L-5 NEWSCarolyn Henson, Editor

Membership Services:Bryna BlockMarc Boone

Wi l l iam Weig leAdministrat ive Services

Board of Directors:Isaac AsimovBarry Goldwater, Sr.Robert A. HeinleinG o r d o n R . W o o d c o c kBarbara Marx HubbardKonrad K. DannenbergHon. Edward R. Finch, Jr.James E. ObergLeonard DavidJ. Peter VajkJack D. SalmonPhill ip ParkerDavid M. FradinRomualdas SviedrysK e i t h H e n s o nCarolyn HensonWi l l iam Weig leM a r k H o p k i n sN o r i e H u d d l eM a g o r o h M a r u y a m aH a r l a n S m i t hCarol Motts

In this issue:

4

5

7

8

Publication office: The L-5 Society,1060 E. Elm, Tucson, Arizona 85719.Published monthly. Subscription: $3.00per year, included in dues ($20.00 peryear, students $10.00 per year).subscription price to non-membersavailable on request. Second classpostage paid at Tucson, Arizona andadditional offices. Copyright ©1977 bythe L-5 Society. No part of thisperiodical may be reproduced withoutwritten consent of the L-5 Society. Theopinions expressed by the authors donot necessarily reflect the policy of theL-5 Society. Membership Services: L-5Society, 1620 N. Park Avenue, Tucson,Arizona 85719. Telephone: 602/622-6351

Change of address notices, undeliverablecopies, orders for subscriptions, andother mail items are to be sent to:L-5 SocietyMembership Services1620 N. ParkTucson, AZ 85719

1

2

9

10

11

13

14

16

A PUBLICATION OF THE L-5 SOCIETY

VOL. 3 NUMBER 2 FEBRUARY 1978

Congress Pushes SPS Is the solar power satellite concept on a“going out of business curve”? Not if Congress can help it. CarolynHenson reports.

“Congress Has to Set Priorities” A report on the Future SpaceProgram hearings.

A Crassly Expedient Act Space colony researcher T. A. Heppen-heimer decries the Administration’s attempt to mothball the Enterprise.

OTRAG: Bold Pioneer Faces Hostile World Conrad Schneikergives a detailed report on OTRAG’s trials and tribulations.

Soyuz-26 Mission, Spacelab Progress Phil Parker reports.

Space Industrialization: Whence Cometh ConfusionResearcher Gerry Driggers gives a capsule explanation of what’s happen-ing in the field.

SPS: Near Future Energy Source? Find out why SPS is attractingserious interest as the answer to the energy crisis.

Space Colonies A book review by Conrad Schneiker of another of theflock of books that will tell you everything you wanted to know aboutliving in space.

Inside the L-5 Society

Life Extension Conference

The Best of the Industrialization of Space Conference

What’s Available from the L-5 Society?

Cover: A proposed heavy lift launch vehicle, a space freighter whichcould lower launch costs to $15/lb within this century. (Artwork courtesyBoeing.)

Congress Pushes SPSby Carolyn Henson

Complaining that NASA and DOE’ssolar power satellite (SPS) research is on a“going out of business curve”, twelvemembers of the House of Representativeshave introduced a bill which would fundSPS research in fiscal year ‘79 with $25million.

The bill, HR10601, entitled the SolarPower Satellite Research, Developmentand Demonstration Act, was introducedb y R e p . R o n n i e G . F l i p p o ( D - A L ) .Cosponsors are Representat ives OlinT e a g u e ( D - T X ) , D o n F u q u a ( D - F L ) ,Walter Flowers (D-AL), Mike McCormack(D-WA), Larry Winn (R-KS), Bob Gam-mage (D-TX), Louis Frey (R-FL), JimLloyd (D-CA), James Blanchard (D-MI)and Dale Milford (D-TX). The bill callsfor a new SPS development plan to bedrawn up by Sept. 30. The plan wouldsupercede the SPS Concept Developmentand Evaluation Program plan which hasp l a n n e d e x p e n d i t u r e s o f o n l y $ 1 9 . 5

million from 1977 through 1980. Thecurrent plan allows no further hardwaredevelopment, concentrating on evaluationof research already done in the field. SPSresearchers have been concerned over theplan’s “go-no go” decision date in 1980,complaining that, without further hard-ware development and research, the onlypossible decision would be that SPScannot be demonstrated to be econom-ically feasible. Researchers have alsoobjected to the Administration’s refusalto include some of the more promisingSPS designs in the s tudy. The spacemanufacturing facilities approach is onewhich has been excluded. Observersaccuse DOE of choosing “straw. man”S P S d e s i g n s f o r f u r t h e r e v a l u a t i o n ,making it easier to “prove” that they areeconomically unfeasible.

As things now stand, the SPS projectappears slated for extinction by 1980.Will Congress change the direction ofCarter’s energy policy with HR 1060l?

If you want to be a player in the dramaunfolding in Congress this year, you canget wired into the hot line by joiningL-5’s “So You Want to Lobby” informa-tion service.

If you wish to receive up-to-date newsvia first class mail and, in emergencies, viaphone, p l ea se s end i n t he fo l l owinginformation:

Your address, and, if you are willing toaccept a col lect phone cal l f rom theSociety, your phone number.

A brief essay on your background andhow you plan to take political action.

Whether you can drop everything andgo to Washington to attend hearings andmeet with your Congresspeople.

Whether you will need a place to staywhen in Washington (area members pleasenotify us if you can put up out of townvisitors).

Whether the Society has permission topass your name and address along toresponsible space oriented lobby groups.

1

“Congress Has to Set Priorities”by Carolyn Henson

A sizeable contingent of L-5 membersshowed up in Washington for the FutureSpace Program hearings Jan. 24-26. Theh e a r i n g r o o m w a s j a m m e d ; a t t i m e speople were standing in the back and theaisles. Many of the L-5 people met withtheir Representatives and staffers while inWashington delivering well thought outwritten statements and encouraging themto attend the hearings.

Interest in them was high. Normallyonly members of the Space Science andApplications Subcommittee (which spon-sored the hearings) attend their hearings.But this time members of several otherScience and Technology subcommitteesattended as well as some Representativeswho were not even on the Science andTechnology Committee. The Subcommit-tee chairman, Don Fuqua, allowed all theRepresentatives in attendance to questionthe witnesses . Staffers for dozens ofRepresentatives were in the audience.

Four of the thirteen witnesses testifiedin favor of space settlements. They wereG . H a r r y S t i n e , a u t h o r o f t h e T h i r dIndustrial Revolution; Charles Sheffield,Vice President, Earth Satellite Corpora-tion: Barbara Marx Hubbard, author ofThe Hunger of Eve; Gerard K. O’Neill,Princeton physics professor, and Law-rence Adams, President, Martin MariettaAerospace. The Representat ives werequite cordial and openly helpful to thesewitnesses.

Dr. Phillip Handler, National Academyof Sciences; Frank Press, Carter’s Scienceadvisor; and Robert Frosch, Administra-tor of NASA got up on the witness standto explain why space industries, settle-ments and solar power satellites shouldhave the low priority given them by theCarter Administration. The Representa-tives were surprisingly hostile to them.Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) told Handler,“Congress has to set priorities, not you,”

and demanded that he submit the criteriaon which he based his evaluation of thespace program. Louis Frey (R-FL) com-plained that “I don’t see the sense ofurgency, commit tment - - we’ve beentalking long enough.”

Under questioning Handler, Press andFrosch al l admit ted that solar powersatellites (SPS) were technically feasible.Press, w h e n t o l d b y J a m e s S c h e u e r(D-NY) that “when you do nothing youmake policy” and “I don’t get a feeling ofzeal,” replied that “there’s no questionwe’ve got to get there; the problem is toexplore possibilities.” Scheuer respondedthat “you learn by doing” and proposedthat a prototype SPS be built immediate-ly. Press countered by saying that “wehave to get $16 million behind us beforewe can make a prudent decision.” RonnieFlippo (D-AL) objected that i t wouldtake three years at current SPS fundingrates to make a decision.

Barbara Mikulski telling Phillip Handler “Congress has to set priorities, not you.” (Photo courtesy Charles Divine.)

2 L-5 News, February 1978

Larry W i n n ( R - K S ) p r e t t y wellsummed up the Representatives’ frustra-tions with the Carter SPS policy, saying“I don’t mean to sound rude -- but we’vebeen listening to you (Press and Frosch)for one hour and we’re not hearing adamn thing that’s new . . . if this is whatwe’ve got for energy, we’d better sell theSaudis our F-15’s.”

Four days after the administration’stestimony, an alternative SPS bill wasintroduced by Ronnie Flippo (D-AL) andcosponsored by 11 other disgrunt ledS c i e n c e a n d Technology Committeemembers, including the chairman of theFossi l and Nuclear Energy Research,Development and Demonstra t ion Sub-committee, Walter Flowers (D-AL); thechairman of the Transportation, Aviationand Weather Subcommittee, Dale Milford(D-TX); the chairman of the AdvancedEnergy Technologies and Energy Conser-vation, Development and DemonstrationSubcommit tee, Mike McCormack( D - W A ) ; t h e c h a i r m a n o f t h e S p a c eSciences and Applications Subcommittee,Don Fuqua (D-FL); and the chairman ofthe Science and Technology Committee,Olin Teague (D-TX). For details on thisbill, HR 10601, “Solar Power SatelliteResearch, Development and Demonstra-tion Act” see the related article, “Con-gress Pushes SPS” in this issue of the L-SNews.

N A S A A d m i n i s t r a t o r R o b e r t F r o s c h f a c e sCongress.

G e r a r d O ’ N e i l l t e s t i f y i n g a t t h e F u t u r e S p a c e P r o g r a m h e a r i n g s .

3

A Crassly Expedient ActFrom the center - T.A. Heppenheimer

The proposed 1979 Federal budget,the first to fully reflect the views of theCarter Administration, must certainly bea shock to all who advocate an expandedspace program. President Carter hasstruck at the very heart of the mainstayof any such expanded efforts -- the SpaceShuttle. This comes through his recom-mendation to delete funding for the fifthShuttle Orbiter, reducing the Shuttle fleetto four in number, instead of the plannedfive.

The proposed five-orbiter fleet reflectsanticipated traffic, as developed throughcareful NASA and contractor studies, andrepresents a fleet size calculated to permitmost effect ive use of this new spacetransportation system. Thus this CarterAdministration decision must be taken asearnest of an intent ion to reduce ouralready inadequate space e f fo r t s byanother 20% -- if not by more.

Such an action would hardly be out ofkeeping with t h e v i e w p o i n t o f a nAdministrat ion which has given highresponsibility to Walter Mondale. Duringhis Senate days, Mondale s tood highamong the inveterate foes of the spaceprogram. In 1970, with Space Shuttlefunding set at only $12 million in thebudget, Mondale sought to strangle theprogram at its birth by moving to deleteth is i t em. In 1971, 1972, and 1973,Mondale again and again sought to deleteShuttle funding, abandoning his effortsonly when it became obvious that theprogram enjoyed overwhelming support.

Fortunately, there is ample opportuni-ty to move to restore funding for thefifth Orbiter. The budget must be passedby Congress, and friends of the Shuttlecan introduce amendments. But to aid inthis, it will be important to muster publicsupport.

Such support can only be enhanced bythe fact that the Orbi ter craf t to bescrapped is, indeed, the famous Enter-p r i s e . T h a t c r a f t r e c e i v e d t h a t n a m ethrough t h e e f f o r t s o f a h u n d r e dthousand Star Trek fans. Such support, ifmobilized and focused, will prove morethan enough to send a warning to Carter:Hands off our space program!

Such organizat ions as FASST, theAIAA, and the L-S Society can play avital role in energizing and directing thissupport. There’s a lot to do. Let’s get towork. Let’s show this Administration thatour space program is not for cutting.

4

Dr. Thomas A. Heppenheimer was bornin 1947. In 1971 he co-founded FASST(Forum for Advancement of Students inScience and Technology), and served as itsVice-President/Technical. In 1974 he wasnamed to a temporary appointment to thefaculty of California Institute of Tech-nology. In 1976 he was named Alexandervon Humboldt Research Fellow, in theMax Planck Inst i tut f i i r Kernphysik,Heidelberg, West Germany.

His principal research areas includeplanetary science, aerospace engineering,and celestial mechanics. His 1976 dis-covery of achromatic trajectories has since

led to major advances in the understandingof the problem of t ransport of lunarresources, for use in space industriali-zation. More recently, he has given newsolutions in dynamics which Point the wayto a complete understanding of the earlyhistory of the asteroids.

He is the author of Colonies in Space(Stackpole, 1977). widely regarded as thedefinitive work on space colonization. Ithas been selected by the Book-of-the-Month Club, and by five other book clubs.

He is listed in Who’s Who in Aviationand in Who’s Who in the West.

L-5 News, February 1978

OTRAG: BOFACES HOSTby Conrad Schneiker

INTRODUCTIONIn past issues of the L-5 News,

articles of interest to our readers have beenreviewed individually. The large volumeof articles on OTRAG has made such atreatment a formidable task. The largedegree of overlapping reports would makethe task very monotonous as well. For thesereasons this article was written to sum-marize some recent articles on OTRAG.They are listed in the bibliography forinterested readers.

OTRAG -- THE COMPANYOTRAG’s goal is to slash the high cost

of rocket launch vehicles to half the cost ofexist ing or planned launch vehicles .OTRAG (Orbital Transport und RaketerAktiengesellschaft) is a West German firm,headed by 38 year old Dr. Lutz T. Kayser.He has made 31 invent ions in rockettechnology to date [7]. Chairman of theBoard of Directors , Kurt Debus, wasdirector of the NASA Kennedy SpaceFlight Center. He directed the world’s firsttests of large rockets at Peenemuende [2].He worked with the la te Werner VonBraun. Kurt Debus describes the OTRAGrocket as “brilliantly simple [12].”

OTRAG’s star t ing capital was only$425,000. Money has been invested by “ascore of West Germany’s big earners whocan write off their investment through taxdeductions.” Now it is financed entirely bysome 600 private investors. It has con-tracted with Zaire for a launch area. Thecontract is through the year 2000, with pay-ments deferred until 1980, at which timeZaire will receive 5% of the sales revenues.

OTRAG has spent about $30 million onthe development of its launcher, using asmall team of about 40 engineers. It hasalready flown its first test vehicle. On theother hand, “the German-French project --ARIANE -- has not yet yielded any resultsdespite the huge amount of money ($400million) put into its development [8].”This last amount is what OTRAG figuresit will spend by the time it starts regularoperations in 1980-1981. It also figures thatits prices will undercut ARIANE’s.

OTRAG -- THE ROCKETThe “low-cost rocket” is based on

clustering many standard tank and enginemodules. The number of modules usedvaries with the weight of the payload

LD PIONEERILE WORLD

Artist’s conception of the OTRAG multistage rocket, planned for launch in late1979. (Photo courtesy Theo Pirard.)

to be launched [15]. As many mass-pro-duced, off-the-shelf components are beingused as possible. Every attempt is beingmade to simplify the overall system. Forinstance, compressed air is used to movefuel instead of turbopumps. The inexpen-sive and plentiful fuels, kerosene andnitric acid, replace the expensive and hardto obtain UDMH fuel. Thrust chambersare ablatively cooled, a technique usuallyreserved for solid fuel rockets. Automobilewindshield wiper motors actuate fuelvalves (which are used by the chemicalindustry).

The largest OTRAG rocket configura-tion is sized to place about 1/3 as muchpayload weight in low earth orbit as theShuttle. However the diameter of its pay-load bay is 8m compared to 5m for theShuttle. In addition, “. . . payloads for theShuttle will be very expensive because they

must be man rated, which will not be thecase for the OTRAG launcher. . . . Shuttlepayloads will have to be qualified to muchhigher noise-fatigue levels because theywill be so much closer to the engines . . .during launch.”

The first test flight reached an altitudeof about 20km. Another test f l ight isscheduled for early 1979 and the first or-bital insertion is planned for later that year.

OTRAG: AFRICA’S CAPE CANA-VERAL

“Until now Africa’s participation in theapplication of space technology for theeconomic and social development of thecontinent had been limited to the use ofINTELSAT communicat ion satel l i tes .This has considerably improved Africa’scommunication with the outside worldbut not the links between one African

5

country and another [6].” With the arrivalof OTRAG, this may soon change. For“the role of satellites is gradually shiftingfrom international to national systems.The trend is clearly towards separatedomestic satellite systems which make itpossible for a developing country todetermine its use for its domestic instead ofdepending on the INTELSAT systemwhich is entirely outside the control ofgovernments using it.”

OTRAG is prepared to launch spysatellites for African nations (or anyoneelse). As a result “no major military move,such as a concentration of troops, activitieson military bases, airfields and even roadscan escape the watchful eye of the satellitecameras. The recent detection of the SouthAfrican nuclear testing ground in theKalahari Desert is a good example.” LutzKayser takes the view that “until recentlymuch of this spectacular achievement wascloaked in unnecessary military secrecy . . .[7].”

Compare this with an earlier dialogue inthe U.S. “ ‘As we go into the future,’ saysDirector, Defense Research and Engi-neering, Malcolm Currie, ‘we may have toestabl ish resolut ion l imits on variouskinds of sensors used in unclassif iedprograms [16].’ ” For instance, “DOD andNASA have ‘intensely’ discussed NASA’sdevelopment of the thematic mapperwhich will provide resolution of 30m(compared to the 80m now available onLandsat with the multispectral scanner).”Once OTRAG’s rockets are operational,such considerations will be passe. ForOTRAG can f ly satel l i tes with “wideangle, high precision cameras that canregister an object on the ground the size ofan automobile.” This is (very roughly) afactor of ten improvement over a reso-lution of 30m. And with modern equip-ment, one can do much better.

Apparently the DOD has company in itsworries: “Others, however, have linked thepublici ty given to the [Pravda] pressreport with Soviet efforts to amend theSpace Treaty limiting the launching ofreconnaissance satellites to the SovietUnion and the United States [7].” OTRAGcons ide r s l aunch ing spy sa t e l l i t e s apositive activity as “. . . consequently, anycontemplated armed aggression can bediscovered in time to allow the SecurityCouncil of the United Nations to interveneand prevent the conflict.” These launchesmay be big business. “. . . 80 per cent of thesatellites in orbit, that is almost 2000, werelaunched exclusively by the two super-powers -- the United States and the SovietUnion -- for mil i tary reconnaissancepurposes [6].” How many more satelliteswill be launched when (say) 10, 20 or 30more countries get into the act?

OTRAG -- THE CONTROVERSY“. . . OTRAG’s launching site in Zaire

has given rise to international controversywith cold war f lavour [6] .” Firs t wec o n s i d e r t h e a c c u s a t i o n l e v e l e d a tOTRAG. This controversy followed thea n n o u n c e m e n t o f O T R A G ’ s l e a s i n gagreement with Zaire by the Paris-basedAfrique-Asie [11]. “. . . the editor ofAfrique-Asie -- Simon Malley -- hadobtained details of an agreement signedbetween OTRAG and Mobutu in Kinshasaon March 26, 1976. Central figure in therevelation is Nathaniel M’Bumba, sha-dowy commander of the abortive Shaba‘invasion’ earlier this year [1977] whose‘guerilla informants’ discovered the ‘secretdocuments’ detai l ing the deal .” Thealleged “cost to the Germans is amonumental $29.95 million a year. . .” Inaddition, “the socialist states regard theleased area as a ‘military base.’ ” The Sovietpaper Pravda followed up by repeatedlydamning OTRAG’s operations militar-istic [4, 7, 10]. Soviet President Leonid I.Brezhnev “ c o n d e m n e d t h e W e s t f o restablishing ‘mil i tary strongholds’ inAfrica . . . [12].” At this point a columnappeared in U.S. newspapers noting the

“. . . most curious aspect of the entirefascinat ing mat ter is the thunderoussilence of the whole American media [10].”Perhaps taking a hint, Penthouse mag-azine made public an article scheduled forpublication in March 1978. It charges“West Germany has taken over a Colo-rado-sized chunk of Zaire where it issecretly producing and testing cruise andintermediate range ballistic missiles withU.S. approval . . . [14].” Furthermore“prototypes of four or five cruise missiles,designed to carry nuclear warheads, havealready flown over the 100,000 square milearea.” The article quotes the lease rate at$50 million per year. As usual, the CIA isinvolved.

Now, the defense. According to OTRAGspokesman Frank Wukasch, “what weoriginally started as a scientific project hassuddenly, for unknown reasons beenblown up into a politico-strategic fairy tale[11].” Why such tight security? “Such acostly project is closely guarded as it wouldanywhere else in the world. But our work isin no way a state secret. The launching ofthe first rocket was covered by a GermanTV team and has been shown in Ger-many.” In fact, “when he blasted off hisfirst rocket last May 17, he hired a publicrelations firm to publicize the successfullaunch [12].” What about huge paymentsfor the lease? “A farce [11].” What aboutthe hostile Soviet reaction? A news articlenotes: “It is hard to believe that WestGermany is really and truly installing abase for nuclear missiles in the heart of

southern Africa. The Soviet Union knowsexactly how to play on Western fears of arevived German militarism, and such amaneuver would give them a superbpropaganda weapon [lo].” Why lease sucha large territory? “. . . to ensure that burnt-out parts of our [OTRAG’s] launchersshall not cause any damage. . . . Otrag isliable for any damages to life, the health ofthe people in the area and their property. . .“OTRAG will not agree to any cooper-ation with the Republic of South Africa aslong as its government pursues a policythat is condemned both by the Organi-zation of African Unity and the UnitedNations.” What about the launching ofnuclear warheads? “We shall provide thelaunching services only af ter we aresatisfied that such a satellite is for peacefulpurposes only as they are defined by the[UN] Space Treaty.” What about Bre-zhnev’s claims? “He ought to be betterinformed about the project. We frequentlysee Soviet MIG-23 reconnaisance jets overour testing grounds [12].”

The Penthouse article deserves specialmention. The actual area of the lease is38,000 square miles, not 100,000 as claimedin the article. This is about 100,000 squarek i l o m e t e r s ; p e r h a p s t h e u n i t s w e r eswitched? As for the “Colorado-sizedchunk of Zaire ,” t h e a u t h o r m a y b einterested to learn that Colorado is roughly270% larger than the area in question. Theauthor claims the article was based on“private discussions with highly reliablesources who have access to most of therelevant knowledge . . . [17].” Hard facts &actual names of these sources are lackinghowever. West Germany’s reaction: “Purenonsense [13].” OTRAG’s reaction: “Thisreport is complete nonsense.” The U.S.State Department’s reaction: it has noevidence that cruise missiles are beingtested in Zaire. The sleazy reporting in thispretentious screed prompts one to dismissits claims as prima facie absurd.CONCLUSION

What t o make o f a l l t h i s ? We a rewitnessing a shift away from de factog o v e r n m e n t m o n o p o l i e s t o w a r d f r e eenterprise in space operations. We arewitnessing the end of the US-USSRmonopo ly on spy sa t e l l i t e s . We a rewitnessing an end to the idea that expertsin the world’s space agencies were alwaysright when “they said it couldn’t be done.”We are witnessing an end to the idea thatspace operations will unfold according tothe imposed plans of a few nat ionalagencies while they retain the upper hand.And looking back on all this, we see thatit’s just as well.

Many Third World nations look quitefavorably at the prospect of achieving ameasure of independence from the super-

6 L-5 News, February 1978

powers in their space activities [6,9]. Newpossibilities are opening up for thesenations. They will be able to make theirown choices instead of being limited tosuch ac t i v i t i e s a s t he wor ld ’ s “B igBrothers” deem acceptable. This doesn’tsit well with those in positions of powerand control. Hence the reactions of uneasi-ness, suspiciousness, andoutright hostilityd i r e c t e d a t O T R A G . B u t n o m a t t e r .OTRAG’s perseverance, ingenuity andboldness have carried it this far -- successnow appears within its grasp.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[0]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[9]

[10]

Breaking The Cost BarrierEarth/Space News, January 1976OTRAG Launch: Update IIEarth/Space News, September 1976First Private Rocket SuccessfullyLaunched!Earth/Space News, July-August1977German Company Blasts Into Space

AgeL-5 News, October 1977Sovie ts , Others At tack OTRAGFlightL-5 News, November 1977German Space Capitalist UnderAttackL-5 News, December 1977Space Technology And AfricaAFRICA, December 1977OTRAG: Why We Are In ZaireAFRICA, December 1977The Case For An African SatelliteCommunications SystemAFRICA, December 1977Ignored Story: German Rockets InAfricaWilliam A. RusherSt. Paul Pioneer Press,November 8, 1977

[11] just Testing?To The Point International,August 22, 1977

[12] German Tes ts Cut-Rate RocketIn ZaireGeorge VineLos Angeles Times, December 14,1977

[13] Bonn Denies Reported Cruise Mis-sile TestsTimes Wire ServiceLos Angeles Times,December 15, 1977

[15] LOW Cost Satellite Launcher Deve-lopedRobert R. RopelewskiAviation Week & Space Technology,September 12, 1977

[16] Space Applications Resolution:Civil/Military DichotomyAstronautics & Aeronautics,September 1976

[17] OTRAG’s, B o n n R e a c t i o n t oCruise Missile Test Charges: “PureNonsense”The Foundation Report, January1, 1978

[18] A Private Ticket To Orbit?Michael J. DunnAstronautics & Aeronautics, Decem-ber 1977

SOYUZ-26 MISSION

by Phill Parker

On the 10th of December, 1977, theUSSR launched the Soyuz-26 spacecraftusing a s tandard ‘Soyuz’ launcher toundertake rendezvous and docking withthe orbiting Salyut-6 space station on the11th December 1977. The crew for thismission i s f l i g h t c o m m a n d e r Y u r iRomanenko and flight engineer GeorgiGrechko. It is interesting to note thatGrechko was also flight engineer for theearlier Soyuz-17 mission which dockedwith Salyut-4 space station in 1975. Thelatest launch comes only two months afterthe failure of Soyuz-25 to carry out dockingwith Salyut-6 in October 1977. It appearsthat the USSR used the crew of Soyuz-25 totake photographs of the damaged dockingport of Salyut-6, after their failure to link-up with i t , and to under take groundsimulation and dummy crew operationson a ground simulator before launchingSoyuz-26 on a ‘rescue mission’. The USSRannounced that Grechko has been respon-sible “ . . . in testing and designing newspace technology.” According to VladimirShatalov the Soyuz-26 crew wil l beresponsible for the testing and checking ofthe damaged docking port in the transfercompartment of Salyut-6. The Soyuz-26spacecraft docked with a second dockingport on Salyut-6 on the instrument section.

Besides testing the damaged dockingport, other events planned for the Soyuz-26crew are the study of physical processes ofouter space, the exploration of earth’sresources, medical and biological investi-gations and carrying out technical experi-ments. It is expected that the crew willattempt to exceed the long-duration recordof the USA’s Skylab-4 crew, which was 84days in space. The Soviet Union has beenmore forthcoming with this mission than

many o the r s and showed t e l ev i s i onpictures of the launch, rendezvous anddocking (via a remote camera onboardSalyut-6), interior transfer of crew fromSoyuz to Salyut and, at a later date, the crewat work and explaining various uni tswithin Salyut . From these televisionpictures, it appears that the space station ismore ‘electronically sophisticated’ than itsforebears and there seems to be morecomputerized equipment. The live pic-tures were, also, in color, which also seemsto be step forward and would rank theSalyut-6 space station on par with Skylab.Another interesting point about Salyut-6 isthat water condensates are recycled,removing the need for the large watertanks which Skylab used. Another point isthat the USSR is using its large ‘MissionControl Center’ at Yevpatoria for thisflight and is equivalent to Houston in itsapparent sophistication with electronicflight plans and computerized displays.

SPACELAB PROGRESS

by Phill ParkerEurope’s first manned spacecraft, Space-

lab, being developed by the EuropeanSpace Agency (ESA) is progressing accord-ing to schedule with various modelshaving been developed for testing anddevelopment. Various hardware items forthe ‘Engineering Model’ are undergoingassembly at the prime contractors site atBremen in West Germany. The nextcri t ical stage is the so-called Crit icalDesign Review (CDR) in February 1978 atwhich the compatibility of subsystem in-terfaces and of actual design with the de-sign requirements will be established over40 major firms in 10 European countriesare helping in the construction of Spacelab.

T h e f i r s t l a u n c h o f t h e E u r o p e a nSpacelab has been delayed, however, untilDecember 1980 due to a delay in launchingthe Tracking and Data Relay Satellites byNASA for use with the Space Transpor-tation System. NASA has now decided tolaunch the TDRSs by the shuttle, ratherthan by expendable launcher. Also leadingtowards this first flight was a Crew StationReview was recently undertaken by stafffrom ESA, NASA and the prime con-t r a c t o r , E R N O b u t r e s u l t e d i n f e wsuggestions for hardware changes -- a goodsign! The software aspects, however, werehighlighted and remedial action is takingplace. A Spacelab simulation, using theNASA Galileo aircraft, was undertaken inthe ASSESS-II mission between 16-25 May1977. The simulation demonstrated that amul t i p l e pay load expe r imen t can beoperated successfully by a small number ofpayload specialists.

7

Space Industrialization : Whence Cometh Confusion

by Gerry DriggersWhat’s in a name? A great deal actually,

since names represent mental images andevoke emotional attitudes. The actions (orinactions) spurred by the receiver’s percep-tions are the effects; the names and labelsare the cause.

There are presently many concepts andimages associated with the terminologywhen reference is made to “space indus-trialization.” With some the vision con-jured up is one of large space colonieshousing thousands of people building ormaking something. Others see big struc-tures being built in space for whateverpurpose from the bay of the Shut t le .Another fairly common image involvesspace stations and construction bases inEarth orbit. Many people see relativelyspecific activities such as space processingof materials, product manufacture or solarpower satellites as the essence of spaceindustrialization.

Whence cometh confusion? A multi-plicity of images and perceptions fosteredby one thing: a lack of commonly accepted,coherent definitions.

Two study teams (funded by NASA/MSFC), one at Rockwell International andone managed by Science Applications,Incorporated have been involved duringthe past eighteen months in defining spaceindustrialization, delineating the char-acteristics of its elements and postulatingits possible future developments and therelated benefits. Final reports from thesestudies will be published in March, 1978.One result of these studies has been a set ofdefinitions. Simply stated, space indus-trialization is industry and governmentworking for profit and pragmatic benefitutilizing space. Understanding the totalcontent of this statement requires someelaboration.

First, space industrialization (SI) is not a“program.” It is at the least a collection ofprograms, some private, some governmentand involving many nations. It may also besaid that space industrialization is not anactivity but a collection of activities. SItoday involves communications, navi-gation, remote sensing and launch servicesat about one billion dollars in annualrevenue. About 146 nations are involved inSI related activities and six of these havelauncher status. In the near future (early tomid-eighties) will come products from

space followed in the nineties by power surveys made during the SI Study areinitiatives such as the solar power satellite. shown in the accompanying figure. ThesePeople in space as an industry then revenues are based on a relatively conser-becomes a reality around the year 2000. vative future projection of U.S. market

Thus SI activities can be generally cate- potent ial and penetrat ion rate . A fewgorized over the next thirty years under industry and government initiatives infour headings: Information Services, earlier time frames could easily accelerateProducts, Energy and People in Space. the scale by five years.

The size of these various activities can be T h e p o i n t o f t h e f i g u r e i s m a d echaracterized several ways but the most regardless of the time scale, however. Theconvenient has been a project ion of composition, relative timing and relativepotential annual dollar revenues. An s c a l e o f i m p a c t s o n E a r t h f o r s p a c eestimate of gross revenues based on market industrialization are illustrated.

1990 1995 2000 2005

YEARA Projection of Future U.S. Space IndustrializationBased on Conservative Market Penetration Rates

2010

Activities

8 L-5 News, February 1978

SPS: Near Future Energy Source?

Introduction:We live in an age in which we are rapidly

diminishing our supply of Earth’s re-sources. Global population and standardof living is increasing and as a result we areexperiencing rapidly increasing rates ofconsumpt ion o f ava i l ab l e fo s s i l andnuclear fuel stores. As a consequence, wemay expect existing global energy sourcesto last only to the following approximatedates: oil, 1995 to 2005; coal, 2030 to 2080;and uranium (without breeder reactors),2020 to 2050.

As our available energy resources areconsumed, secondary factors emerge. First,as remaining quant i t ies become moredifficult to obtain, the cost will increase.Locating and drilling for oil, for example,is a very expensive and time consumingprocess. Much of this cost is absorbed bythe consumer. The second factor is that theconsumption of available energy sourcesresul ts in addit ional pol lutants to thebiosphere. The CO2 removed from theatmosphere over thousands of years byplants, which formed coal, is now beingreturned. Third, since energy sources tendto be geographically concentrated, withmost coal reserves in the United States andthe Middle East possessing most of the oilresources, a potential for internationaltension may be created as reserves dwindle.Fourth, nuclear fission involves byproductmaterials that could be dangerous in thewrong hands.

The Alternative:Recently the potential of solar energy to

meet future needs has been re-examined.The sun radiates vast quantities of energythat are far in excess of needs in theforseeable future. The principle way inwhich solar power could be put to use onEar th i s by t u rn ing i t d i r ec t l y i n toelectricity through the use of solar cellarrays or “farms.” Solar plants on Earth,however, suffer from the fact that the sun’senergy reaches Earth in a very dilute formdue to the diffuse nature of solar radiation,clouds, haze, etc. The most severe setbackto the use of Earth-based solar systems, ofcourse, is nightfall.

The Answer:O n e w a y t o h a r n e s s s o l a r e n e r g y

effectively would be to move the solar“farms” off the surface of the Earth andplace them in orbit away from the Earth’sactive environment and erosive forces. Aspace system would receive 6 to 15 timesmore energy per year than the same sized

system located on Earth. In addition, apower plant located in space can receivenearly direct, unfiltered sunlight almostwithout interruption. These benefits werewhat prompted the concept of the SolarPower Satellite (SPS).

The design concept of the SPS consistso f a s a t e l l i t e m a i n t a i n e d i n a g e o -synchronous orbit around the Earth. Thismeans that the satellite would remain in afixed position in relation to a point on thesurface of the Earth. On the satellite, twosymmetrically arranged solar collectorsconvert solar energy directly into elec-tricity by the photovoltaic (solar cell)process. The electricity is fed to microwaveg e n e r a t o r s b u i l t i n t o a t r a n s m i t t i n gantenna located between the two solarcollectors. The antenna directs the micro-wave beam to a receiving antenna on Earthwhere the microwave energy is efficientlyand safely converted back to electricity.Power could be delivered to most geo-graphic locat ions with the receivingantenna placed ei ther on land or onplatforms over water.

Benefits:The foremost benefit produced by the

SPS is that i t ut i l izes a vir tually in-exhaustible source of energy. There is nopossibility of running out of energy fromthe sun in the foreseeable future . Asmentioned previously, the SPS wouldreceive from 6 to 15 times more energy thanthe same system on Earth, and wouldreceive it virtually continuously.

The SPS system appears truly environ-m e n t a l l y s a f e . I t w o u l d p r o d u c e n opollutants to the air or water and wouldnot rely in any way on the dwindlingenergy resources. The materials requiredfor construction and implementation ofthe SPS are abundant and the SPS wouldpay for itself in only two years in terms ofthe energy required to make it operational.This includes the raw materials, manu-facturing processes, component assembly,space transportation and ground supportfacilities.

Open land under the receiving antennacould still be put to productive use. Allincoming microwaves would be either

absorbed by the antenna or reflected backinto space, but 80% of the sunlight can stillpass through. Thus, the land beneath theantenna would not be “dead space” since itcould be put to agricultural or other uses.

Safety Features:The SPS does not possess the potential

for dangerous side-effects as with nuclearpower plants. It is important to note thatbecause of the inherent nature of themicrowave transmit t ing system, i t isimpossible to direct the beam to any pointon Earth other than the properly con-figured receiving antenna. This is due tothe fact that the microwave beam is onlyattracted to the receiving antenna, and infact, only remains a beam if pointed at theantenna. Otherwise , the microwavestransmit out from the satellite in a fine“spray” in all directions and are as harm-less as a radio signal.

Because a microwave beam is non-ionizing, it does not affect biologicalmaterials in the way that ultraviolet, X-rayor nuclear radiation does. Its major effecton living tissue is heating. Microwaves don o t p r o d u c e i o n i z a t i o n o r c h e m i c a lchanges because the energy level is muchtoo low. Precautions will be taken at themicrowave receiving station to insure thatthe levels of microwave intensities towhich employees are exposed are wellbelow government standards for safety.

Since heating is the only effect micro-waves have on biological tissue therewould be no cumulat ive effect af terrepeated exposures. It works on the sameprinciple as home microwave ovens excepton an extremely small scale. If a sandwichis put into the oven to be warmed, it can beremoved and allowed to cool and thenreturned to the oven for re-heating. Thiscan be repeated again and again withcomplete safety because there are noharmful rays which are collected or stored.

There would be no danger to aircraftp a s s e n g e r s f l y i n g t h r o u g h t h e b e a mbecause they would be shielded by themetal body of the aircraf t . The t imerequired for an airplane to fly through am i c r o w a v e b e a m w o u l d n o t b e l o n ge n o u g h t o h a r m e v e n a n u n s h i e l d e dperson.

Conclusion:Solar power satellites may be the answer

to our energy shortage in the near future.Research is being carefully conducted toinsure that this system would be totallysafe from every standpoint. There is goodreason to believe that the SPS will be as safeand beneficial as the communicationssatellites in use at this moment. These arethe satellites which provide the publicwith l ive football programming, lessexpensive world-wide telephone service,educational programs and so many otherimprovements in communications.

It is important, of course, to examine allenergy alternatives carefully and weigh thebenefits and drawbacks of each. The solarpower satellite is one alternative, andhopefully, the answer.

9

Space ColoniesEdited by Stewart BrandReview by Conrad Schneiker

The book consists mainly of reprints frompast issues of The CoEvolution Quarterly.This includes the pro & con debates ,several interviews each with physicistG e r a r d O ’ N e i l l a n d a s t r o n a u t R u s t ySchweickart (including the famous “ThereAin’t No Graceful Way [in zero-g]” inter-view), many WHOLE EARTH CATA-LOG style book and periodical reviews,many pictures, drawings, diagrams, andmuch more.There is some new material, most notablytwo articles by Eric Drexler: “The SpaceColonies Idea 1969-1977” & “Solar Sail-ing.” The first article (in spite of its title)presents several interesting scenarios forthe future development of space coloni-zation. Then follows the best answer to“BUT CAN IT BE DONE?” that I haveseen yet. After disposing with techno-logical critics, the ideological critics areattacked with a vengance -- again, with thebest replies I’ve seen to date. This article isa model defense of space colonization,giving concise arguments that clearlyexpose the (of ten ugly) roots of theopposition’s stand. The defense stands onits own merits; there’s no glossing over theissues, changing the subject, or wishy-washy apologetic mumbling about extra-terresterial imperatives and the ilk here.The second article discusses a new type ofsolar sail design, 40 times lighter and 40times faster than pervious designs. Thisspectacular advance results from con-struction of these sails in space instead ofon earth. An important consequence: thepossibi l i ty of $.10/lb costs for t rans-portation around the solar system (as-suming a 10% real rate of interest oncapital). Questions on the feasibility ofsuch sails are listed and answered. Read thearticle for the interesting details.

Asteroid mining facility with moored sail. Top, right: solar sail (10 km diametcr). Top, left: Bernal Sphere colony(½ km diameter). Bottom, left: asteroid (1 km diameter). Bottom, center: industrial complex. Behind asteroid:mooring tower with shroud lines extending to sail in the distance. The pit on the right side of the asteroid hassupplied enough material to build this colony, the industrial complex. 50 power satellites, and many, manysails like the one shown. The solar system contains thousands of similar asteroids.

Illustrations shown here arereprinted from Space Colonies.

Solar sails and chemical rockets. Rocket mass increases exponentially with the velocity to bereached. In the foreground is a 20 ton payload sitting on a representation of a 20 ton solar sail.To its left is a similar payload resting on a cone (labeled “1”) representing the mass of the chemicalrocket needed to reach the velocity that the sail could reach after a day’s acceleration. On the right,the cone labeled “7” represents the mass of a rocket to equal the velocity given by the sail in 7 days.Similarly with the cone labeled “30” (note man napping at base). In the background, behindMt. Everest, is a 50-mile tall cone representing the mass of the rocket needed to equal the velocitywith which the sail can throw 20 tons out of the solar system. An electric rocket would beconsiderably smaller.

1 0 L-5 News, February 1978

Inside the L-5 Society

An L-S meeting was held Jan. 28 at theHuntsville, Alabama conference celebrat-ing the 20th anniversary of the launch ofthe United States’ first satellite, Explorer.The participants, many of whom had alsoa t t e n d e d t h e F u t u r e S p a c e P r o g r a m shearings in Washington, D.C., Jan. 24-26,requested that their names and addressesbe published.

Harriett Hays -- 205/776-3940Brock Rd.Brownsboro, AL 35741

Tim Katterman -- 919/833-1398P.O. Box 5381Raleigh, NC 27607

Bret Hooper -- 615/383-4680921 Kirkwood LaneNashville, TN 37204

Bill Gardiner1269 Mecaslin St. N.W.Atlanta, GA 30337

Mike HogueBox 265Corinth, MS 38834

Linda Jordan101-A Jardane Rd.Pensacola, FL 32507

H. David FutchBox 554Conyers, GA 30207

David WoodBox 1921Birmingham, AL 35201

Frank Love1217 Cheister St.Birmingham, AL 35226

Kenneth McCormick -- 215/469-6513 Birchrunville, PA 19421

Eric Laursen -- 215/662-1668217 S. 46th St.Philadelphia, PA 19139

Wm. Scott Rone -- 601/232-8244Box 1280University, MS 38677

Richard E. Yinger -- 305/968-84786120 Ranches Rd.Lake Worth, FL 33464

Neil and Ursula Freer -- 914/679-8519or 679-7137Box 297Rt. 2W. Hurley, NY 12491

Robin Snelson144 West 80th St., #3New York, NY 10024

H. Daniel Futch -- 404/922-5699Box 554Conyers, GA 30207

Gary Noyes -- 904/378-4362289-5 Corry VillageGainesville, FL 32603

Chris PollariBox 37151Georgia TechAtlanta, GA 30332

Chuck Domm4113 Grenton Ave.Baltimore, MD 21206

Guy PignoletP.O. Box 84497477 St. Denis CederReunion Island, Indian Ocean

Roy S. Furst1866 Fargo St.Baldwin, NY 11510

James T. Anderson736 N. Euclid Ave.Tucson, AZ 85719

Marc Boone1620 N. ParkTucson, AZ 85719

Chris BaslerNew York City

R.R. BaslerMenlo Park, CA

Warren MerkeyUniversity of Florida

Alan R. Hildebrand1419 43rd St. N.E.Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2A3L5

Jim Norwood1112 Irving Rd.Birmingham, AL 32509

L-5 Ole Miss:Micky McWilliams, Howard Taylor,Tracey Flanagen, Scott Rone, RanceFortenberryBox 5563University, MS 38677

Klaus Heimburg2507-36SW 16th Pl.Gainesville, FL 32608

George KoopmanHuntington Beach, CA

Carolyn Henson1134 E. LesterTucson, AZ 85719A directory of all L-5 members who

wish to be active locally is available uponrequest from the L-5 office. Be sure tospecify whether you wish only a list ofthose in your locali ty, or a completeworld-wide printout.

Inside the L-5 Office

As those who have worked as volun-t ee r s i n t he L -5 o f f i ce can t e s t i fy ,running the Society is 90% elbow grease:stuffing envelopes, checking the mailinglist to make sure address changes weremade correctly, filing invoices, sorting

mail, packaging orders , keeping cashreceipts up to date, vacuuming the floor,changing light bulbs, etc. It’s not verydramatic - - bu t o f f i ce work i s da rnessential.

It’s been awhile since we’ve givencredits to our many volunteers who havetoiled so hard in the office. They includeJay V iv i an , Cambr idge , MA; Te r ryCooper, Tucson, AZ; anonymous lady,Ann Arbor, MI; Bev Isbell, Chico, CA;Ron Nickel, Odessa, TX; Roger Gregory,Ann Arbor, MI; Jim Bennett, Santa Cruz,CA; Debbie Haney, Kokomo, IN; andJohn and Paul Fortier of Detroit, MI.

If you would like to participate in themost unglamorous side of Society activi-ties, we will provide room and board inexchange for 12 hours a day of officedrudgery. As we have a limited amount ofspace available, please write in and tell uswhen you would like to visit and wait forsomeone in the office to give you the OKbefore packing up and coming on out.

B r y n a B l o c k - - s h e c o o r d i n a t e s t h e m a i lorder business and runs “Bryna’s Bread” on theside.

Ron Nickle -- volunteer.

E l i n o r e H a n e s - - t h e L - 5 b o o k k e e p e r . S h ekeeps us honest.

11

DonationsI n t h e l a s t s i x m o n t h s n e a r l y o n e

fourth of the Society’s income has comefrom donations ranging from one dollarto $5000. Count ing in the impact ofvolunteer labor as well, the Society hasbeen able to provide nearly twice thedollar value of services as would beposs ib le i f we had to r e ly so le ly onm e m b e r s h i p f e e s . P e o p l e w h o h a v edona t ed money i n t he l a s t ha l f yea ri nc lude Ba rba ra Marx Hubba rd , B i l lO’Boyle, Timothy Leary, Marjorie Stuart,Dr. and Mrs. Erik P. Paterson, Jerry D.Lentz, James Kempf, G.M. Wannamaker,Cole Lovet t , John K. Clark, MichaelDavis, Ralph C. Merkle, Scott Royce,Wm. C. Tetley, E.F. Bagley, Heidy Lukas,Richard A. Sexton, Paul Reynolds, BruceR . H a r l a n , T h o m a s O . P a i n e , J a m e sSeevers, Cole Lovett, Peter Zavon, GaryLackowski, David Gale, Jeffrey Pimick,Gerald Krauleidis, anonymous, S. Fried-man, Barry Cole, Stanley Grenstein,David Spiek, Leroy Lauer , John PaulS i s sa , J ames A . Shumake r , Ma lco lmWalker, and Fred Manzo.

Local ChaptersAre you still alive? We want to know

which local chapters are still functioning.Write in this month and tell us what’sgoing on and we will send you a “CARE”package of bumper stickers, lapel but-tons, promotional pens, and brochures.Please -- t h i s i s impor t an t . We a r eupdating the directory of local chaptersand will only list those who Prove theyare alive by writing in!

ErrataThe designer of the Austin L-5 T-shirt

was incorrectly identified as John Delano.The artist is Joe Visserr.

In the Dec. ‘77 issue the article “DoYou Sincerely Want to Become Rich’?”states “ I m a g i n e a c o r p o r a t e a n i m a ldesigned to raise and send $100 billion.”That should have been “spend,” not“send”!

Mass Driver Help

NeededAny help in locating non-electrolytic

capacitors with a rating between 10 and500 microfarads and a voltage rating ofmore than 600 volts would be appreci-ated. They are needed for the construc-tion of the second mass driver which isbeing built at Princeton this spring. It isplanned to accelerate a small payload upto about 1000 g’s. (That’s zero to 350miles per hour over a distance of fourfeet.) If you locate some of thecapacitors, please contact Bill Snow, SSI,P.O. Box 82, Princeton, NJ 08540.

Space Studies InstituteOff to Big Start

Prof. Gerard K. O’Neill’s Space StudiesInstitute has received over $100,000 indonations. The fact that his support iscurrently coming almost entirely fromindividuals rather than corporations orthe government is indicative of the grassroots support undergirding his spacesettlements research.

If you would like to join the SpaceStudies Institute, you can subscribe for$10 (although more is appreciated!) Yourt ax deduc t ib l e g i f t w i l l go towardssupport ing one year’s equipment pur-chases and administrative work at SSI.Please sent it to:

Space Studies InstituteP.O. Box 82Princeton, NJ 08540

Jim Loudon, a wel l known space andastronomy popularizer in the midwest, isava i l ab l e fo r speak ing engagemen t sanywhere, on astronomical topics such asspace colonization and industrialization,the Viking missions, the history of thespace program, and more. The cost is $200plus expenses (see if your school or churchwon’t pick up the tab). Write to James A.Loudon/1109 Geddes Ave./Ann Arbor,Michigan 48109. Jim is the author of theViking Notes.

The Austin Chapter of the L-5 Societyhas been quite active at the University ofTexas in the past year. We meet on thesecond Wednesday of each month at7 P.M. , usual ly a t the Texas Union.Meetings include an L-5/space orientedpresentation or discussion session, a news

update and general business period. Thereis also a social gathering/discussion groupwhich meets on the fourth Thursday ofeach month at 7 P.M. in the Texas Tavernon campus. Club activities over the pastyear have included a trip to San Marcos tohear Gerard O’Neill, a trip to the JohnsonSpace Cen t e r , a r e cep t i on fo r T .A .Heppenheimer and a slide and lecturepresentation by Harlan Smith (Chairmano f t h e U . T . A s t r o n o m y D e p t . a n dMcDonald Observatory and member of theL-5 Board of Directors.)

Membership has grown to about 50active members and some meetings havedrawn over 150 Folks!

Another major program of the Chapteris a Public Outreach group which hasgiven slide and information programs tomany local public schools, civic groupsand university organizations. Responsehas been excellent!

I encourage interested persons to writeor call us and attend the meetings, ifpossible. Also, we can help other groupswith organizational problems and provideaccess to information. (We have a quicklygrowing library.)

We’d like to hear from you.Write:

The L-5 SocietyUniversity of Texas, AustinP.O. Box 8213Austin, TX 78712

Or call:Debbie Byrdc/o the U.T. Astronomy Dept.Austin, Texas 78754

L - 5 m e m b e r G u y P i g n o l e t , p i c t u r e d h e r e o nt h e r i g h t ( w i t h J e a n F r a n c o i s R i v i e r e o n t h el e f t ) i s c e l e b r a t i n g a “ B o n n e A n e e S p a t i a l e ”N e w Y e a r ’ s E v e a t t h e M e r i d i e n H o t e l o n

R e u n i o n I s l a n d i n t h e I n d i a n O c e a n . T h a t ’ sr i g h t , t h e y o r e a b o u t t o e a t a c a k e s h a p e d l i k e as p a c e s h u t t l e a n d a s t r o n a u t .

12 L-5 News, February 1978

An exploration of theprospect of prolonging youth,vigor, and lifespan in humans

Alcor LIFE EXTENSION ConferenceLos Angeles International Hyatt House

-- March 11-12, 1978Program

On the first day of the Life Extension Conference, prominent research scientists will present a comprehensivepicture of the current state of the life extension sciences. During this session, the field of biomedical gerontology -- thestudy of the aging process -- will receive major attention. Other fields covered will include suspended animation, resuscitation,transplantation, prosthetics, and identity reconstruction.

Some of the scientists who have agreed to participate in this session are:Leonard Hayflick, Ph.D., Children’s Hospital Center of Northern California, OaklandRichard Cutler, Ph.D., Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, NIH, BaltimorePaul Segall, Ph.D., Dept. of Physiology-Anatomy, Univ. of California, BerkeleyGerard Hirsch, Ph.D., Staff Biologist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.Bernard Strehler, Ph.D., Biology Dept., Univ. of Southern California, Los AngelesRoy L. Walford, M.D., Dept. of Pathology, UCLA Medical Center, Los AngelesPeter Gouras, M.D., National Eye Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Md.T. Makinodan, Ph.D., Wadsworth V.A. Hospital, UCLA Medical Center, Los AngelesJerry Leaf, Dept. of Surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los AngelesAllan L. Goldstein, Ph.D., Chief of Biochemistry at the Univ. of Texas at GalvestonRobert W. Prehoda, author of Extended Youth: The Promise of Gerontology and Suspended Animation

On the second day of the Life Extension Conference, there will be sessions on anti-aging therapies, cryonicsuspension, and the implications of life extension. Some of the individuals who have agreed to participate in thesesessions are:C.A. Everone, Foundation for Infinite Survival, Inc., Berkeley, CaliforniaRichard Huchschild, Ph.D., Univ. of California, IrvineBenjamin Frank, M.D., author of Nucleic Acid Therapy in Aging and Degenerative DiseaseFred Chamberlain, Alcor Society for Life Extension, Los AngelesArthur Quaife, M.A., President, Trans Time, Inc.Herb Gerjouy, Ph.D., The Futures Group, Glastonbury, Conn.Timothy Leary, Ph.D., author, lecturer, psychologistF.M. Esfandiary, philosopher, teacher, author of UpwingersAlan Harrington, author of The Immortalist and the forthcoming Paradise IA. Stuart Otto, Chairman, The Committee for Elimination of DeathBarbara Marx Hubbard, The Committee for the Future, Futures Network, Wash. D.C., author, The Hunger of Eve, lecturerRobert Anton Wilson, co-author of Illuminatus and the forthcoming, Cosmic Trigger: The Final Secret of the Illuminati, lecturerSaul Kent, author, Future Sex and the forthcoming Life Extension Handbook, lecturer, consultantKeith Henson, L-5 Society

Registration is $30 at the door and $25 for those who register by mail prior to the conference.Student registration is $15.

Registration form

NAME AFFILIATION

ADDRESS

CITY, STATE, ZIP

I enclose registration fee of $25 for admission to the Life Extension Conference and a one year subscription to LIFEEXTENSION Magazine. Students: $15, including special offer. I further enclose $___ to cover registration fees for the fol-lowing people [include names and addresses].

Please make checks payable to --ALCOR SOCIETY FOR LIFE EXTENSION, P.O. Box 812, Garden Grove, Ca. 92842. (213) 768-0414

13

The Best of the

Industrialization of SpaceConference

Held Oct. 18, 19 & 20, 1977, the conference was sponsored by the American Astronautical Society, American Instituteof Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Society for Quality Control, British Interplanetary Society, Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers, International Institute of Space Law, L-5 Society, National Space Institute, andSRI International.

The following papers have been selected by the L-5 Society as representing the best of the conference. If you can’t waitfor publication of the complete proceedings by the AAS, or if you are only interested in certain of the topics carried by theconference, the papers reviewed below (by Conrad Schneiker) can be purchased from the L-5 Society. The AAS will receive50¢ per paper sold to help them cont inue their pioneering work.

Space HabitatsA Preliminary Investigation of SpaceHabitat AtmosphereAAS 77-284Warren Ziegler$1.67Reports results of author’s theoretical“ s t u d y o f s p a c e h a b i t a t a t m o s p h e r e ,dynamics, hydrostatics, particulate andcloud physics.”

Aesthetic Implications Of The CrystalPalace Space HabitatAAS 77-285Marjorie L. Stewart$3.21“The goal of this study is to discover themaximum aesthetic conditions possible in[the crystal palace] . . . and to formulatesuggest ions for enhancing the habi ta tfrom a standpoint of human liveabilityand aesthetic factors.”

Space ManufacturingA Basel ine Of Logist ic And PowerRequirements For Full-scale Manufac-turing Of Metallic MaterialsAAS 77-237H. L. Bloom$2.37Data from preliminary surveys on spaceprocessed materials are presented and“developed into a representative baselineof the logistic and power requirements of afuture mature space manufacturing pro-gram.” An interesting point is raised:“Requirements for disposition of wasteshave been a ‘sleeper’ in studies of materialsprocessing in space.”

14

Power from Space

Freedoms And Constraints In Solar PowerSatellite DesignAAS 77-200Ray Sperber, Harley Zipursky$2.30A surprising number of new SPS configu-rations are being developed. This papersurveys some of these designs. “Aspects ofgeometric, structural, electrical, optical,orbital assembly and implementat ionsystems design are discussed in terms offreedom and constraint as they affectpower satellite design.”

Satellite Mirror Systems For ProvidingTerrestrial Power: System ConceptAAS 77-240Kenneth W. Billman, William P.Gilbreath, Stuart W. Bowen$3.14Half the cost of a conventional solar farmis due to storage equipment. A satellitemirror system providing continuous,slightly increased insolation is proposed.The storage system can be eliminated andthe solar farm land area can be reduced insize by a factor of 5. The system “appears tobe economically superior to other ad-vanced, and even conventional, energysystems . . . ”In Orbit Manufacture Of Solar ReflectorSatellitesAAS 77-241Ronald M. Muller$2.02Presents design and construction scenariofor gigantic orbital mirrors for use with.terrestrial solar farms. The major com-ponents of these mirror satel l i tes aredescribed.

Social Implications

Energy Crisis: A History LessonAAS 77-212Romualdas Sviedrys$1.60Past energy crises are reviewed and theirrecurring features noted. None of themany dire, doom-filled predictions madeduring these crises materialized. In eachcase technology saves the day. It is shownthat “with each energy crisis there was ajump to greater wealth.”

The Military Uses of Outer SpaceAAS 77-251Leonard David$2.37“Space has become an extension of Earth-bound military land, air and sea warfare.”We are told how this came to be and whatfuture developments may be expected. Alsodiscussed: how new technologies are nulli-fying past legal commitments (even asargument over their interpretation con-tinues), the justifications for military ac-tivity in space, denial of space access, U.S.anti-satellite programs, military man inspace, and factors affecting public supportof military and peaceful space operations.Hopeful space colonists note: “the mili-tary space-industrialization complex willchal lenge the peaceful uses of outerspace . . .”

Space Industrialization And The Long-term Prospects For Terrestrial CivilizationAAS 77-226Peter Vajk$2.16Analyzes the “limits of growth” motiva-tion for space industrialization, system-

L-5 News, February 1978

atically examines the evidence for it, andfinds i t invalid. Apparently, with ad-vancing technology, the resources of earthare adequate, both now and far into thef u t u r e . V a l i d m o t i v a t i o n s ( f r o m t h eauthor’s point of view) are then con-sidered. They center around space indus-trialization for fun and profit, leading tomany new commercial ventures.

Private Enterprise inSpaceFrontiers Of Free TradeAAS 77-268Mark Frazier$1.88Presents a proposal for the creation of “freezones for space, beginning with an inter-national launch area near the equator.”After examining existing legal and politi-cal hurdles to space industrialization, it isshown that free zones can circumvent them

“. . . by establishing a useful politicalframework for the peaceful development ofspace” while having the beneficial sideeffect of encouraging “free t rade andinvestment on Earth.” These conclusionsa re ba sed on h i s to r i ca l ev idence o f“remarkably successful” free zone pre-decessors.

Drafting A Constitution For ORBIS --Entrepreneurial Opportunity In TheProvision Of Community Service In SpaceAAS 77-286Spencer H. MacCallum$2.72Opens with the thesis of the correlation of“despotism with hydraulic societies --societies which were dependent for theirexis tence upon complex, government-controlled irrigation works which con-stituted life-support systems not unlike, inprinciple, those which are now projectedfor space.” The rationale for a proprietaryspace community “in which all thingswould be contractual ly administeredthrough the customary usages of themarketplace without resource to thepolitical relationship of sovereign andsubject --acommunity without taxation orlegislated laws” is presented. Historicalprecursors are noted. Included is “a draft ofa master lease for the hypothetical spacecolony of ORBIS” that functions as “aconstitution for a proprietary communityin space.”

Space Industrialization, The ChallengeTo Private Enterprise CapitalismAAS 77-290Christian O. Basler$2.10“No existing private enterprise businessstructure is suited to the task of raising and

managing the capital necessary for full-scale space industrialization. Existingcompanies cannot undertake the necessaryresearch and development because of theeffect i t would have on their presentearnings and because of antitrust pro-blems, and a new conventionally organ-ized company would be unable to raise thenecessary capital. This paper analyzesthese problems and proposes a new type ofbusiness s t ructure , cal led a ‘s tagingcompany,’ as a solution.” The effects of aprivate community planning are alsodiscussed.

Marketing Techniques And SpaceIndustrializationAAS 77-232G. Harry Stine$1.67This paper presents answers to “whyindustrial firms are so apathetic aboutjumping on this wonderful new band-wagon . . .” An explanation of how “wemust, in essence, market the concept ofspace industrialization” follows. A set ofguidel ines for market ing methodologyapplied to R & D is given.

Advanced TransportationAdvanced Launch Vehicle Systems AndTechnologyAAS 77-217M.W. Jack Bell$2.37T h e p o t e n t i a l e x i s t s f o r “ e n o r m o u seconomic benefit if space cargo deliverycosts can be reduced by an order ofmagnitude over those of the current SpaceShuttle Vehicle.” Many vehicle designsaimed at th is end are examined. Theconclusion is that “the basic capabilityexists today to initiate developments of anadvanced launch system of greatly im-proved efficiency.”

A Non-synchronous Orbital SkyhookAAS 77-223Hans Moravec$2.02A rotating satellite in a stable, low earthorbit about the equator, with 2 identicallong f i laments extending in opposi tedirections acts like “two spokes of a giantwheel rolling around the equator . . . can-celing horizontal orbital motion duringthe contacts.”

What’s Available from the L-5 Society?Books:

The Hunger of Eve, A Woman’s OdysseyToward the future, Barbara Marx HubbardStackpole Books, Hardbound. 1976 B1

The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space,Gerard K. O’NeillWilliam Morrow & Co.. Hardbound. 1977 B2

Paperback, Bantam Book. PB2

Colonies in Space, T.A. HeppenheimerStackpole Books, Hardbound. 1977 B3

The Fourth Kingdom, William J. SauberAquari Corp., Hardbound. 1975Drop Shipped From Publisher

B4

War and Space, Robert SalkeldPrentice-Hall, Inc., Unbound copy. 1970 B5

Exopsychology, Timothy LearyPeace Press, Paperback. 1977 B6

Colonies in Space, Frederic GoldenHarcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hardbound. 1977 B7

House in Space, Henry CooperHolt. Rinehart, Winston, Hardbound. 1978Paperback Bantam Books

B8PB8

Space Colonies, Edited by Stewart BrandPenguin Books, Paperback PB9

$ 8.00

$ 8.002.95

$12.00

$ 6.00

$ 7.00

$ 8.00

$ 8.00

$ 8.95$ 2.95

$ 5.00

Pioneer

(.10)

(.10)(.10)

(.10)

(.10)

(.10)

(.10)

(.10)

(.10)(.10)

(.10)

L-5 News,Volume 1:1-16Volume 2:1-12

B1 # (indicate Vol. #)$1.00 per Vol. ordered

(.10 per Vol.)

Postcards:

Bernal Sphere Interiorpackage of 25package of 50

Bernal Sphere Exteriorpackage of 25package of 50

PCLPPCLBPCL

PC2PPC2BPC2

$ .15$1.75$3.00

$ .15$1.75$3.00

Posters:

Xl in the Rings of

S a t u r n , A d o l p h S c h a l l e r

17” x 22”, full color

PO3 $3.00 (.10)

Bernal Sphere Interior14” x 22”, full color

PO1 $2.00 (.10)

C a p t i o n :

Bernal Sphere “Er-SupposeExterior I s a b e l l a H a d S a i d

14”full

PO2

x 22”color

$2.00

“No!”

1 7 ” x 2 2 ” h i g h

by Kelly Freas(.10) 3 s h i p s o n s e a ; w i t h

m o o n & r o c k e t , o n ab l a c k b a c k g r o u n d .The impact o f co lor &message i s s t r ik ing!

P O 5 $ 2 . 0 0 ( . 1 0 )

16

Prices in parentheses apply to overseas orders only, to help defray the additional shipping costs.will be shipped surface, unless additional monies accompanies order to cover air postage.

U n i t Total

2.00

Subtotal

Total

Ordered By:

Ship To:

Catalog Quantity Description

Postage & handling

Additional Postage for 1st Class / Air Mail / Other – Specify

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

Membership active/inactive regular ($20/year) student ($10/year) new/renewal

INVOICE NUMBER

DATE RECEIVED

CUSTOMER P.O.

ORDER FILLED

DATE SHIPPED

METHOD

NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY/STATE/Z IP :

AFFIL IATION/T ITLE OR POSIT ION:

(OPTIONAL)

l am___ ___am not interested in being active locally. Phone (optional) -__ Please enroll me as a member of L-5 Society ($20 per year regular, $10 per 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.)

Send orders to: L-5 Society PLEASE ALLOW THREE TO FOUR WEEKS FOR DELIVERY.1620 North Park Avenue FOR RUSH ORDERS CALL SHIPPING HOT LINE, 602-622-6351Tucson, AZ 85719