L-5 NEWS A PUBLICATION OF THE L-5 SOCIETYVOL. 2 NUMBER 10 OCTOBER 1977

Carolyn Henson, Editor

Membership Services:Doris CooperEileen Asher

William Weigle,Administrative Services

Board of Directors:Gordon R. WoodcockBarbara Marx HubbardKonrad K. DannenbergHon. Edward R. Finch, Jr.James E. ObergLeonard DavidJ. Peter VajkJack D. SalmonPhillip ParkerDavid M. FradinRomualdas SviedriesKeith HensonCarolyn HensonWilliam WeigleMark HopkinsNorie HuddleMagoroh MaruyamaHarlan SmithCarol Motts

In this issue: 1 A Conversation Between Rusty Schweickart andNorie Huddle. What do a NASA astronaut and anenvironmental activist have in common?

4

6

NASA/USSR Cooperation Pact Signed

German Company Blasts Into Space Age. Theo Pirardreports on a West German private company whose “spacetruck” may revolutionize space freight transport.

7 Saito Calls for Japanese Space Colonies

8 The Retainable Expendable. Leonard David reports.

9 NASA: Priming the Pump by Kenneth McCormick.

11Publication 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

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

OMB Weighs NASA Budget Cut

Schmidt Calls for “Starlaws” An astronaut turnedlawmaker considers the implications of space industries.

Impatient White House Rejects Proposed SolarPower Satellites. Columnist Jack Anderson reports.

So You Want to Lobby? Marc Boone and Carolyn Hensonprovide tips for would be lobbyists.

L-5 and the Jewish Community Bruce Friedman hits theethnic circuit.

A Land of Milk and Honey? Not if the bees can’t findtheir way home, according to Magoroh Maruyama.

Space Shuttle: Who Can Go? Carolyn Henson learns thatalmost anyone can!

Sports In Space. Excerpts from Gerard O’Neill’s HighFrontier shows us there may be some frivolous reasons to gointo space, as well.

Science Faction Bookshelf by Robert Anton Wilson

Entertainment

Is There a Mayflower in Your Future? Our coverstory -- did you know shuttle orbiter 102, the first to fly in space(scheduled for 1979) hasn’t been named yet? George Koopmanhopes to christen her “Mayflower.”

A Conversation Between RustySchweickart and Norie Huddleby Norie Huddle

NORIE: I’d like to ask what effect theexpe r i ence o f go ing i n to space hadpersonally on you, on your consciousnessor worldview?

RUSTY: Norie, I have a tough time withyour question. Everybody who has anysensitivity or association with philosophy,Eastern thought, the wholistic view, ors u c h t h i n g s , i s i n t e r e s t e d i n w h a thappened to astronauts when they go intospace and re turn. They’re in teres tedbecause Buzz Aldrin came back and had aproblem with alcohol, divorced his wife,a n d w e n t t h r o u g h a w h o l e b u n c h o fp r o b l e m s a n d b e c a m e a m e m b e r o fAlcoho l i c s Anonymous -o r wha teve r .Anyway, he was an admitted alcoholic andhas made almost a profession of confessingbefore the public the evils of alcohol andthe effects that the program had on him.

Jim Irwin started a whole movementcalled High Flight. He’s an evangelisticpreacher and basically ascribes a good bitof his commitment to go into that field onhis experience during Apollo 15 andwalking on the moon, thinking about andrealizing the hand of God.

Al Worden has written books of poetrywhich quite obviously express a profoundand deep-seated effect of the experience ofgoing into space. I’ve done a lot of things,talked about a lot of things . . . whichindicate the same kind of effect . EdMitchell started the Institute of NoeticSciences and went into ESP. There havebeen enough evidences of change ofcharacter among the astronauts that thepublic, and especial ly people who aresensitive to it, recognize that something isgoing on with these people.

Quite frankly, what this results in is anabsolute deluge of people asking exactlythe question that you asked now, to thepoint where you get absolutely sick of itand want nothing more than to deny thewhole thing! You want to shut i t offbecause it is so utterly demanding. And’e v e r y o n e - a n d I h a t e t o d o t h i s t osomeone-but basically everybody asks thesame question and is looking for magicalanswers from other people’s experience tosolve their problems.

NORIE: I think my reasons are a bitdifferent, if I may explain. I’ve done quite abi t of reading about the whole spaceconcept and I was a lso up at the UNHabitat Conference on behalf of the L-5Society this past year. I came away fromthat and wrote a fairly extensive report onhow I felt about the whole space program.Basically, you see, I am an “appropriatetechnologist” at heart. And yet, some partof me says that this whole spacedevelopment concept is also appropriatetechnology . . . just that it happens to be atthe high technological end of the spectrum. . . that true appropriate technology mustembrace the whole length of the spectrum,from small to big.

R U S T Y : “ A p p r o p r i a t e ” d o e s n o tnecessarily imply, “chop down a tree andbuild it yourself.”

NORIE: Bight. Anyway, what I’ve beentrying to do is look for the commondenominator, t h e t h r e a d t h a t f l o w sthrough all our problems. We talk abouttechnology solving all our problems. I’vebeen looking at the various elements ofw h a t B a r b a r a H u b b a r d c a l l s t h e“evolutionary edge” of different researchand development going on in the UnitedS t a t e s - a n d e l s e w h e r e - t o d a y . F o rexample, there’s a lot of work being done

on life extension, or intelligence increaseand, of course, the whole space program,which has many different aspects beingdeveloped. These offer some tremendousopportunities and changes in life as awhole. However, in all of these, it seems tome that we must get it together on anindividual level, in other words, becomem o r e w h o l l y i n t e g r a t e d , f i r s t w i t hourselves and then with others and withthe biosphere, and with the “flow of life”or God, or whatever you choose to call it.

If we don’t do this, then we’re notsolving any of our basic problems. Sure, wemay solve problems on a technologicallevel, but unless we have an appreciationof the whole and the nature of reality, thenwe will be overlooking something andsimply creating five more new problems inthe process of solving that first one.

For example, if we go out into space anddo things in the way they seem to be goingnow, it seems that we would just create anextension of the arms race out there inspace. This is one thing. It seems too, foranother, that in the future we could lookforward to the sort of thing that we had inthe creation of the United States: Britishcolonies first, which then fought Englandand broke away. There are all kinds ofscenarios you can create about what might

happen in space . . . both happy ones andgrim ones.

But it seems to me that it basically comesd o w n t o t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f t h eindividuals involved. So, for that reason,I’m extremely interested in what happensto individuals who go out in space. Whathappens when you look back and see theliving Earth floating out in that void.

RUSTY: Let me say this. First, I did thistape recording (hands me a tape). Well, Ihave talked about this, as I implied amoment ago, on many occasions. In somecases with modest success, whereas otherswere absolutely rip-roaring flops, and onrare occasions, done very well. Luckily --a n d t h e r e m a y o r m a y n o t b e a n ycoincidences in the world -- the time whenthis tape was made, I happened to do it thebest.

NORIE: Was it at Lindisfarne?RUSTY: Right. In 1974. I don’t know if

you have this tape, but I can loan it to you,and people interested can get hold of itthrough Lindisfarne Associat ion, Box1395, Southampton, New York 11968.There’s no question at all that everythingcame together for me at that point. Thatwas the best presentation of that totalexperience as a human being.

NORIE: I’m curious what you feel is themost exciting aspect of space developmentat this time.

RUSTY: I guess that depends on whattime-frame you want to talk about, Norie.

NORIE: Let’s start with the long time-frame.

R U S T Y : OK, i t i s t he r e l a t i onsh ipbetween the environment of space, thisnew environment, a n d t h e l o n g - t e r mevolution of the life force or consciousness,or, if you want to be “chauvinistic,” ofhumanity; or, if you want to be religious,of God, the evolution of these as we moveout into the universe.

I think that’s what we’re doing, withoutanybody here in these buildings at NASAthinking about it or being aware of it oragreeing with it, or being dedicated to it. Imean absolutely totally separate fromw h a t i n m y m i n d i s a r a t h e r m a j o rmilestone of “key event” in terms of thedevelopment of life or intelligence and itsmovement through the physical universe.W h a t w e ’ r e d o i n g - a n d w h a t G e r r yO’Neill is doing-on a day-today basis,has very pragmatic, practical, utilitarian,p o l i t i c a l a n d o t h e r r a m i f i c a t i o n s ,justifications, motivations and all the resto f t he - a t i ons . B u t w h a t i s r e a l l yhappening, taking that long-term view oflife (whether it is a specialized bacteriumthat exists only in the left ventricle of theleopard frog, or whether it’s a slime mold,or whether it’s humanity), it can survive --and move and evolve into more and morecomplex organisms.

This is the kind of evolutionary processabout which Jul ian Huxley wrote andTeillard de Chardin wrote so eloquently.This is happening. And in this particularcase, this transition, this really majorchange, this “symbiotic’‘-although thismay not be quite the right description ofthe balance-relat ionship between manand machine, has evolved to a point wherethe machine part of it is allowing us to livenow in an environment in which it neverhas been possible to live before-that is,the environment of the space vacuum. Andt h a t o p e n s u p o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t h eevolution of life and progression of thisevolutionary manifestation throughoutthe universe.

The Earth has been a womb for thed e v e l o p m e n t a n d e v o l u t i o n o fintelligence, and I think that it isundergoing a very basic and radical changenow. That is not a motivation-that is justan observation. I think you have to be very,very careful talking about things of thiskind because people turn it into religionand it becomes a purpose instead of an“awesome observation.”

N O R I E : T h a t s e e m s l i k e a v e r yimportant distinction.

RUSTY: It is. It is a crucial distinction.And, as I think I indicated the other day,one of my problems with the L-5 Society isthat it seems too many of the people in it(although I recognize it is a group with adiverse membership, too) have grabbedonto this aspect as a sort of new religion. Idon’t want to be unfair to those who don’tfeel this way, but there seems to be atendency for needing a “god” who justifies“what I want to do” as a member of thisgroup. And it becomes a religious thing.And I think that element, where it movesaway from awe and becomes a “purpose” isa shadow side of religion that makes mevery uncomfortable. Whether it is in theform of space religion, or traditional Godreligion, or communism, or what haveyou. I don’t care what it is.

NORIE: In other words, using that as arel igion, or a goal of one’s l i fe andbehavior, it could justify a whole lot of veryunpleasant things to the true believers?

RUSTY: That’s exactly right. And ift h e r e i s o n e t h i n g t h a t w e n e e d t ounderstand-and this takes me back to anearlier point in the conversation-in termsof dealing with O’Neill’s space colonyconcept, any of this stuff, is that the circleof yin-yang exists in all things. There is ashadow and a light side of every element ofcreation and whether that is war-whichpeople love to label “black” and not“white,” or whether it is space colonies,which devotees love to paint “white” andnot “black,” both are wrong.

I mean, you can condemn the nuclearbomb, and certainly to the extent that it is

used and kills people, it is negative, black,or an anti-life thing. But the fact of thematter is that if you look at theevolution ofweapons, it is not at all clear that we wouldbe at the point we are today if it hadn’t beenfor these weapons. Such things as concernfor the developing nat ions, equali ty,poverty on the global scale, feeding people. . . all kinds of things.

We are interested in higher things insome sense because we do have thisdeterrent standoff. We have developedweapons against which basically there isno defense. I hope we don’t find a defensea g a i n s t n u c l e a r w e a p o n s b e c a u s e b yhaving this kind of parity, we have not hadnuclear war. People are vulnerable andthey recognize this fact.

One of the things that fascinates meabout this space debate is people like JohnHolt , who in my mind is inexcusablyshortsighted, e v e n p a r a n o i d . H e h a sreligion, but on the other side from the L-5ers. I am very nervous about Holt. Iadmire the guy as an educator and it upsetsme that he is so terribly unbalanced whenit comes to something like this. True, theadvocates of space don’t point out theshadow side, and also t rue to a morelimited extent, it is because some of thema r e n ’ t s e n s i t i v e e n o u g h t o s e e i t o racknowledge it.

NORIE: I think it is more that they aretrying to sell a product. It you’re sellingcars, you don’t point out that it will beobsolete in 3-4 years, or that you mightwell have an accident with it.

About the author: Norie Huddle is theauthor of Island of Dreams, a book on thepollut ion cris is in Japan. She is co-coordinator of Mobilization for Survival, agroup opposing nuclear proliferation.

L-5 News, October, 19772

Who Is John Holt?. . . a n d w h y d o e s R u s t yS c h w e i c k a r t t h i n k h e ’ sparanoid?The following is an excerpt from a longletter by John Holt to Stewart Brand datedApril 20, 1976. Mr. Holt sent a copy of thisletter to MIT L-5 reporter Jonah Garbus.

There are many respects in which theSpace Colonies proposal as put forward byO’Neill reminds me of the war in Vietnam.One in particular is relevant here. It’s hardto remember now, but the people whoplanned the war in V i e t n a m , t h ep r o v e r b i a l B e s t a n d B r i g h t e s t , w e r eidealists. They meant to do good. And theyhad the modern vanity, or hubris, that if wem i x g o o d i n t e n t i o n s w i t h s u f f i c i e n ttechnical “know-how” and suff ic ientmoney, we are bound to come out withgood results. Take a handful of expertswho mean well, give them enough moneyto work with, and things are bound to

come out OK. We have now found out thisisn’t true. The same defects of character,intel l igence, and imaginat ion that ledthose guys to think of the war in Vietnamin the first place, guaranteed that theywould not be able to fight it realistically ore f f e c t i v e l y , o r t o l e a r n f r o m t h e i rexperiences there, or to make a rationaldecision to leave. The flaws in O’Neill’scharacter guarantee that he will make amess of the space project if he gets enoughmoney to work seriously on it.

The fact of the matter is, if the SpaceColonies or Space Exploration research isto proceed, it can probably only be undersomeone quite a lot like Wendell Berry,someone with a good deal of anguish, asense of tragedy in him. I can’t right at themoment imagine why such a person wouldundertake such a work, but that is the sortof person you would be looking for, not theS m i l i n g S a l e s m e n w e s e e h a p p i l ytest ifying before Congress, absolutelyimpervious to doubt, difficulty, or danger.It seems an absolutely certain thing to methat if O’Neill is given his big checkbook,

he will proceed far too recklessly, and thatwhen this causes accidents and death, thathe will lie to cover it up. Like all snow jobartists, he will be easy to snow, and theprogram will be absolutely shot throughwith c o r r u p t i o n - a g a i n , r a t h e r l i k eVietnam, where the people lower down theline soon discovered there was no usetaking the truth to the people at the topbecause they didn’t want to hear it.

John Holt is a teacher and author ofnumerous books, most recently Instead ofEducat ion: Ways to Help People DoThings Better (E. P. Dutton, 1976). Atpresent, Mr. Holt is at work on what hedescribes as a “musical autobiography.”

RUSTY: That’s right. People who sellcars don’t go around showing pictures ofpeople wrapped around bridges or trees orbanging into one another, or blood all overthe streets. However, part of it is that theguy who sells the cars assumes that thecustomer is aware of those realities. And itis in somewhat the same way the NASA ischarged with the development of the use ofspace. And you’re not going to develop theuse of space by talking about the fact that,yes, if you develop high power lasers, youcan put them in orbit and point them at theground, and maybe-although technicallyI’m not sure that it’s even possible-dod a m a g e o n t h e g r o u n d . I m e a n , t h eatmosphere does get in the way.

NORIE: The other day when you andTim (Leary) were talking at the NationalSpace Institute conference, I felt a bitsomewhat uncomfortable with one of theexchanges that went on right at the end. Ithad to do with strong statements by each ofyou that you felt the whole space programshould be carried out by the United States.I a m a v e r y s t r o n g a d v o c a t e o f a ninternational and cooperative effort.

RUSTY: Let me short-circuit this. Youneedn’t worry. The fact of the matter is --and I am sure the same is true with Tim --w e m a y h a v e b e e n m a k i n g a l o t o fassumptions of which you might not havebeen aware.

I’ve been in this game long enough that Iknow two things: first, real internationalcooperation depends on individuals andnot on the system; and second, if you wantr e a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n , y o uactually start to do things and open it up

purposely to cooperat ive internat ionalefforts. If you go the other way-that is tosay, we only start things when we, havea g r e e d t o internat ional efforts- thennothing happens. You just have debatinggroups and nothing in the world goes on.

The model I think works well is themodel we have used in NASA. We have ak i n d o f u n i q u e c h a r t e r a s a F e d e r a lindependent agency in that we are givenau tho r i t y i n ou r cha r t e r t o e s t ab l i shcooperative ventures and programs withother nations without going through theState Department.

NORIE: That’s very interesting. Haveyou done this?

RUSTY: Oh yes! Now, I don’t want tooverstate this because there are lots of goodpeople in the State Department, but if yout a k e t h e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t a s a ninstitution, we have basically dragged theState Department a long in lots of ourinternational activities. I’m just absolutelydelighted with the degree of internationalcooperation that we have in our NASAprogram. We’ve got lots of things goingthere.

For example, we are developing -- andhave flown, since 1972 -- resource satelliteswhich make beautiful pictures of the Earthand which also contain very valuableinformation about the surface of the Earth. . . about the state of the wheat crop inRussia or China, or assessing the totalvolume of forests in the developing world,or the locat ion of unknown shoals ins h a l l o w s e a s w h i c h a r e a d a n g e r t oshipping. . . there’s a tremendous amounto f v a l u a b l e e c o n o m i c i n f o r m a t i o n

contained in those pictures.NORIE: Are these available to anyone?RUSTY: That’s the point. These are

United States satellites, done with theUnited States taxpayers’ money, but we area global citizen and we have a very specificand hard and fast policy that everyone ofthose images is open to everyone for,frankly, less than the cost of ofreproduction. So the data center in SiouxFalls, South Dakota, literally sells thosesatellite images now to . . . I’d make a guessbetween 100 and 200 nations. . . includingRuss i a d i r ec t l y and Ch ina i nd i r ec t l ythrough an intermediary.

NORIE: Going back to the discussionbetween you and Timothy, then you werejust saying that our history as a nation is ofpeople who take off and do new things, theso-called “pioneer spirit?”

RUSTY: I ’m saying that the UnitedStates is the institutional location of theplace in which there has evolved theh i g h e s t l e v e l o f s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h eenvironment, t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o ftechnology in a form that is useful topeople. We took off, after the industrialrevolution because of our own wealth innatural resources and the basic nature ofthe American character (which goes alongwith the types of people who immigratedhere). And it’s the kinds of people whocame to a frontier that characterized andstill characterizes America. We’re a groupof doers, not a group of people who sita r o u n d i n e n d l e s s d e b a t e s . T h a t ’ sdangerous in a way. There’s a good sideand a bad side to that.

NORIE: The yin-yang again?

3

RUSTY: Right. But this a fact. And as aresult, we have ended up ahead of the restof the world in terms, first, of just rampantdevelopment of physical and materialsystems. And because of that, we’re the firstto see the limitations of that mode.

In the ‘50’s and the ‘60’s, it became quiteapparent, and those realizations are nowbeing reflected in the ’70s. The limitationsof unrestricted technology are pretty clearto all of us and so we’re a good bit morecareful.

Bu t i f you l ook a t t he deve lop ingcountries, the same ones that arecomplaining about the disparity betweenthem and the West, they’re the ones whoare demanding the technology. And withvery little judgment about what, in thelong range, is good and bad.

NORIE: Rusty, I’d like to point out

another side of their feelings of those indeveloping countries, a side which I quiteempathize with. That is, they see us as acountry whose population is about 6% ofthe world’s people, but we are consumingwell over 30% of the world’s resources.They see their getting higher technology asa chance to close the gap.

RUSTY: You have to be careful whenyou estimate consumption. We do haveh i g h c o n s u m p t i o n , b u t y o u h a v e t osubtract out of that consumption the stuffthat goes back abroad in the form offoreign aid and products.

NORIE: But United States corporationsmake cons ide rab le p ro f i t on thosep r o d u c t s a n d a r e b u s y b u i l d i n g a n dexpanding markets in those countries.

RUSTY: Oh, sure. As I say, there is highconsumption, but I feel it’s important to

remember that not all the natural resourceswe handle are consumed here.

NORIE: Sure. I think what we see,however, is that the United States-andprobably most countries in her positionwould do the same-wants to have controlof the purse s t r ings, of the f inancialarrangements.

R U S T Y : Y e s . A n d , i n f a c t , o t h e rcountries with resources are trying to getc o n t r o l . T h e O P E C n a t i o n s a r e a nexcellent example of this.

N O R I E : I t h ink i t i s impor t an t t oremember here that many of those whoengineered this OPEC thing, were trainedin our very own Harvard Business School.

RUSTY: Sure.NORIE: But even if other countries

would do the same thing, we are doing itbecause of our posi t ion as a sort of

NASA/USSR Cooperation Pact SignedNASA and the USSR Academy o f

Sciences has agreed on further cooperationin manned space flight. The agreementwas signed May 6, 1977, by Dr. Alan M.Lovelace, then Acting Administrator ofNASA, and May 11 , by Ana to ly P .Aleksandrov, the President of the Academyof Sciences of the Soviet Union.

The agreement is designed to providecontinuity of the joint technical, scientificand operational capabil i ty developedthrough the highly successful ApolloSoyuz rendezvous and docking missionconducted in July 1975. Three jo intw o r k i n g g r o u p s w i l l p r e p a r erecommendations for two new programs,one dealing with orbital human flightactivities and the other with a possibleinternational space station.

The f irs t working group wil l beginstudies soon on scientific and applicationsprograms that may be conducted in jointoperations of the American Space Shuttleand the Soviet Salyut space station in theearly 1980’s. A second working groupsimultaneously wil l develop plans forthese joint operations. The two groupswill seek to define projects that mightb e n e f i t f r o m t h e f l e x i b l e d e l i v e r ycapability and large capability for longerstay-time in orbit represented by the SovietSalyut. The emphasis will be on a “sciencefirst” program which will take advantageof these capabilities and fully justify thecontemplated joint operation.

Studies of the Shuttle/Salyut programshould be completed within 18 to 24m o n t h s , a n d s h o u l d p r o d u c erecommendations for consideration byboth sides.

conduct a series of phased studies of aninternational space platform, or station. Ifsuch studies establish a consensus on theobjectives of future space stations, furtherstudies would be undertaken to explorepossible agreement on their conceptualdesign.

Neither s ide is committed to s tepsbeyond the initial studies and each reservesthe right to proceed with its independentnational space-stat ion interes ts . Theagreement does, however, establish thepossibility that the two sides may be able tocombine their space station interests tosome degree, thereby offering potentialeconomies and efficiencies.

The full text of the agreement follows.“In accordance with the Agreement on

Cooperation in the Exploration and Use ofO u t e r S p a c e f o r P e a c e f u l P u r p o s e sbetween the USSR and the USA, dated May24, 1972, and taking into account theresults of discussions held in Washington,O c t o b e r 1 9 - 2 2 , 1 9 7 6 , b e t w e e n t h edelegat ion of the USSR Academy ofSciences, headed by the Chairman of theIntercosmos Academician B. N. Petrov,a n d t h e D e l e g a t i o n o f t h e N a t i o n a lAeronautics and Space Administration ofthe USA, headed by the NASA DeputyAdministrator, Dr. A.M. Lovelace, theAcademy of Sciences and NASA agree toundertake the following steps for furtherdevelopment of cooperation between theUSSR and USA in the exploration and useof outer space for peaceful purposes.”

The agreement also established a thirdjoint working group whose task will be to

4 L-5 News, October. 1977

“whipping boy.”RUSTY: Which isn’t to say that we’re

better than anyone else, we just happen tobe out front in this. And this has comeabout for a variety of historical reasons. Sowe are foremost in the exploitation oftechnology, and we see both thelimitations of it and the opportunities andwe have a responsibility to use and directthis talent or position to good end.

NORIE: What are some of the reasonspeople give you for opposing the spacecolonies project?

RUSTY: One of the big objections I’verun into is that just about the time we’redeveloping an environmental conscious-ness around the planet, as having to carefor our nest, along comes another frontier,and we go right back into the cowboy-frontier mentally. And, boy, this is a stronggut reaction. And in fact, I was talkingrecently to Dr. Fletcher about just thisthing. It is tied up in the word frontier. Itis -- it is a space frontier.

The problem is that people look at afrontier as a Frontier: Put a bag over itshead and every frontier is identical. What abunch of garbage! To me the interestingthing about this is that the frontier inspace, embodied in the space colony, is onein which the interactions between humansand their environment is so much moresensitive and interactive and less tolerantof irresponsibility than it is on the wholesurface of the Earth. We are going to learnabout how to relate to the Earth and ourown natural environment here by lookingseriously at space colony ecologies. It is anincredible learning tool.

So that frontier is totally the oppositefrom the usual concept of frontier. In fact,in the winter issue of the CoevolutionQuarterly, there is an article where GeorgeWoodwell and Dan Botkin and John andNancy Todd and Lynn Margulis and JuanOro and a lot of other ecologists, and me, asan inter loper s i t t ing there, have beentalking about space colony ecologies. Andafter talking about it from a space colonypoint of view, people begin to realize thatthe basic nature of that challenge, from aprofessional ecologist’s point of view, thatthe kind of understanding of ecological orlife systems necessary to enable one tomove on seriously with some concept ofspace colonies, is going to serve as a focalpoint for much broader understanding ofou r own Ea r th eco logy . I t i s a ve ryinteresting thing to watch people realizeth i s . The a r t i c l e i n t he Coevo lu t i onQ u a r t e r l y s e r v e s n o t i c e t h a t t h ecommunity has to get serious in lookingatthe feasibility of a closed space ecology.

NORIE: To shift again, and, I’m sorrybut i t means going back to the wholeconsciousness question again, have theAmerican and Russian astronauts had any

contact, and if so, is there any indicationthat they have also undergone the samekind of consciousness changes?

RUSTY: To answer this br ief ly , theanswer is no. Nobody has communicatedthat well yet because of the languagebarr ier . Some of the as t ronauts havestudied Russian, but it is a long way frombeing adequate for deep philosophicalquestions. And the same for their speakingEnglish. We can get along, in terms ofgetting our jobs done. But in terms ofgetting to know one another at that level,that has not happened. Now, there havebeen intimations that there is that interest,but it is very, very tenuous and, to myknowledge, it has not been pursued.

NORIE: I’d like your comment on howdo you think that a group like the L-5Society might better relate to and have abetter impact on the whole course of spacedevelopment?

RUSTY: I guess I would see the primarycontribution of the L-5 Society as beingable to communicate with younger peoplewho, for one reason or another , havewritten off all agencies like NASA and allactivities like space development as beingthoroughly a negative kind of thing.

For the s tudent populat ion, the L-5Society probably can break through thosekinds of barriers better than something likeNASA as an institution can-or even a guylike O’Neill, who, for all of his brilliance,is not that good at communicating with acertain group of people. He is great withpeop le who a re a l r eady t echno logy-or iented. But I don’ t th ink he’s thateffective with those who are not.

NORIE: What I hear you saying then, isthat L-5 Society can do a PR job?

RUSTY: (pause) Well, that is certainlywhat I said. Now, I guess the question iswhether I think that is all L-5 can do. Letme be totally frank, Norie. I don’t think itmakes any difference at all what I thinkabout the L-5 Society. I think they shoulddo what they think is responsible as a

group.Nevertheless as I said earlier in the

discussion, I really am nervous about thetendency toward the true believer in the L-5 Society. And, if a group which is reallyfanatical about something really startspushing it, they can really do a lot of harm.

Now let me say that on the other hand --as I discussed with Stuart and he printed inthe Coevolution Quarterly a couple issuesback -- to me, one of the best things in theworld that could happen is that a lot ofenergy f r o m s o c i e t y o u t s i d e o f t h egovernment and outs ide of the wholeinstitutional setup deal with and recognizethe space colony quest ion/chal lenge/opportunity as something that belongswith the people and not something thatbelongs with the government or NASA.Whether that’s individual courses incolleges, w h e t h e r t h a t ’ s i n d i v i d u a lcolleges, people, organizations like the L-5Society, an offshoot of the Star-Trekkies . . .or whatever . . . in fact, the more themerrier.

There is such a host of things whichneed ser ious looking at , and O’Neil ldoesn’t need to run it all, either. Lots ofpeop le can do l o t s o f t h ings . NASAshouldn’t run it, O’Neill shouldn’t run it,everyone s h o u l d b e e n c o u r a g e d t ocontribute to it. The task belongs to thepublic and people should take the taskseriously. •

5

German Company Blasts Into Space Ageby Theo PirardEuropean correspondent, Belgium

OTRAG or “Orbi ta l Transport-undRaketen-Aktiengesellschaft” is a privatesociety, created in West-Germany, which ism a k i n g p r o p o s a l s f o r l a u n c h i n ggeostationary or heavy payloads with amodular launch vehicle . They projectlaunch costs cheaper than the NASA spaces h u t t l e ! O T R A G i s w o r k i n g o n t h ed e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s e s t a n d a r d i z e dm o d u l e s w h i c h w i l l b e u s e d f o r t h eassembly of its “space truck.”

On May 17, 1977, the first modularr o c k e t , d e v e l o p e d b y O T R A G , w a ssuccessfully launched from a rustic launchpad, establ ished in the South-Easternterritory of Zaire. It was the first Germanlaunch of a large rocket since the IIndWorld War and the V-2 missiles. TheOTRAG vehicle was an assembly of four“pipe” tanks and of four ablative motors,was 9 m long, weighed 2.5 tons and the 4clustered engines of 3 tons thrust each gavea t o t a l t h r u s t o f 1 2 t o n s . W i t h o n l ypartially filled tanks, the OTRAG rocketreached an altitude of more than 10,000 m.

Dr. Lutz T. Kayser, President of OTRAG, showing a Using partially filled fuel tanks, the rocket reachedmodel of the “space truck.” altitude of somewhat over 10 kilometers.

an

The first OTRAG rocket: an assembly of 4 independentmodules which burn diesel oil and nitric acid.

1st OTRAG rocket is launched successfully from Manono.North of Shaba.

6 L-5 News, October, 1977

. . . m o r e o n O T R A G

This test was important , because i tverified the OTRAG concept of a powerfullow-cost booster, which burns very cheapprope l l an t s in sma l l and s impl i f i edengines, uses nitric acid for oxidizer andnorma l D ie se l -o i l a s f ue l . The mos tpowerful model of OTRAG rockets wouldbe a heavy launch vehicle, able to put 10tons into a 300 km orbit or 1.5 tons intogeostationary orbit (36,000 km high); thisbig rocket would be a compound with 600basic units; its weight would exceed 1000tons, its length would be approximately 40m and its total thrust would be about 1600tons at lift-off. The 600 modular unitsmust be clustered in three packages,e q u i v a l e n t to the stages of theconventional launchers.

It was needed to find an appropriatelaunch site, near the Equatorial line, ino r d e r t o h a v e a n e a s y a c c e s s t o t h eg e o s t a t i o n a r y o r b i t . O T R A G a n d t h eGovernment of Zaire concluded togetheran agreement for the establishment of alarge firing range on a territory of 38,000miles2 (100,000 km2). OTRAG is buildingits space launch facilities on a plateau of1300 m altitude. These facilities are locatednear the small city of Manono, North ofShaba. From there, site of the May 17launch, the “space truck” will be fired inthe early 1980’s.

S t u d e n t s E v a l u a t eSpace Industries

G e o r g e W a s h i n g t o n U n i v e r s i t ymanagement science professor Stuar tUmpleby and Dr. James K. Wertz ofComputer Sciences Corp. have joinedforces this fall to teach “An Evaluation ofSpace Industrialization”.

In a show of impartiality, the instructorshave given students their choice of eitherG.K. O’Neill’s The High Frontier or T.A.Heppenheimer’s Colonies in Space ast e x t b o o k s . R e q u i r e d t e x t s a r e S p a c eSettlements, A Design Study (NASA SP-413) and a compilation of special readingsprepared for the course by the NationalSpace Institute.

Solar Energy Calendar18-19 OCT 1977: Atlanta, GA. Solar

Total Energy Systems Workshop. Contact:Lyle Wetherholt . Sandia Laboratories,Albuquerque, NM 87115, 505-264-7017.

3-6 NOV 1977: Anaheim, CA. EnergyFair ‘77. Contact: Shirley Solomon, EnergyFair, Inc., 15915 Asilomar Blvd., PacificPalisades, CA 90272, 213-459-1050 or 459-2777.

5 - 7 D E C 1 9 7 7 : M i a m i B e a c h , F L .Alternative Energy Sources: A NationalSymposium. Contact: Dr. Nejat Vaziroglu,Director, Clean Energy Research Institute,

OTRAG’s launch facility in Zaire, used for the May 17 University of Miami, P.O. Box 248294,launch. Coral Gables, FL. 33124.

Saito Calls for Japanese Space ColoniesAn ad hoc committee of the Japanese

Space Ac t iv i t i e s Commiss ion (SAC)chaired by Dr. Shigefumi Saito filed areport with SAC July 28 exploring wide-range possibi l i t ies for Japanese spacedevelopment act ivi t ies during the lastquarter of this century.

The 250-page report will be used by SACi n f o r m u l a t i n g a 1 5 - y e a r s p a c edevelopment policy outl ine as well asintermediate working program coveringperiod of three to five years. It is a productof a 2.5 year study performed by the ad hoccommittee with cooperation of 30 top-levelspace scientists and engineers in Japan.

Titled “Long-range Vision on Japan’sSpace Development,” the report cal lsa m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s f o r J a p a n e s eparticipation in the U.S. Space Shuttlep r o j e c t w h i l e p u r s u i n g t h e a l r e a d yestabl ished independent developmentcourse. Participation in the Space Shuttle

will not be limited to installing scientificequipment on board shuttle orbiter, butactual chartering of the shuttle and evenhaving Japanese scientists on board isunder consideration. Eventually, Japanesespace activities would include a humanspace flight program with development ofspacecraft and launch vehicles undertakenon its own, to meet requirements of the ageof space stations.

Specifically the report proposes thatJapan should charter the shuttle in 1982 toconduct useful scientific experiments andput Japanese scientists aboard the shuttleorbiter in 1983. Plans beyond that call forstarting work for domestic development ofa piloted spaceship and launch vehicle --beginning with trial manufacturing of a 5-ton unpiloted spaceship and putting it onboard the shuttle around 1985, to test oceansurface recovery. Subsequently, a 10 to 15ton spaceship for a crew of up to three will

be developed and launched into low orbitaround 1990 using a cluster of liquid-hydrogen fueled rockets called H-l (with adiameter of three meters) and H-2 (with adiameter of five meters.)

Space developments contemplated forJapan to undertake in the next 25 yearscover a wide range of activities. Japanesescientists and engineers are visualized asu s i n g s a t e l l i t e s a n d s p a c e c r a f t a sobservatories for scientific exploration ofspace, as lighthouses in space for ships andaircraft, as communication towers in spaceand as a base for support ing groundoperations. Spacecraft will also be used aslaboratories for physical and chemicalresearch and experiment , as materialsp r o c e s s i n g p l a n t s , a s b i o l o g i c a lexperiment stations, and as space colonies.T h e r e p o r t a l s o e n v i s a g e s J a p a n e s eexplorat ion of the moon, planets andcomets.

7

The RetainableExpendable

by Leonard David

T h e o n l y t h r o w - a w a y p a r t o f t h eupcoming NASA Space Shuttle programfor the 1980’s may have found a new leaseon life and could lead to early developmento f a n i n h a b i t e d S p a c e S t a t i o n .

According t o N A S A e n g i n e e r s a tNASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center inA l a b a m a a n d G r u m m a n A e r o s p a c eCorporation in New York, the only non-reusable part of the Shuttle’s propulsionsystem, the External Tank (ET), could beused as a core of a space platform for themid-1980’s.

The external tank, measuring 48 meters(157 feet) x 8 meters (28 feet), carries over703,000 kilograms (1,550,000 lbs) of liquidoxygen and liquid hydrogen powering theShuttle Orbiter’s three Main PropulsionEngines. Working in tandem with the twos o l i d s t r a p - o n e n g i n e s , w h i c h a r eparachuted back to earth for reuse in af u t u r e S h u t t l e f l i g h t , t h e t a n k i su n c e r e m o n i o u s l y “ d u m p e d ” i n t o apredetermined remote area of ocean afteri ts work is done. The tank would bed a m a g e d b e y o n d r e p a i r o n i m p a c t .

However, NASA engineers see a brighterfuture for the tank. According to JamesKingsbury, director of the Science andEngineering Directorate at the MarshallSpace F l i gh t Cen te r , a ma jo r spaceplatform could be placed in Earth orbit inless time than earlier believed, using theSpace Shuttle’s External Tank. “From thispermanent space platform,” Kingsburybelieves, “ t h e r e a l b u s i n e s s o f s p a c eutilization can begin.”

The new NASA thinking would have aShuttle keep its External Tank and carry itd i r ec t ly i n to o rb i t , “pa rk ing” i t i n aspecified location in space. This tank,empty of its liquid propellants, would be“off’loaded” before launch of some 2,000cubic feet of l iquid oxygen, normallycarried in the top portion of the tank. Thisempty space would hold equipment andsupplies to handle a small crew for 90 daysof habitation in orbit.

A second Shuttle launch would carryinto orbit both an Airlock Module and aMultiple Docking Adapter, complete withsolar electric conversion w i n g . A l lelements would be docked and clustered tothe external tank, with the second Shuttleproviding a crew to live in the platform.The assignment of this first crew wouldinvolve final construction of the crew’quarters and establish structural integrityof the entire platform.

Expansion of this basic tank designcould include additional external tanks,

OMB Weighs NASABudget Cut

B u d g e t D i r e c t o r B e r t L a n c e , w h orecently resigned under fire, is reported tohave told a group after touring EdwardsAir Force Base in California, where theshuttle is being tested, that the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration isbeing asked to “reassess its priorities.”

Lance did not present details, but saidthe space agency’s share of the federalbudget-as well as expenditures by otheragencies-would have to be measured inlight of seeking a balanced budget andfinancing social programs.

I t r e m a i n e d u n c l e a r w h a t s u c h areassessment would mean to the projectsfor which the space shuttle craft is beingdesigned. The craft, which is scheduled tobe launched in March 1979, would becapable of carrying 65,000 pounds of

material into space and make as many as100 trips.

Carter’s budget for fiscal 1978 provides$4 bi l l ion for NASA, about the sameamount the Ford administration gave theagency this year.

B u t L a n c e r e m i n d e d r e p o r t e r s i nCalifornia that the 1978 budget was largelyput together before Carter took office andonly the 1979 budget would accuratelyreflect the President’s budgetary views.

He emphasized that the administrationr e m a i n s c o m m i t t e d t o “zero-based”budgeting by which every agency ofgovernment is required to reassess itsspending goals.

As a result, he said, there will be “aredirect ion of programs” i n v a r i o u sagencies including those dealing with thespace industry.

Spacelab modules, or even both, extendingthe station’s capabilities. The platformc o u l d b e u s e d i n a n u m b e r o f w a y s ,p rov id ing ample l abo ra to ry space toconduct space processing experiments, ormanufactur ing large space s t ructures .

Although far from being an “on-going”concept, as a target, the current studies aredirected to an initial launch in calendaryears 1983-1984. Kingsbury feels that thecurrent studies indicate a permanent spaceplatform, using the external tank method,could be in earth-orbit at a fraction of thec o s t n o w e s t i m a t e d f o r a n e wdevelopmental program, and at an earliert i m e f r a m e t h a n o n c e t h o u g h t .

Use of the ET method, even thoughNASA hates to admit it, may be the onlyalternative for an unwilling Administra-tion that, as yet, has declined to provideNASA with substantial funding for largespace stations. Even though the externaltank concept could provide experience inbuilding large habitats in space, NASAw o u l d m u c h r a t h e r b u i l d a l l n e whardware, specifically designed for spacestation construction.

Frosch Wins PrizeNASA Administrator Dr. Robert A.

Frosch has been awarded the L-5 Editor’sProofreading Prize. The reward? A publicapology from editor Carolyn Henson, wholet one caption and two headlines slip bywhich re f e r r ed t o someone named“Frosh.” Additional proofreaders for theL - 5 N e w s a r e b e i n g s o u g h t a v i d l y .

Schmidt Calls For“Starlaws”

Sen. Harr ison Schmidt , (R-N.M.) ,ranking minority member of the SenateCommerce Committee Subcommittee onScience, Technology and Space and formerApollo astronaut, recently advised theAmer i can Ba r Assoc i a t i on tha t “Aninstantaneous and cont inuous view ofearth and its total environment makesposs ib le a w i d e s p e c t r u m o f s p a c eactivities. . . Starlawyers must quicklycome to grips with the implications of thisnew view of Earth. . . There are numerouslegal and regulatory questions that arisew h e n o n e c o n t e m p l a t e s s o l a r p o w e rsystems in synchronous orbit around theear th . How do we establ ish nat ionala n d / o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l r a t e s f o r p o w e rgenerated and transmitted to receivingpoints on earth? As more and more menand women work in space stations likethis, what laws and judicial system willg o v e r n t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s ?

“ P o s s i b l y t h e m o s t u r g e n t a r e a o fstarlaw . . . is the extension of medical,corporate and patent law to cover theinfinite range of treatment, research andindustrial activities that will soon begin inspace. Precedents are being set which maynot be in the right direction either withrespect to the interests of business, theinteres ts of future consumers or theinterests of our country.”

8 L-5 News, October, 1977

NASA: Priming the Pumpby Kenne th McCormick

In discussing the space industrializationconcept with friends and acquaintances, Ihave discovered that what often underlies aseeming indifference to the subject in somepeople is a basic hostility toward NASA.Whatever merit space industrializationmay have in its own right, it is inseparable,in the minds of virtually everyone I havetalked to, from the history of the spaceprogram. The space program, judgingfrom references in the mass media, isregarded by most to be a great thing, butn e i t h e r j u s t i f i a b l e a s a n e x t r a v a g a n texpenditure of tax dol lars , nor of anydiscernable benefit to the average citizen.

As a political statement, this attitudemost often takes form as what has becomeone of the truly great cliches of our time:“Why are we spending all that money andeffort in space, when there is so much to bedone here on earth?” Proponents of thisposition usually offer as examples of whatn e e d s t o b e d o n e h e r e o n e a r t h : t h eelimination of poverty, improving publict r a n s p o r t a t i o n , “ c l e a n i n g u p ” t h eenvironment, and ending the spread ofurban sprawl.

Thus stated, the attitude in question canbe shown to rest upon two fallacies: (1) thatNASA is a drain on public finances at atime when more money must be spent onsocial programs, and (2) that a politicalproblem will yield to a technologicalsolution.

I would like to recommend four studieswhich seem to me to be must reading fora n y o n e p r o m o t i n g s p a c e v e n t u r e s .

1. The Political Economy of the SpaceProgram, by Dr. Mary A. Holman. PaloAlto: Pacific Books, 1974.

2 . “Economic Impact o f S t imula tedT e c h n o l o g i c a l A c t i v i t y ” , M i d w e s tResearch Inst i tute , Kansas City, MO . ,November, 1971.

3 . “Quant i fy ing the Benef i t s to theN a t i o n a l E c o n o m y F r o m S e c o n d a r yA p p l i c a t i o n s o f N A S A T e c h n o l o g y ” ,M a t h e m a t i c a , I n c . , P r i n c e t o n , N . J .

4. “The Economic Impact of NASA R &D S p e n d i n g ” , C h a s e E c o n o m e t r i cAssociates, Inc., Bala Cynwyd, Pa. April,1976.

Few public libraries have any of theses t u d i e s , b u t t h e y c a n b e g o t t e n v i a

Impatient White Houserejects proposedsolar-energy satellitesBy Jack Anderson

WASHINGTON-Americans are in atizzy over the box office smash movie, “StarWars.” What they don’t realize is that ourown space agency is ahead of “Star Wars”in some of its concepts.

U.S. space scientists have come up with afuturistic scheme, for example, to supplythe United States with all the energy itneeds from outer space. It’s a type of solarenergy with a “Star Wars” twist.

The National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration would like to launch 20giant satel l i tes that would t ransformsunlight into electricity. The scientistsclaim that 20 satellites, microwaving theenergy to ear th , would be enough tosupply the entire nation.

The so la r - e l ec t r i c s a t e l l i t e s wou ldresemble enormous Venetian blinds. Eachwould measure several miles long. The

frames would have a thin cover, dottedwith millions of tiny solar power cells.

The project would take years of researcha n d c o s t m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s . S p a c eofficials, therefore, h a v e t u r n e d t oCongress for help. They contacted HouseDemocratic leader James Wright of Texas,who recently arranged for the space expertsto brief White House energy czar JamesSchlesinger and Budget Director BertLance.

To Wright’s dismay, the White Houserejected the space project-at least for now.White House officials called solar-electricsatellites a long-term solution. They wantimmediate results.

The space experts, nevertheless, arecertain the solar satellites will work. So theday may come when our energy will comefrom outer space instead of underground.

interlibrary loan. The book costs about $30new. The papers may be purchased fromt h e N a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l I n f o r m a t i o nService, Springfield, V A . 2 2 1 6 1 . Areference librarian can be of assistance inp l a c i n g a n o r d e r w i t h N T I S .

The U.S. owes its high standard of livingt o h i g h w o r k e r p r o d u c t i v i t y .T e c h n o l o g i c a l a d v a n c e s i n c r e a s eproductivity. As less labor is needed perunit of output, unit labor costs are loweredwhich leads to lower prices. As prices arelowered (or at least grow at a less rapidrate), disposable income of consumersbecomes g r ea t e r . As consumer s ga ingreater purchasing power, they demandmore goods and services, which are nowavailable due to increased productivity.

T h e C h a s e E c o n o m e t r i c s t u d ydemonstrated that NASA spending, in itslong term effects, is quite uncharacteristicof government spending in general. NASAmission oriented R & D has been shown tobe as effective in producing economicstimulation as any more highly diffuse R &D e f f o r t . T h e m e a s u r e d r e l a t i o n s h i pb e t w e e n N A S A R & D s p e n d i n g a n dtechnological progress was introducedinto a number of simulations to measurethe overall impact on the economy. It wasfound that if NASA R&D spending (R & Daccounts for about three-quarters of thetotal budget) were increased by $1 billionin 1975, and if the increase were sustainedat that level, the GNP would be $43 billiongreater by 1988 than it would have beenwithout a NASA increase. For a $14 billioninvestment over that period of time, therewould be a return to the economy duringthe same period of $225 billion. Also, by1984 the Consumer Price Index would bereduced to the extent of 2% lower thanwould otherwise be expected, the totalnumber of jobs available would be 800,000greater than would otherwise be expected,the Index of Labor Productivity would be2% higher, and the rate of inflation wouldbe 5.3%, rather than the expected 5.8%.Simulations using figures of $100 millionto $500 mil l ion showed proport ionalresults.

A decrease in NASA spending of $1billion would have reverse effects of thesame magnitude.

Since the federal budget is about 20% ofthe GNP, we can see that if NASA were toconsume an extra $19 billion of publicfinances ($14 billion for R & D, $5 billionfor construction and administration) overa 14 year period, federal finances wouldincrease by about $28 billion (20% of $225

9

billion from R & D and $10 billion fromthe demand effects of other expenditures,minus the $19 billion investment) as thetax base expanded. So much for theassertion that NASA is a drain on publicfinances. So much, also, for the assertionthat NASA produces little in the way oftangible benefits for the average citizen. Ihave found few things more persuasive tothe political opinion of the man in thes t r e e t t h a n m o n e y i n t h e b a n k .

T h e i n f l u e n c e o f s t i m u l a t e dt e c h n o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y s h o u l d b econsidered in assessing the possible costbenefit ratio of space industrialization.The economic benefits which would bereasonably expected to come out of the R &D investment in the development of spacewould probably go a long way towardpaying for the entire project. I am referringhere, t o g o v e r n m e n t - f u n d e d s p a c edevelopment, and not to development byprivate sector investment.

I would also like to recommend to L-5Society members two booklets whichdescribe some qualitative effects of NASAR & D.

1. “Why Space is Important to OurFuture”, available free of charge from theoffice of Public Relat ions, RockwellInternat ional , Space Divis ion, 12214Lakewood Boulevard. Downey, CA. 90214.

2. “Spinoff 1977”, free from the Officeof Public Relations, NASA Headquarters,306 Maryland Ave., Washington, D.C.20546. (This 116 page booklet also hassome dazz l ing co lo r i l l u s t r a t i ons o fPioneer spacecraf t , the Large SpaceTelescope, Shuttle, etc.)

One example of a NASA spinoff is acomputerized X-ray scanning devicewhich replaces exploratory surgery. Thereis no anesthesia , n o p a i n , a n d n ohospitalization, since the operation cannow be performed on an out-patient basis.

Another example is the Meal System forthe Elderly, which will result in betternutrition for the handicapped or infirm.T h e s e a r e t h e s o r t o f t e c h n o l o g i c a ladvancements that it is difficult to place amonetary value on.

Congress displayed a lack of wisdom inallotting $16 billion for the creation of newjobs during 1977, while eyeing the alreadyslim NASA budget for the possibility offurther cuts. The $4 billion NASA budgetprovides more jobs, in the long run, thanthe $16 bi l l ion voted for make-work.Cutting back on NASA funds in order toget more money to el iminate povertymakes no sense, of course, since the Chasestudy shows that this action would, overtime, create more new poverty than themoney taken from NASA could eliminate.Any attempt to end poverty which wouldattack the means of production will benefitno one. The question of whether or not to

10

explore and exploit space is quite apartf rom the quest ion of whether or notpoverty should be permitted to continue inthis country.

N o a m o u n t o f t e c h n o l o g i c a lbrainstorming by NASA rocket scientistswill solve any problem of a social nature. Ithas been suggested that NASA talent couldimprove public transit systems. This has,in fact, happened, but the automobiler e m a i n s t h e p r e f e r r e d m e a n s o ftransportation because the governmentspends many times as much to improvehighways as to improve mass t ransi t .Hence, t h i s i s a s o c i a l p r o b l e m .

A n y o n e a p p r e c i a t i v e o f t h esubconscious determinants of politicalbehavior will probably agree that much ofthe cause of hostility engendered by NASAis symbolic in nature. NASA’s crew-cut,midd l e - c l a s s a s t ronau t s , w i th t he i rt e c h n i c a l j a r g o n , c o n s p i c u o u sconsumption, A-OK’s and golf on the

m o o n , w e r e a l w a y s t h e i d e a lrepresentat ions of the es tabl ishmentorganization man. At a time when it wasbecoming ever more clear to all that thee s t a b l i s h m e n t h a d d e n i e d f u l lparticipation in society to great numbersof people, a prominent display of machopotency on the part of the establishment, asseen in the first great rocket flights, was outof place. (The skeptic may note that manypeople joked after the U.S.’ first satellite’slaunch failure that the U.S. had failed to“get it up.“)

To the degree that a person is alienatedfrom the mainstream of society, thatperson will tend to view the success ofspace ventures as a cause for jubilation inthe camp of his or her enemies. If we are toget general agreement on the desirability ofthe further use of space, then people willhave to come to realize that it is, and alwaysh a s b e e n , s o m e t h i n g t h a t b e n e f i t severyone.

L-5 News, October, 1977

So You Want to Lobby?by Marc Boone

If you write to legislators . . . Ask themt o v o t e a s p e c i f i c w a y , s u p p o r t aspecific amendment, or take a specificaction. O t h e r w i s e y o u w i l l g e t a“ m o t h e r h o o d ” r e s p o n s e . T h e y w i l lsay in a general way, “Of course I ami n f a v o r o f t h e s p a c e s h u t t l e , s o l a rp o w e r s a t e l l i t e s ” o r w h a t e v e r y o ua s k e d . T h e n t h e y m i g h t v o t e t h ewrong way.

T h e b a s i c m e a n s b y w h i c h aCongressperson keeps in contact with hisor her district is through letters. Neveru n d e r e s t i m a t e t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e .Telephone calls to the local office or evento Washington are often useful, but lettersprovide the basic demonstration of interestand expression of opinion concerning anissue.

The volume of mail a Congressperson orSenator receives varies with many factors.Legislators from primari ly rural areasusually receive less mail, but a speech ornewspaper article may stimulate a largevolume on a certain day. No matter howmany letters are received, each one is opened,read, and catalogued. Thus, there is a tallyin every Congressperson’s office of voterinterest and sentiment on different issues.The legislator is told daily, or at leastweekly, how voter interest is running. Heor she is told again before a vote.

Every Congressperson knows that votersare often too apathetic to express theirpreferences in writing. When a person doestake the trouble to write, legislators assumethat the writer’s position must also be heldby a large number of other people in thedistrict. In other words, they feel that everyletter represents the sentiments of 50, 100,or even 500 voters in that district. A letter-writing campaign, t h e r e f o r e , i s a nimportant lobbying tool. There are certaintechniques of le t ter-wri t ing that youshould use and recommend to co-workers.

1 . A l w a y s b e c o u r t e o u s . N e v e rreprimand legislators for taking the wrongposition. Instead, try to convince them totake the right one-politely.

2. Try to keep the letter to onetypewri t ten page. Complex let ters areoften put aside to be answered later andmay lose their effectiveness. If you havemore material than will fit onto one page,include extra background pages, but labelthem clearly as background and put yourname and address on them in a comer.

These pages will probably be routed to thestaff person handling the issue and so willhave more impact.

3. Do not write about more than oneissue in each letter. That only confuses thestaff and dilutes your impact.

4. Don’t use a form letter. It only takesminutes to write a few sentences of yourown, and such a le t ter i s much moreeffective. Try to add a few sentences aboutthe issue’s impact on the legis la tor’sdistrict.

5. If you write to a Congressperson whois not your own, try to think of a relative orfriend in his or her district that you canmention; i.e., “a l though I am not nowliving in your district, my family has toldme about your dedication to planetaryexploration, space industrialization, etc.Also, . . .” Send a copy to your ownlegislator and clearly indicate that youhave done so on the bottom of your page.Otherwise, your letter may be routed toyour own Congressperson as a courtesy,and the legislator you want to influencewill be bypassed.

6. If you are writing to criticize or praisea bill, be specific as possible. If you do notknow the bill number, try to describe thebill by its precise name, such as the “NASAFY ‘78 Appropriations Bill.”

7. If you are writing about ana m e n d m e n t , t r y t o i n c l u d e t h e b i l lnumber, who will offer the amendment,and what the amendment will do.

8 . I f p o s s i b l e , r e f e r t o t h eCongressperson’s past actions on yourissue or some other related issue. Includingthis kind of reference shows that you areaware of his or her past record and that youare following the issue closely. If you writeto the legislator and ask to be included onthe newsletter list, you will become moreaware of his or her attitudes.

9. Be specific. Ask him or her to vote as p e c i f i c w a y , s u p p o r t a s p e c i f i camendment , or take a specif ic act ion.Otherwise you will get a “motherhood”response. The legislator will say in ageneral way, “Of course I am in favor of thespace shuttle, solar power satellites” orwhatever you asked. Then he or she mightvote the wrong way. In order to be effective,you must be specif ic so you can holdlegislators accountable for their actions.

Be courteous . . . . Be specific. . . . Don’tbe a crackpot . . . . .

W R I T E !

“Congress in session is Congress onexhibition, Congress in committee isCongress at work.”

- - Woodrow Wilson

10. It is always wise to try to meet theCongressperson (if you can do so withoutalienating him or her.) Then you can referto your meeting in the first few sentences ofyour letter. Call the district office to ask fora schedule of off ice hours and publicmeetings.

11. Do not come on like a crackpot. Ifyou support the space program becausey o u w a n t t o s e e s t a r s h i p s o r m e e textraterrestrials, then write short politeletters asking your Congressperson forsupport for reasons that they would agreewith.

B y p h o n e - - T o r e a c h W a s h i n g t o no f f i c e s o f M e m b e r s o f C o n g r e s s o rCongressional Committees, dial 202/224-3121 and “the Capitol” will answer andg i v e y o u t h e p r o p e r e x t e n s i o n u p o nrequest.

B y l e t t e r - F o r S e n a t o r s o r S e n a t eCommittees, write to:The Honorable(or Senate Committee onUnited States SenateWashington, D.C. 20510

)

F o r R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o r H o u s eCommittees, write to:The Honorable(or House Committee onHouse of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515

)

Although writing to any legislator ishelpful, writing to one who sits on oneof the commit tees which handles theNASA budget is ten times as good. TheNASA budget request for the coming yeargoes through four different committeesand is voted on four different times on thef l o o r s b e f o r e i t i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h eP r e s i d e n t . T h e c o m m i t t e e s a n dsubcommittes which must be persuadedare presented below in the order that a billreaches them.

What Happens to the NASAAppropriations Bill?

F i r s t t he b i l l goes t o t he HOUSES C I E N C E A N D T E C H N O L O G YCOMMITTEE, 2321 RHOB, 202 /225-6371.Democrats:Olin Teague, Tex., Chairman

11

Don Fuqua, Fla.Walter Flowers, Ala.Robert Roe, N.J.Mike McCormack, Wash.George Brown, Jr., Calif.Dale Milford, Tex.Ray Thornton, Ark.James Scheuer, N.Y.Dick Ottinger, N.Y.Tom Harkin, IowaJim Lloyd, Calif.Jerome Ambro, N.Y.Robert Kreuger, Tex.Marilyn Lloyd, Tenn.James Blanchard, Mich.Timothy Wirth, Colo.Stephen L. Neal, N.C.Thomas J. Downey, N.Y.Doug Walgren, Pa.Ronnie G. Flippo, Ala.Dan Glickman, Kans.Bob Gammage, Tex.Anthony C. Beilenson, Calif.Albert Gore, Jr., TEnn.Wes Watkins, Okla.Richard A. Tonry, La.Republicans:John Wydler, N.Y.Larry Winn, Jr., Kan.Louis Frey, Jr., Ga.Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., Calif.Gary Myers, Pa.Hamilton Fish, Jr., N.Y.Manuel Lujan, Jr., N.M.Carl D. Pursell, Mich.Harold C. Hollenbeck, N.J.Eldon Rudd, Ariz.Robert K. Dornan, Calif.Robert S. Walker, Pa.(Minority Vacancy)and then is voted on by the House. Then itg o e s t o t h e S E N A T E C O M M E R C E ,SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATIONCOMMITTEE, 5202 DSOB, 202/224-5115Democrats:Warren G. Magnuson, Wash., ChairmanHoward W. Cannon, Nev.Russell B. Long, La,Ernest F. Hollings, S.C.Daniel K. Inouye, HawaiiAdlai E. Stevenson, Ill.Wendell H. Ford, Ky.John Durkin, N.H.Edward Zorinsky, Nebr.Donald Riegle, Mich.John Melcher, Mont.Republicans:Robert P. Griffin, Mich.Ted Stevens, AlaskaBarry Goldwater, Ariz.Bob Packwood, Ore.Harrison Schmitt, N.M.John C. Danforth, MO.a n d t h e S E N A T E C O M M E R C ESUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE ANDSPACE, 2301 RSOB, 202/224-6477Democrats:

12

Adlai Stevenson, ChairmanWendell FordRussell LongErnest HollingsEdward ZorinskyDonald RiegleRepublican:Harrison SchmittBarry GoldwaterRobert Griffinand then is voted on by the Senate.T h e n i t g o e s t o t h e H O U S EAPPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, H-218 (Capitol), 202/225-2771Democrats:George H. Mahon, Tex., ChairmanJamie L. Whitten, Miss.Robert L.F. Sikes, Fla.Edward P. Boland, Mass.William H. Natcher, Ky.Daniel J. Flood, Pa.Tom Steed, Okla.George E. Shipley, Ill.John M. Slack, W. Va.John J. Flynt, Jr., Ga.Neal Smith, IowaRobert N. Giamo, Conn.Joseph P. Addabbo, N.Y.John J. McFall, Calif.Edward J. Patten, N.J.Clarence D. Long, Md.Sidney R. Yates, Ill.Frank E. Evans, Colo.David R. Obey, Wis.Edward R. Roybal, Calif.Louis Stokes, OhioGunn McKay, UtahTom Bevill, Ala.bill Chappell, Jr., Fla.Bill D. Burlison, MO.Bill Alexander, Ark.Edward I. Koch, N.Y.Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Calif.John P. Murtha, Mich.Robert Duncan, Ore.Joseph D. Early, Mass.Max Baucus, Mont.Charles Wilson, Tex.Lindy Boggs, La.Adam Benjamin, Jr., Ind.Norman D. Dicks, Wash.Republicans:Elford A. Cederberg, Mich.Robert H. Michel, Ill.Silvio O. Conte, Mass.Joseph M. McDade, Pa.Mark Andrews, N.D.Jack Edwards, Ala.Robert C. McEwen, N.Y.John T. Myers, IndianaJ. Kenneth Robinson, Va.Clarence E. Miller, OhioLawrence Coughlin, Pa.C.W. Bill Young, Fla.Jack F. Kemp, N.Y.William L. Armstrong, Colo.Ralph S. Regula, Ohio

Clair W. Burgener, Calif.George M. O’Brien, Ill.Virginia Smith, Neb.and the HOUSE APPROPRIATIONSS U B C O M M I T T E E O N H U D -I N D E P E N D E N T A G E N C I E S , H - 1 4 3(Capitol), 202/225-3241Democrats:Howard P. Boland, ChairmanBob TraxlerMax BaucusLouis StokesTom BevillLindy BoggsBill D. BurlisonBill AlexanderRepublicans:Lawrence CoughlinJoseph M. McDadeC.W. Bill Youngand then is voted on in the House. Then itg o e s t o t h e S E N A T E A P P R O P R I A -TIONS COMMITTEE, 1235 DSOB, 224-3471Democrats:John L. McClellan, Ark., ChairmanWarren G. Magnuson, Wash.John C. Stennis, Miss.Robert C. Byrd, W. Va.William Proxmire, Wis.Daniel K. Inouye, HawaiiErnest F. Hollings, S.C.Birch Bayh, Ind.Thomas F. Eagleton, MO.Lawton Chiles, Fla.J. Bennett Johnston, La.Walter D. Huddleston, Ky.Quentin Burdick, N.D.Patrick Leahy, Vt.James Sasser, Tenn.Dennis DeConcini, Ariz.Republicans:Milton Young, N.D.Clifford Case, N. J.Edward W. Brooke, Mass.Mark O. Hatfield, Ore.Ted Stevens, AlaskaCharles McC. Mathias, Jr., Md.Richard S. Schweiker, Pa.Henry Bellmon, Okla.Lowell P. Weicker, Conn.and the SENATE APPROPRIATIONSS U B C O M M I T T E E O N H U D -I N D E P E N D E N T A G E N C I E S , S-128(Capitol), 202/224-7274Democrats:William Proxmire, ChairmanJohn C. StennisBirch BayhWalter HuddlestonPatrick LeahyJames SasserRepublicans:Charles McC. Mathias, Jr.Clifford P. CaseEdward W. BrookeHenry Bellmon

L-5 News, October, 1977

and then is voted on by the House andpassed to the President.

If you want to learn more, the lobbyist’sbible is the Congressional Directory,available from:

Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402$6.50

JOP Scoreboardby Carolyn Henson

July 19, 1977 was an historicdate: for thef i r s t t i m e , a H o u s e c o m m i t t e e ’ srecommendation to delete NASA fundswas rejected by Congress. The rescuedproject? Jupiter Orbiter Probe, the firstplanetary exploration mission which willbe launched by the space shuttle.

The House rejected the fund cut by alopsided margin, 281 to 131.

Who were JOP’s opponents? A quickcheck of the Congressional record revealsthat the following Representatives votedfor the deletion of JOP:AlexanderAllenAndrews.

N. Dak.AspinAuCoinBaldusBaucusBaumanBeard. R.I.BedellBeilensonBenjaminBennettBiouinBolandBoniorBonkerBowenBrodheadBrown. Mich.BroyhillButlerCarrCochranConteCoughlinDaniel, R.W.DanielsonDelaneyDellumsDingellDuncan, Oreg.EdgarEdwards, Ala.EilbergEvans, Colo.Evans, Ind.FindleyFishFisherFiorioFraserFrenzel

GephardtGoodlingGudgerHarringtonHecklerHefnerHoltzmanHughesJacobsJenkinsJones, N.CKeysKostmayerKrebsLaFalceLattaLeFanteLedererMcDadeMcKayMahonMarkeyMarleneeMazzoliMikvaMiller, Calif.Miller, OhioMinishMitchell, Md.MoakleyMurphy, Pa.MurthaMyers, MichaelNatcherNealNixOberstarObey0ttingerPanettaPattenPikePresslerPreyer

PritchardQuieQuillenRahallRangelRegulaReussRichmondRodinoRoncalloRooneyRoseRosenthalRuppeRussoRyanSchroederShipleySimonSkubitzSlackSmith, IowaSla rzSt. Germain

PROBING JUPITER’S ATMOSPHERE -- Red-hot nose coneseparates from probe portion of Jupiter Orbiter Probe as it“hangs on the shrouds” and samples the atmosphere of thelargest planet in the solar system. Painting depicts key momentin flight of JOP, the new planetary project planned by Caltech’sJet Propulsion Laboratory. The JOP spacecraft will belaunched in January 1982 -- the first planetary mission aboard

the space shuttle -- and will arrive at Jupiter late in 1984. Theprobe will enter the sunlit side of Jupiter’s atmosphere andprovide the first direct sampling of that planet's atmosphere. JetPropulsion Laboratory has over-all management responsibilityfor JOP. NASA’s Ames Research Center is responsible fordevelopment of the probe.

ArmstrongAshbrookAshleyBadhamBafalisBarnardBeard, TennBevillBiaggiBinghamBlanchardBoggsS t a g g e r sB r e a u x

Clawson, Del.ClevelandCohenColemanCollins, Ill.Collins, TexConableConyersCorcoranCormanCornellCornwellCotterCraneCunninghamD’AmoursDaniel, DanDavisde la GarzaDerrickDerwinskiDevineDicksDiggsDoddMcFallMcHughMadiganMaguireMannMarksMartin

FaryFascellFithianFloodFlowersFlyntFoleyFord, Tenn.ForsytheFountainFowlerFreyFuquaGammageGaydosGiamoGibbonsGilmamGinnGlickmanGoldwaterGonzalezGoreGradisonGrassleyRunnelsSantiniSarasinSatterfieldSawyerScheuerSchulzeSebeliusSharpShusterSikesSiskSkeltonSmith, Nebr.SnyderSpellmanSpenceStanglandStantonSteedSteers,Steiger

JeffordsJenretteJohnson, Calif.Johnson, Colo.Jones, Okla.Jones, Tenn.JordanKastenKastenmeierKazenKellyKempKetchumKildeeKindnessKruegerLagomarsinoLeachLeggettLehmanLentLevitasLloyd, Tenn.Long, La.Long, La.Long, Md.

Moorhead, Pa.MossMottlMurphy, Ill.Murphy, N.Y.Myers, GaryMeyers, JohnNedziNicholsNowakO’BrienOakarPattersonPattisonPeasePepperPerkinsPettisPicklePoagePricePurcellRailsbeckRhodesRhodesRinaldoRisenhooverRobertsRobinsonRoeRogersRostenkowskiRousselotRoybalRudd

StockmanStrattonStumpSymmsThoneThorntonTuckerUdallUllmanVan DeerlinVander JagtVentoWaggonnerWalgrenWalkerWalshWamplerWatkinsWaymanWhiteWigginsWilson, BobWilson, Tex.WinnWinnWirthWolffWrightWydlerYatronYoung, AlaskaYoung, Fla.Young, Mo.Young, Tex.Zeferetti

on t he s i de l i ne s

L o t tL u j a nL u k e n

Abdnorremaining

StarkStokerStuddsTaylorThompsonTraxlerTreenTsongasVanikVolkmerWeaverWeissWhalenWhitehurstWhitleyWhittenWylieYatesZablocki

BreckinridgeBrinkleyBrooksBroomfieldBrown, Calif.Brown, OhioBuchananBurgenerBurke, Calif.Burke, Fla.Burleson, Tex.Burlison, Mo.GuyerHagedornHallHamiltonHammerschmidtHanleyHannafordHansenHarkinHarrisHarshaHawkinsHeftelHightowerHillisHollenbeckHoltHubbardHuckabyHydeIchordIreland

LundineMcCloryMcCloskyMcCormackMcDonaldMcEwen

Those

Those who voted “nay” ( i .e . , whoopposed the JOP fund deletion) were:

MathisMattoxMeeds

were:Ammerman

Burton, JohnBurton, PhillipByronCaputoCarneyCarterCavanaughCederbergChappellChisholmClausen,

Don H.

DornanDowneyDrinanDuncan, Tenn.EckhardtEdwards, Calif.Edwards. Okla.EmeryEnglish

MetcalfeMeynerMikulskiMichelMilford

AddabboAkakaAmbro

M i n e t aBadilloBollingBrademasBurke, Mass.ClayDentDickinsonEarly

ErtelFenwickFlippoFord, Mich.HollandHortonHowardKoch

McKinneyMarriottNolanSeiberlingTeagueTrible

Anderson,Calif.

Anderson, Ill.Andrews, N.C.AnnunzioApplegateArcher

Mitchell, N.Y.MoffettMollohanMontgomeryMooreMoorhead, Calif.

ErlenbornEvans, Del.Evans, Ga.

13

L-5 And The Jewish Communityor

Yiddishkeit in Orbit

by Bruce Friedman

Well, folks, the Allen J. Reiter Lodge ofB’nai B’rith in Annapolis, Maryland isgetting involved with the drive for spacecolonization. How did this come about?Where will this lead?

The story starts early this year when Idecided that I wanted to become moreactive in my relations with the Jewishc o m m u n i t y i n m y n e w h o m e t o w n o fAnnapolis. I joined B’nai B’rith. About amonth later, I attended a meeting at thelocal Synagogue at which a speaker fromB’nai B’rith Headquarters gave a talk. Itturned out that headquarters did not havemuch going in the way of energy policy.Not only that, it turned out after I had aconversation with this speaker later that hewas not aware of potential new sources ofenergy, such as solar power satellites(SPS’s). This situation struck me as notbeing very satisfactory, particularly fromthe point of view of the situation in theMiddle East.

Next day, I was talking with my friendDr. Ernest H. Halpern (henceforth to bereferred to as Ernie) about the meeting, atwhich he had a lso been present . Hes u g g e s t e d t h a t I o r g a n i z e a n e n e r g ycommittee for our lodge and that I bechairman of this committee. I thoughabout this for a few hours before I decidedto do it. Picking up the phone, I called Mr.James W. Jacobs (Jim), the president ofour lodge. He heard me out and as he isempowered to do, declared the energycommittee to be in existence with myself aschairman. Fast work!

Since that time the energy committee hasbeen gradually get t ing involved withpeople and issues of the multi-facetedexceedingly complex energy situation.Considering, however, that I am a longtime space enthusiast and that I joined theL-5 Society in early 1976, explains whyeduca t i ng peop l e abou t so l a r powersatellites, s p a c e f a c t o r i e s , a n d n o n -terrestrial resources is a significant part ofour program.

The energy committee is small but has alot of expertise in science and technology.Aside from myself , i t includes Ernie

(whom I consider to be my “chief of staff”),Jim, and Dr. Herman B. Urbach. Ernie wasoriginally somewhat skeptical about solarpower satellites, space factories, and spacecolonies. Now, he has acquired some of myenthusiasm for all of these things. In fact,at one of our local B’nai B’rith boardmeetings he started referring to the energycommittee as being the space committee!!

From the special point of view of theAmerican Jew, what is the appeal of spacecolonization and SPS’s? Well, one thoughtis that American-built and operated SPS’smean a U.S.A. independent of energy fromArab oil. In this event, America couldf o r m u l a t e s o l u t i o n s t o t h e t r o u b l e sbetween Israel and the Arab world withoutthe threat of an oil embargo.

Further thought upon the matter yieldsthe possibility of something more positive.How about a joint Israeli-Arab SPS-spacecolony project? After all, the Arabs have allof that oil wealth and Israel has loads ofscientific and technical talent. This couldreally advance the cause of peace in theMiddle East. Anyhow, the Arabs should beworrying about what is going to happen tothemselves when their oil runs out. An SPS-space colony project makes quite a bit ofsense for the Middle East. Just picture it!The first space colony being peopled byMoslems and Jews (maybe with sometoken WASP’s).

F r o m a m o r e s o m b e r a t t i t u d e ,considering the vicissitudes of the Jewishpeople throughout history, one could saythat Jews, of all people, should be interestedin space colonization. Space colonizationcou ld be cons ide red a fo rm o f l i f einsurance if things should get tougheragain f o r t h e J e w s o n e a r t h . M o r eoptimistically, co lon iza t ion cou ld beviewed as a wonderful opportunity for theexpression of Jewish vitality in far-flungand diversified environments. (Actually,all of the ethnic groups could have theirown colonies.)

How does the energy committee goabout gaining acceptance for its spaceproposals? One thing we do not do is talkabout space colonization per se. We think

in terms of pushing for the construction ofSPS’s by a space factory using non-terrestr ial resources. This , hopeful ly,avoids the “pie-in-the-sky” reaction fromuninformed people upon f i rs t hear ingabout space colonization. We feel that thenotion of people working and living inspace would be thought of more naturallyas a corollary to the SPS-space factoryplan. It makes sense to have people livingnear their work instead of commutingbetween earth and space constantly. Onewould think of a company town as beingan apt comparison.

What modes of communication does theenergy committee ut i l ize? We find acookout to be an effective format. A fewpeople, knowledgeable in an aspect of theenergy problem, are invited to join us inAnnapolis. We eat, drink and have funw h i l e t r a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a n dformulating plans for action. We hope tomeet with state and national legislators,other B’nai B’r i th lodges , and otherinfluential people. We have already metwith the Aberdeen, Maryland lodge ofB’nai B’rith. As a result of this cookout theenergy committee will be presenting aseries of resolutions concerning the energyproblem to the Maryland State Associationof B’nai B’rith with the backing of theAberdeen lodge. Particular mention ofSPS’s will be made.

Our activities are coordinated with otheradvocates of space colonization/industri-alization. Since my joining the L-5 Societyin 1976 I have been in touch with Dr. T.S t e p h e n C h e s t o n o f G e o r g e t o w nUniversity who is well known to all L-5ers.S i n c e t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e e n e r g ycommittee, Steve and I have been trying tocoordinate our activities.

At the time at which I am writing thisarticle, the energy committee is workingon involving the members of the B’naiB’rith Youth Organization (BBYO) in itsspace act ivi t ies. We are preparing anumber of projects for BBYO in the areaso f s o l a r p o w e r s a t e l l i t e s , s p a c eindustrialization, and space colonization.The energy committee believes that BBYO

14 L-5 News, October, 1977

members could be of value in educating thepublic as to the benefits to be derived fromthese space programs. More direct ly,BBYO members could organize s tudygroups in order to investigate variousproblems and perform experiments to helpfill in thedetails needed to be known beforeimplementation of these programs. Thisdirect action on a volunteer basis could beof great importance in filling the gapbetween now and when the major fundingb e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e . T h e B B Y O i sp o t e n t i a l l y a v a l u a b l e r e s o u r c e o fenthusiastic, intelligent young folks.

We believe that our experiences here inAnnapolis can be of use to others instriving for the implementation of SPS’sand space colonization/industrialization.F o r e x a m p l e , o t h e r e t h n i c s e r v i c eorganizations could do the same things weare in B’nai B’rith. Why not have a Knights

of Columbus lodge form an energy, or evena space committee? Then, possibly, ourenergy committee could l ink up withtheirs and all of us could get into spacesooner. Of course, we do not have toconfine ou r se lve s t o religious-basedorganizations. Certainly the Lions and theElks could help out also.

Another point that we believe to beimportant is convincing the minorities ofour nation of the relevance of space to thefulfillment of their needs. We do not wantthese people to think of us as elitists but aspeople who are really concerned aboutthem. This fits in with the Jewish ethic.One cannot be considered a good Jewunless one is a good person. The aid of theminorities could certainly help us in ourgoal of spreading out into the universe.

We have a very positive outlook over inB’nai B’rith. We want to accomplish our

goals for our generation and not have towait for the next generation. Our thoughtsand actions are strictly in terms of successnow, in the coming years, in the nextdecade or so, certainly no later than the endof this century. Moses saw the promisedland from afar but he was not allowed toenter it. We, on the other hand, will enterour promised land.

About the author: Bruce Friedman holdsa Ph.D. in physics. He works at the DavidW . T a y l o r N a v a l S h i p R e s e a r c h a n dDevelopment Center in Annapolis, Md.His major area of research is pollutionabatement. He encourages those of youwho want to learn more about how todevelop local L-5 oriented projects to writehim at 1284 Graff Court Apt. lB, Annapolis,MD 21403, or call him at 301/267-9271(home) or 301/267-3543 (office).

15

A Land of Milk and Honey?Not if the bees can’t find their way home, according to Magoroh Maruyama.

With respect to po l l i na t ing bees ’orientation, Gerard O’Neill has assuredme that the direction of polarization ofsunlight inside the space community willremain ground-stat ionary because themirrors will be ground-stationary, and thed i r e c t i o n o f p o l a r i z a t i o n i s l a r g e l ydetermined by the angle of the mirrors.

A problem may arise when severalmirrors are used to cover several areas, andthe bees have to traverse these several areasbetween the hive and the flowers. As youknow, the bees’ brain stores informationregarding the location of the flowers interms of (1) direction; and (2) distance. Thedirection is identified in reference to thepolarization of the sunlight.

It is not known what happens to thebees’ information system when they haveto traverse several areas, in which thedirection of light polarization is differentfrom one another.

16

But this can be experimented on theEarth. In a large hangar, you can install abee-hive. The hangar should be opaque toprevent natural daylight from coming in.Artificially polarized daylight by means ofmirrors, in such a way that di f ferentsect ions of the hangar have differentdirections of polarization, can be installed.Then live flowers are put in, in such a waythat the bees have to traverse many sectionsof the hangar to reach the flowers. We canthen observe: (1) the shape of the “beedance” in the hive to communicate thelocation of the flowers; (2) actual flightp a t h o f t h e b e e s w h o r e c e i v e d t h einformation from the dancer.

Another complication is bee’s reactionto gravitationally non-Euclidean space(Torus, in which the equipotential surfaceis non-flat and eventually goes upsidedown; or cylinder and torus, in which the“bee-line” changes the tangential angle tothe equipotent ia l surfaces dur ing one

flight). This can be experimented in a largecentrifugal chamber.

“Space Settlements: a Design Study”(NASA SP-413), recently was published byNASA’s scientific and technical office. Itdescribes in vivid terms and illustrationst h e c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n o fpermanent settlements in space where asmany as 10,000 people at some future timemay work, raise families and live out theirlives. The 185-page volume is based on astudy sponsored by the American Societyof Engineering Education and NASA, helda t t h e A m e s c e n t e r a n d S t a n f o r dU n i v e r s i t y , i n w h i c h 3 1 e n g i n e e r s ,scientists and students participated. Thebook is priced at $5.00, on sale by theSuperintendent o f D o c u m e n t s , U . S .Government Printing Office, Washing-ton, D.C. 20301 (stock number 033-000-00669-l).

L-5 News, October, 1977

Space Shuttle: Who Can Go?by Carolyn Henson

Space, once the preserve of highlytrained supermen (and one superwoman)is about to open up to ordinary people,according to Dee O’Hara, administrator ofa NASA program at Ames Research Center(Moffet Field, Calif.) which is studyinghuman response to s imulated shut t leflights.

Last spring, a group of 10 women aged35 to 45 volunteered to take a simulatedshuttle flight. They were spun at 3 g’s in a

centrifuge to simulate takeoff and thenwere required to remain absolutely flat ontheir backs for a month so as to simulatethe weightlessness of zero g. Even raisingtheir heads higher than one pillow wasverboten. They exercised, f lew f l ightsimulators and took tests in this horizontalposition. The women were responsible formaintaining their complex medicalmonitoring equipment (biobelts) as well.

To simulate the isolation of space thesubjects, while allowed phone calls, werenot al lowed visi tors . (There was alsoconcern that visitors might bring in thelatest viruses.) Test participants had roundthe clock medical supervision. However,the test facility doesn’t have a “hospital”a t m o s p h e r e ; N A S A w o r k e r s a n d t e s tparticipants wear street clothes.