concept we’redealing with is basically the Glaserconcept. If you read his patent, youfind that what he is actually patented is asatellite that would convert sunlight tosolar energy by “some means,” (notnecessarily solar cells) and then transmitit to Earth by microwave power beam.That’s basically the concept we’restudying. We’re trying to find out whichof the energy conversion means is thebest way to go, where is the best placeto construct the thing, and to improveour estimates of mass and cost. I thinkprobably the main contribution we’vemade is to bring a systems approach tobear on the problem, starting from aneconomic analysis. There are potentialways of getting the costs in the ball park,

Boeing’s SPS Construction Base Concept

particularly space transportation cost.I think until we started working, no onereally thought they had an answer tothat one.

When you talk about several launchesa day of a big, fully reusable vehicle, thecosts really can be very low. Thefundamental floor under the cost of thetransportation is the price of the fuel,just as it is under the flying of an airlineor driving an automobile or whatever.Using hydrogen costs appropriate toelectrolysis, we find that the cost ofputting a pound of payload in low Earthorbit in terms of the cost of buying fuel,is about three dollars.

Carolyn: How does that compare withair freight costs?

Woodcock: Depends on what you’resending and how far. It’s a bit higherthan domestic air freight but if you’reshipping from here to Europe, then Ithink it ’s fairly comparable. Now thetotal cost of flying this vehicle by ourcurrent estimates is about five timesthat because we have to amortize ourvehicle, have to operate it, do a littlebit of maintenance on it after everyflight, and there are a bunch of factorswhich bring the total cost to three tofive times the fuel cost range. We thinkthose estimates may be a littleconservative, but we’re still talkingabout dollars per pound that are a tenthor less of that projected for the Shuttle.And so, although possibly conservative,the numbers are a little bit surprising topeople who are used to thinking of spacetransportation costing in theneighborhood of a thousand dollars perpound.

Norie: Have you done any work with- 8 -

environmental impact, or do youconsider that premature?

Woodcock: Environmental impactis never premature.

Norie: Good, I’m glad to hear you saythat!

Woodcock: We can’t find any. I talkeda little in my paper today about theland-use situation, but that doesn’tseem to be very much of a problembecause the land use is comparativelybenign. People constructing things on theground have a tendency to scrape thesurface off with a bulldozer first, butthat’s not necessary in this case.

Norie: How about in terms of effectson the atmosphere?

Woodcock: The atmosphere emissionsby the space transportation system wouldbe small by comparison with thosecurrently experienced with thecommercial air fleet. We’re burning a lesspolluting fuel, mostly hydrogen. Now wedo distribute some of the emissions intothe stratosphere which the presentcommercial air fleet doesn’t do, but theprinciple known causes of stratosphereproblems are NO, and fluorocarbonswhich we don’t have. A rocket enginedoesn’t create NO, because there isn’tany nitrogen in the combustion process.In the lower atmosphere, it is believedthat it may create some by externalcombustion; that is, you see that rockettaking off with a great tail of fire. It isthe result of the fact that the fuel tooxidize the mixture in the rocket engineis optimized for maximum performance,and there’s a little excess fuel. Theindications are that by the time you getinto the stratosphere, you probably aren’tcreating any NO, because the secondary

combustion appears to go out and theplume is very low pressure and verycool . . . and the things that maximizeNO, formation are high pressure andmoderately high temperature. Fromwhat I know of the process, it doesn’tlook as if there will be a significant NO,problem.

The other problem is the microwavesituation. Microwaves are far lesshazardous than ionizing radiations, likex-ray machines, or whatever. But thereare some effects and some problems. Wepresently recognize in this country anexposure standard of ten milliwatts persquare centimeter, but if you’ve read themicrowave stuff, then you know theSoviets use a standard that is one-thousandth of that. And there is a greatdeal of controversy in the technicalliterature over what the standards oughtto be and over what the effects are andthat sort of thing. The nature of ourSPS system is that we believe we couldlive with the Soviet standard with veryminor cost/effect on the system if thatwere necessary.

There’s one thing I like to bring outearly on the microwave thing. I think itis probably a very important effect andI think practically everyone looking intothis area has missed the significance-atleast if they’ve considered it, they don’twrite about it. This has to do with thenature of the microwave beam itself.Microwave power comes in two principleforms. There is a continuous wave form,as in the microwave oven or an industrialheating application where you just turnthe power on and it’s on continuously.The other form is radar, which is pulsed.The exposure or flux limits that arediscussed are always the average powerlevel and not the peak. One can illustratevery simply the thing I’m getting at hereby imagining that I’ve got a little boxhere on the table that’s got a littlemechanism of some kind inside, andthere’s an electrical terminal on top andI tell you the average voltage applied tothat terminal is six volts. Most peoplerealize six volts is not sufficient for youto feel it. Common lantern batteries aresix volts. But if you were to touch thatterminal, you would get a hell of a shock,because what I didn’t tell you is that thevoltage is applied at 6000 volts at onemillisecond pulses, once a second.

Norie: Minor details.Woodcock: W ell, in a way, that’s the

comparison between pulse microwaveenergy and continuous microwave energy.I think that when we go about settingstandards we should make a cleardistinction between the kinds of formsthat the microwave power can take. Asbest we can tell, the SPS could live withmicrowave standards that were stringentenough to cause most other industries alot of trouble, for example, the televisionindustry. Now there are someuncertainties associated with thepropagation of the microwave beam

through the ionosphere and through theatmosphere and I know of no way toresolve those completely without doingtests.

Norie: What kinds of problems doyou think might arise?

Woodcock: The only kind of problemin the atmosphere is a little bit ofscattering from the weather. There’s notenough scattering to be a biologic effectbut there could be a radio frequencyinterference with other RF spectrumusers and that can be predicted. The guyswho are looking at that carefully say thatthe problem is workable. The other oneis the ionosphere and radio wavespassing through the ionosphere will heatit a little bit-well, actually, quite a lot.There have been a number of experimentsconducted where the ionosphere wasintentionally heated by radiowaves. Theypicked a frequency at which the heatingeffects were fairly strong and, yes, youcan do all kinds of things. You canchange the electron density and so forth.I can’t find any reason to believe thatenvironmental alteration of theionosphere has an impact in the ordinarysense. Heating experiments have beenconducted down to 5 to 10 megahertz,and can get pretty strong reactions. Theeffect decreases with the square of thefrequency. The frequency we have inmind (for our system) -- the 2450megahertz frequency -- doesn’t interactwith the ionosphere very much; it’sabout 200 times higher than thefrequencies that do react strongly.

So even though we’re talking aboutrelatively intense beams by Earthstandards, by the standards of thoseheating experiments, we’re expectingvery little interaction. But if there weremore than we expect, or an interactionof a different nature than we expect, theresult on the beam could be to scatter itor something like that and make it moredifficult to control. There are only twoways of exploring that problem. One wayis to conduct some heating tests in theionosphere at the SPS frequencies, usinga large radio astronomy dish like the oneat Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The other is tobuild a full-size SPS and find out whatwill happen.

Norie: What do you think willhappen?

Woodcock: W ell, initial Arecibo testsare going on now. The ionospherephysicists keep talking about theseexperiments at frequencies other thanthe one we want to use, but I think someof theseexperiments must be conductedat the SPS frequency. There is a secondband we could use at 5.8 gigahertz, butit would be a little harder to engineer it.It would have still less ionosphereinteraction, but more with weather.

Carolyn: On that higher frequency,what would be the effect of the amountof sunlight intercepted by the rectenna?W ouldn’t you have to have the elementscloser together?

- 9 -

Woodcock: I’m not sure how muchdifference it would make. Yes, you wouldhave to have smaller antennae and moreof them. There are a whole bunch ofeffects we haven’t explored. Thepossibility of using this other frequencyonly came up a week or so ago.

Norie: Have you done anything inconjunction with other aerospace groups?Or with other countries like the SovietUnion or Japan in terms of trying tocoordinate some of your research findingsand discuss various possibilities ofwhere to go from here in research?

Woodcock: The basic development istaking place primarily in the UnitedStates. There is some activity in Germany.The only association has been someinteractions at symposia and papersgiven, with no interaction at all that Iknow of with the Soviet Union. Theprimary interface that various companieshave in the United States is throughNASA. Our contractor reports areattended by other contractors and wehave some subcontract association withGeneral Electric and Hughes for somestudies and we have had others likeGarrett and other selected companies.The primary work is similar to the waywe do studies in other areas. But rightnow there is no activity outside of theU.S. as far as cooperative ventures.

Norie: Do you think this is likely tochange?

Woodcock: Very likely, because ifwe’re successful in evolving this totalconcept it becomes such a big industrialbase that it is very doubtful that suchinvolvement would not occur. In theaerospace and related technical fields,people share technology results prettyfreely and, further, if the work iscontracted by the government as most ofthis work is, then the reports (unlessclassified) are mostly in the publicdomain once they’ve been provided tothe government. This is true since theFreedom of Information Act. NASApractices a very open and free policy ofdistributing these reports to all of theindustry people interested and just aboutanyone that is interested in them can getthem unless they have run out of copies.

Norie: Do you have any suggestionshow a group like the L-5 Society can beconstructive or effective in this wholedevelopment?

Woodcock: I think that although Ihave some technical disagreements withL-5’s proposals for the way to go aboutthis program, they reach effectively asegment of society that we do not-andthat is the university people.

Norie: I take it you have had talks inthe past on the technological aspects youdisagree on?

Woodcock: Oh, yes! (Much laughterfrom him and Carolyn.)

Carolyn: Actually, I won’t take astand on that, but we do definitely stress

(Continued on page 17)

Hitching a ride into space on the Shuttle, Spacelab will carry palletizedexperiments exposed to conditions in space. Here’s what happens.

In preparation for the Shuttle era, the provides basic services to the instruments,European Space Agency is developing such as power, data distribution andSpacelab. Spacelab consists of two basic thermal control.elements-a pressurized module and an Spacelab is carried to and from orbitunpressurized pallet (or pallet segment) by the Space Shuttle. It remains attachedwhich can be used separately or in to the Orbiter throughout the flight andcombination. In the Second Spacelab is controlled from the Orbiter aft flightMission, experiments should be planned deck. Figure 1 shows a typical palletfor a Spacelab configuration consisting configuration of Spacelab in the Orbiterof three, four, or five pallet segments. during its orbital stay.The pressurized module will not be used. Major external features of theThe pallet is an unpressurized platform Spacelab pallet configuration are shownto which instruments such as telescopes in Figure 1, also. It consists of palletand antennas that require direct exposure segments which may be arranged in

to space may be mounted. The pallet various ways. A pallet segment is

Figure 7: Major Spacelab Elements

T Y PICAL P A L L E T C O N F I G U R A T I O N

approximately 2.9 meters long, 4 meterswide, and may be independentlysuspended in the Orbiter payload bay orit may be structurally connected toanother pallet segment to form a pallettrain. Either the individual palletsegments or the pallet train are attachedto the Orbiter with a set of attachmentf i t t ings.

A subsystem igloo is mounted to theforward pallet and provides a pressurizedvolume to accommodate Spacelabsubsystems normally mounted in themodule. An instrument pointingsubsystem (IPS), mounted on the pallet,provides precision pointing for payloadswhich require greater pointing accuracyand stability than is provided by theOrbiter. Verif ication fl ightinstrumentation is carried on the SecondSpacelab Mission to measure subsystemperformance and environments.

The U-shaped pallet segments arecovered with floor and side panels withinserts for mounting of light payloadequipment. A series of hard pointsattached to the main structure of apallet segment is provided for mountingof heavy payload equipment. The pallet,subsystem igloo, aft flight deckequipment, and IPS, are interconnectedwith power, signal and other utility linesfor subsystem and payload equipment.Utility bridges support the subsystem andpayload util ity lines.

Figure 1 shows Spacelab in anexploded view. The subsystem igloomounts to the forward pallet. The IPScan be located in any position on thepallet train. Controls and displays arelocated in the Orbiter aft flight deck atthe payload specialists station. In theSecond Spacelab Mission, the workstation for the payload specialists is theaft f l ight deck. A maximum of two

payload specialists can worksimultaneously at the aft flight deck.Optional locations are provided forexperiment electronics-pressurizedequipment can be located at the aft flight

I

EXPERIMENT CONTROL AND DISPLAYMOUNTED IN ORBITER AFT FL IGHTDECK AT PSS

- 1 0 -

Figure 2: Shuttle-Spacelab Operational Profile

deck if crew access is required.Unpressurized equipment can be exposedto the space environment existing on thepallet or IPS.

In operational use, the experiment willnormally be integrated on the pallet andon the IPS and checked out as a completeassembly. Interface connections withpayload equipment mounted in thepayload specialists station and with bay-mounted equipment will be verified afterequipment installation in the Orbiter.

Spacelab includes many services forthe users provided by autonomous andOrbiter-dependent subsystems. Modulardesign of subsystems allows a choice ofpart of the subsystem equipment by theusers so that support for each mission isoptimized.

The Spacelab environmental controlsubsystem (ECS) comprises elementsfor thermal control of pallet mountedexperiment equipment. Oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere at sea level pressureand other crew habitability support suchas food, drink, sleep, hygiene, and wastemanagement facilities are provided by theOrbiter.

The electrical power distributionsubsystem (EPDS) distributes the basicelectric power derived from the Orbiter’sfuel cells to Spacelab subsystems andSpacelab payloads.

The command and data managementsubsystem (CDMS) provides numeroussupport functions, including dataacquisition, formatting, display andrecording. Onboard checkout andcaution/warning are provided for bothsubsystems and Spacelab payloads. TheCDMS provides three identicalcomputers: one dedicated to dataprocessing of Spacelab payloads, onededicated to subsystem data processing

and one backup computer. The CDMSsubsystem is largely independent fromthe Orbiter subsystems, but is controlledfrom the payload specialists stationlocated on the Orbiter aft flight deck.Communications with ground facil i t ies,either directly to a Spaceflight Trackingand Data Network (STDN) station or viathe Tracking and Data Relay Satellite(TDRS) system, is provided through theOrbiter communication system.

Figure 2 shows typical Spacelaboperation cycles. Users’ equipment isintegrated into Spacelab, which issubsequently installed in the Orbiter.In the launch configuration, the SpaceShuttle System consists of the Orbiter, alarge external tank which providespropellant to the Orbiter during launchand two solid rocket boosters. This

configuration is launched and propelledby the solid rocket boosters and Orbitermain engines.

The solid rocket booster and theexternal tank are jettisoned beforereaching orbital velocity, with orbitalveloci ty being achieved by the orbitalmaneuvering system. When the desiredo rb i t has been achieved, the Orbiter andSpacelab will be activated and the doorsof the Orbiter cargo bay will be openedto expose Spacelab to space for theduration of the on-orbit mission. Beforereentry and landing, the Spacelab systemswill be deactivated and the doors of theOrbiter cargo bay will be closed. Afterlanding, Spacelab and the Orbiter will berefurbished as required and prepared forthe next flight in separate groundoperations cycles.

Artist’s concept of the Spacelab being carried by the Shuttle. Both the pressurizedmodule with payload specialists and the pallet segments are in place.

- 1 1 -

L-5 in Congress-Part 2Dr. Brian O’Leary, in his testimony before the U.S. Senate, proposes thatthe legislators take a serious look at plans for space industrialization. Part1, testimony by Dr. T. Stephen Cheston, appeared in the April issue.

Dr. Brian O’Leary, as our readersshould remember, is holding the fort atPrinceton while Dr. O’Neill is at MITThe folio wing testimony was presentedbefore the Science and SpaceSubcommittee, Committee onCommerce, Science and Transportation,United States Senate. It was presentedby Dean T. Stephen Cheston ofGeorgetown University on March 17,1977:

Mr. Chairman and Members of theCommit tee:

I appreciate the opportunity toexpress my views on the nation’s spaceprogram. The opinions andrecommendations I will present areattributable, in part, to experiencederived from diverse roles I have playedwith respect to space exploration over thepast 16 years -- as a space scientist,astronaut, critic, experimenter on aplanetary mission, congressional energyconsultant, and, most recently, as aparticipant in the development of anexciting new concept.

About six years ago, when NASAstarted development on the Space Shuttleprogram, I opposed spending $5 to $10billion on this new space transportationsystem for a number of reasons. I feltthat a commitment to this project woulddivert NASA’s resources from its morefundamental goals of space science andapplications and that public apathywould make it diff icult for NASA tomuster the larger budgets required tosimultaneously meet those goals whilebeing able to make full use of theenormous growth in the capacity ofEarth-to-orbit transportation offered bythe Space Shuttle. At present, the bulkof development funds for the SpaceShuttle has been spent and it is currentlyin the test flight phase. In my opinion, itwould be unwise to stop this projectunder any circumstances that I couldimagine.

Nevertheless, some of my predictionsappear to have come true. Over the pastseveral years, worthwhile programs havebeen cut back severely-particularlyplanetary exploration and advancedstudies. Public interest in the spaceprogram has not been strong. “Apathy isNASA’s Biggest Foe” is the title of anarticle written by Jonathan Spivak in theFebruary 25. 1977, Wall Street Journal.“NASA itself,” writes Spivak,” has failedto advance its own causes effectively.”The search for meaningful major goals inspace exploration and exploitation willundoubtedly be a major task for your

Subcommittee under its new jurisdiction.At present, finding a unified long termobjective for full and efficient use of theSpace Shuttle seems to be difficult orelusive.

Rather than trying to probe thereasons underlying this perception, Iwould like to emphasize a major themewhich is just beginning to receive seriousconsideration. The concept I will bediscussing is well-matched to thecapabilities of the Space Shuttle duringthe 1980s and 1990s. and would requireno major new development in Earth-to-space transportation. If tests proveout existing studies, a large share of thenation’s energy problem may be solvedby the turn of the century. Theimplications are potentially enormous.

The concept, first proposed by myPrinceton colleague, Gerard K. O’Neill,suggests that the cost of retrieval ofresources from the Moon or asteroids isfar less than that from the deep gravitywell of the Earth. These non-terrestrialmaterials would be processed in space bycontinuous solar energy into satellitesolar power stations, which would supplyto the Earth central station electricity bymicrowave link from geosynchronousorbit. Economic analyses suggest afavorable cost-benefit ratio for deliveredelectricity when compared to coal andnuclear power, and the environmentalcost appears to be far less.

It may be surprising, at first glance, tofind that such a project could beundertaken over the next 10 to 20 yearswithin the constraints of NASA’s currentannual budget, and that no major newtechnology development is required. Yetstudies continue to show these to befacts. A step-by-step program could bedeveloped which could demonstrate theconcept before a final, irrevocabledecision involving billions of dollarswould be made.

The problem is in having the foresightto take the first critical steps indetermining whether such a program isentirely feasible and worthwhile.Unfortunately, the current trend is inthe other direction. Satellite solar powerand space industrialization are thesubjects of recent and ongoing NASAstudies, but the few million dollars offunding allocated to these studies hasbeen cut back this year. A Lunar PolarOrbiter resource prospecting missionproposed by NASA is also in jeopardy.And the work which has begun tosynthesize these three areas-prospecting,industrial operations in space andsatellite solar power-has been funded at

- 1 2 -

the $100,000 level with majorunanswered questions being postponedindefinitely from year to year. I believeit reasonable to conclude that a lack offoresight in allocating such a smallfraction of the nation’s space budget tomaking a thorough assessment of apotentially vital energy option constitutesa lack of public responsibility.

If this concept appears to be feasibleand in the public interest, a decision infavor of its development would haveseveral positive effects: (1) it would solvea large gap in world energy supply duringa period of dwindling non-renewableresources, serious threats to theenvironment and international stress;(2) the achievement of self-sufficiency inspace could lead to outlets for humansurvival and opportunities forexploration; (3) it would help redressbalance of payments imbalances and freethe United States from dependence onArab oil; (4) it would provide continuityand challenge for the nation’s aerospacetalent which contributed so effectivelyto the achievement of Apollo; and(5) space would again capture the publicimagination, tapping what I feel to be apervasive, though currently latent,constituency. Over the past year, about5,000 inquiries have been directed to usin Princeton about our work.

To give an example of what couldhappen as early as the 1980s. I wouldlike to describe a scenario which is thesubject of a special symposium, “NewMoons: Towing Asteroids into EarthOrbits for Exploration and Exploitation,”held at the Eighth Annual Lunar ScienceConference in Houston. The scenariostarts with the launch from Earth of along, narrow solar-powered electric motorcalled the mass driver, a device which iscurrently under development. Fiftyweekly shuttle flights would be required.The motor is assembled in a low Earthorbit, then is launched on a trajectorytoward a nearby asteroid. With a ratherlow expenditure of energy, the motorreaches the asteroid and slowly tugs itinto a very high orbit around the Earth.By 1990, this “new moon,” weighingseveral million tons, could begin to beprocessed into enough satellite solarpower stations to meet a significantportion of the nation’s increased demandfor electricity at the turn of the century.The total cost would be many times lessthan the several hundred billion dollarsof proposed capital expansion of coal andnuclear power plants, even under themost conservation-minded extrapolationsin electricity demand.

It is tempting to dismiss thesescenarios as speculative fiction. But thestudies are indicating the reverse. Thereare numerous historical analogies tounexpected developments in technology.The Apollo Program, for example, wassuccessfully carried out from its inceptionin eight years within its planned budget.

(Continued on page 20)

WHAT’S AVAILABLE FROM THE L-5 SOCIETY?

Please order these materials by number on the formprovided on page 24. For books, back issues of the L-5

News, postcards, posters, and slides, see page C-4.

For reprints and otherwise unpublished materials, the

price is the price listed plus $.25 per title. This is a one time

charge for each title and remains the same no matter how

many copies you order. Example: if you order one copy of

a title, say of P2, “Colonies in Space,” your cost is $.07

plus $.25. Total is $.32. If, however, you order two copies

your total cost is equal to $.07 plus $.07 plus $.25 = $.39.

This charge only applies to individual reprints and otherwiseunpublished papers and not to complete sets.

Reprints:

“Satellite Power Stations,” William C. Brown,

IEEE Spectrum, March, 1973. P1 $ .70

“Colonies in Space,” Time, June 3, 1974. P2 $ .07

“Colonization of Space,” Richard M. Reiss,

Mercury, July/August, 1974. P3 $ .56

“The Colonization of Space, Gerard K.

O’Neill, Physics Today, September, 1974. P4 $ .63“Lagrangia: Pioneering in Space,” Gerard K.

O’Neill, Science News, September 21, 1974. P5 $ .07

“An Orbiting Solar Power Station,”

Sky and Telescope, April, 1975. P6 $ .21

“Colonizing the Heavens,” Isaac Asimov,

Saturday Review, June 28, 1975. P7 $ .35

“The Garden of Feasibil ity,” Gwyneth

Cravens, Harper 's Magaz ine, August , 1975. P8 $ .49

“Space Colonies and Energy Supply to the

Earth,” Gerard K. O’Neill, Science,December 5, 1975 P9 $ .35

“Wireless Power Transmission,” John F.

Mason, Electronic Design, December 6,

1975. P10 $ .14

“Colonies in Space,” Ron Chernow,

Smithsonian, February, 1976. P11 $ .56

“Moon Mines, Space Factories, and Colony

L-5,” Michael Guillen, Science News,August 21, 1976. P12 $ .14

“Engineering a Space Manufacturing

Center,” Gerard K. O’Neil l, Astronauticsand Aeronautics, October, 1976. P13 $ .70

“The Impact of Space Colonization on

W orld Dynamics,” J. Peter Vajk,

Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, 1976. P14 $ 2 . 3 8

“Colonizing Space,” Time, May 26, 1975. P15 $ .07

Complete set of reprinted articles. CP16 $ 7 . 7 5

Otherwise Unpublished Papers

“Closed Ecosystems of High Agricultural

Yield,” H.K. Henson and C.M. Henson,

34 pages. UP1 $ 2 . 3 8

“Space Resources and the Human Race,”

W.L. Hurd, Jr., 22 pages. UP2 $ 1 . 5 4

“A Preliminary Cost Benefit Analysis of

Space Colonization,” Mark M. Hopkins,

66 pages. UP3 $ 4.62

“The Nature of Space Law,” Scofield and

Morgan, 123 pages. UP4 $ 8.61

“Space Manufacturing from Nonterrestrial

Materials, 1976 Ames/OAST Study,”

240 pages. UP5 $15.00

Set of unpublished materials, excluding the1976 Summer Study. CUP7 $17.00

All prices are subject to change without notice.

SPECIAL NOTE: Space Settlements, A Design Study(the 1975 NASA/Ames Summer Study) is available for$5 from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C. 20402. The stock number is 033-000-00669-1.

Inside center, left: BERNAL SPHERE INTERIOR.

Constructed around the axis of the Bernal Sphere is a series

of concentric buildings and galleries. The ceilings point

toward the zero-gravity point. A conical net encloses the

entire structure (see archlike openings). In this night view,

the man in the foreground is standing near the edge of the

zero-gravity area. The rope he is reaching for is used for

climbing sports. At center right a man is sliding down the

net (Painting by Don E. Davis).

- C - 1 -

WHAT’S AVAILABLE FROM THE L-5 SOCIETY?

Please order these materials by number on the form providedon page 24. For xerographic reprints and otherwise unpublishedpapers, see page C-1.

Bernal Sphere Exterior

package of 50

Posters:Books:

The Hunger of Eve: A Woman's Odyssey Towardthe Future, Barbara Marx Hubbard,

Stackpole Books, Hardbound, 1976 B1 $ 8.00

The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space,Gerard K. O’Neill,

William Morrow & Co., Hardbound, 1977 B2 $ 8.00

Bernal Sphere Interior

14” x 22” full color

Bernal Sphere Exterior

14” x 22” full color

Pioneer XI in the Rings of Saturn,

Adolph Schaller

17” x 22” full colorColonies in Space, T.A. Heppenheimer,

Stackpole Books, Hardbound, 1977 B3 $12.00Slides:

The Fourth Kingdom, William J. Sauber,

Aquari Corp., Hardbound, 1975 B4 $ 6.00

War and Space, Robert Salkeld,

Prentice-Hall, Inc., unbound copy, 1970 B5 $ 7.00

Back Issues:

L-5 News, Volume 1:1-16, Volume 2:1-4 B2 no. $ 1.00

Space Settlement, special edition ofL-5 News, Volume 2:5 B1 2:5 $ 2.00

Introduction to the L-5 Concept

18 slides

Space Industrialization

28 slides

Satellite Solar Power Stations

12 slides

Space Habitats

18 slides

The L-5 Society Slide Show

all 76 slides

PC2

BPC2$ .15$ 3.00

PO1

PO2

$ 2.00

$ 2.00

PO3 $ 3.00

S1 $ 9.00

S2 $14.00

S3 $ 6.00

S4 $ 9.00

CS5 $38.00Postcards:

Bernal Sphere Interior

package of 50

PC1

BPC1

$ .15

$ 3.00 All prices are subject to change without notice.

Inside center, right: BERNAL SPHERE ASSEMBLY.The final shielding and mirrors for the Bernal Sphere are

being put into place. This view is from the outside of the

windows during the day. The cosmic ray shielding in the

foreground is a cutaway view. Inside the window, people are

in shirtsleeves and are crawling up a net. The concentric

buildings and the net that encloses them can be seen at the

axis of the Bernal Sphere (Painting by Don E. Davis).

- C - 4 -

Policy(Continued from page 3)

Bodies,” now in force for over seventycountries (U.S. Treaties and OtherInternational Acts Series 6347). But it isnow comparatively old, pre-dating theMoon-landing and O’Neill’s synthesis. Ithas already become the subject of manysuggestions for revision (Kash; Christol).

This treaty established the broadprinciple that “use” of celestial bodiesis open to all nations; but neither anyterritory in outer space nor outer spaceitself is “subject to national appropriationby claims of sovereignty.” Explorationand peaceful experimentation ispermitted, but implementation of a spaceindustrialization program of the type andscope envisioned by O’Neill will clearlyraise allegations of illegality if any singlenation attempts such a program.Certainly the mining of lunar materialsand their transport into space forconstruction purposes is more than astrict reading of the treaty permits;J.H. Glazer has even argued thatconstruction of a fixed-orbit colonymight be construed as “nationalappropriation” of a portion of outerspace. A Canadian study in 1967recommended that Canada claim an areaof space for use by synchronous orbitsatellites (Johnson), and in Decemberof 1976, a claim to control ofgeosynchronous orbit space overequatorial states was advanced by agroup of eight equatorial nations (BogotaCommunique, December 4, 1976). Theclaim may not stand, but the fact thatit has been advanced suggests that large-scale space development may proveGlazer a prophet.

Further, outer space and celestialbodies are reserved by the Treaty for“the benefit and in the interests of allcountries, irrespective of their degree ofeconomic or scientific development, andshall be the province of all mankind.”This principle seems very close to whatthe developing nations are demanding inmaritime law conferences; clearly spacelaw must deal with this demand in someform.

Christol has proposed an evolutionaryapproach, involving creation of aninternational organization to managespace development. He argues that thepresent vague space regime permitsnations or organizations under theirsupervision to exploit space resourcesprovided only that no claims tosovereignty are made, and that the usemade is both peaceful and internationallybeneficial. Even so, “the problems ofexploiting the natural resources of thespace environment is very similar to thatposed in the exploitation of the resourcesof the deep seabed and ocean floor. Ineach instance there is a need to focus onthe management of such resources byway of an operating regime or authority,

which, in order to be most effective,would undoubtedly take institutionalform.” In particular, the pressure for ashare in the oceans’ benefits coming fromdeveloping and non-coastal countries willsurely be matched in space developmentas developing and non-space-travelingnations become aware of potentialbenefit and seek to channel it in theirdirection. Institutionalizing the programin an agency subject to internationalcontrol seems a likely preferred strategyfor “have nots”; the space-going nationsmay resist.

Because of the potential for loss ofcontrol, major space-going nations mayprefer other alternatives. The similarsituation in law of the sea negotiationshas produced a warning from WilliamRogers, U.S. Undersecretary of Statefor Economic Affairs, that “many of thedeveloping countries are trying toimpose a doctrine of totalinternationalization on the industrialcountries, which alone have thetechnological and financial capacity formining the seabeds in the foreseeablefuture. The U.S. has offered to findfinancing and to transfer the technology

“A multi-lateral treaty mightcreate a class of internationalized,less-than-sovereign legal entitiesin space, with sufficient legalcapacity to accept limited legalrights and obligations.”

to make international mining a reality.But total internationalization is out ofthe question. . . . There are limits beyondwhich we cannot and should not go.”

Outright violation of internationalspace law by some great power would becostly, and potentially destabilizing: anational program to acquire exclusivecontrol over important extraterrestrialresources, and to construct largeplatforms in space, would merely arousenational security fears in other countries.Presumably strong counterpressureswould be aroused. But fullinternationalization seems too much toexpect at this time.

Re-interpretation of existing law andprinciples may, however, permitimportant space development by somemiddle road between national exclusivityand an unlikely “space government.”Glazer has sought to apply traditionalstate-centric law to outer spacedevelopment and has found severalpossible avenues. Under his flexibleinterpretation of current law, onepossible option would be the resurrectionof the concept of a “free city” which

- 1 3 -

was applied to Danzig and Trieste. Amulti-lateral treaty might create a classof internationalized, less-than-sovereignlegal entities in space, with sufficientlegal capacity to accept limited legalrights and obligations. These entitieswould be neither solely nationalinstruments, nor themselves nations, andwould thus neatly evade the problemsof “nat ional appropr iat ion” whi lesimultaneously allowing their sponsoringnations to exercise control in the mostsignificant matters. Perhaps NATO, EEC,Comecon, or other multi-national groupscould sponsor such a “free city,” thusmaintaining the existing legal regimewhile evading broader internationalcontro l .

Something similar to the “free city”may be in the minds of both O’Neill(1976) and Peter Glaser (1976). Theyrefer to what are probably international,or at least multi-national, space industryoperating organizations which seem toresemble the InternationalTelecommunications Satell iteConsortium (Intelsat). lntelsat wascreated by multi-lateral treaty as an“international public util ity” to operateand regulate international satellitecommunications. Such a model mightmeet legal requirements as postulated byJ.H. Glazer, but does present somepolitical and organizational problems,which will be noted below.

Christol, and others drawing onanalogies from current sea lawcontroversy, assume that nationalresource competition in space will notautomatically benefit all nations andtherefore contemplate the necessity ofsome variety of international organizationto meet demands for greater equity ofbenefits. Glazer’s models would attemptto avoid a future in which spacedevelopment is “monolithicallycentralized” by preserving an essentiallysingle-country exploitation model or bycreating a special-purpose “loophole”device such as the “free city” for use bygroups of nations. Christol’s modelsuffers from the usual infirmities of largeinternational organizations which mustbe multi-functional, deal with veryimportant matters, and satisfy a broadrange of national interest; Glazer’s arestill likely to spark the rivalry andcontroversy that would be aroused byunambiguous single nation actions,without providing any offsetting benefits.

A third alternative might build onGlazer’s plus the models provided bythe U.S. Constitution’s separation ofpowers model and some of the usualfeatures of anti-trust laws. Spacecolonization and industrial exploitationis clearly a complex, interdependent,specialized enterprise. We mayanalytically subdivide it in several ways,only one of which -- location of activity --will be used here for illustrative purposes:

1) Earth-based (at least until wellalong in the program) activities such as

surface-to-orbit shuttles, managerialcoordination, financing, marketing, andindustrial production;

2) lunar-based mining and associatedoperations;

3) colony-based industrial fabrication;4) satellite power station operations.

Accepting Glazer’s premise that itwill be easier and just as suitable toadapt existing law rather than to inventnew modes, we may construct an “anti-trust” space law regime which permitsany one country or internationalorganization to operate in no more thanone (or two or three, depending uponthe degree of “safety” desired) of theabove listed sub-divisions. A centralcoordinating organization wouldprobably be necessary for efficientoperation, but it could be internationaland could be barred from directinvolvement in operating areas. Thosewho propose measures to control theoil multinationals frequently constructsimilar models (Blair).

Space exploitation will requireextensive interdependence between theseveral operating divisions listed above,but the “anti-trust” provisions wouldrequire their legal and political separation.Under the logic of separated powers, inwhich each “branch” has a self-interestin both cooperation with the otherbranches and in checking theirunrestrained growth and power, it maybe possible to avoid both extremes of“monol i th ic centra l izat ion” andnationalistic aggrandizement. Eachmember nation should be able to assurethat its interests would not beendangered, but a norm of cooperationwould be necessary for successfulexploitation. The American federalgovernment has operated for twocenturies on a similar model: some degreeof inefficiency and risk of deadlock hasbeen accepted as the price for preventionof tyrannous government, while theoverarching need for cooperation forcescompromise. Perhaps a similar,functional division of powers in spacecan provide a key to both legal andpolit ical institution-building.Additionally, such a model automaticallyspreads financial burdens and benefitsacross a number of countries, thus easingthe problems of raising capital andsimplifying the problems of distributionof profits.

Some Organizational and PoliticalPossibilities

The organizational and politicaldevices used for space exploitation willbe shaped by, and will continue to shape,the legal model established. Current spacelaw and practice, as well as normalinternational rivalry, seem to rule out thepossibility of some single nationdominating all areas of spaceindustrialization. The 1967 Outer SpaceTreaty requires that all space activitiesmust be under the “authorization and

continuing supervision by the appropriateState Party to the Treaty” (Art. VI),which equally, clearly rules out thepossibility of a wide-open privateenterprise approach in whichgovernments stand aside. Finally, unlesssomething highly unexpected happens inthe theory and practice of worldgovernment, there is unlikely to beanything approximating “spacegovernment” on the supranational level.

Assuming a space law regime which isneither a single, all-embracing governmentnor real anarchy, organizations involvedin space industrialization must utilizemodels which are flexible. Aninternational legal regime and itsorganizational components must workboth on Earth and in space, and mustwork with individuals and groups whowill no doubt also remain subject totheir own national laws in areas androles not controlled directly byinternational space law. A similarcondition exists in regard to ocean law,in which individuals may be subject tointernational law, to the laws of theirnation of citizenship, or to the laws of

“An international legal regimeand its organizationalcomponents must work bothon Earth and in space . . .”

other nations, depending on theparticular conditions.

There is a tendency to extrapolatefrom existing models of spaceorganization into the future, althoughthis probably will produce aninappropriate model for spaceindustrialization. Existing spaceorganizations deal with narrow functionaland usually technical problems:communication satellite operation,resource surveys, meteorology. Althoughcomplex, these are relatively impersonaland small scale, focused on technology(Steinhoff). Models of organizationwhich have appeared in space industryliterature, such as the “Ensat” (O’Neill,1976) or “Sunsat” (Glaser, 1973) models,assume a relatively narrow focus,technology-dominated, functionalorganization held together primarily byeconomic motivations. There is a clearanalogy to Intelsat, the InternationalTelecommunications Satell iteOrganization.

Skolnikoff (pp. 159-160) has modeledthe effective international organization,particularly those which are technology-related, as being characterized by highlyspecialized and technical subject matter,having a clearly defined and restrictedfunction, with a membership l imited to

- 1 4 -

only those nations directly involved inthe technology and operation (thus, asmall number in most cases), and with anorganizational structure allowingrepresentation and control based on therecognition of unequal power, stakes, andexpertise of the members. Further,public interest, economic and politicalstakes would ideally be narrow andlimited. In brief, the organization is moreadministrative than political. lntelsatseems to meet most of these requirementsrather well, and has been successful. Butcan this model apply to spaceindustrialization?

According to the O’Neill scenario,within some thirty years there would bea human population in space numberingat least 10,000 and perhaps as much asa million. Because of the rapid growthcapabilities of the system and thepresumed great attractiveness of life inspace colonies, that number could growgeometrically-into the bill ions. Certainly,even numbers of people approaching amillion would be beyond the scope ofSkolnikoff’s model: in 1970 more thanten national governments had populationsof less than one million, and a majorityof the world’s nations had fewer thanten million population. This scale ofhuman population suggests that politicswill be at least as important asbureaucratic organization.

In addition to sheer numbers ofpeople in space, there is the expectationthat very large proportions of nationaland international energy systems willdepend upon satellite solar power.Massive economic stakes will be involved.National, even planetary, economic andsocial well-being could depend upon theenergy, industrial products, and perhapsraw materials produced in space.Simultaneously, according to the plan,the space colonies themselves would bein the process of reducing theirdependence on Earth by developingasteroid resources, space agriculture andmachine facilities. This reversal of roles,from space colonies dependent on Earthto the opposite condition, will clearlyhave political consequences.

Something analogous to this processhas happened before in human history,in the great colonial migrations of theseventeenth through nineteenth centuriesin the Western world, and in other casesthroughout recorded history. Coloniesbegin as administrative, functionalorganizations, but develop internal andexternal politics. Parent countries havealways insisted upon a significant voicein the affairs of their offspring, andsuccessful colonies usually have sooneror later drawn free. During this processboth the colony and the sponsoringnation had to adjust to the developmentof new economic relationships, new valueconstellations, new types of bothcooperation and friction; that is, toconflict and its resolution by politicalmeans. Whether one sees space

communities as colonies which will seekliberation, or as economic dependentswhich will grow in power and eventuallyrival the mercantilist core powers whichestablished them (Gilpin), there is clearlya potential for rivalry between nations onEarth over control of space industry,between colonies in space, and betweenEarth and the colonies. The Skolnikofftechnology-oriented model is clearly notapplicable to space industrialization.

At the opposite extreme would be anorganizational mode dominated byrepresentational and economic equityconcerns rather than functionalexpertise, with multi-purpose functionsand something approaching universalmembership. The organization woulddeal with high stakes, high public interest,and a complex set of demands.Formation of this organization would beof great significance, since the terms ofits charter would be an important partof the stakes. It is not unreasonable toexpect development of whatapproximates a universal government forspace to be slow in formation, diluted toa least common denominator, anddifficult to work. Indeed, it seemsunlikely to happen at all.

Between the Kropotkin-like “mutualaid” of an “Ensat” and the pitfalls of a“space government,” there may bereason to refer again to the “anti-trust”model. This model is essentially a varietyof functionalism, proposing that theadvantages of cooperation will besufficient to entice nations into acceptinga buffered system within which theycannot control but can prevent othersfrom controlling, and can nonethelessgain the material advantages sought.

Advocates of space industrialization,particularly for energy production,typically cite economic studies indicatingthat their preferred alternative is lesscostly than other alternatives, and pointto its possibility of very profitable long-term operation. Even though these aregood advocacy points, it is still true thatany project designed to supply a majorproportion of the world’s energy will beenormously expensive. Current spaceindustrialization studies indicate initialcosts will run from as low as $40 billionto perhaps $200 billion over twenty-fiveyears, a range of about fifteen to twenty-five percent of what the U.S. electricutilities expect to spend on capital duringthat same period. In increasinglyburdened capital markets, as nationsattempt to deal with the capital needs ofnot only increasingly-expensive energybut a host of other demands, there willprobably be great reluctance by any onenation to shoulder an additional capitalburden of this size.

There is a history of U.S.-Sovietnegotiations on ways to save money byjoint space projects, and of somewhatmore successful arrangements betweenthe U.S. and several non-communistcountries for cost-sharing, such as

launches of satellites (Kash). All theseprojects together would aggregate farless than the minimal initial costs ofspace industrialization. It is clear thatsaving money does not always overcomepolitical objections, but it helps (White).For the wealthier nations, there shouldbe a willingness to pay some politicalprice in order to obtain importanteconomic help. The poor nationsconversely may be able to pay only asmall portion of the economic cost, butbe willing to do so in return for somepolitical voice in a program of very greatpotential importance to them. Bydividing the space industry system intoseveral program elements, and organizingeconomic and political participationaround them, it should be possible toaccommodate a number of variations innational size, wealth, goals, etc.

An organization composed of andresponsible to several different nations,

“Current space industrializationstudies indicate initial costs willrun from as low as $40 billionto perhaps $200 billion overtwenty-five years.”

with nationals of several countriesinvolved, should be sufficiently full ofsecurity leaks to make it very difficultfor any nation to mount a securitythreat through the space industry system.The complex ramifications oforganizational coordination should createsufficient bureaucratic structure andintegration to allow nation-states anumber of options for normal interest-group maneuvering as part of the check-and-balance system. In brief, thetechnological motivations of efficiency,economy, and effectiveness may, in thiscase, require for their politicalacceptability the use of a politicalstructure capable of frustrating any levelof efficient action which mightconstitute a threat. If spaceindustrialization is to proceed, thepolitical price must be paid.

Summary

It is a curious fact that humansocieties frequently exhibit an inertiaakin to that of physical bodies underNewton’s Laws. Although the advice ofSchumacher, Lovins, and others urginga simplified lifestyle and ecologicaladjustments may be the essence ofwisdom, it violates the dominant socialparadigm of the industrialized societieswhich would have to accept and live byit. These societies have demonstrated apreference for social problem solutionby means of very large scale, complex

- 1 5 -

technology: nuclear power systems,massive waterworks to move riversrather than people, supersonic planesrather than a slower pace of life. Theenergy crisis has brought forth chieflyprograms for increased energy supply;population explosions have produced theadvice that we should “increase thebanquet of life” rather than limit thediners. In view of this observed regularityof human behavior, coupled with theapparent technical and economicfeasibility of space industrialization, itseems quite reasonable to believe thatthis article is dealing with a real future.

W e have not been particularly goodat dealing prospectively with the socio-political aspects of technologicaldevelopments, even when they couldreasonably have been foreseen longbefore their arrival. Many of the socialand political ramifications of nuclearenergy systems, ocean mining technology,computerized personal data systems, andmany other recent technologies couldhave been -- and sometimes were --foreseen, but little or nothing was doneabout them until quite late. Technologyassessment and forecasting are gainingrespectability and attention as means ofchanging that pattern.

For technological development of thepotential importance and comparativelyfast time scale of space industrialization,we urgently require simultaneous effortstoward assessment and institution-modeling. This article presentspreliminary models for both internationallaw and organization, and a preliminaryassessment of some basic nationalsecurity questions aroused by theconcept of space industrialization. Nofundamental obstacle to realization ofthe concept is apparent. Design criteriafor central elements of the legal,organizational, and security componentsof the concept are described. In keepingwith Ophuls’ (pp. 228-29) definit ion of“design” as the approach which seeks toproduce an outcome “by establishingcriteria to govern the operations of theprocess so that the desired result willoccur more or less automatically, withoutfurther human intervention,” I haveemphasized basic structural andmotivational elements. Thus, the legalstructure recommended emphasizedincremental change and use of existingnational and international legal models;the organizational structure assumes thatnations will continue to exhibitnationalist concern for security andparticipation; the national security modelemphasizes the neutralization of thesystem rather than its active defense.

BibliographyBlair, J.M. (1977) The Control of Oil (New

York: Pantheon).Bobrow, D.B. (1974) Technology-Related

International Outcomes: R&D Strategies toInduce Sound Public Policy (InternationalStudies Association, Occasional Paper No. 3).

Christol, C.Q. (1976) Statement before the

Subcommittee on Space Science andApplicatrons, Committee on Science andTechnology, U.S. House of Representatives,July 28 (mimeo copy).

Falk, R.A. (1975) A Study of FutureWorlds (New York: Free Press).

Finch, E.R. (1976) Energy-Ecospace, paperpresented at XXVII Congress of theInternational Astronautical Federation,October 10-16.

Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project(1974) A Time to Choose (Cambridge:Ballinger).

Gilpin, R. (1975) U.S. Power and theMultinational Corporation (New York: BasicBooks),

Glaser, P.E. (1973) “Space ShuttlePayloads” testimony in Hearings before theCommittee on Aeronautical and SpaceSciences, Part II, U.S. Senate, 93rd Congress,1st Session, October 31.

--(1976) “Solar Power from Satellites”testimony in Hearings before the Subcommitteeon Aerospace Technology and National Needsof the Committee on Aeronautical and SpaceSciences, U.S. Senate, 94th Congress, 2ndSession, January 19 and 21.

Glazer, J.H. (1976) “Juridical Models forSpace Settlements,’ Earth/Space News 5(July) , 9-11

Hardin, G. (1968) “The Tragedy of theCommons,” Science 162 (December 18),1243-48.

Heilbroner, R.L. (1974) An Inquiry into theHuman Prospect (New York: Norton)

Heppenheimer, T. and M. Hopkins (1976)“lnitial Space Cooperation: Concepts and R&DAims,” Aeronautics and Astronautics 14 (March(March), 58-64, 72.

Johnson, K. (1967) “Canadian Report UrgesDomestic Comsat,” Aviation Week and SpaceTechnology 86 (March 27) 69-71.

Kash, D.E. (1967) The Politics of SpaceCblonization (Lafayette: Purdue UniversityPress).

Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of ScientificRevolutions (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress).

Lay, S.H. and H.J. Taubenfeld, (1970) TheLaw Relating to Activities of Man in Space(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Lovins, A.B. (1976) “Energy Strategy: TheRoad Not Taken,” Foreign Affairs 55,(October), 65-96.

Mendlovitz, S.H. (1975) On the Creation ofa Just World Order (New York: Free Press).

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Office of Aeronautics andSpace Technology (1976) “SpaceManufacturing from Nonterrestrial Materials,”Ames Research Center.

O’Neill, G.K. (1974) “The Colonization ofSpace,” Physics Today 27 (September), 32-40

--(1975) “Space Colonies and EnergySupply to the Earth,” Science 190 (December5), 943-47.

--(1976) in New York Times Magazine,January 18.

--(1977) The High Frontier (New York:Morrow).

Ophuls, W. (1977) Ecology and the Politicsof Scarcity (San Francisco: Freeman).

Paddock, W. and Paddock, P. (1967)Famine 1975 (Boston: Little, Brown).

Pirages, D. and P. Enrlich, (1974) Ark II(San Francisco: Freeman).

Rogers, W. (1976) Statement in U.S.Department of State Current Policy Series No.16 (November), 7.

Schumacher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful(New York: Harper and Row).

Skilnikoff, E.B. (1972) The InternationalImperatives of Technology (Institute ofInternational Studies Research Series No. 16,University of California, Berkeley).

Steinhoff, E.A. (ed.) (1971) OrganizingSpace Activities for World Needs (New York:Pergamon Press).

Vajk, J.P. (1975) “The Impact of SpaceColonization on World Dynamics,” LawrenceLivermore Laboratory, University of California.

--(1976) “An Open Door for a ClosedWorld” (Pleasanton, California: ScienceApplications, Inc.) (mimeo).

White, I. L. (1970) Decision-Making forSpace (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue).

Science Court(Continued from page 5)

good deal about this procedure, MargaretMead, has said that all social inventionsover the course of time are corrupted.It’s kind of a pessimistic view, but sheisn’t really pessimistic, she just notes thatthis is what happens to social inventions,that in the course of time the people whoare devoted to doing the procedureproperly move away from front centerand others who have other motivations,like making a good living out of thisbusiness, move toward front center andgive it an entirely different aspect. Shehas also made good suggestions forslowing that corruption, such as theimportance of having a cadre of trainedpeople who supervise this procedure,and who are dedicated to delaying, atleast, its corruption.

I think that those who believe such aprocedure might have too much authorityto some extent balance off those whothink you can’t make it work at all.While I think both of those argumentshave some relevance, they are a little outof phase. At first I think it will be verydifficult to make it work at all; laterwhen you’ve learned to make it workwell, or really before then, you shouldstart thinking very seriously aboutpreventing the procedure from beingcorrupted too quickly.

How did your interest in thisprocedure first arise?

It arose out of my involvement withthe space program in the late 1950s andearly 1960s. I was appointed to acommittee which was charged withdrawing up a space program for the AirForce in the year 1960. I was exposedto a lot of folklore from the early spacepioneers, and it became apparent to methat Earth-orbital assembly would be apowerful technique on which all kindsof space adventures could be built. Thishad been suggested by many of theoriginal pioneers in space thinking, butin that period there was a slogan thattried to compress the differences betweenAmerican and the Soviet space programsinto a few words: that the only thingsthat we lack that the Russians have arebigger boosters. That slogan receivedenough currency to enable it, in a sense,to drown out the earlier and I think stillvery sound ideas about Earth-orbitalassembly. Nevertheless, this committee,after thinking about it a good deal,reached the conclusion, and I was one ofthe driving forces, that Earth-orbitalassembly was at least as important adirection for the U.S. space program asbuilding bigger boosters. The two were

- 1 6 -

treated more or less equally. Well, thisresulted in a committee report whichhad no classified information in it at all.It reached the White House where therewas a space council set up at that time.W e received the instruction that therewere to be twenty-five copies of this only,they were all to be classified top secret,and all twenty-five were to be locked upin the safe in the executive office of theWhite House, in which as far as I knowthey remain to this day.

That persuaded me that there wassomething quite wrong with this wholesystem. I tried other routes. I went tothe members of the president’s scienceadvisory committee (I knew some ofthem personally) and undertook toconvince them that if we were going tothe Moon, which was then underdiscussion, we could do it at least tentimes more cheaply with Earth-orbitalassembly than the way it was being done.We had boosters in Atlas and Titanwhich could put stuff into low Earthorbit at about a thousand dollars apound. The price is of course almostunchanged today, although in differentdollars. You needed about 250,000pounds in orbit to do the Apollo kindof mission, which would have cost 250million dollars. This is a tremendousdifference from the twenty bil l ion thatit did cost. Maybe you’d have to launcha good deal more stuff into orbit, morethan the quarter of a million pounds, toallow for Earth-orbital laboratories,assembly stations, and what have you.Maybe it would have cost ten times thatmuch, two and a half billion, but I don’tsee how it could have cost twentybillion dollars. I undertook to convincepeople of this. While I managed toconvince a considerable number ofscientists, I discovered that I couldn’thave any influence on the policy, norcould I get a proper hearing, even thoughat that time I was known to the spacecommunity because of my work onreentry. That persuaded me that weneeded a new institution, and so I gaveit a good deal of thought. By 1967 I hadpublished it in several places, and Istarted to try to persuade the Congressof its validity, with thus far no visiblesuccess.

What progress has been made towardstesting the science court idea?

It has attracted a certain amount ofattention, and some people have beenkind enough to say that it is aneducational notion. Whether or not itwill receive the attention needed for thedevelopment of a new procedure is stillproblematic, though several universitiesare preparing proposals for the NationalScience Foundation, which has said thatit has some interest in fundingexperimental trials of this procedure. Iwould hope that the next year or twowill see half a dozen such attempts to tryit out and develop the procedure to thepoint where it can be of some use.

Boeing on SPS(Continued from page 9)

the possibility of using extra-terrestrialmaterials in the things we publish.

Woodcock: I find some interestingparallels between the L-5 Society and theAmerican Rocket Society in the 1920sand 1930s.

Norie: For example?Woodcock: W ell, the American

Rocket Society of those days evolvedinto the AIAA. It started out as a groupof enthusiasts for a very new technologywho were regarded by most people as abunch of nuts. . . and which evolved overa period of years into a major industryand one of the most respected technicalsocieties.

Norie: Makes you think of. . . wasn’tit Copernicus? Wasn’t he the one whowas considered pretty much of a kookand had to recant or else face death?

Woodcock: No, you’re thinking ofGalileo. Copernicus never fell into thattrap. He was the guy who understood thepolitical system well enough not topublish his book until he was on hisdeathbed.

Carolyn: Well, I guess we have toadmit we’ve come a long way.

Woodcock: Yes, a long way politicallyfrom the days when people could getburned at the stake for havingrevolutionary ideas, particularly whenthey are religious and philosophicalones.

Norie: W ould you have anysuggestions of how a group like L-5 mightbe able to improve its credibility gap?

Woodcock: I think what you have todo is fairly simple. You try to make anappointment with some of the peopleyou have in mind and tell them what it isthat you want to talk about. And thentalk and get to know them on a personalbasis. That’s by far the most effectivemeans of communication of ideas,particularly with someone who isn’tnecessarily very receptive to the idea. Ifhe gets to know you personally and youdon’t seem like such a strange type afterall, then he might decide that your ideasmay not be so strange, either, and mightbear some careful looking into.

Nansen: Using space solar power as anational goal addresses every singlemajor problem the country has. In theeconomic area it creates significant jobssimply because it puts money into labor-intensive industry and you get a highricochet effect of creating more jobsbecause of that. It’s the highest of anyindustry. It’s going into the high technicalindustry which addresses the fundamentalattack against inflation. One of the keyways to grow without inflation is toincrease productivity. That’s afundamental feature, and the only wayyou can increase productivity is to raisethe level of technology. Therefore anyactivities that address high technology in

a large way attack the fundamentals ofstopping inflation.

And, of course, the next thing is thatit is a fundamental attack on the energyproblem looking at an inexhaustiblesource with essentially an infinitecapacity that can be competitive withother sources and can eventually be asolution to the energy problem. Anotherfeature is that because it is hightechnology and would develop the basicutilization of space for practical purposes,it also helps our position in the worldrelative to other nations. A lot of thepotential technologies developed areuseful not only in the civil side of ourcountry’s activities but in the militaryalso. So there are some secondarybenefits.

Norie: Don’t you think that themilitary possibilities are something thatmight scare a lot of citizens away? They

develop an inexhaustible energy sourceto the point where it is practical, thenyou essentially put a lid on energy pricegrowth on other sources as well.

Norie: They have to be competitive?Nansen: Right. Therefore as a national

goal it seems practically ideal. There ishardly any drawback that we can see.Environmentally it’s clean. It haseverything going for it.

Norie: Have you come in contact withthe book Small Is Beautiful, by E.F.Schumacher?

Nansen: No, I’m not familiar with it.Norie: You might be interested in

checking it out. It’s a beautiful statementabout the need for changing the directionof modern society and deals, in part, withthe concept of having small, locally basedfactories using intermediate rather thanhigh technologies, to support the localpopulation and to increase the self-

Boeing's Photo-thermal Solar Power Satellite Design

certainly scare me!Nansen: It’s possible if you think of

some of the potential ways of using it,but we’re looking at it strictly as acommercial utilization to developcommercial power. Solar power has acharacteristic very similar to hydroelectricpower in that after you amortize yourcapital investment, there are no fuelcosts; therefore, you can potentially getyour power costs very low if the systemworks as we foresee it. And also thatparticular feature is very important toholding down all energy costs. Right nowall our energy is essentially generated bydepletable finite sources and so withincreasing demand and decreasingresources, the inevitable result is risingprices. They will continue to rise -- and Ithink there isn’t any way to stop them --until you develop an inexhaustible sourcethat will put a lid on it. As soon as you

- 1 7 -

sufficiency of the local area. Would yousee these two systems as potentially beingcompatible?

Nansen: Yes. With this kind of power,you can bring the power to the area inwhich you want to use it. You’re not tiedto any region or any specific area. Youdon’t have to bring the industry to wherethe power is available, you can just bringthe power out to where you want yourfactory, for example, in the midwest.There is really no big natural powergenerating source in the midwest, and,therefore, the Dakotas lack a lot of heavyindustry, simply because they don’t havereadily available energy for them. So theyhave the opportunity with this kind ofsystem to spread the base out.

Norie: How about wind or ground-based solar?

Nansen: If development in thisprogram follows in the typical fashion of

programs like this, it would stumble alongfor quite a few years gradually increasingin activity levels but it would take a longtime, simply because the basic powergenerating system is not scaleable. Youcan’t scale SPS down to small units andget a useful amount of power. To makeit pay, you have to go to a big investment,and in order to do it, you need to develop

not only the power generating system,but you also need to develop thetransportation system, the baseline foroperations. You need to develop man’scapability to live, work and operate inspace. So you have a whole bunch ofparallel activities. Now the only way thatyou can really make that kind of progresshappen, traditionally, is to make a verylarge commitment in the massiveinvestment required to make the wholething happen. Now the only way you cando that is essentially to make it anational goal. Otherwise, you can’t getthe necessary funding over a short periodof time which is really required to bringsomething like this into being. Andfortunately it is the kind of system thatwill have payback to all the people. It isnot a product that is selective to a fewindividuals that get the benefits. In thiscase, everyone in the nation, andultimately in the world, would receivebenefit from it. Therefore, it has theability to have personal appeal that willencourage their support for a massiveinvestment. And all of the kinds ofexciting and big things we’ve done havegone like this. For example, going to theMoon. There was a situation in whicheverything had to be developed. I believeit was May of 1961 that Kennedy madethe announcement that we’d get to theMoon within the decade. Well, at the endof that year every single major elementof the Saturn-Apollo program was undercontract. It moved fantastically fast. Thewhole industry was mobilized. NASA wasmobilized.

Carolyn: Did they think of the lunarmodule concept that early?

Nansen: It was very sketchy. Thetechnical base in 1961 for landing on theMoon was not as good as it is today forspace solar power. We believe we arefurther along and know more about spacesolar power today than we did aboutgoing to the Moon in 1961.

Woodcock: Both Ralph and I were inon the early phase days of the Apolloprogram so we are speaking from acertain perspective on this thing.

Nansen: Yes, we were there from thevery beginning. We landed in 1969 ineight years with a program of about thesize and development effort that we’retalking about here with space solar power.So you can conceive of doing the firstbasic step of this thing in as short as eightyears, if we went at the pace of theApollo. And, as a matter of fact, in mostways, that is the cheapest way to dosomething on a massive scale-to do it asfast as you can. You waste some money,

but the overall savings generally are muchgreater.

Carolyn: I don’t understand what youmean by overall savings.

Nansen: Well, when you gear up anindustry, you have 100,000 or 200,000people directly working on the program.Now if you are going as fast as you canand pushing them really hard, then theblock of time you’re going to employthose 200,000 people is eight years.Whereas, if you do things slowly andorderly, you might not have 200,000people. You might have 150,000 peopleand take twenty years instead. So everyday you have that work force and arepaying them during the developmentperiod is money that goes into theprogram without any economic returns.So the faster you do it the fewer daysyou have to pay them during the periodyou’re still getting nothing back. Youcan therefore reduce development costsby reducing the time it takes you to dothe job. to a point . Af ter a l l , i f yougo too fast, then you waste things andmake mistakes. But generally speakingthe quickest you can do it is the cheapest.

Woodcock: I think the comparisonyou want to make-using the Apollotime frame, which is the best comparisonwe have for this kind of program-is thatthis is about how long it would take youto establish a construction facility. Thenyou could start to construct the firstsatellite and there would be a little bitmore time to go through theconstruction. In this kind of acommercial program it probably makessense to go to a prototype for redesignand reconstruction before you go intoactual production. That is, by the way,exactly what we do in the commercialairplane business, especially the 707. Thefirst commercial jet transport was a handbuilt prototype and from that we learnedenough about what the design should beto go into production. Now we godirectly into production on commercialaircraft.

Norie: One thing I’m quite interestedin is the potential for internationalcooperation in this whole area. I shouldthink that the Japanese with their energycrisis would be extremely interested ingetting involved in this and would alsohave a lot to offer in electronics andother fields.

Nansen: As a matter of fact, thissystem has so many components andsubsystems involved that many of thesecould be broken down and developmentcould be semi-independent of otherthings. For example, the thermal enginesatellite, where each individual mirrorfacet has to be steered individually andit needs to track the Sun and the cavityabsorber and direct sunlight there, and ithas to be able to move through a smallnumber of degrees to correct for anyinaccuracies in the basic satellite pointingor in deflection of the structure. So thereare sensing units and actuators there to

- 1 8 -

steer these facets that would be arepresentative sort of thing that acountry l ike Japan would producebecause it involves a small sensing systemof some type, undoubtedly electronic,and a drive system. And they will berequired by the thousands-pretty nearmillions when you look at a productionrun of satellites. So a country like Japanwith its high rate of production of solidstate devices would be ideal.

There all kinds of systems of thisnature-engine systems, generatorsystems-when you’re talking aboutthermal satellites or photovoltaicsystems, switchgears or photocells,antenna elements.

Woodcock: It’s really hard to imaginea program like this getting off the groundwithout some element of internationalcooperation.

Nansen: Orbit locations, potentialtraffic control, and similar issues willcertainly require new internationalagreements. That much power going intomicrowaves and the potential of radiointerference has to be consideredthroughout the world, not just in theU.S. Some basic international agreementshave to be reached.

Woodcock: Let me point out onething about inexhaustible energy sources-- this one or any other -- that is a verypowerful economic consideration. In thepast half dozen or so years, we have seena not steady but monotonical increase inthe cost of energy. One reason is that thesources are finite and getting more andmore finite all the time; the cost hasnowhere to go but up. Provided you havethe kinds of characteristics that we havein SPS (e.g., no capacity limit), the sourceof energy is free and non-depletable andthe cost is in the device that collects theenergy. As soon as you get a practicalsystem on line, then the cost of energywill go down, because then you’ll getbetter and better at it. As you get betterat it, then you can make things cheaper,and since the source is not limited in anyreasonable, practical sense, that wouldprobably make a big contribution to thisproblem of inflation which someeconomists believe is basically driven bythe cost of energy and not by otherthings.

Nansen: Well, it attacks it two ways.It attacks it for the reason Gordy statedwhich is the relation between basicenergy cost and inflation. Plus it increasesthe technology level which increasesproductivity and that is the key source ofnational growth without inflation. Youhave to increase productivity or youcannot do that. So we address inflationfrom two directions.

Woodcock: It’s possible in theeconomic world to regard inflation as atax. It’s the most regressive tax of all,more regressive than the sales tax. If youreally look at how inflation hits differentsectors of the economy, the people withthe least income are hurt by it the most.

Boeing’s Ground-based Solar “Power Tower”

The people with the most income arehurt by it the least and some may behelped.

Norie: In the new Carteradministration there’s a lot of talk givento the problem of inflation. Has therebeen any attempt to get in touch withpeople in the Carter administration tofind out their feelings about this wholeprogram?

Woodcock: We haven’t made any realattempts yet. The administration ispretty busy right now just getting intooffice. But certainly this type of thingshould be very appealing to him becauseit addresses the kinds of things that hehas been saying that he is going to do. Itaddresses just about every problem hesaid he wants to tackle and it also is adynamic, exciting adventure that I thinkwould be very appealing. So we expect agood response, but we haven’t tried yet.

Norie: It seems that one of the bigdifferences between what you’reexploring and what the L-5 Society isinterested in has to do with the use ofextra-terrestrial materials. I guess youare taking a more conservative approach.

Woodcock: (pause) I guess you couldcall it more conservative.

Carolyn: I guess you’re notaccustomed to being called conservative!

Woodcock: (laughing) No. Shall wesay that the program we at Boeingadvocate involves a good deal lesstechnical uncertainty to make the thingwork.

Nansen: We’re trying to lay out a basicsystem that you can look at today andsay, yes, we can do every single technicalaspect of that. We have proven in someway or another that we can do each oneof the things we’re talking about. Andyou can’t say that today if you starttalking about using materials from the

Moon. This doesn’t mean that somedaythat’s not going to be practical. It’s justthat we don’t have the technology athand and, frankly, what we’re looking atis a close-in start to attack the energyproblem with our program.

Norie: In other words, you wantsomething that has very high credibility. .

Nansen: Yes.Norie: . . . at every step of the way.Nansen: That’s right.Norie: And then after you get there. .Nansen: Then you can improve it, or

explore other possibilities. We’re tryingto start from a known position, and thenfind how to make it better with theunknown.

Norie: That seems reasonableconsidering the way the governmentworks.

Nansen: Yes, it has to be practical.You see, the period that either mostpeople or the government would accepta large investment in space-to explore ordevelop-is gone. We have gone throughour “exciting period” in space. Thishappens in every field. Now what we’refaced with is this: if we want to proceed,we’ve got to do something practical,something with economical return. It hasgot to be a utilitarian operation. So inorder to do the other exciting things,you’ve got to have somebody pay thebill. And the best way to pay it is todevelop a good source of income. That’swhat the SPS program represents. And atthe same time, it would develop thecapabilities of the transportation system,the capability to live and operate inspace. It would give us the opportunityto go do other things at very minimal costbecause you’ve made your majorinvestment in the tools.

Carolyn: Could you give us a ballparkfigure of the investment in R&D as well

- 1 9 -

as the capital investment to get your firstoperational satellite sending power in busbars?

Nansen: Well, you don’t have a goodhard number, but you can kind ofestimate it if you look at the Saturn-Apollo program if you escalated it totoday’s inflated dollar. That’s about thedevelopment bill. As for the capital cost,there’s quite a range, as Gordon saidearlier. But it looks as if it is notsignificantly higher than the projectedcosts of new nuclear plants, the breederreactor type. I t’s about that range ofcapital cost in terms of dollars perinstalled kilowatt hour of generatingcapability.

Norie: On Project America, we visitedLos Alamos and were given a veryinteresting presentation by one of thescientists there about possible forms ofenergy in the future. Their emphasis ison nuclear fusion. According to the manwho talked with us, they had heard adiscussion on the solar space satelliteconcept, and they rejected it on the basisof cost. As I remember it, they said itwould cost too much to put the things inorbit.

Nansen: Oh, the first time most peoplelook at our satellite program they say thesame thing simply because they’reequating today’s space costs ofcommunication satellites. Acommunication satellite may cost$10,000 a pound because they are small,complex systems, one of a kind with verysophisticated (dense) electronicalpackaging and today’s transportationcosts are $600 a pound.

Woodcock: To get it intogeosynchronous orbit today is about$5,000 a pound.

Nansen: So when you extrapolatethese kinds of costs-and that’s whatpeople do who don’t understand thesystem-then it’s totally unfeasible. Butwhen you tackle these problems and layout the kind of system we have, then itbecomes totally different. It is acommercial venture of a completelydifferent order of magnitude.

Woodcock: The usual way ofdispensing with the SPS concept is tosay that the cost of transporting intogeosynchronous orbit is $10,000 perkilogram, which is about right for theTitan I I I, and that the satellites by themost recent publications weigh aboutten kilograms per kilowatt. So all youhave to do is multiply those twonumbers together and you come out with$100,000 per kilowatt. And that isclearly not an acceptable cost. That’sabout the amount of consideration thatthe concept gets from lots of people.

Norie: Is that perhaps because theyhave a competing scheme and don’t wantto give you any more consideration?

Woodcock: I’m not sure that’sgenerally true. I think that when peoplethink about space-and they’ve gotplenty of reason to think this-they think

of something that’s exotic, exciting, andcertainly expensive. There are some veryfine and historical parallels in that area.One can find statements made by peoplewho should have known better-by thatI mean physicists, aerodynamicists andso forth-a few years after the Wrightbrothers and when airplanes were alreadyflying. They said, it’s conceivable thatairplanes could be developed to the pointwhere one could somehow struggle acrossthe Atlantic with a few passengers, butthat the costs would be so exorbitantthat no one could afford it except therich capitalist who could afford to ownhis own yacht; that visions of fleets ofgiant aircraft carrying ordinary peoplegreat distances across the Atlantic havejust got to be wholly visionary. There isno way that is ever going to happen. Now,this statement was made about 1910,after airplanes were flying. Another quotewas made in 1926 by, I believe, anastronomer. And this was after Goddard’sfirst rocket flight had been published. Ofcourse, Goddard had written a book in1919 in which he said that one mightconceivably send a rocket to the Moonand this guy went through a little bit ofarithmetic to show, as one can readily do,that the energy per unit mass ofsomething that is going to escape theEarth is far greater than the caloriccontent of any known fuel. And he saidthat for this reason the idea of shootingthings at the Moon was obviouslyridiculous. It simply gives an example ofthe irrationality that extremespecialization will carry some scientiststo! You can find more quotations of thatnature than you can find space to printthem. One of the best sources of manyof them was a book published someyears ago called Profiles of the Future byArthur C. Clarke.

To go back to costs, another point isthat in the early phases of a program costestimates tend to be low. There’s goodreason for it. It’s not that people are liarsor that they’re incompetent or ignorant.It’s simply that in the early days of aprogram designed to accomplish a majorobjective, one is unable to identify all theelements of the program.

Norie: Could you point to some ofthe spinoffs of the space program so far?

Woodcock: There are lots of them. Allkinds. Some of them direct, some ofthem pretty indirect. I think the wholeminiature computer essentially happenedbecause of Apollo, pocket calculators. . .

Nansen: It’s fascinating to think thatif you could get in a time machine and goback about thirty years and show one ofthese pocket calculators to a reasonablycompetent engineer or scientist, hewould have had to conclude that it worksby magic!

Norie: Could you comment on theproblems of maintenance and repair ofthe SPS? Would there be a problem ofmeteors crashing into it, etc.?

Woodcock: Major damage would be

fairly negligible because it would requireconsiderable impact. It isn’t a significanteconomic factor. Minor damage would beexpected on a routine basis and wouldhave to be repaired. That seems to be asecond or third order factor in terms ofexpense.

Interestingly enough, if you look atthe flux of large objects-by that I meanmeteorites larger than the typical pea-sized meteorite -- the natural flux ofobjects of near -- Earth space is far less thanthe flux of manmade objects. And thereis a problem of collisions between manmade objects and things as large as theSPS. This is currently under evaluation.

Norie: Do you mean man madeobjects like satellites?

Woodcock: Satel l i tes, too butmost notably junk. When a satellite islaunched, there is usually one activesatellite and several pieces of junk likespent stages, shrouds and separationmechanisms.

. . .Congress(Continued from page 12)

To have contemplated its completionwithin twelve years of the launch ofSputnik in 1957 would have appearedheretical.

I am proposing the open discussion,timely funding and systematic progressionof a concept which would have enormousimplications for this nation and thehuman race. With this goal in mind, Ihave the following recommendations forthe Committee’s consideration in dealingwith NASA and Carter Administrationduring the next few years:

(1) Work with NASA to identify thoselong term goals which are consistent withthe public interest and are offundamental importance.

(2) Help clarify agency jurisdictionalproblems. For example, the lines ofresponsibility for satellite solar powerbetween NASA and ERDA are not clearand may be retarding a timely study ofthe concept. The capabilities of NASA inthis area, in my opinion, areextraordinarily strong.

(3) In order that informed decisionsbe made, use the Committee’s power ofauthorization in restoring vigor to themost promising programs which have longlead times, which require study anddevelopment, and which may developinto a major activity. This would includeopening a dialogue with the Office ofManagement and Budget and reversingsome of their decisions-for example,cuts in the modest funding of satellitepower, space industrialization and theLunar Polar Orbiter.

(4) Take part in presenting to theAmerican people those options whichappear to be most promising once theyhave been studied and partially developed.

- 2 0 -

(5) Participate in debates and decisionson these issues after the data are madeavailable.

I hope you agree with me that anexciting concept has been developed. Forthe first time in history, the vast quantityof energy and materials available to us inspace present an imaginative and practicalnew outlet for human experience.

newsCLOSED ECOLOGY TESTEDFOR SPACEScience News

Permanent colonies in space, Earth-orbiting stations and piloted flights toother planets are all possible applicationsfor life-support systems that function asclosed ecologies, providing air, water andfood through a variety of mutuallydependent biological systems. A recentSoviet test sustained three people for sixmonths in a system that provided oxygenby recovery from atmospheric carbondioxide, water from “photosyntheticregenerative process” and included theproduction of “a certain amount of grainand vegetables.” The result, according toI.I. Gitelson and colleagues from theSoviet Academy of Sciences, “establishedbeyond question that a small, steadilyoperating, essentially closed system of‘substance-turnover’ involving man isquite feasible. . . .”

LUNA 24 SAMPLES INSPECTEDThree U.S. lunar scientists (Dr.

Michael B. Duke, NASA/Johnson SpaceCenter; Dr. G.J. Wasserburg, CaliforniaInstitute of Technology; and Dr. CharlesH. Simonds, Lunar Science Institute),visited Moscow on December 13-15 toexamine lunar materials returned by theLuna 24 mission last August and toarrange for the transmission of samplesfor study by U.S. researchers. Luna 24returned a 2 meter long, 8 millimeterdiameter core from southeastern MareCrisium, which has not been sampledpreviously by U.S. or Soviet missions.The site may contain material fromnearby highlands and material from theray crater Giordano Bruno some 1200kilometers away.

A Soviet-American space cooperationagreement provides for the exchange ofsamples from each of the lunar returns.The U.S. has provided 3 grams of samplefrom each of the six Apollo missions; theRussians have reciprocated with 3 gramsof Luna 16 and 2 grams of Luna 20samples, plus two small fragments ofLuna 20 rock provided separately.

Considering the fact that the Russiansreturn has been 100 and 50 grams,respectively, for Luna 16 and 20, theircooperation in this exchange has beenexceptional.

ERDAERDA, NASA SANCTION LARGESCALE WIND POWER PROJECT

The following is an announcementfrom ERDA that details a windpowerproject that has been funded. Of interestto space enthusiasts is the scale of theproject.

A huge rotor blade, half the length ofa football field, will be built in 1977 aspart of the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration’s (ERDA)program to develop a new generation ofwind energy conversion systems.

Under the program direction ofERDA, the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration’s Lewis ResearchCenter, Cleveland, Ohio, has selected theKaman Aerospace Corporation ofBloomfield, Connecticut for negotiationof a contract for about $2 million tofabricate the 150-foot blade.

The purpose of the contract is todetermine if a blade this size can be builtand handled. Rotor blades of this natureand size have never been built before.Two blades of this size, spanning 300feet or approximately the length of afootball field, would be needed for awind turbine rated at about twomegawatts of electric power for a sitewith average wind speeds of 14 miles perhour.

Detailed design studies of such windturbines are scheduled to begin later thisyear. By the time the large blade has beenbuilt and tested, and design studies havebeen completed, ERDA and NASA willhave enough data to determine thecourse of the future test program forwind turbines of this size.

Wind turbines this large would belarger than the existing 100 kwexperimental wind turbine in Ohio,which has blades spanning 125 feet, andthe two 200 kw wind turbines of thesame size which are scheduled to be builtin 1977-79.

They would also be larger than thetwo 1.5 megawatt wind machines beingdesigned and built for ERDA and NASAby the General Electric Co. forinstallation and testing in 1978-80.ERDA is pursuing development of evenlarger wind machines because studiesshow that the cost of energy decreaseswith increasing the size of the machine.

Construction methods used in buildingthis large blade will derive from methodsfor building helicopter blades. The largesthelicopter blade in use is about 55 feetlong.

Kaman’s rotor blade will be madeprimarily of glass fiber and will weighabout 12 tons. It will undergo static anddynamic testing at the company’sConnecticut plant.

SOLAR ENERGY ABSTRACTJOURNAL AVAILABLE

Solar Energy Update, a monthlyabstract journal from the EnergyResearch and DevelopmentAdministration (ERDA), has been madeavailable on a subscription basis.

The journal abstracts and indexesreports, journal articles, conferenceproceedings, patents, theses andmonographs on solar energy, includingphotovoltaic, solar thermal, and oceanthermal power plants, tidal power andwind energy.

Solar Energy Update (NTISUB/c/145)for 1977 is available from the NationalTechnical Information Service, U.S.Department of Commerce, 5285 PortRoyal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161for $27.50 a year, including acumulative index. Single copies may bepurchased for $3.25. Subscription ratefor outside the North Americancontinent is $40 a year and $6.50 forsingle copies.

Solar Energy Update is intended tobe an ongoing supplement to SolarEnergy: A Bibliography, which containsreferences to information entered intoERDA’s Technical Information Centerdata base before 1976. Stock numberand price of this bibliography are asfollows: TID-3351-RIP1 (Volume 1,Citations) -- $13.75 for domestic and$27.50 for foreign; TID-3351-RIP1(Volume 2, Indexes) -- $11.00 fordomestic and $22.00 for foreign.

inside theL-5 SocietyNEW COORDINATOR FORL-5 SOCIETY, Western Europe

The West European Branch of the L-5Society has a new coordinator andmembership secretary, and a newsecretarial address. Please send allmembership correspondence, dues,requests, and items for the branch orinternational news magazines to:

Roger SansomL-5 Society (WE) Coordinator45 Wedgwood Drive,Lilliputt, Nr. Poole,Dorset, United Kingdom.

The WE Branch has begun to reissuethe Branch Newsletter and does hope toissue a regular monthly edition again.

“I believe that the Branch can lookforward to another exciting twelvemonths as we pioneer the items that willbe needed for the space community andspace industry programs of the next fewdecades.” --Phillip J. Parker, outgoingcoordinator.

- 2 1 -

Stewart Nozette, L-5 member fromTucson, gives a lecture on space at theMuseum of Science and Industry inChicago.

FROM THE OFFICESpace Settlement, the new quarterly

special edition of the L-5 News beginswith this issue. Advertising space will beavailable in Space Settlement in futureissues. For information regarding rates,circulation and other information, pleasewrite: Advertising, Space Settlement,1620 N. Park Avenue, Tucson AZ 85719.

The staff hopes you like this longissue. The Don Davis paintings were putinside so you can take them out easily. Ifyou want to see more issues like this one,take Space Settlement down to your locallibrary and get them to subscribe. Nextmonth’s L-5 News will be shorter, butwill be filled with exciting news from thePrinceton conference (it seems that about10 percent of our members will be there).Printing some of Eric Drexler’s latestwork on solar sails is also beingconsidered.

NASA 1975 SUMMER STUDYThe NASA 1975 summer study, Space

Settlements, A Design Study, is out! Theinformation is somewhat out of date(which is unavoidable on a topic thatevolves this fast), but the printing andgraphics are absolutely first rate. Thereare eight beautiful color plates in this8½ by 11, 185-page book with a colorcover. At $5.00, this has to rate as thebargain of the year. The editors, RichardJohnson and Charles Holbrow, NASAand the GPO have certainly done anexcellent job on this.

bibliography U.S. Congress, Senate Committee onAeronautical and Space Sciences,“Solar Power from Satellites,” GPO,1976.

Jesco von Puttkamer, of Advanced Programs, Office of Space Flight,NASA, has prepared the following bibliography for those interestedin making an in-depth study of space settlements.

U.S. National Research Council, SpaceApplications Board “PracticalApplications of Space Systems:Materials Processing in Space,”GPO, 1975.

SPACE STATIONSBaker. David “The Problem of Space

GENERALBerry, Adrian The Next Ten-Thousand

Years: A Vision of Man’s Future inthe Universe, Saturday Review Press,1974.

Cole, Dandridge M. Beyond Tomorrow:The Next Fifty Years in Space,Amherst Press, 1965.

Ehricke, Krafft A. “ExtraterrestrialImperative,” Bulletin of the AtomicScientists 27: 18-26, November 1971.

--“Toward a Three-DimensionalCivil ization,” Space World, December1970.

--“A Strategic Approach to theDevelopment of Geolunar Space,”Paper SD69-710, IAA OrbitingInternational Laboratory and SpaceSciences Conference, Cloudcroft,New Mexico, October 1969.

--“In-Depth Exploration of the SolarSystem and its Utilization for theBenefit of Earth,” New York Academyof Sciences 187:427 seq., 1970.

Hearth, D. “Outlook for Space,” NASASP-387, January 1976.

von Puttkamer, Jesco (ed.) “Space forMankind’s Benefit,” NASA SP-313,1972, Washington, D.C.

--“On Man’s Role in Space,” Monograph(A Review of Potential Utilitarian andHumanistic Benefits of Manned SpaceFlight), NASA Office of Space Flight,December 1974.

--“Developing Space Occupancy:Perspectives on NASA Future SpaceProgramme Planning,” Journal of theBritish Interplanetary Society (BIS),Vol. 29, No. 3: 147-173, March 1976

SPACE INDUSTRIALIZATIONBekey, I., H.L. Mayer, and M.G. Wolfe

“Advanced Space System Conceptsand Their Orbital Support Needs(1980-2000),” Aerospace Corp.Report ATR-76 (7365)-1, Vols. 1-4,Contract NASW 2727, April 1976.

Bredt, J.H., and B.O. Montgomery“Materials Processing in Space-NewChallenges for Industry,” Astronauticsand Aeronautics 13, May 1975.

Ehricke, Krafft A. “Lunar Industries andTheir Value for the HumanEnvironment on Earth, “ActaAstronautica, Vol. 1: 585-682, 1974.

--“Space Tourism,” AAS Preprint 67-127, Dallas Texas, May 1967.

--“Space Industrial Productivity, NewOptions for the Future,” U.S.

Congress, House of RepresentativesSerial M, Vol. II, GPO, September1975.

--“Industrial Productivity as a NewOverarching Goal of SpaceDevelopment,” October 1975 (To bepublished).

--and B.D. Newsom “Utilization of SpaceEnvironment for TherapeuticPurposes.”

Gilmer, J.R. (ed.) “CommercialUtil ization of Space,” AAS Advancesin the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 23,1968.

Glaser, Peter E. “Solar Power viaSatellite,” Astronautics andAeronautics, August 1973.

--“The Satellite Solar Power Station: AnOption for Energy Production onEarth,” AIAA, 1975.

Lessing, L. “Why the Shuttle MakesSense,” Fortune 85:93-97, 113,January 1972.

Minney, O.H. “The Util ization andEngineering of an Orbital Hospital,”AAS Preprint 67-123, Dallas, Texas,May 1967.

Stine, G. Harry The Third industrialRevolution, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1975.

von Puttkamer, Jesco “The Next Twenty-Five Years: Industrialization ofSpace,” Second InternationalCongress on Technology Assessment,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,Michigan, October 24-28, 1976.

Wuenscher, H.F. “Manufacturing inSpace,” Astronautics and Aeronautics,September 1972.

Arthur D. Litt le, Inc. “Feasibil i ty Studyof a Satellite Solar Power Station,”NASA CR-2357, 1974.

Proceedings of Third Space ProcessingSymposium, NASA-Marshall SpaceFlight Center, Huntsville, Alabama,April 30 - May 1, 1974.

Proceedings of Twentieth AAS AnnualMeeting: Skylab Results, August20-22, 1974.

Proceedings of AIAA/NASA Symposiumon Space Industrialization, NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center,Huntsville, Alabama, May 26-27,1976.

U.S. Congress, House Committee onScience and Astronautics “SpaceShuttle-Skylab: Manned Space Flightin the 1970s,” GPO, 1972.

U.S. Congress, House Committee onScience and Technology, “SpaceShuttle 1975,” GPO, 1975.

- 2 2 -

Station Longevity,” Space Flight 16:303-304, August 1974.

Blagonravov, Anatolij A. “SpacePlatforms: Why They Should BeBuilt,” Space World, Vol. H-8-92,August 1971.

Bono, P., and K.W. Gatland “TheCommercial Space Station,” inFrontiers of Space, MacMillan Co.,New York, 1970.

Ehricke, Krafft A. “Beyond the FirstSpace Stations,” AIAA Meeting,NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center,Huntsville, Alabama, January 1971.

Hagler, Thomas A. “Building LargeStructures in Space,” Astronautics andAeronautics 14: 56-61, May 1976.

Kline, Richard L. “The Space Station andSpace Industrialization,” paperpresented at AAS/AIAA BicentennialSpace Symposium, Washington, D.C.,October 6-8, 1976.

Low, George M. “Skylab. . . Man’sLaboratory in Space,” Astronauticsand Aeronautics, Vol. 9, No. 6, June1971.

Parin, W. “Life on Orbital Stations,”Journal of Aerospace Medicine, Vol.41, No. 12, December 1970.

Smith, T.D., and D.E. Charhut “SpaceStation Design and Operation,” AIAAJournal of Spacecraft and Rockets,Vol. 8, No. 6, June 1971.

AIAA Technical Activit ies Committee“Earth-Orbit ing Stations,”Astronautics and Aeronautics 13:22-29, September 1975.

Marshall Space Flight Center “MannedOrbital Facility: A User’s Guide,”GPO, 1975.

McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co.“Space Station Program DefinitionStudy/Space Base,” MSFC-DRL-140,Contract NAS8-25140, 1970.

--“Space Station -- Executive Summary,”Contract NAS8-25140, August 1970.

--“Space Station: User’s Handbook,”MDC G-0763, March 1971.

--“Manned Orbital Systems Concepts(MOSC) Study,” NAS8-31014,October 1975.

--“Space Station Systems AnalysisStudy,” Part 1 Final Report, MDCG6508, Vols. 1-3, Contract NAS9-14958, September 1976 (NASA/JSC).

North American Rockwell, Inc. “SpaceBase,” MSC-00721, Contract NAS9-9953, July 1970.

Proceedings of the NASA Symposium onthe Effects of Confinement on Long-

Duration Manned Space Flight,NASA/Office of Manned Space Flight,1966.

Rockwell International Corporation“Space Station Systems Analysis,”SD 75-SA-0301, February 1976.

--“Modular Space Station Phase B.Extension,” Contract NAS9-9953,NASA/JSC.

--“Austere Modular Space Facil ity,”SD 75-SA-0105, September 1975.

--“Observation, Assembly, Staging andindustrial Support (OASIS) Facil i ty,”SD 75-SA-0106, September 1975.

--“Space Station Concepts,” SD 76-SA-0072.

--“Space Stations for the InternationalFuture,” (J.F. Madewell and R.E.Sexton), SD 76-0076.

SPACE COLONIZATIONAND LUNAR BASESAsimov, Isaac “After Apollo, A Colony

on the Moon,” New York TimesMagazine May 28, 1967: 30.

--“Colonizing the Heavens,” SaturdayReview June 28, 1975: 17.

- - “The Next Front ier , ” Nat ionalGeographic July 1976: 76-89.

Chedd, Graham “Colonization atLagrangia,” New Scientist 1974.

Chernow, Ron “Colonies in Space,”Smithsonian February 1976: 6-11.

Clarke, Arthur C. Islands in the Sky,NAL Signet Book, 1965.

--Rendezvous with Rama, Harcourt,Brace, Jovanovich, 1975.

Dossey, J.R. and G.L. Trotti“Coun te rpo in t -A Luna r Co lony , ”Spaceflight July 1975: 17.

Heppenheimer, T.A. and M. Hopkins“Initial Space Colonization: Conceptsand R&D Aims,” Astronautics andAeronautics March 1976: 58-72.

Libassi, Paul T. “Space to Grow,” TheSciences, July 8, 1974.

Maruyama, Magoroh “Design Principlesfor Extraterrestrial Communities,”Futures April 1976: 104-121.

Maruyama, M. and A. Harkins (eds.)Cultures Beyond Earth, Vintage Press,1975.

Michaud, M.A.G. “Escaping the Limitsto Growth,” Spaceflight April 1975.

O’Neill, Gerard K. “The Colonization ofSpace,” Physics Today 27: 32-40,September 1974.

--“The High Frontier” and associatedarticles, CoEvolution Quarterly 7:6-29, Fall 1975.

- - “The Next Front ier -SpaceCommunities,” Aerospace 13: 2-7,December 1975.

--“Space Colonies and Energy Supply tothe Earth,” Science 190: 943-947,December 5, 1975.

--, R.W. Miles, R.H. Miles (ed.)Proceedings of the 1975 PrincetonUniversity Conference on SpaceManufacturing Facilities (in press).

--“Settlers in Space,” Science Year, WorldBook Science Annual -- 1976, FieldEnterprises Educational Co., 1975.

--Testimony in U.S. Congress, HouseCommittee on Science andTechnology on Future Space Programs1975, GPO, 1975.

--Testimony on Power SatelliteConstruction from Lunar SurfaceMaterials before Committee onAeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S.Senate, GPO, January 1976.

--“Colonies in Orbit,” New York TimesMagazine January 18, 1976: 10-11,25-29.

--“Space Colonies: The High Frontier,”The Futurist February 1976: 25-33.

--“Engineering a Space ManufacturingCenter,” Astronautics and AeronauticsVol. 14, No. 10, October 1976.

--The High Frontier: Human Colonies inSpace, Wm. Morrow and Co., NewYork, 1977.

Parker, P.J. “Lagrange Point SpaceColonies,” Spaceflight July 1975.

Parkinson, R.C. “Takeoff Point for aLunar Colony,” Spaceflight September1974.

--“The Colonization of Space,”Spaceflight March 1975: 17.

von Puttkamer, Jesco “Developing SpaceOccupancy: Perspectives on NASAFuture Space Program Planning,”Proceedings of Princeton University

Conference No. 127 on SpaceManufacturing Facil it ies, PrincetonUniversity, May 1975 (in preparation).

Reis, Richard “Colonization of Space,”Mercury July 8, 1974: 3-4.

Robinson, George S. “Legal Problems ofSustaining Manned Space Flights,Space Stations, and LunarCommunities Through PrivateInitiative and Non-Public Funding,”International Lawyer 1973: 455-475.

--“Scientific Renaissance of LegalTheory: The Manned Orbiting Space

Theory: The Manned Orbiting SpaceStation as a ContemporaryW orkshop,” International Lawyer1974: 20-40.

--Living in Outer Space, Public AffairsPress, 1975.

Salkeld, Robert “Space ColonizationNow?,” Astronautics and AeronauticsSeptember 1975: 30-34.

Tsiolkowski, K.E. Beyond the PlanetEarth, translated by Kenneth Syers,Pergamon Press, London, 1960.

Vajk, J. Peter “The Impact of SpaceColonization on World Dynamics,UCRL-77584, Lawrence LivermoreLaboratory, 1975.

--“Technological Forecasting and SocialChange,” LLL, 1976.

NASA/Ames Research Center “SpaceColonizat ion-A Design Study,”NASA SP-413, 1976.

NASA/ASEE Systems Design Institute“Design of a Lunar Colony,”University of Houston, RiceUniversity, NASA/MSC, NASA GrantNGT 44-005-114, September 1972.

North American Rockwell, Inc. “LunarBase Synthesis Study,“ NASAContract NAS8-26145, SD71-477,1971.

--“Orbiting Lunar Station (OLS) Phase AFeasibil i ty Study,” NASA ContractNAS9-10924, MSC-02687, Apri l 1971.

Short reviews of recent articles willbe featured regularly in the bibliographyupdate, as well as mention of books andperiodicals about space.

L-5 SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP FORM (please type or print)N L 7 0 5

N A M E :

L-5 SOCIETY1620 N. PARK AVE.TUCSON, AZ 85719

ADDRESS:

CITY/STATE/Z IP :

AFFIL IATION/T ITLE OR POSIT ION: T O T A L O R D E R -(OPTIONAL) (FROM OTHER SIDE)

I a m -am not interested in being active locally. Phone (optional) - _ ___ Please enroll me as a member of L-5 Society ($20 per year regular, $10 pet year for students). A check or money order is

enclosed. (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.)

- 2 3 -

(Cont’d. from inside front cover)

I was wondering if solar power bymicrowave beam heats the Earth. Bothnuclear and fossil energies do: nuclearthrough its wastes into the ocean andfossil fuel by the greenhouse effect. Theheat these energies give off will melt theice caps and flood many major cities ofthe world. If solar power via microwavedoesn’t heat the Earth, this gives solarpanels in space one more advantage overits counterparts.

Richard HankinsLa Mesa, California

After this last winter, melting the icecapsseems a good deal less likely.All energy sources heat the Earth, solarvia microwave heats it less than nuclearor coal (waste heat is radiated inspace). However, human energy use isstill very, very small in comparison to thesolar flux. -- K H

I completely agree with BarbaraHubbard’s comments in the JanuaryL-5 News under “Why Space Now?” It isa question of timing whether we go intospace colonization now or later in viewof the energy situation on Earth. I hopewe pick up the option now instead ofprocrastinating until the time comeswhen we realize we do not have theenergy to emigrate. If the present trendcontinues, which seems very likely, moreand more of our energies are going intomaintenance channels for things likesubsistence and less into developmentalareas.

There is another point I would like tomention in favor of going out now andthat is from a competitive standpoint asviewing Earth against the background ofthe cosmic community. This may at firstseem a shaky basis to support the massiveeffort involved in space colonization sincewe have not as yet come into contactwith another culture. Statistically, thequestion was answered long ago andprojects to communicate with them areproliferating at a greater rate than areour preparations to meet anotherculture.

I would rather see more of this energygoing into channels that will get us outto them rather than have them meet usfor purposes of colonization. We shouldbe thinking more along lines of becomingtechnological equals or we might findourselves in a satellite status relative tothe cultures who were energetic enoughto make it.

I very strongly agree with the remarksof Dr. Leary in this regard and think thatthe impulse for this venture should begenerated from the “grass roots” level.If the project is approached throughinstitutional and bureaucratic channels,it will soon become buried in red tape andand invite disbursement of funds intoareas other than colonization.

The biggest boost space colonizationcould receive at this time would be tohave Dr. Leary and Captain Freitagchange jobs. Judging from the interviews(which are most interesting) CaptainFreitag seems to look upon the wholeadventure as a dubious risk. Dr. Leary,on the other hand, is the pioneering typeof individual who would be best suitedfor the office of Advanced Programs atNASA.

Richard SemockAPO San Francisco

Personally, I like Jesco vonPuttkamer's "push/pull" approach (L-5News, November, 1976, page 2) to spacesettlements. That is to say, we need boththe radical visionaries to “pull” us towardtheir hopes of the future and thepragmatic and cautious people who lookat where we are now and think abouthow to “push” ourselves into the future.How does this relate to Leary andFreitag trading jobs? Just imagine whatwould happen if NASA were populatedby starry-eyed individualists? The non-starry-eyed taxpayers would be darnskeptical about any proposals comingout of NASA and in short order wouldpressure the President into firing thosefar-out people.

On the other hand, if the idealists canget the Great American Taxpayers to

back their projects, then thosepragmatic "push" people at AdvancedPrograms will be able to push just ashard as the folks like Leary are pulling.How about giving the folks at NASA ahand? -Carolyn Henson

I was happy to see the essence of theconcept of the Fourth Kingdom as thelead in your January 1977 “soft” issue ofthe L-5 News. The cover artwork byJ. Nix was especially exciting to me. Theart was appropriate with its dramaticsymbolism, reinforcing what the wordsare trying to say. I am convinced theknowledge of this evolutionaryimperative resides just below the surfaceof consciousness of nearly everyone inthe human family. Symbolic artwork,such as you have featured, can helpreach through all of the irrelevant clutterin our consciousness and bring a newawakening to many.

In your very fine review of O’Neill’sThe High Frontier, Carolyn, you resolvedwith a few swift strokes of the pen apossible philosophical problem in theL-5 Society. You referenced O’Neill’sinterests in terms of “within this century,life can begin spreading outward into theGalaxy.” And I totally agree that if theGalaxy is our ultimate goal, we can goon constructively debating and carryingout the probable intermediate stepshumanity will take before eventuallyleaving this solar system. The pathwayout may include any or all of thefollowing: colonies orbiting Earth, Moon,Sun or other planets; colonization ofmany of the planets and/or some moonsof Jupiter; industrial and scientific spaceactivities in orbit and/or on the Moon,etc. There is increasing evidence peoplewere thinking of space travel thousandsof years ago. They could not haveimagined the myriad of mechanicaldevices and scientific approachescivilization had to practice with andperfect to finally come up with acapability to leave Earth’s gravity.

William J. SauberMidland, Michigan

WHAT’S AVAILABLE FROMTHE L-5 SOCIETY?ORDER FORMOrdering Instructions:

See the listings on pages C-1 andC-4 for the choice of what to order.Enter the number of copies orderedin the box next to the order numberand put the price on the line next toit (Don’t forget 25¢ per Xerox title).

Total the price in each columnand enter the totals on the subtotallines in the last column. Add $1 forpostage and handling (entered) forthe total order, and total.

Please put your name andaddress on the L-5 SocietyMembership form (reverse) and fillin total amount of order. Thank you.

Reprints: P 1

P 2

P 3

P 4

P 5

P 6

P 7

P 8

P 9

P 1 0

P11

P 1 2

P 1 3

P 1 4

P 1 5

Papers: UP1

UP2

UP3

UP4

UP5

UP6

C U P 7

Books:

B1

B 2

B3

B 4

B5

C P 1 6

- 2 4 -

Back Issues: B1

B1 __

B 1 _ _

B1 __

B1 __

B1 2:5

Postcards:

PC1

BPC1

PC2

BPC2

Posters:

PO1

PO2

PO3

Slides: S 1

S 2

S 3

S 4

C S 5

Subtotal

S u b t o t a l _ _ _ _ _

Subtotal

Subtotal

Postage,

Handling $ 1 . 0 0

TOTAL:

Corresponding with Professor O’Neillbefore the 1975 Princeton Conference, Iraised some of the same questions as doesJohn Holt in Skeptic about the possiblemilitary risks of space research,industrialization, and habitation. The bestsource of information that I have foundon the subject since then was a book,War and Space (Prentice Hall), by RobertSalkeld who also participated in theconference. Unfortunately, the book isnow out of print, but it may still befound in some libraries.

While warfare is not a pleasant topic,the book was surprisingly reassuring in atleast one sense: Mr. Salkeld points outthat all fixed or low-orbiting weapons(such as Mr. Holt’s speculative “death-ray” satellites) are vulnerable tocounterattack. The only area of realinvulnerability is deep space. (Just try tolocate and intercept a cruise-missile-sizedweapon somewhere out there among theasteroids.) If man’s propensity for warcannot be contained, I’d just as soon it besatiated as far from Earth as possible. Andfrom L-5.

So, yes, of course there are risks inspace development. It would be foolish todeny it. But I’m now convinced that thepotential benefits far outweigh any suchrisks. (Indeed, warfare on Earth will bejust that much more likely to occur if wedo not make use of the resourcesavailable in space.)

Philip M. BlackmarrLos Angeles, California

The book War and Space is available inxerographic form from the L-5 Societyfor $7. How about a new edition, Bob?

Aristotle was not aware of the asteroidbelt though he wrote quite a lot aboutpersuasion. We are more than merelyaware of the existence of the asteroids.W e know that the asteroids and the Moonare reservoirs of mineral wealth-the stuffof which space colonies are built. Yet wemust concern ourselves with the sameelementary question that occupiedAristotle: What is the process by whichone is moved to action? How is it thatpeople are persuaded?

To realize the goal of the L-5 Society,that of disbanding in a mass meeting atL-5, a great many people will have to bemoved to perform some very significantactions.

Unfortunately, the mere fact that it istechnologically feasible to constructspace colonies is not an argument thatwill sway the masses, and their leaders ingovernment and business, to initiate aspace colony construction project. Forexample, controlled fusion reactions arenot presently technologically possible butare hotly pursued.

Something else controls the spigot;what is it? Modern persuasion theorygenerally holds that if an appeal does nottouch a person’s values it will beineffective. Furthermore, appeals to

personal values (e.g., self-preservation,personal freedom, financial well-beingand self-esteem) are more likely to leadto action than are appeals to non-personalvalues such as “brotherhood“ or“exploration and expansion.” Among thepersonal values, the value which isaffected most directly and mostimmediately will dominate. If all areequally threatened, self-preservation isfar more powerful as a determinate ofaction than is financial well-being orself-esteem.

When the Soviets took the lead in thefictional “space race,” many Americansperceived a direct threat to a plethora ofvalues including self-preservation andself-esteem. Financial considerationsbecame subordinate until we felt thethreat had dissipated. Countries rundeficit budgets and create inflationaryconditions in order to appease threats topersonal values posed by their neighbor’sICBMs, MiGs, and Phantoms.

How is it that an appeal or persuasivecondition comes to affect a valuehierarchy? It generally seems that if thefacts supporting an appeal are believed,values will be affected. Thus appeals forbirth control will not tinge self-preservation values and hence will gounheeded among those who don’t believethe world is overpopulated or who don’tbelieve overpopulation is the cause ofresource scarcity.

Thus an ideally persuasive campaignmust be backed by facts which arecredible and verifiable. The speed withwhich the desired action will beimplemented will largely be a functionof how directly the audience perceivesthe appeal to affect salient personalvalues less how directly the appeal isperceived to affect contradictory values.

“Your money or your life?” If wethink (s)he’ll shoot, we’ll usually pay.

Our biggest and broadest problem withspace colonization is to make crediblethe claim that the presence of aburgeoning population and industrialestablishment is a direct threat to thelife and freedom of every citizen of theworld. Unless people believe that anadvanced industrial system operating onthe skin of a planet immediatelyendangers their personal value hierarchy,few people will be convinced of the needto transplant people and industry tospace. At the expense of sounding cynicalabout a man I very much regard, I doubtif Kennedy wanted Americans to go tospace merely “because it’s there.” Morelikely is the explanation that we wentbecause the Soviets were there. Webelieve something; that something affectssalient personal values directly andimmediately, and we act-quickly.

Another problem we have is that ofgenerating widespread belief in spacecolonies as an attractive, practical andeconomical alternative habitat.Acceptance of this argument will affectall the values which motivate us to either

stay where we are or move to a moreattractive city, state or country (world?).Denial of this argument but acceptanceof the overindustrialization argumentwould create a public policy which mightincorporate ecological considerations butwould not provide for space colonies asan “escape valve” in case policy did notwork as planned-not an uncommonobservation.

Accomplishment of these twopersuasive tasks would likely result inrapid implementation of spacecolonization. A slower implementationcould result from acceptance of theenergy crisis as a serious personaldilemma and of solar satellite powerstations as a practical alternative.Hopefully these power stations would bemodern day “goldmines” or “crossroads”from which communities would spawn.

The grimmest scenario is one wherenature does the convincing. When ourplanet pathologically convulses withoverpopulation and overdevelopment itbecomes problematic whether or not wecould launch a space colonization project.

Dr. O’Neill and the L-5 Society arepursuing a rapid implementation path indemonstrating the economic viability andattractiveness of space colonization.Pursuing this path alone may eventuallyget us space colonies-though it maycome after an immense amount ofscarcity-induced human suffering.Patience may be a virtue, but in thiscontext procrastination is a far moreserious vice.

It is equally necessary for us topersuade people of the immediate natureof the survival crisis. Since any majorproject requires years of lead time, wemust drive home the point that dangeroustrends (e.g., scarcity and pollution) mustbe reacted to as if they were full-blowncrisis situations. Despite the necessity ofthis line of argument for rapidimplementation of space colonization, itis a path full of dangerous traps. Spacecolonization proponents hardly need tobe further hampered by being dubbed“doomsday prophets.” Such a persuasivecampaign must be forceful yet subtle-adiff icult condition to maintain. Thestructure of such a forceful/subtlecampaign will need the input of manypeople and blossom after countless hoursof thought. For our goal to be realized,such a campaign will have to be pursuedon some sort of a significant level.

History from Aristotle’s time to thepresent is replete with inane things thathumans have been persuaded to do. I’mcertain we all agree it is time we werepersuaded to do something intelligent.L-5 is empty, the Moon is drowning inlocked-in oxygen, and the asteroids arejust waiting for a pick and shovel.

Mart in Rothb la t tLos Angeles, California

. • • ~ · • • f e . . °" •. •

• ~ - • . .r. •• • •·· ... .... • .. . , . • . ..

• . • . . :• . .. •

• • . " • • • • '

• • •· • .

•• • • ·• • • . • .. •. • •

• • • • • • • •

• . . • • ..

• •

. ,.._ •• •

-I ~ . • .

• • • •

• •• • i· • • ~ t; . •