L-5 NEWSC a r o l y n H e n s o n , E d i t o r

Membership Services:M a r c B o o n e

W i l l i a m W e i g l eAdministrat ive Services

Board of Directors:I s a a c A s i m o vBarry Goldwater, Sr.Rober t A . He in l e inG o r d o n R . W o o d c o c kBarbara Marx HubbardK o n r a d K . D a n n e n b e r gHon. Edward R. Finch, Jr,James E. ObergL e o n a r d D a v i dJ. Peter VajkJ a c k D . S a l m o nPhi l l i p ParkerDavid M. FradinR o m u a l d a s S v i e d r y sK e i t h H e n s o nC a r o l y n H e n s o nW i l l i a m W e i g l eM 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

7

8

9

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 ©1978 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

A PUBLICATION OF THE L-5 SOCIETY

VOL. 3 NUMBER 3 MARCH 1978

In this issue:

1

4

10

11

12

13

14

16

OMB’s Plan for NASA Will the Enterprise by mothballed? Will wesend probes to Hal ley’s Comet and the lunar poles? Carolyn

Henson repor ts .

Senate Symposium Commentary Jon Alexandr and Ken McCormickr e p o r t o n t h e S y m p o s i u m o n t h e F u t u r e o f S p a c e S c i e n c e a n d S p a c eAppl ica t ions .

“We Have Friends In Congress” by Howard Gluckman.

. . . Or Do We? Keep up to date on Proxmire.

Testimony of Dr. Gerard K. O’Neill The complete testimony givenby O’Neill at the Future Space Program Hearings.

News from NASAUnited States and Soviets Talk About SpaceSpace Social Impact StudyStudies Aimed at Microwave Solar Energy

Salyut-G/Soyuz-26 Joined by Soyuz-27 Phil1 Parker gives us detailson the Soviet space station.

Spacelab Candidates ChosenSalyut-6 Strides On More on the Soviet space station by Phil1 Parker.

The Cosmos-929 Enigma James Oberg reports on a possible Soviet“space tugboat.”

Military Test Pilot Astronauts Defended by James Oberg.

More on Military Shuttle Pilots by George S. Quin, Jr.

Inside the L-5 Society

Letters

Front Cover: A “heliogyro” solar sail approaches Halley’s Comet, due toenter the inner solar system in 1986. Its next scheduled visit is in 2062. Seerelated story page 1. (Artwork courtesy Jet Propulsion Laboratory.)

Back Cover: Schematic representation of the solar system showing the sun,the orbit of the Earth, the orbit of Halley’s Comet, and the trajectory a solarsail mission would follow in order to catch up with the comet. (Artworkcourtesy Je t Propuls ion Laboratory . )

OMB’s Plan for NASAEnterprise, Halley’s Comet Mission,LPO to Bite the Dust?

by Carolyn HensonI f t h e O f f i c e o f M a n a g e m e n t a n d

Budget (OMB) has its way, it looks likeslim pickings for NASA in fiscal year 1979.OMB guidelines allow $4.371 billion forNASA’s budget. This represents an 8%increase over last year’s budget, barelyenough to keep pace with inflation.

Budget increases are s la ted for theJupiter Orbiter Probe, solar-polar out-of-ecliptic mission, Earth radiation budgetspacecraft, halogen occultation experimentand solar mesospheric explorer. On theother hand, OMB decided to ground theEnterprise and decrease spending on Earthresources and communicat ions, spacetransportat ion advanced planning andsolar power satellites. The Halley’s Cometmission will be cancelled, and the LunarP o l a r O r b i t e r ( L P O ) f a i l e d t o w i napproval for the third year in a row.

The Lunar Polar Orbiter is considered avital step in developing extraterrestrialresources. Scientists suspect that glaciersofice, nitrogen and carbon dioxide may behidden in permanently shaded areas of theMoon’s poles. The LPO would be able todetect and locate such glaciers, which, ifthey exist, could provide space settlers withelements which are almost totally non-existent on the lunar plains. Otherwise,set t lers wil l have to import hydrogen,nitrogen and carbon from Earth at greatexpense.

Space industrialization and settlementsmay suffer a delay if LPO misses the boatagain this year. However, if the Halley’sComet Mission gets the gate, we’re goingto have to wait another 76 years after itsvisit in 1986 in order to see close up motionpictures of gossamer veils boiling off thesolar system’s most spectacular comet.

The only other comet whose arrival dateis expected before the end of the century isComet Encke. (Other comets, “unexpectedvisitors,” will almost surely show up, butwe will only have a few months warning oftheir arrival -- too short a t ime for aspacecraft to-catch up with one.) CometEncke has been in the solar system a longtime, so long, in fact, that it has become aburnt-out rock with no hint of the flamingtail which has made Halley’s Comet anobject of fear and beauty. But OMB wantsus to check out Encke instead. Sigh.

Halley’s comet: wait until 2062 for a closeup view?

Enterprise: headed for the hangar -- permanently?

1

NASA Budget PlanSpace Transportation Systems

(Thousands of Dollars)FY 1978

Space Shuttle 1,349,2OODesign, development, test and

evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,307,500)Orbiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Main engine . . . . . . . . . . . . .External tanks . . . . . . . . . . .Solid rocket boosters . . . . .Launch and landing . . . . . .

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Orbiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Main engine . . . . . . . . . . . . .Launch and landing . . . . . .Spares and equipment . . . .

Space Flight OperationsSpace transportation system

operations capabilitydevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Development, test and mission

800,500219,900

82,20097,300

107,600(41,700)

38,7003,000- -- -

267,600

59,700

operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Advanced programs . . . . . . . .Space transportation system

operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planning and program

integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Expendable Launch Vehicles

scout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Centaur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atlas-F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TOTAL SPACETRANSPORTATION

(985,300)536,500176,70080,50063,500

128,100(454,000)

397,00018,00011,00028,000

311,900

110,500

176,400 163,00010,000 5,000

17,700 33,400

4,000 - -

134,500 76,50017,000 16,00055,900 21,00055,300 38,600

6,300 - -

1,751,500 1,627,700

Space Science

Physics and AstronomyHigh energy astronomy

observatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Solar maximum mission . . . . . . .Space telescope development . .Solar polar mission

development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shuttle/Spacelab payload

development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Explorer development . . . . . . . . .Mission operations and data

analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Research and analysis . . . . . . . . .Suborbital programs . . . . . . . . . .

Lunar and Planetary ExplorationPioneer Venus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Voyager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jupiter orbiter/probe . . . . . . . . . .Mission operations and data

analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Research and analysis . . . . . . . . .

Life SciencesLife sciences flight

experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vestibular function

research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Research and analysis . . . . . . . . .

TOTAL SPACE SCIENCE

2

224,200 265,500

18,400 11,40030,600 16,20036,000 79,200

- - 13,000

28,900 38,30023,896 29,800

27,00433,40026,000

147,20018,100

- -

20,700

32,40035,90029,300

167,100- -- -

78,700

84,500 84,40023,900 24,00033,300 40,600

9,000 12,400

1,500 3,80022,800 24,400

404,700 513,200

FY 19791,439,300

Space and Terrestrial Applications

Space Applications:Earth Resources Detection

and MonitoringLandsat-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Landsat-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shuttle/spacelab payloaddevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shuttle/spacelab mission designand integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Integrated payload planning . . .Applications research and

technology development . . . . .Follow-on data analysis and

operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Earth Dynamics Monitoring and

ForecastingTectonic plate motion . . . . . . . . .Applications research and

technology development . . . . .Follow-on data analysis and

operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ocean Condition Monitoring and

ForecastingS e a s a t - A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Applications research and

technology development . . . . .Follow-on data analysis and

operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Environmental Quality Monitoring

Nimbus-G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Halogen occultation

experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shuttle/spacelab payload

development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Applications research and

technology development . . . . .Follow-on data analysis and

operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Weather Observation and

ForecastingTiros-N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shuttle/spacelab payload

development (ACPL) . . . . . . . .Global atmospheric research

program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Severe storm research

program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Global weather program

support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Follow-on data analysis and

operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Climate Research

Earth radiation budget satellitesystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applications research andtechnology development . . . . .

Materials Processing in SpaceSpace processing applications

rocket project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Applications research and

technology development . . . . .Shuttle/spacelab payload

development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Space Communications

Search and rescue mission . . . ,Shuttle/spacelab payload

development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical consultation and

support studies . . . . . . . . . . . . .Application research and

technology development . . . .

FY 1978 FY 1979234,600 274,300

(106,945) (151,500)3,200 700

48,200 97,500

3,370

2,240(4,000)

49,735

200

6,000

6,9004,000

36,400

- -

(7,200)2,200

3,100

1,900

(16,950)11,400

2,750

2,800(26,190)

13,900

(8,600)2,100

- -

3,140

8,150

1,000

(25,115)4,100

2,700

5,000

5,600

5,815

1,900(2,500)

5,400

1,100

(12,400)3,000

4,200

5,200(20,200)

2,800

6,100

2,900

7,400

1,000

(22,600)- -

- -

2,500(15,200)

3,900

4,400

5,800

6,500

5,100

1,000(12,200)

8,000

4,200(20,400)

3,600

5,000 4,400

6,300 12,400(21,200) (22,000)

5,600 8,000

1,000 1,200

3,100 3,100

7,700 5,200

L-5 News, March 1978

Follow-on data analysis andoperations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cooperative applicationssatellite-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applications Explorer MissionsHeat capacity mapping

mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stratospheric aerosol and gas

experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Magnetic field satellite . . . . . . . . .

Technology UtilizationIndustrial applications . . . . . . . . .Technology applications . . . . . . .Program control and

evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TOTAL SPACE AND

TERRESTRIAL APPLICATIONS

(Thousands of Dollars)FY 1978 IFY 1979

3,700 4,500

100 - -

(13.500) (4,200)

300

2,400 - -

10,500 3,9009,100 9,1003,715 3,7154,110 4,110

1,275 1.275

243,900 283,400

Aeronautics and Space Technology

Aeronautical Research andTechnologyResearch and technology

base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Systems studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Systems technology

programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Experimental programs . . . . . . . . . .

(Aircraft energy efficiencytechnology included insystems technology andexperimental programs) . . . . .

Space Research and TechnologyResearch and technology

base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Systems studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Systems technology

programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Experimental programs . . . . . . . .Low cost system program . . . . .

Energy Technology ApplicationsTOTAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

228,000 284,100

96,660 109,2003,000 3,000

75,090 85,64551,250 66,255

(70,200) (97,400)97,700 108,300

65,9002,000

5,60015,0009,0007,500

333,200

71,7002,000

7,90017,7009,0003,000

375,400

Space Tracking and Data Systems

Tracking and Data Acquisition 278,300 305,400Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228,600 254,200Systems implementation . . . . . . . 40,400 41,300Advanced systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,300 9,900

View of San Francisco: California’s budget surplus nearly equals NASA's proposed budget.

3

Senate Symposium Commentaryby Jon Alexandr and Ken McCormick

T h e e v e n t u a l m a s s m o v e m e n t o fhumanity into space was an idea thatseemed to be almost taken for granted byparticipants in the Senate Science, Tech-nology and Space Subcommittee’s Febru-a r y 7 ‘ S y m p o s i u m o n t h e F u t u r e o fSpace Science and Space Applications.”T h e e m p h a s i s , h o w e v e r , w a s o n t h epotential e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s t o t h eearth-bound citizen of the industrializ-ation of space.

A p a r t f r o m d i s c u s s i o n o f L u n a r ,Martian, and space colonization, speakerstended to focus on applications of spacetechnology which have been studied insome detail, already. Large, heavy com-munications satellites, for instance, wouldmake possible electronic mail transmis-sion, delivery of health care to remoteareas, electronic commuting by telecon-ferencing, wrist radios, personal emergen-cy “panic buttons” for summoning help,and cont inuous electronic t racking ofnuclear fuel shipments. A global informa-tion network could make the contents ofthe great libraries of the world availablefor e l ec t ron ic r e t r i eva l by r ece iv ingstations in homes and small libraries.

Observation satel l i tes could provideinstant d i a l -up images to i nd iv idua lfarmers and other users, provide informa-tion for earthquake prediction, monitorpollution, fisheries, and crops, and detectforest and brush fires within seconds afterthey start.

Lifesaving chemicals and super-strongmetals which cannot be produced in thestrong gravitat ional f ield of the earthcould be manufactured in space.

Satel l i te solar power stat ions werediscussed, as well as the possibility ofmicrowave transmission, via satellite, ofenergy produced in remote areas of theearth.

Dr. William M. Brown of the HudsonInstitute saw space tourism as a trillion-dollar growth industry of the twenty-firstcentury. Lower and lower transportationcosts to orbit will eventually make spacetravel as accessible to the ordinary citizenas long-distance travel is today, said Dr.Brown.

Dr. George Van Reeth, director ofadminis t rat ion of the European SpaceAgency, said that the sponsor nations ofESA had great interest in the commercialapp l i ca t ions o f space , a s we l l a s i nresource satel l i tes. ESA will seek anincrease in its $600 million budget, andwill continue to cooperate in the future“mainly, but not exclusively” with theU.S.

The large initial capital investment ofspace industr ial izat ion ventures was a

4

source of concern. For instance, the costof orbiting a satellite which would makeavailable a “Dick Tracy” wr i s t r ad iosystem to the public was seen as about abillion dollars by Ivan Bekey of Aero-space Corporat ion. However , wi th thewrist radios avai lable to consumers atabout $10 each, and a charge of 10 centsP e r m i n u t e f o r u s e o f t h e s a t e l l i t efacilities, the billion-dollar satellite shouldproduce about a billion dollars per year inrevenues, said Mr. Bekey.

NASA administrator Frosch placed thecost of an SSPS system at $500 billion,and said that while this was comparableto the capital outlay for other systems,such as coal and nuclear fission, the othersys t ems cou ld be pu rchased i n sma l lchunks, whereas the SSPS system wouldhave to come all in one package. If hecould not get agreement on relat ivelycheap information and communicationssatellites, Frosch asked, how was he evergoing to get the huge investment forSSPS? Other speakers , such as SpaceGlobal president Krafft Ehricke, stressedthat we would approach our large goals inspace by small, profitable increments.

Economist Dr. Klaus Heiss said heregarded SSPS as “a feasible option topursue” once research on large structuresin space has been carried out. He notedthat in the case of fusion research we areputting $400 million this year “into thep u r s u i t o f a t e c h n o l o g y t h a t b y a l leconomic estimates will at that beoperationally useful by the year 2025 ormaybe the year 2035. Space-based powersystems . . . certainly have a similar po-tential over such a long time horizon. Wes h o u l d p u r s u e t h e m , b u t w e a r e n o tp u t t i n g a n y s i m i l a r f u n d i n g i n t o t h epursuit of a space based power option.”

A subject of great concern to speakersand senators, alike was the problem ofthe shrinking NASA budget. Dr. Heisssuggested that if a poll were taken whichfirst explained to respondents that we arespending $126 billion for defense, and$ 1 6 0 b i l l i o n f o r t h e d e p a r t m e n t o fHealth, Education and Welfare, and thenasked how much we are spending forspace, most people would guess that weare spending tens of billions of dollars,r a t h e r t h a n t h e f o u r b i l l i o n w h i c h i sactually allocated.

It was felt that there is wide support inCongress and among the public for thespace program, but that NASA projectsalways ran into trouble with the “budget-eers” i n O M B a n d t h e c o n g r e s s i o n a lappropriations committee. The antidotefor this was seen to be congresspersonsa n d t h e p u b l i c b e c o m i n g a w a r e o f

practical economic benefits which derivefrom the space program. “Right now,space is the only major technological areawhere we are creating the leading edge oftechnology. Every industry in this coun-try benefits over a relatively short periodof time from the fact that we stay at theleading edge of technology,” said SenatorHarrison Schmitt.

Krafft Ehricke saw the center of worldpower as shif t ing away from Westerncivilization as non-Western populationse x p a n d a n d t h e t h i r d w o r l d n a t i o n sindustrialize. H e p o i n t e d t o f o r e i g nimports which are currently driving theU.S. out of some industries as indicativeo f t h e s h a p e o f t h i n g s t o c o m e . T omaintain a competi t ive economy, saidEhricke, the U.S. must maintain techno-logical pre-eminence. A “Space America,”using lunar resources and the industrialpotential of space was seen as a road tojobs and job security.

Dr. Brown pointed out that there aremany other nations in the world today,such as Japan, Brazil, or China, whichw o u l d b e c a p a b l e o f b e c o m i n g t h enumber one space power within twenty-five years, should they choose to invest inthat direction.

“ I t h ink tha t i t i s s e l f - i n t e r e s t - -hard-nosed economic interest -- that . . .today o f f e r s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a nopportunity in space,” said economistHeiss. “I do think, r ight now, we areunderinvesting in space as to what thepotential promise might be of space.Once economics takes over . . . economicself-interest will get us to the great visionthat was offered by some of the otherspeakers, today.”

Senator Donald Riegle, a rapidly-risingpoli t ician with presidential ambit ions,drew flak from Harrison Schmitt and Dr.Frosch when he announced that althoughhe had taken his son to see “Star Wars”for the sixth time, he wondered whetherwe should be spending so much moneyon space when there is so much to bedone here on earth. Dr. Frosch arguedthat we will not solve the problems whichnow face us with the same set of beliefsand capabilities which created the prob-lems to begin with. Just as has been thecase throughout history, said Frosch, wec a n e x p e c t n e w d e f i n i t i o n s a n d n e wso lu t i ons t o p rob l ems t o come f romtotally unexpected areas as we gain newknowledge and new capabilities.

The concepts which have been putforward by Gerard O’Neill were referredto several times during the symposium,although Dr. O’Neill was unfortunatelynot present to explain his own views.

L-5 News, March 1978

Professor James Arnold of the Universityof California termed the prospect of lunarmining “very exciting,” and found thes tudy which has been done so fa r“encouraging.” He said he thought it wassomething which should have “enormousinterest” for us.

Dr. Brown of the Hudson Institute, onthe other hand, said he agreed with Dr.Frosch “that we as engineers don’t wantto spend too much time in the near termworking out those problems.” He ac-knowledged that “space colonies are a verypopular item among certain select groupstoday -- ‘cults,’ if you wish,” and thatsome of the work which has been doneby “interested young students” as ahobby has been a “bonus” to NASA.“They’re building these little mass driv-ers . . . and they’re studying the variousproblems that they can forsee, andthinking about how you get solutionsand, as I understand, most of them do itfor free, and some of the work I think isreally very good work.”

Dr. Brown made i t clear that heexpected O’Neill-type colonies to bebuilt, regarding the timing as the only realquestion. After pointing out that Dr.O’Neill sees colonies as feasible “by theend of the century,” Brown said that hedisagrees with this, believing that colonies“might not be feasible except after 50years.”

Brown acknowledged O’Neill’s work inthe area of a feasible time scale, however,saying, “I’m not putting myself upagainst him, because I certainly don’tknow what I’m really talking about,except as second-hand information.”Brown did not make it clear what thebasis was fo r h i s con t rad ic t ion ofO’Neill’s time scale.

In his summary remarks, subcommitteechairman Adlai Stevenson III questionedthe wisdom of the Carter administration’sproposal to reduce the size of the spaceshuttle orbiter fleet to four orbiters.Pointing out that Congress authorized afleet of five orbiters last year, Stevensonmade it plain that he would like to seefunds for the fifth orbiter restored to thisyear’s budget. Stevenson noted that therewas some question as to whether fourorbiters would be enough to perform thetasks already envisioned for the 1980’s,and that procurement of a fifth orbiter ata later date would cost $200 million morethan the procurement of the fifth orbiteron the original schedule. He suggestedthat the proposal to cut the orbiter fleetcould prove to be “a 200 million dollarmistake.”

In his final remarks, Sen. Stevensonreturned again to a theme that he hadrepeatedly stressed throughout thesymposium; the current experimentationwith space warfare techniques, he said,could lead to an expansion of the armsrace into space. This, he felt, would be adevelopment which could interfere withall the great goals that had beendiscussed.

“We Have Friends in Congress”

by Howard Gluckman

“We have friends in Congress!” Withthose words, space consultant G. HarryStine introduced his talk on spaceindustrialization at the AIAA/World Fu-ture Society symposium: “Our Extrater-restrial Heritage -- From UFOs to SpaceColonies.” The program took place at theCalifornia Museum of Science and Indus-try on Saturday, January 28.

Mr. Stine refrained from reading hisprepared paper, and instead told thesuddenly awakened audience about therecently completed hearings on “FutureSpace Programs” in the House Committeeon Science and Technology. He told ofthe good reception that he and fellowwitnesses Gerard O’Neill, Barbara MarxHubbard, and other space industrializa-tion proponents received, and of thechastisements that met Carter administra-tion representatives Frank Press andRobert Frosch.

Stine then read the testimony that hepresented to the committee. In it hecalled for major changes and improve-ments in the way our space endeavors arehandled. He urged Congress to let NASAdo what it does best -- research anddevelopment, and space science; and tolet them contract out or rel inquishcontrol of what it does poorly -- publicrelations, and management of an opera-tional space transportation system. Histalk was received enthusiastically by thesymposium audience.

Mr. Stine’s speech was the highlight ofan otherwise ordinary symposium. Themorning program concentrated on UFOs.The topics ranged from close encounters(the Zeta Reticuli episode), to instrumentdetection of UFOs, to the Search for

Extraterrrestrial Intelligence (SETI) pro-ject. German rocket pioneer KrafftEhricke gave a speech on space industria-lization that was unfortunately cut shortby lack of time. Ehricke was followed byCharles Gould of Rockwell Internationalwho presented a long discussion of thedetails of space industrialization. He wasfollowed by Stine and Richard Johnson,Deputy Director of the NASA/AmesSpace Colonization study. Johnson, whowas put on the defensive by Stine, triedto bring everyone down to Earth bydetailing the problems that have yet to besolved, but it was to no avail. Theprogram ended with a space-scenes slideshow presented by the museum, and aspecial videotape showing of a televisionprogram produced by the World FutureSociety on the public’s reaction to space.

. . . Or Do We?Dear Mr. Carley:

I appreciate hearing from you about theCBS program 60 Minutes and my com-ments regarding space colonization.

My position is based on economics andgood sense. A plan to place 100,000 or onemillion people in space on a permanentbasis cannot be justified by any knownanalytical study incorporating cost effec-tiveness criteria. On earth we have land,water, and an environment that if not plen-tiful at least is available for use withoutartificial construction. A space station forone million inhabitants would requirefinancial resources beyond anything cur-rently imaginable without any prospect ofeconomic return.

Therefore, I have concluded that anyfunds spent on space colonization issimply a waste given the massive problemsremaining to be solved here on earth.

The Administator of NASA has in-formed me that their planning for theforeseeable future is NOT directed atpermanent settlements of people in spacesince there are no calculations of thebenefits that could be derived. He also hassaid that this space plan has no priority atNASA.

I agree with both of these positions. Ourlimited federal funding can be put to muchbetter use here on earth.

William Proxmire.U.S. Senate

5

Testimony of Dr. Gerard K. O’Neillin support of House Concurrent Resolution 451

before the committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Jan. 25th, 1978

T h a n k y o u f o r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t opresent these views. I’m here to report toyou on great progress that’s been made,on a unique opportuni ty that we nowh a v e t o b e n e f i t t h i s c o u n t r y a n d t h eworld, and finally to point to a very bigjob still to be done. At the start I want tothank the several Congressional commit-tees that have recognized the significanceo f t h i s w o r k f r o m t h e s t a r t ; a n d t h ehundreds of scientists and engineers ingovernment, the universities and industrythat have brought the paper study phaseto a most successful conclusion; and theprivate citizens’ groups, of which Mrs.Hubbard’s is an outs tanding example,that have supported this work from itsfirst public discussion.

Humani ty is now faced with urgentproblems that far transcend in scope andtimescale the duration of one Americanpresidency. How to solve growing short-ages of energy, how to reverse the presentworldwide sink toward poverty, hunger,and military confrontation over diminish-ing resources. There are two alternativeapproaches:

One is to accept the inevitabil i ty ofcatastrophe, and do nothing except tomonitor global resources, slow the paceof decline by conservation, and be readyt o a c c e p t t h e h a r s h l i m i t s o n h u m a nfreedoms that an eventual global steady-state will impose. That is the counsel ofthe “limits-to-growth” apologists. It wasexpressed well in the article “After theDeluge, t h e C o v e n a n t ” i n S a t u r d a yReview-World. That article imagines as agood solut ion a his tory of these nextdecades in which 65 million people die bystarvation, many mill ions more die innuclear wars, and ultimately nations suchas our own surrender sovereignty to aworldwide Authority with control overal l our nuclear weapons and power toequalize world food supplies by shippingAmerican food abroad with or withoutour consent . Let me emphasize that Ishare with many people a belief that areduction of population growth rates is agood thing. The fact is, though, that theonly peaceful way that reduction has evercome about is by individual free choice,in an affluent, well-educated society. Noone who calls himself human could regardas an acceptable alternative the enforceddeath of millions of children by famine.

T h e s e c o n d a p p r o a c h t o t h e g l o b a lproblems is, I believe, far more in keepingwith our American tradition. That is touse a l l t h e s c i e n c e a n d e n g i n e e r i n gknowledge we now have in a vigorous,

6

immediate a t tack on these urgent pro-blems, in a way that will leave us theindividual freedoms we have fought forduring the past two hundred years. Andin the course of that solution, to preserveand protect the fragile biosphere of ourEarth.

The fatal ism of the l imits- to-growtha l t e rna t ive i s r ea sonab le on ly i f oneignores a l l t h e r e s o u r c e s b e y o n d o u ratmosphere, resources thousands of timesgreater than we could ever obtain fromour beleaguered Earth. As expressed verybeaut iful ly in the language of HouseConcurrent Resolut ion 451, “ th is t inyEarth is not humanity’s prison, is not aclosed and dwindling resource, but is infact only part of a vast system rich inopportunities, a h i g h f r o n t i e r w h i c hirresistibly beckons and challenges theAmerican genius.”

My own background is in pure science,in the search for scientific truth such ast h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e s i z e o f t h eelectron. Yet I believe that efforts of purescience, with no practical application formany decades, must be accompanied bythe immed ia t e app l i ca t i on o f s c i encewherever possible to humanity’s urgentproblems.

I’m reporting on an apparent solutionto the limits-to-growth problem, based onfundamental facts of science that wil lnever change: First, that while we searchdesperately for new energy resources hereo n t h e E a r t h , a few thousand milesabove o u r h e a d s t h e r e s t r e a m s b yconstant ly, night and day, a f lood ofhigh-intensi ty solar energy far greaterthan we could ever need.

S e c o n d , t h a t a l r e a d y w e k n o w o fmaterials resources, for large-scale indus-tr ial act ivi t ies in space, thousands oftimes greater than we could ever obtainf r o m t h e E a r t h w i t h o u t d e s p o i l i n g i tcompletely. We spent, in today’s dollars,fifty billions on the Apollo project. As aresult we know that the lunar surface isone third metals, usable for manufacturedproducts, one fifth silicon, ideal for solarcells and electronics, and more than fortypercent oxygen, essential in life-support. Isay we should use that knowledge, notthrow it away or ignore it.

Already we know that there are specialgroups of asteroids, with orbits close tothe Earth, that are rich not only in theminerals found on the Moon but also inthe organic-chemistry building-blocksneeded for a complete industrial econo-my.

Last of three basic scientific facts, we

know that the cost in energy to transportmaterials from the lunar surface into freespace, where it can be used by a totallysolar-powered industry, is less than atwentieth as large as the energy cost totransport similar materials up from theEarth.

It makes sense to put at least a smallf r ac t i on o f ou r t o t a l na t i ona l e f fo r t ,perhaps one part in ten thousand of ourfederal budget, into exploring over thenext several years how we can use thesebasic scientific facts to break through thel imits to growth and solve the urgentworldwide problems.

In addi t ion to the eternal t ruths ofscience, there are facts of current eventst h a t m u s t b e h e e d e d i n a n y p r a c t i c a lprogram.

First, the Shuttle is the only vehiclesystem that wil l be operat ional for atleast the next decade, and that can give usa toe-hold on the High Frontier. If usedefficiently, as an airline uses its aircraft,the Shuttle could transport a little lessthan two thousand tons of equipment peryear into orbit.

Second, events are changing much toorapidly for us to forsee now just whichindustr ial products wil l be the f i rs t tobenefit from a program of manufacturingin space from nonterrestr ial materials .R igh t now the i dea o f s a t e l l i t e so l a rpower s tat ions, in synchronous orbi twhere the sun a lways shines , beamingdown low-density microwave energy forconversion to ordinary electr ici ty forEarth, looks like an ideal candidate. Theneed is great , and the demand can beestimated as a worldwide market of over200 bi l l ion dol lars by the turn of thecentury. Clearly the use of materialsalready at the top of Earth’s gravitationalmountain could reduce transport costs bya l a r g e f a c t o r , a s w e l l a s a v o i d i n genvironmental impact quest ions thatwould be raised by the al ternat ive oflaunching rockets through the a tmos-phere from Earth, with a total traffic thatwould be two thousand times larger intons per year than the shuttle traffic.

But i t may be that by the t ime theHigh F ron t i e r i s opened the s a t e l l i t ep o w e r c o n c e p t w i l l b e d e a d , e i t h e rbecause of some insoluable problem inthe engineering, or because of environ-mental impact , or because during i tsdevelopment some other energy technolo-gy will have become less expensive. Itmakes sense therefore to preserve general-ity in the assault on the High Frontier, todeve lop t he f a s t e s t , l e a s t expens ive

L-5 News, March 1978

approach to nonterrestrial resources ofenergy and materials for use in space. Bythe time we have broken through thelimits to growth, it will be clearer howfirst to exploit the breakthrough.

In the past three years there has beengreat progress in the scientific andengineering studies of the High Frontierconcept, and that progress is now welldocumented, in proceedings of confer-ences published by the American Insti-tute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, inpublications of the Edison ElectricInstitute, and in a disarmingly slimvolume with the technical articles from a1976 NASA study. These articles havegone through the entire scientific processof peer-review. Last summer a massivestudy more than four times as large asthis one was completed, and its results, in16 peer-reviewed technical articles, willshortly be published by NASA.

Our present best est imate of thequickest, most economical road to followis contained in that final study, and iscondensed in a special section of thejournal “Astronautics and Aeronautics”to be published this March. To show youhow much has been accomplished withvery little, here are a few pictures of onespecial device that may be a key toreaching the High Frontier within thelimitations of the Shuttle. The device is anew type of electric motor called amass-driver. It would be used initially as areaction engine, a tugboat to lift accumu-lated shuttle payloads of equipment togeosynchronous and lunar orbit. A firstworking model has already been built, bya group of student volunteers under thedirection of Dr. Henry Kolm. Themachine was demonstrated at severallocations, one of them the final briefingat our 1977 NASA-Ames study. The testswere entirely successful, and the modelaccelerated a one pound load from zeroto 85 miles per hour over a six-footlength.

A mass-driver reaction engine could becarried into orbit in sections, by theShuttle, to an orbital workbench of akind already studied by NASA-JohnsonSpace Center. The reaction engine couldlift over 700 tons of accumulated shuttlepayloads to lunar orbit, using powderedexternal tanks from the shuttle to providethe push. Unless we use them those tankswill otherwise be allowed to burn up inthe atmosphere over the Indian ocean, anunpardonable waste.

Less than two years’ worth of shuttlepayloads, lifted to lunar orbit by themass-driver, would give us all theequipment needed for a lunar base, andall the propellant to soft-land it on thelunar surface. A second mass-driver wouldbe part of that equipment. Located onthe lunar surface, it could bring out30,000 tons/year of lunar materials to aprecise point in space; that is, twentytimes as much tonnage as the shuttlecould lift. One year more of equipment

High-acceleration workingmodel of mass-driver.

REACTION MASS

Mass-driver: Current in drivecoils makes magnetic field thatpushes on currents in bucketcoils, giving acceleration.

Lunar mine and mass-driver.Crew habitat and machinerytunnels covered by lunarsoil for shielding.

lift would give us the capability ofchemical processing of those lunar materi-als in space.

We don’t need large-size space-coloniesas a precondition for that industrialactivity; studies show that comfortableapartments can be built within the shuttleexternal tanks, for use both in space andon the lunar surface: it appears thatwithin a time of seven years from firstliftoff, in a traffic model of 60 shuttleflights per year, we could bootstrap ourway to a productivity in space of morethan two hundred thousand tons per yearof finished products, from about threetimes that quantity of raw materials.

environment, baked their own bread, andlived comfortably. In the Salyut spacestation, food plants have already beengrown, and several of the life-supportsystems have already been operatedsuccessfully in closed-cycle form. Whatwe’re still arguing about, they’re alreadydoing.

paper. In the uncertain first months ofthe new Administration, even that smallshare has been reduced; fortunately,private donations to the Space StudiesInstitute in Princeton have allowed us topush ahead vigorously even in the absenceof funding from the executive branch.

If those products were the componentsof solar power stations, to be sold to allthose countries that need energy, theirvalue would be over twenty billion dollarsper year in hard-currency earnings. Thatshould mean a lot to our country, thathad a deficit just this past November ofover three billion dollars in balance-of-payments.

That isn’t our only competition. Japanhas averaged a 10% annual economicgrowth rate for decades, and markets itsproducts aggressively and successfully herein America. As a result, by 1990 Japan’sstandard of living is calculated to surpassour own. It may be no accident that ofthe many translations of my book, TheHigh Frontier, the first to be completedand published is the Japanese edition.

If I may give some good news, TheHigh Frontier recently won the Phi BetaKappa award as the best science book of1977. I don’t think it’s because I’manother Ernest Hemingway, but ratherthat the basic idea is a powerful one.

It is premature to talk of exactschedules and exact plans. During thesenext three years we need most of all astrong effort on working models, bench-top pilot-plants, and critical-path analysis.I recommend that Congress entrust thateffort to the guidance of the UniversitiesSpace Research Association, a group of55 universities with headquarters inHouston, Texas. In parallel, we need anunbiased, objective, independent analysisof what the High Frontier program coulddo for this country, in jobs, economicgrowth, and the preservation of theenvironment. The Office of TechnologyAssessment is well able to carry out suchan analysis.

Because of the shu t t l e and ourheadstart in space technology, the UnitedStates is now in a better position thanany other nation to seize this opportunityand profit by it, while still benefitingother nations. But no opportunity waitsforever, and the chance we now have canbe lost within a few years. The Russiansdidn’t seriously compete with Apollo, butquietly they’ve now gone far ahead of usin s tudying the main tenance of aworkforce in space for long periods oftime. They’ve completed tests lasting overa year, in which groups of three peoplegrew wheat and other grains in a closed

We need not fear that these conceptsare of no interest to the general public.Just during a few weeks there are, forexample, the excellent Associated Pressarticle announcing the House ConcurrentResolution, a New York Times magazinearticle to be published next Sunday, aNOVA educational television one hourspecial to be shown on February 2nd,three BBC Television specials, and dozens’of other articles and interviews.

We have accomplished a great deal sofar on a limited amount of funding. If thewhole NASA budget is represented by astack of books two feet high our sharecorresponds to only a single sheet of

With this intensive effort, by 1980 weshould be in a position to decide whetherto reach for the High Frontier, orwhether to remain forever limited by theresources of our planet. That reach wouldthen require an Apollo-scale program ofengineering and science, but if it is assuccessful as the Apollo project was, bythe late 1980’s the first lift of equipmentcould begin, and productive paybackcould occur by the 1990’s. We can onlyknow for sure that if we close off thatoption, there is no alternative but thebleak, authoritarian future of the steady-state society.

8 L-5 News. March 1978

News from NASA

United States and SovietsTalk About Space

NASA and the Soviet Union’s Acade-my of Sciences held discussions Nov. 14t o 1 7 i n M o s c o w c o n c e r n i n g f u r t h e rcooperat ion in space. The talks are aresult of an agreement reached by NASAand the Soviet Academy of Sciences May11, 1977, f o l l o w i n g a m e e t i n g o frepresentatives. of the two agencies inWashington.

The U.S. delegation was headed by Dr.Noel Hinners, Associate Administratorfor Space Science, NASA headquarters.The Soviet Delegat ion was led by Dr.Boris Petrov, Chairman of the Intercos-mos Council of the Soviet Academy ofSciences.

The Moscow meetings were explora-tory, aimed at selecting and appraisingjoint scientific programs for the 1980sthat might be mutual ly advantageous.Emphasis was on ‘fields of study thatcould take advantage of the differentattributes represented by spacecraft suchas the U.S. Space Shuttle and the USSRSalyut.

T h e d e l e g a t e s m e t a s t w o w o r k i n ggroups; one on science and applications,c h a i r e d b y D r . H i n n e r s , a n d o n e o noperations, chaired by Dr. Glynn Lunney,manager of the Shuttle payload integra-tion and development program office atNASA’s Johnson Space Center.

The two working groups will seek tofix upon scientific subjects for possibleexperimentation that might benefit fromthe flexible delivery capability and large

capaci ty of the Space Shut t le and thecapability for longer stay time in orbitrepresented by the Salyut.

I n a n o t h e r U . S . - U S S R c o o p e r a t i v espace program, the eighth annual meetingof the NASA-Soviet Space Biology andMedicine Working Group was held Nov.19 t o 25 a t NASA’s Wa l lops F l i gh tCenter . Before the formal meet ing, aworkshop on s imulated weight lessnesswas held Nov. 16 to 18 in Bethesda, Md.The workshop and meeting are part of ac o n t i n u i n g p r o g r a m u n d e r t h e 1 9 7 1Science and App l i ca t i ons Agreemen tbetween NASA and the Soviet Academyof Sciences.

The meet ing focused on biomedicalresults, including the preliminary resultsof the Soviet Cosmos 936 flight on whichU.S. experiments were flown; a briefingfrom the Soviets on Salyut 5/Soyuz 19m i s s i o n s ; a n d a U . S . b r i e f i n g o n aSpacelab missions demonstrat ion test .Participants discussed forecasting man’sheal th s ta te in weight lessness and ther e s e a r c h a p p r o a c h t o s t u d y i n g s p a c emotion sickness.

T h e U . S . d e l e g a t i o n a t t h e f o r m a lmeeting was headed by Dr. David Winter,NASA d i r ec to r fo r l i f e s c i ences . Dr .Rufus Hessberg, director of space medi-cine, headed the U.S. workshop partici-pants. The Soviet leader at both meetingswas Dr. Nikolai Gurovsky of the USSRMinistry of Health.

Space Social ImpactStudy

The National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, with the help of a teamof social scientists at Georgetown Univer-sity, is starting to think about the impactof future commercial activities in space.

“Maybe we ought to try to anticipatesome of the social and cultural impactsearly enough to be ready for them,” saida space agency official who is overseeing a$15,000 grant to the Georgetown gradu-ate school for the project.

For a start, said Jesco von Puttkamer,the NASA official, the agency would liket o f i n d o u t h o w m a n y s c h o l a r s a r einterested in the social implications of theuse of space.

Dr. T. Stephen Cheston, associate deanof the graduate school and head of theproject, and two col leagues, CourtneyStadd and Timothy Hart , have s tar tedcataloguing social science articles dealingwith space exploitation.

They are also considering starting aquarterly journal tentatively titled SpaceHumanization Review.

“We may have been a little bitnegligent in the last three or four years,”said Put tkamer, “talking about spacetransportat ion systems, get t ing peopleinto space and get t ing the benefi ts ofspace down to Earth without being reallytoo much aware of . . . the social needs.”

Cheston said the study was focused onthe problems and possibilities of the nextthree decades.

StudiesAimed at Microwave Solar Energy

Two studies are being conducted todetermine the negative or harmful effectsof transmitting solar energy in the formof microwaves to earth stations, whichwould convert them into electricity. Bothstudies are being handled by Battel leMemorial Institute’s Pacific NorthwestLaboratories, R i c h l a n d , W A , a t t h er e q u e s t o f t h e D e p t . o f E n e r g y a n dNASA.

The microwave transmissions wouldcome from a proposed series of satellitesin s ta t ionary orbi ts around the ear th .Solar energy, caught above the earth’sa t m o s p h e r e w o u l d b e c o n v e r t e d i n t omicrowave energy on the s a t e l l i t e s .Researchers have calculated that 20 to 25satellites could have provided all of theUnited States’ power needs in 1975.

But what problems would crop up withthese microwave transmissions? One Bat-telle study group will try to find out ifany electromagnetic or radio interferencetrouble would stem from such transmis-sions. The other group will try to uncovera n y p o t e n t i a l h a r m f u l e f f e c t s o n t h eearth’s environment. All work is expectedto be completed by September, 1978.

9

Salyut-6 / Soyuz-26 Joinedby Soyuz-27by Phi l l Parker

At 17 hrs 6 mins., Moscow time, onthe 11th of January, 1978, the pilotedSoyuz-27 spacecraft rendezvoused andd o c k e d w i t h the orbi t ing Salyut-6/Soyuz-26 spacecraf t to form a majorspace c o m p l e x i n e a r t h o r b i t . T h eSoyuz-27 crew were Vladimir Dzhanibe-kov and Oleg Makarov. They joined theirpartners in space, Grechko and Romanen-ko, the latter having been in space foro v e r a m o n t h a t t h a t s t a g e . T h e t w ovisiting cosmonauts were planning a fiveday stay at the Salyut-6 station, accord-ing to Soviet Union news sources. Theirown ferry vehicle, Soyuz-27, docked withthe hatch on the Salyut transfer compart-ment -- which had given trouble for anearlier mission, Soyuz-25, and which wassuccessfully checked out by the Soyuz-26crew during an EVA in December 1977.

After transferring from their Soyuz-27vehicle, Dzhanibekov and Makarov joinedi n w i t h G r e c h k o a n d R o m a n e n k o i ntoasting the historic link-up with cherryjuice from tubes and by holding a 15minute television session with earth. Thetwo vis i t ing cosmonauts brought mailfrom Earth, copies of ‘Pravda’, letters,books and more research equipment.

Konstant in Feokt is tov, commentingu p o n t h e l i n k - u p , s t a t e d t h a t i t w a sanother step toward creating large ‘so-phisticated engineering complexes interrestr ia l orbi t ’ and that these wouldcarry out ‘scientific and national-econom-ic tasks’ . On the docking, Feoktis tovcommented that some people had fearedthat multiple docking of spacecraft mightlead to ‘switching effects’, or, break-up ofa l r e a d y d o c k e d u n i t s . H o w e v e r , t h eSoyuz-27 docking had revealed that thisdid not occur and the resonance experi-ment, c a r r i e d o u t b y G r e c h k o , a l s oconfirmed that this did not take place.The Soyuz-27 vehicle had been launchedat 15:26 Moscow Time on the 10th ofJanuary, 1978.

Prior to the docking of Soyuz-27 withSalyut-6, the Soyuz-26 crew of Grechkoa n d R o m a n e n k o h a d s p e n t o v e r amonth in orbit. They had celebrated NewYear with a fir tree and prepared a specialNew Year meal, as well as holding a pressconference with the flight control centre.O n e o f t h e f l i g h t d i r e c t o r s , A l e x e iYeliseyev noted that the operation of the‘delta’ automatic navigation system ofSalyut-6 was one of the most importantengineering achievements of the flight.

During the first week of the New Year,the external radiat ion sensors had not

10

recorded any evidence of solar flares andreported that the space weather was quietfor the station. Soviet biologists were alsoconducting a space experiment , cal led“Medusa”, to do with the origin of life inthe universe. The purpose of the experi-ment is to determine the changes causedby the spectrum of space radiations inelementary living cultures. Samples aremounted on the exter ior of the spacestat ion while control samples are keptinside the station. Analysis of the sampleswill be carried out back on earth.Meanwhile , during the f i rs t month inorbit, life for the two cosmonauts hadsettled into a routine of observations andexperiments, after the initial excitementof Grechko’s spacewalk on the 20th ofDecember, 1977.

The f irs t Soviet space walk (EVA)from a Salyut space station took place onthe 20th of December, 1977 when GeorgiGrechko opened the hatch to begin hisspace walk to investigate the docking portof Salyut-6. Firstly, the crew entered thetransfer compartment and put on a newtype of semi-rigid, ful l-pressure suit ,c h e c k e d t h e a u t o n o m o u s l i f e - s u p p o r tregeneration equipment and then closedt h e h a t c h b e t w e e n t h e t r a n s f e r a n dworking c o m p a r t m e n t s . T h e t r a n s f e rcompartment was then fully depressur-ized. The crew worked in both illumin-ated and shadowed portions of the orbit.

Grechko had a color television camerawith him and sent back to earth close-upviews of the docking elements and partsof the Salyut s ta t ion. Grechko, usingspecial assembly, control and adjustingtools , checked around the area of thetransfer compartment and the dockingunit, assessing the condi t ions of thejoints, guiding pins, fasteners and sealingsurfaces for damage. However, the crewwas able to report that the docking unitwas in working order. During the walkthe two cosmonauts a lso checked newmethods and concepts for making spacewalks. The space walk lasted 1 hour and28 minutes.

In a press release Professor KonstantinFeoktistov (pilot cosmonaut aboard Vos-khod-1 in October 1964) described someof the new features of Salyut-6. He notedthat the addi t ion of a second dockingport had meant some design changes. Thiswas mainly m o d i f y i n g t h e s t a t i o n ’ spropulsion plant to make room for thissecond docking port. The two dockingports are ident ical in design and theautomatic l ink-up is the same in bothcases . The only difference is that theSalyut turns to the approaching space-craf t , depending upon which dockingport is being used. Other innovations arethat the thermo-regulating and attitudecontrol systems are now in their f inalform, unl ike previous missions where

L-5 News, March 1978

they were e x p e r i m e n t a l . T h e s p a c estat ion also has a water regenerat ionsystem and an effect ive portable l inet e l e t y p e . T h e r e a r e m o r e t e l e v i s i o ncameras, t oo . In s ide , t h e r e a r e t w oblack-and-white and one color , whilethree cameras are mounted outside. Thecameras are the same as those used in thejoint US/USSR Apollo/Soyuz mission.A l so , more c r ew comfo r t s have beenadded, including a small folding poly-thene cabin shower unit. The instrumen-tation has also undergone great changesm a k i n g i t p o s s i b l e t o c o n d u c t m o r eextensive and more advanced astrophysi-ca l and b io log ica l s tud ie s a s we l l a sinvestigations of natural resources andtests on new technologies . The spacestat ion is also carrying equipment formonitoring the meteorite situation in thevicinity of Salyut-6, recording strikes byparticles weight fractions of a milligram.The orbit of Salyut-6 is apogee: 365 km,perigee: 335 km, period of revolution:91.4 minutes and inclination: 51.6°.

Space labCandidates Chosen

On the 22nd of December 1977 theEuropean Space Agency (ESA) announc-ed its candidates for the first Spacelabmission, now scheduled for December1980. The four candiates are:

1 ) F r anco Ma le rba ( age 31 ) - - anItalian engineer working in the computerfield;

2) Ulf Merbold (age 36) -- a Germanresearch worker at Max-Planck Institutefor Metallforschung;

3) Claude Nicollier (age 33) -- Swissresearcher and pi lot working at ESA’sESTEC;

4) Wubbo Ockels (age 31) - - Dutchphysicist at Gronigen University.

The four candidates chosen had tomeet the Level II criteria used by NASAto select permanent mission specialists.Eight other potent ial candidates werer e j e c t e d o n m e d i c a l g r o u n d s , t h o u g hESA’s Director General, Roy Gibson, saidthat the selection procedure should notbe a l l owed to obscu re t he ve ry h ighquality of European candidates.

On the first Spacelab mission about 70experiments wil l be carr ied out in thefields of stratospheric and upper atmos-pheric physics, materials processing, spaceplasma physics, biology, medicine, astro-nomy, solar physics, earth observations,thermodynamics and lubrication.

SALYUT-6 STRIDES ONby Phill Parker

T h e l a u n c h o f t h e u n p i l o t e d f e r r yvehicle “Progress 1” by the Soviet Unionon the 20th of January, 1978, to auto-matically rendezvous and dock with theSalyut-6 space station was another stepforward towards the creation of a per-manent inhabited platform in space.

It appears that “Progress 1,” which waslaunched by a s tandard Soyuz launchvehicle, was a highly modified Soyuzspacecraft containing food supplies andother technical equipment . I t appears ,therefore, that the two cosmonauts aboardSalyut-6 are settling in for a long durationflight that may exceed the record 84 days inspace set by America’s Skylab-4 flightastronauts.

According to Soviet sources, the Salyut-6space station with two Soyuz-type space-craft docked is over 30 meters long, weighs32 tons and has a habitable volume of 100cu. meters. It is interesting to note that thismatches the s izing developed in paperstudies for NASA of the so-called MannedOrbital Facility (MOF) by several aerospacecompanies in America. The MOF, whichwould have taken its first flight in 1985(seven years after this Soviet success!)would have featured several modular styleunits. There would have been four unitstermed the Habitable Module (HM), theService Module (SM), the Logistics Module

(LOGM) and the Payload Module (PM).Each unit would have fitted in the cargobay of the Shuttle Orbiter. The overalldocked length of the LOGM/SM/HM/PMwould have been 30.7 meters and had ahabitable volume of about 115 cu. metersi n t h e c o m b i n e d S M / H M . T h e s p a c ecomplex would have supported up to fourcrew members rotated at 90 day intervals.The cost for the combined SM/HM alonewould have been $157 million for R&D andsome $197 million for production costs.The LOGM (ferry vehicle) would havebeen $38 mil l ion for R&D and $29.3million for production costs. I think thec o m p a r i s o n o f t h e M O F a g a i n s t t h eachieved Salyut-6/Soyuz-26/Soyuz-27/Pro-gress-1 mission gives an indication of themagnitude of the achievement in capa-bility of the USSR. Admittedly, the Salyut-6 and ferry vehicles (bar descent modules)seem irrecoverable (unlike the Shuttle/MOF scheme) but, of course, if the SovietUnion develops a space shuttle -- well,anything could happen!

During the joint USA/USSR Apollo-Soyuz flight in 1975, the Soviet Unionreleased some details about their Soyuzspacecraft and launch vehicle. Althoughthe present Soyuz spacecraf t and theProgress-l vehicles may differ in special-ized areas it was interesting to note that theautomatic docking mode for a Soyuz was

quoted as from an approach rate of 0.05 to0.3 metres/second with longitudinal axesdisplacement up to 0.3 meters. A misalign-ment of 7° was allowed for pitch, roll andyaw and angular velocities of l°/second(active role of docking craft) and 0.l°/second for a passive craft. I would suggestthat similar values have been engaged forthe Progress-l spacecraft. Precise trackingof the Salyut-6 spacecraft and guidancetrajectory updates to Progress-l wouldhave required accurate tracking by groundstations and, no doubt, tracking stations atmajor Soviet stations (like Djusali, Evpa-toria, Ulhan-Ude, Kolpashevo and Tbsi-lisi, as well as ocean going tracking ships)would have been used. The use of themajor Soviet control centre at Yevpatoriaindicates a major stride forward in thecomputing capabil i ty of the USSR forspace missions. (Not many years ago, theyu s e d o r r e r i e s a n d c h a r t s a n d m a p s ,longhand style!)

It appears, therefore, that Salyut-6 is areal, major step forward for astronauticsa n d b r i n g s t h e d r e a m o f p e r m a n e n thabitats in space that much closer. Thetechniques of automatic ferry, rendezvousand docking, accurate tracking of multipleobjects, and hosts of other items that willbe needed for space manufacturing facil-ities will be much nearer due to Salyut-6.

11

The Cosmos-929 Enigma

by James E. ObergCopyright 1978 All Rights Reserved

Looking for puzzles in the mysteriousSoviet space program? Well, you’ve cometo the right place.

How about the spectacular Salyut-6mission? Outside of the series of firsts inspace - - d o u b l e d o c k i n g s , d u r a t i o nrecords, new spacesuits, orbital refuelling,water recycling, etc. -- the Salyut-6 is arespectable but not really very bafflingevent.

How about the Cosmos-954 debacle?True, the top secret nuclear-poweredocean spy satellite did fall out of orbitfol lowing a malfunct ion the Russianshoped the world wouldn’ t not ice , buth e r e , t o o , m u c h o f t h e m y s t e r y h a sevaporated. A Soviet propaganda cam-paign has attempted to distract attentionfrom the satel l i te’s top secret mission(spotting US missile submarines in prepar-ation for a Soviet nuclear surprise attack,many experts postulate) and from thecri t ical point that the Soviets t r ied tokeep the nuclear nature of the vehiclesecret, and from all similar ‘anti-Soviethysteria’ (Pravda’s term, not mine). But itturns out to have been a good exercise inspace law and space object recovery/anal-ysis.

Nor was the Cosmos-955 radar eaves-drop satellite much of a puzzle either.Launched from the supersecret Pletsetskspace c e n t e r n o r t h o f M o s c o w , l a s tSeptember the midnight high lob trajec-tory resulted in a f lurry of “jel lyfishUFO” news reports from western Russiabefore Moscow realized that a securityleak of giant proportions had occurred,clamped down, issued a bald cover story(‘reentering satellite’), and hustled theunfortunate cub reporter from Petroza-vodsk somewhere way way east (andn o r t h ) o f S u e z ( w o u l d y o u b e l i e v eYakutsk?).

No, the mystery in space last year ande a r l y t h i s y e a r w a s C o s m o s - 9 2 9 . O nF e b r u a r y 2 i t d i v e d b a c k i n t o t h eatmosphere after a baffling two hundredday excursion that left Western observersscratching their heads, consulting theircomputers, and speculating wildly.

What was Cosmos-929? What was itdoing? And, most significantly, what wasit a precursor practice mission for???

Cosmos-929 was launched last July 17from the Tyuratam-Baikonur space centerin Kazakhstan. A standard Soviet coverstory was issued, claiming it was anotherscientific satellite aimed at the peacefulexploration of outer space for science andt h e n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y , a c a n n e d a n -

nouncement usually reserved for militaryspy satellites, failed interplanetaryprobes, or advanced systems tests. Withinhours , Western observers knew i t wassomething special . Radio signals weresimilar to Soyuz and Salyut piloted (orunpiloted test) vehicles; the orbit had aninclination and altitude consistent withpiloted space hardware; and within a fewdays, visual observations suggested thatthe object was of a large size, Salyut classor larger, twenty tons.

“We ran out of guesses,” complainedone veteran amateur space watcher later.“First we thought it was a new modelSoyuz test. Then it could have been asec re t au toma t i c Sa lyu t , o r a b rokenSalyut, or a component of a multi-modu-lar Salyut. Desperately, we toyed with astuck interplanetary or lunar probe, andeven considered some new weaponsystem. But in the end we were driven too n e c o n c l u s i o n : i t w a s ‘ n o n e o f t h eabove”‘.

Cosmos-929 provided a series of subtlec l u e s . A m o n t h a f t e r l a u n c h i n g , o n emajor t e l eme t ry s t r eam ceased pe r -manently and the other changed subtly,still indicating a twinned or dual natureof its radio system. Major orbital changesbegan, raising the altitude once at T+30days and then again in December, fivem o n t h s i n t o t h e m i s s i o n . T h e n o nFebruary 1 the Cosmos, s t i l l hoot ingaway o n i t s c o n s t a n t r a d i o c h a n n e l ,actually lowered its orbit from a circularo n e 4 5 0 k m u p t o a n e l l i p t i c a l p a t hdropping to within 320 km of the earth(that was the altitude of Salyut-6, but thetwo vehicles did not seem to be relatedsince they were 75 degrees out of plane).The following day, Cosmos-929 commit-ted space suicide by firing its propulsionsystem yet again and plunging to its fierydestruction above the Pacific.

Over the two hundred days ofoperat ion, i t had used more than nineh u n d r e d f e e t p e r s e c o n d o f v e l o c i t ychange. “It’s a flying gas tank!” marveleda space radio listener in Fort Worth.

Other hints were found in the Sovietpress. Two years before, a top Sovietspace designer had discussed Soviet plansfor the assembly of space stations fromSalyut-sized components launched separ-ately (the maximum Soviet space payloadweighs little over forty thousand pounds).Rather than launch each section with itsown rocket, power, and rendezvous/dock-ing control system, the scientist describedhow a ‘space tugboat’ or KOSMO-BUK-SIR would be used. It would stay in orbitfor months, seeking out each component

as launched, and docking with it. Then itwould push the component over to theassembly orbit and would gently dock it’to the structure, before pulling away toawait the next launch.

Could the Cosmos-929 be a space testof this KOSMO-BUKSIR, ‘space tug-boat’? Considering-its lifetime and velo-city change capabilities (and the recentrefuelling operation of Progress-l, whichcould work just as well for a ‘space tug’),it seems the last choice open . . . and anot unl ikely one. Perhaps, too, i t wasconnected with an equal ly myster iousSoviet space shot in December 1976.Accord ing to Moscow, two sa t e l l i t e scalled Cosmos-881 and Cosmos-882 werel a u n c h e d b y t h e s a m e r o c k e t a n dcompleted their missions before the endo f t h e f i r s t o r b i t . O b s e r v e r s w e r emystified.

The prest igious “TRW SPACELOG”annua l s a t e l l i t e r ev i ew r epo r t ed t ha tC o s m o s - 8 8 1 / 8 8 2 w a s l a u n c h e d b y a‘Proton’ rocket , Russia’s biggest , andpresumably the same type which sevenmonths later launched Cosmos-929. Thedual nature of Cosmos-929 radio signals,which was i l lustrated by i ts switchingfrom one te lemetry system to anotheralmost identical one every thirty minutes,m i g h t b e c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e a c t u a ldouble satellite hardware of the earlierlaunch. But many questions remain.

If indeed these two shots involved thes p a c e t r y o u t s o f n e w S o v i e t h u m a n -related hardware, it will be the first newclass of vehicle in more than seven years.Past pract ice has been to f l ight test avehicle from 18 to 36 months prior to itsactual piloted utilization, which wouldput the operational assembly of a two orthree module ‘super-Salyut’ eight-personspace habi ta t in the 1979 t ime frame,contemporarily with the Space Shuttle.

So the myster ies of Russia’s spaceprogram remain, and even grow deeper.One fact is not obscure, however. Thespace hardware now on hand, and invarious stages of flight testing (whateverCosmos-881/882 and Cosmos-929 reallyare), demonstrate the Soviet Union’s highlevel commitment to permanent habita-tion of near-Earth space in the immediatefuture . Schedul ing themselves aroundtheir occasional endurable setbacks, theSoviets are moving ahead with all thehardware needed for space stations.

There will be Russians in space notjust today and tomorrow, but from nowon. Forever . The commitment and thehardware are there.

12 L-5 News, March 1978

Military Pilot AstronautsD e f e n d e d

by Jim Oberg mentioned by Snelson: the jet experience

I’d like to make some comments about s h o u l d b e i n h i g h - p e r f o r m a n c e j e t s ,

t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b y R o b i n S n e l s o n fighter aircraft. Why? Because the Space

regarding selection of NASA pilot astro- Shuttle is a ‘hot’ vehicle that flies like a

nauts. T h e f i f t e e n m e n p i c k e d l a s t clipped wing F-104, not like a 727. Let

January seemed to confi rm her worst me point out that no military transport

fears: all but one military pilots, and the pilots were selected -- that is an

one excep t i on an ex -Navy p i l o t who important point not realized by Snelson.

works for NASA. What about commercial It is a key point, too.

a i r l i ne p i lo t s? Wha t abou t peop le in (The Soviets have chosen t ransportnon-military programs, such as Angela pilots among their cosmonauts, but theM a s s o n ( 3 5 0 0 h o u r s f l y i n g , P h D - - Soyuz does not fly like an airplane of anyapparently in some branch of sociology sort -- and I hate to have to say it, butor political science, I should add). the two transport pi lots who did f ly,

I w a n t t o a r g u e t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o n Sarafanov and Zudov, just happened tocriteria are valid. It’s hard to tell people be on missions where the rendezvous/that they are not what is needed, when docking maneuvers were unsuccessful. Ithey have wanted to be astronauts for all hasten to add that it happened to othertheir adul t l ives . That’s tough. They pilots too, and there is no indication ofguessed wrong ten years ago. The key is pilot error!)not ‘mil i tary’ duty, s ince commercial The argument that the Space Shuttlepilots probably have the same discipline pilot does not have to know how to flyand commitment. The ‘test pilot’ require- such ‘hot’ aircraft because the spaceshipment is justified, as well as another NOT can land automatically is a specious one:

More on Military Shuttle Pilots

our whole space experience has showntha t p i l o t i ng capab i l i t y and t r a in ingmakes all the difference between success-ful missions and failures, even tragedies.Hence the entirely reasonable desire toh a v e m e n w h o h a v e f l o w n s i m i l a r l ybehaving vehicles for many years. Andhow about test pilot work? This, too, isquite relevant. Few people realize justhow closely astronauts work with designand planning groups in the reputation ofthe mission and of the hardware itself.The Space Shuttle is not routine and willnot be for several years . People withexperience testing and flying new aircraft,especially those in which there is a veryreal possibi l i ty that design errors andpre-flight oversights will mean death, arethe kind needed. I do NOT believe thatcommercial pilots, however safe I feelputting my life in their hands on travel,have these qualifications. Again, sorryabout that, you guys and girls. Seriously,maybe next time.

by George S. Quin, Jr.A f t e r r e a d i n g t h e a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d

“Astronaut Corps -- Or Space Soldiers?”i n t h e J a n u a r y i s s u e o f L - 5 N e w s , Irealized that several of the points raisedneed definite clarification.

Mr. Good is obviously unaware thatthe Space Shuttle Program is an interna-tional effort. Spacelab, being constructedunder the auspices the European SpaceAgency (ESA), by several Western Euro-pean corporations is an integral part. ofthe Space Shuttle Program. By agreementwith NASA, ESA personnel will also beincluded as mission specialists and astro-naut scientists in several projected mis-sions. Nor has the number of active dutymilitary astronauts affected NASA’s ex-cellent relations with the Soviet, Canadi-an, Japanese, or other nat ional spaceagencies.

As fo r pub l i c r eac t ion to mi l i t a ryastronauts -- when has a significant publicsector protested their backgrounds? In-stead, one can’t help noticing the numberof “ticker tape parade” type ceremonieshonoring them and the spectator packedluncheon/dinners enthusiastically applaud-ing these men at the conclusion of theirpopular talks. In short, our society hasidolized these men as “all-American” --what few boys didn’t say at one time ora n o t h e r t h a t h e w a s g o i n g t o b e a nastronaut when he grew up? The publicclearly accepts their military backgroundsas necessary and I’ll show you why forpilots it is.

First, let’s look at the background toMr. Good’s s tat is t ics . NASA is underfederal mandate to be an equal opportun-i ty employer and has made extensiveefforts to recruit minorities and women.But the fact remains that few are initiallyqualified and even fewer can meet thenecessary technical requirements even asa mission specialist. What is not men-t i oned i s t ha t o f t he twen ty mi s s ionspecialist candidates recently selected --six are women, three are black, and one isJapanese-American. I strongly doubt thate v e n t h e U . S . S u p r e m e C o u r t w o u l dconsider itself competent to determinepersonnel ratios in the astronaut corpsbecause of the technically explicit natureof the occupation.

NASA needs military test pilots. Theterms “routine” and “space truck”, thatMr. Good is mistakenly building his legalcase on, are only PR imagery words. TheSpace Shuttle is a very complex spacevehicle (not a diesel r ig!) designed tooperate in an extremely hostile environ-ment (far from rescue) where mistakesare lethal. As for automatic systems andground control, no machine can be 100%reliable. The Apollo 13 explosion and theSkylab repairs are typical of the impor-tance of man’s role in space. The SpaceShuttle represents a multi-billion dollarinvestment -- the taxpayers and the flightcrew deserve the best pilots available toprotect human lives and tax dollars.

The military test pilot represents the

cream of his pi lot peers. His posi t ioncomes only through self dedication, skillexcellence, and their recognition by hissuperiors.

Since the Department of Defense isscheduled to be one of NASA’s primarycustomers, its requirements for the SpaceShuttle Program had to be met. Besidesspecifying that the payload bay be largeenough to accommodate a “Salyut-sizeobject”, it also has stringent personnelsecuri ty requirements that only act ived u t y m i l i t a r y a s t r o n a u t s c a n m e e t .Especially when the Shuttle crew will behandling the deployment of a high energylaser ABM system, military communica-tion/reconnaisance satellite networks, and“defensive” hunter-kil ler satel l i tes . Intheory, military involvement in space willreach a critical point by the late 1980’sand NASA may be right in the middle ofit because of economics.

In 1981, the first women will graduatefrom our service academies with trainingand at an expense equal to their malec l a s s m a t e s . B e c a u s e o f t h i s , s e v e r a lCongressmen are already working onlegislat ion to al low women to assumecombat roles , notably that of f ighterpilots . Eventually this may lead to an“optioning” of the mi l i t a ry t e s t p i lo trequirement or i ts removal al together .But only time and public interest groupsshall determine the future of the Ameri-can space program and astronaut corps.

13

Inside the L-5 Society

Annual Elections

on Horizon

The L-5 annual election for the Boardof Directors is coming up in June. If youwould like to nominate someone for theBoard, send your choice to: NominatingCommittee, L-5 Society, 1620 N. Park,Tucson, AZ 85719. Please send a resumea n d / o r a b r i e f w r i t e u p o n w h y y o u rcandidate should receive approval by thenominat ing commit tee . Be sure to getyour candidate’s permission to be placedin the election -- most folks look askanceon being run for off ice without theiracquiescence!

Who are the nominating committee?A t l e a s t t h r e e m u s t n o t b e c u r r e n tmembers of the Board. If you would liketo serve on that committee, write in tothe Board a t the Tucson L-5 addressimmediately, if not sooner. The Boardselects the nominating committee mem-bers.

What if your candidate is turned downby that committee? In the past, reasonsfor disapproval have focused on lack ofqualification and excessive controversia-l i ty . Their posi t ion has been that theburden lies upon the candidate to showthat he or she will benefit the Society as aDirector. However, if rejected candidatesinsist or running, it has been past policyto offer the membership list to them sothey can make their own appeal.

What does the Board do? All authorityis held by it. Note in the bylaws that theL-5 President has no duties or powersexcept as ass igned by the Board. TheBoard elects the President (current lyCarolyn Henson), Secretary (Carol Motts)and Treasurer (Bill Weigle); authorizesexpenditures, sets policy guidelines, de-termines who can be official spokespeo-ple for the Society, and conducts theelections.

What powers do the members have?First, all Board members must receive amajority of the votes cast in the election.Second, a n y b y l a w c h a n g e r e q u i r e sapproval by 2/3 of the members voting.

T h e B o a r d i s w o r k i n g o n s o m eproposed bylaw changes. If you wouldlike a copy of the bylaws write in and wewill send you one! In the June issue wewil l publish the complete bylaws andp r o p o s e d c h a n g e s . D o y o u w a n t t opropose changes?

Please note: a t the request of someTucson L-5 members a meeting was heldlast October to consider bylaw changes.However, no one showed at the meeting!Apathy’ may run rampant at times, butbylaws are important.

14

L-5 WE Conference on Space Settlements & Space

Industries -- A Note About the Proceedings

T h e L - 5 S o c i e t y ( W e s t E u r o p e a nBranch) had hoped to publish the fullProceedings of the Conference on SpaceSettlements and Space Industries that washeld on the 20th of September, 1977 atQueen Mary College, London. However,the financial cost of typing, duplicating

In view of this, the plans for publishing

and distributing the full Proceedings of

the full text have been abandoned at thistime. However, a new plan is in operation

this Conference, unfortunately, outstrips

t o p u b l i s h a n A b s t r a c t s R e p o r t t h a tf e a t u r e s h i g h l i g h t s f r o m e a c h p a p e r

the available funds in the Branch account.

(together with some commentary to placereaders in the ‘picture’ about each paper)

Various quotes for typing the estimated

and containing the text of the KeynoteAddress (by Mr. John Disher, NASA) andsome de t a i l ed r e f e r ence sou rce s fo r

100 pages plus of text would have been

fu r the r da t a . Th i s l a t t e r s ec t i on w i l l

from about £300 up to nearly £1,500!!

feature names/addresses of the authors ofthe papers (for those people who would

like to acquire the full science/technicalt ex t s f o r r e s ea r ch u t i l i z a t i on ) and areference to the L-5 Reports Service. It ishoped that a copy of each paper, in full,will be placed with the L-5 Society HQwhere copies could be obtained for areproduction cost. It is hoped that this

The Branch Director, Phillip Parker, isu n d e r t a k i n g t h e j o b o f t y p i n g a n d

new plan will satisfy the requirements of

reproducing the Abstracts Report and hestates that this is wel l advanced and

t h o s e p e o p l e w h o e a g e r l y a w a i t t h e

s h o u l d b e r e a d y f o r p u b l i s h i n g i nFebruary 1978 with dis t r ibut ion that

proceedings of the first L-5 Society (WE

same month. All inquiries on this mattershould be addressed to him at his home

Branch) Conference and trust that they

address: Phillip J. Parker, AFBIS, Direc-tor, L-5 Society (WE), 40, Lamb Street,

will understand the economic constraints

Kidsgrove, Stoke-on-Trent , ST7 4AL,England, UK.

placed upon the branch.

Branch Director onItalian TV

Quebec L-5 News

The West European L-5 Society BranchDirector, Phillip J. Parker, did a majortelevision filmed interview for nationalItalian television (RAI -- RadiotelevisioneItaliana) on the 10th of January, 1978.The filmed interview, produced in Lon-don by RAI’s UK Correspondent, SandroPaternostra , with a f i lm crew lead byJohn Metcalfe, was relayed to RAI’sRome offices via the Eurovision network.The filmed interview, featuring detailsabout the L-5 Society and space colonies,was to form a major par t of a l -hourtelevision documentary on spacefl ightbe ing b roadcas t by RAI , i n I t a ly , onSaturday, 14th January 1978 under theseries titled “All About Yourself”. RAI'spotential viewing audience was reportedto be about 50 million, since the programwas at the peak viewing time of 5:30 p.m.

The interview with Phill Parker cen-tered around describing the wheel-shapedspace colony (good use being made ofPhill’s space colony model!) and describ-ing the space shuttle (again using to goode f f ec t a s ca l e -mode l o f t he shu t t l e ) .Close-up shots were taken of the modelsand these were spl iced together withclose-up v i e w s o f p a i n t i n g s o f t h eNASA-produced s tud i e s o f t he spacecolony showing i n t e r i o r v i ews o f aco lony , to g ive a ve ry good ove ra l lconcept of life in space c.2000.

Andre Fontaine recently gave a 30minute television interview on spacecolonies for CJPM-TV in the Chicoutimia r e a ( a b o u t 1 3 0 m i l e s n o r t h e a s t o fQuebec City). A second program on thesubject will be aired shortly.

For more information, please contactJ . A n d r e F o n t a i n e G , 1 1 8 5 , A v e n u eBrown, #3, Quebec, QC, GIS 3Al.

Huntsville, TexasChapter Formed

A branch of the L-5 Society has beenfo rmed i n Hun t sv i l l e , Texas a t SamHous ton S t a t e Un ive r s i t y . They ca l lthemselves PIIOS (pronounced pi-ose) thePut It In Orbit Society. The president isGeorge Bigham.

PIIOS has already formed liasons withthe Austin, Texas and San Marcos, TexasChapters. Current PIIOS projects includea presentat ion at the Quali ty of Lifeconference, where they will field speakerso n S P S a n d L - 5 c o l o n i e s , a n E a r t hr e s o u r c e s e x h i b i t l o a n e d t o t h e m b yNASA, as well as well as showing videotapes, films and slides.

For more information. please contactTim Bigham, Rt. 2 Box’ 82, Huntsville,TX 77340.

L-5 News, March 1978

Ann Arbor Action

The Ann Arbor L-5 group has initiateda monthly newsletter, The Missal. It isavailable for $3.00/year from L-5 Socie-ty, Box 126 Michigan Union, Ann Arbor,MI 48109. The first issue carries articleson “Objec t Kowa l” ( a pos s ib l e newp l a n e t ) a n d h a z a r d s o f e x p o s u r e t ovacuum (disarmingly titled “OuterSpaced”) as well as news on space actionin Congres s and loca l Mich igan L -Sactivities. The Missal is enter taining,informative, and carries items you won’tcatch if you restrict your reading to theL-5 News.

Maryland NewsT h e M a r y l a n d A l l i a n c e f o r S p a c e

Colonization has initiated a bisemesterpublicat ion, Out look . I t carr ies news,articles, bibliography and local events.Membership in MASC is $2 for students,$5 for regular members . Please sendmembership dues to: MASC, c/o GaryBarnhard, 4323 East-West Highway, Beth-esda, MD 20014.

Williamsburg News

The followine activities are scheduledfor the L-S Williamsburg, VA group:

April 3 -- “ T h e T r a n s i t i o n f r o mScience Fiction to Reality,” with guestspeaker Frank Kelly Freas of VirginiaBeach, t h e d e a n o f s c i e n c e f i c t i o nillustrators, with a companion display ofthe artist’s work, in Small 109 at 7:30.

April 21 -- “Social Factors in SpaceHumanization,” an address by StephenCheston, associate dean of the graduateschoo l a t George town Un ive r s i t y , i nSmall 109 at 7:30.

IMPACT!O n s i x c o n s e c u t i v e S a t u r d a y a f t e r -

noons -- March 18 and 25, April 1, 8, 15and 22 -- the L-5 Society will sponsordiscussions focusing on the prospectiveimpact of space settlement in six generalareas: Technology, Government and In-ternat ional Relat ions, Social Science,Commerce, Education. and Philosophy. Inspecial cooperation with the Departmentsof Physics, Government, Sociology andPhilosophy, and the Schools of Businessand Education. Details to be announced.Contact L-5 Society, Box 1795, Williams-burg, VA 23185 for more details.

Previous Williamsburg L-5 activitieshave included talks on space colonies byBill Bryant and Brian O’Leary, “Theatreo f t h e F u t u r e : A P r e v i e w o f C o m i n gAttraction,” premiere of a mult imediapresentation of the evolutionary perspec-t ive featur ing Barbara Marx Hubbard,c o - f o u n d e r o f t h e C o m m i t t e e f o r t h eFuture, and a lecture on the space shuttleby Lester B. Taylor.

News from Philadelphia

I am planning a unique promotionalscheme to publicize our public lectures. Itwill involve as many L5ers around thePh i l a . Pa . a r ea a s pos s ib l e . We canlaunch an ad campaign as large as the bigcorporations are capable of. By operatingon a strictly voluntary basis, those whofeel that they want to help can do so atminimal cost to themselves. By acting as agroup we can dissipate the costs of thisfar reaching ad campaign.

We here in Phila. are planning a lecture,s l i d e s h o w a n d a m o v i e “ T h e L i b r aColony” for:

Marple Township Pub. Library, Spring-f i e ld and Sp rou l Rds . , B rooma l l , Pa .19008, April 1, 1978 at 2 p.m.

P h i l a . P a . C e n t r a l L i b r a r y o n t h eParkway, Wed. May 3, 1978 at 7 p.m.

Frankford Y.W.C.A. 4606 Leiper St.Phila. Pa. 19124 Sat. June 3, 1978 at 1p.m.

Please choose as many or all of these toadvertise as you wish.

What we want L5 members to do is tostart their own ad campaign for us on alocal basis. Rack your brains and think ofas many groups of people that you canreach. Ads in college newspapers, highschool newspapers, trade journals, localor specialized magazines, communitynewspapers, town and city newspapers,posters on billboards in churches, librar-ies, schools, offices, Y .W.C.A.‘s,Y.M.C.A.'s and public places. By each ofu s a d v e r t i s i n g a c c o r d i n g t o o u r o w nexpertise and spending as much as each ofus can afford, we can reach a maximumnumber of people and we can hope for agood turnout.

An ad in most newspapers costs lessthan three dollars. A hand made postercos t s l e s s t han fo r t y cen t s . Word o fmouth costs nothing. Come and bring allyour friends, lets make these shows anL5-IN. Our sheer numbers will impressthose outsiders who attend. This will beyour first chance to see the new LibraC o l o n y m o v i e a t a p u b l i c s h o w i n g .Admission is free. -- Richard Bowers,president; Space Futures Society, 3059Cedar St., Philadelphia, PA 19134, phone739-7780.

Fellow L-5’ers. I just got through withreading the recently-published Space-Based Manufacturing From NonterrestrialM a t e r i a l s . T h i s i s V o l u m e 5 7 i n t h eAmerican Institute of Astronautics andAeronautics series. As a member of theA. I .A .A . , I can ge t t h i s vo lume a t areduced price ($15 vs. $23 list). If anyonewould like me to pick them up a copy(enclosed in the original plast ic withinvoice), send me a check for $15.00 plusa couple of bucks for postage dependingon where you live [ask the post office].M y a d d r e s s i s : E l l i o t R . R o y c e , 8 6Rowayton Ave., Rowayton, Ct. 06853.

Lobby Vacuum

D o y o u w a n t t o l o b b y ? T h e L - 5Society has a special fast news servicecovering space related political activitiesin the United States -- the Society won’ttell you what to do -- but we’ll give yout h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o m a k eintelligent decisions and take effectiveaction.

If you want to get wired into the L-5hot line, send in your name, address, andif you are willing to accept a collect callin an emergency, your phone number. Wealso would appreciate a brief essay onyour qualifications and ideas on how totake political action as well as a history ofany previous political activities. Please letus know if we have permission to passyour name on to responsible space lobbygroups.

The following states have no peoplereceiving the L-5 Society space legislationhotline: Alabama, Arkansas. Delaware.Nebraska, New Hampshire. North Dakota,Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming, andWest Virginia.

It is vital that at least one person in eachof these states take the responsibility tokeep their Representatives informed of thestatus of SPS, space industrialization andutilization, and whatever bills are relevantto these subjects, even if only by writingletters. Often one letter from a constituentto an uncommitted Representative isenough to swing a vote. You may influencethe course of history! To get on the hotline, write to Marc Boone, L-5 Society,1620 N. Park Ave.. Tucson, AZ 85719).

15

Private EnterpriseBoosters

One comment on December’s i ssue .Lutz Kayser of OTRAG and Christian O.Basler have the right idea when it comesto space industrialization. With the worldcaught up in the energy crisis -- rich U.S.poor nat ion competi t ion, most govern-ments are unable to afford or unwilling toconsider the possibility of energy fromspace, except as a long term alternative,safely booked beyond the year 2000. Mysugges t i on t o Ch r i s t i an Bas l e r i s t oinvestigate w h a t p r o d u c t s c o u l d b ecompeti t ively produced in space (as af i r s t s t e p ) a n d b y t h a t I d o n ’ t m e a ntaking Ultra-Brite up on the shuttle, thenadvertising it as the toothpaste that flewin orbit. Once the staging company has aproduct line, capital could be secured tobu i ld t he p l an t . A p r iva t e en t e rp r i s eapproach is the only way space industri-alization will happen within the next 20years.

James KempfTucson, AZ

I believe that space colonization is aperfect so lu t i on t he wor ld ’ s b igges tproblem: government control over thelives of individuals s u c h a s t a x e s ,victimless crime laws, and businessregulatory bureaucracy. Once we colonizespace, it will be impossible for agovernment to exercise control over theentire surface of a sphere with a radius of93,000,000 mi les , not to ment ion theasteroid belt. For the first time in history,we will have a true laisse faire marketplace where all trades are decided solelybetween the buyer and sel ler . I ts onlycost will be 8 billion dollars per year fortwenty years to the American taxpayers.When it begins to turn a profit, each ofthe taxpayers can be given a share ofstock in the company to make it into aprivate corporat ion, just as economistMilton Friedmann proposed to do withgovernment corporations today.

Michael M. DotyHouston, Texas

I have a suggestion for those who maybe thinking in terms of a non-govern-men ta l space i ndus t ry / co lony . Po l i cyshould be that, provided the applicantswere qualified, job preference would goto stockholders on the basis of number ofshares owned and length of time held. Ifwe have to dig into our own pockets tofinance the chance to go into space, this

policy would only be fair. Besides that, alot of stockholders on the scene mightk e e p d o w n c o s t ( a f t e r a l l , i t ’ s y o u rdividend). Some of the most successfulcompanies, such as Sears , are largelyemployee owned. W e n e e d n ’ t w o r r yabout only rich people going into space,because there aren’t that many millionarewelders (or gardeners , or cooks) . OneNASA o f f i c i a l he ld ( a t t he ‘75 SMFconference) that space workers would behard to find. He was taken to task by af u t u r e L - S m e m b e r w h o t h o u g h t t h eproblem would be prospect ive workersbribing the select ion committee. Bribeea r ly , buy a sha r e o f t he FAR OUTCompany.

H.T. WatcherTucson, AZ

Lobby Comments

Being a Texan, I am “frontier orient-ed.” Having been involved in large realtyprojects with their energy systems, capitalcosts, and expenses, I know firsthand ofthe certain-future industrial breakdown ifnew, environmental ly acceptable, per-manent energy resources are not found.Hav ing o i l & gas p rope r t i e s , I knewfirsthand about “depletion.” Nothing iss o g r a p h i c a s h a v i n g m o n t h l y c h e c k sdecline, t hen s t op coming ( so r ry , a l lgone). So, the SPS alone has immediateand great appeal. But further, I’m soldthat SPACE IS THE NEW ECONOMICFRONTIER. We (the U.S., the West inpart icular) must develop as quickly aspossible the capability for working, livingand operat ing in this vast , new, enor-mously rich environment.

Politically, to get it done we in L-Smust s t ress heavi ly the economic andresources potential of space. Personally, If u l l y s u p p o r t t h e “human adventure”aspect . But the nat ion is not about tofund a cos t l y “subdivisions in space”adventure for a select group of fairly wellskilled and educated adventurers -- not inan era when capital formation is certainto be our greatest economic problem. Wemust emphasize that space is the newE C O N O M I C f r o n t i e r f o r e n e r g y a n dresources , and that the nat ion can i l lafford NOT to do it. We must develop thecapability to exploit this new frontier asan essential condition of underwriting ourcommon, universal future and preserva-tion of Western democratic civilizations.

Sam DunnamAustin, TX

I c o m m e n d t h e L - 5 N e w s f o r t h eseveral excellent articles in the last fewissues which discussed lobbying, andw o u l d l i k e t o m a k e t w o a d d i t i o n a lcomments. First, as a non-profit corpora-tion, the L-5 Society is prohibited from.substantial efforts “attempting to influ-ence legislation”. Therefore, when con-

tacting Congressional or other legislativepersonnel, we should represent ourselvesas individuals, not a s L - S S o c i e t ym e m b e r s . I s u s p e c t t h a t t h i s i s m o r eeffective as well as more appropriate.

Second, a concise list of your Congress-people is available from most FederalInformation Centers, which are listed inthe phone book under U.S. Government.By calling and asking for a copy, you’llreceive a m i m e o g r a p h e d m a i l i n g a n davoid having to get the information onthe phone. Be sure to ask what districtyou live in if you don’t know; the listscover fairly large areas and thus may havemore than one Representative. The listsappear to be available from many FederalInformation Centers; they apparently getthis quest ion of ten enough to jus t i fymailing it out.

As an L-5 Society member, I encouragethe L-5 News to continue their excellentcoverage of events surrounding space-related decisions in government. As anindividual, I urge all readers to lobby thehell out of their Congresspeople!

Strive for L-5Jay Vivian

Boston, MA

They’re killing the goose that laid thegolden eggs. That was my first impressionat seeing detai ls of the $4.371-bil l ionNASA budget request for Fiscal 1979.The 8% increase in NASA funding overFiscal 1978 has been eaten up by an 8%inflation rate, leaving the Space Agencywith no overall growth in capability.

Among other things, NASA is limitedto t he s ame number o f emp loyees i talready has. The Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) has reduced fundsavailable for earth resources and com-m u n i c a t i o n s s u p p o r t i n g R & D . T h eCarter Administrat ion has cut advanceplanning funds for space transportations y s t e m s , l a r g e s p a c e s t r u c t u r e s , a n dadvanced manned flight systems. Accord-ing to Aviation Week & Space Technolo-g y ( J a n . 3 0 , 1 9 7 8 ) , “ N A S A o f f i c i a l sbelieve the Administration. is concernedthat too active advance planning in theseareas could lead to future requests forlarger programs in space such as mannedplatforms or even a U.S. space station.”Read that last sentence over a few timesand grok its implications. . .

Gone from FY’79 are the Lunar PolarO r b i t e r , M a r s 1 9 8 4 V i k i n g R o v e r ,Halley’s Comet Rendezvous/fly-by, andf u n d i n g f o r t h e f i f t h S p a c e S h u t t l eOrbiter. Orbiter 101, the “Enterprise,”will remain a “hangar queen.”

There will be several new space crafts t a r t s i n F i s c a l 1 9 7 9 , i n c l u d i n g t h eNASA/ESA Solar-polar out-of-eclipticmissions. There is a sizeable increase int h e O f f i c e o f A e r o n a u t i c s a n d S p a c eTechnology r e s e a r c h a n d t e c h n o l o g ybase; however, many of the increases inNASA’s FY’79 budget are the results offunding peaks in on-going programs such

16 L-5 News, March 1978

a s t h e S p a c e S h u t t l e , L a r g e S p a c eTelescope, and Jupiter Orbiter Probe.

The Carter Space budget request is theaction that speaks louder than words. It isb a r e l y a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t o n - g o i n gprograms and is dangerously lacking inlong-range goals. NASA FY’79, as pro-posed by the Carter Administration, is aprime example of “penny-wise, pound-foolish,” and should be increased if at allpossible (Hint: the President proposes;Congress disposes. Have you told yourelected representatives what you thinkyet?).

The FY’79 Space Program proposed byCarter represents less than 1% of hisrecord-breaking budget of 500 bi l l iondollars , a drop in the Federal bucket .Those of us who want to see an expandedSpace Program had bet ter s tar t doingsomething about i t . I f we don’t , whowill?

Robert G. Lovell, Jr.Shawnee, Kansas

In the Letters column of November,Robert Lovell suggested that the budget-cutting “enemies of space” would be outt o “get” NASA. I don’t think that’ l lhappen. Any member of Congress knowsthat losing on controversial issues issomething that happens all the time; youtake your defeats gracefully and try againnext time. NASA has its share of critics,but there are few if any in Congress whoare so strongly opposed to its missionthat they would be cal led “enemies”.True, Sen. Proxmire is one if anyone is.But he’s jus t one Senator . And eventhough he chairs the commit tee withoversight responsibility for NASA’s bud-get, there are enough friends of NASA onthat committee to prevail. He’s headedthat committee for several years now, andhas had more bark than bite.

The December issue also carr ied adescription of forthcoming SPS research,noting that it will receive $19.5 millionover the next four years, “compared withfusion research at $400 mil l ion next

Secondly, I find the labeling of SenatorProxmire as ‘Darth’ appalling. This is thesame thing, if you will recall, that theNixon administration fell into, and thatcaused its excesses o f p o w e r : theidentification of a differing political viewas the posture of an enemy rather than anadversary. Senator Proxmire is a man tobe opposed, but not ‘fought.’ He is notthe enemy, but he is most certainly theo p p o s i t i o n . O n e c a n b e o p p o s e d t osomething and not be an evi l person;perhaps merely a misguided and short-sighted person, but not evil per se! If we,as space enthusiasts, expect to operatesuccessfully in the political arena (as wem u s t i f w e e x p e c t t o o b t a i n a m o r eexpanded space program) it behooves ust o d o s o w i t h s o m e m a n n e r s a n d amodicum of decorum.

year”. Those of us who are old fusion

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

NAME:

A quick scan through the letterssection in this and past issues shows thatthe L-5 News often has carried articlesthat members have disagreed with. If wewere to restrict the contents of the L-5News to items on which everyone is sureto agree. it would be far shorter, andTim Kyger

Dayton, OH certainly less interesting -- CH.

1620 N. PARK AVE.TUCSON, AZ 95719

A D D R E S S :

CITY/STATE/ZIP :

AFFILIATION/TITLE OR POSITION:

(OPTIONAL)

I am a m n o t interested in being active locally. Phone (op t iona l ) -

Please enroll me as a member of L-5 Society ($20 per year regular, $10 pet year for students). A check or money order is

enclosed. (Membership includes L-5 News, $3 to members; the balance -- $17 or $7 -- is a tax-deductible donation.)

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

___ Enclosed find a donation of $ (Donat ions to L-5 Soc ie ty a re t ax-deduc t ib le . )

hands wil l read that wi th amusement .Fus ion was f i r s t f unded i n t he ea r l y1950’s. By the late 1950’s it was at about$30 mi l l i on pe r yea r - - and the re i tstayed, for some fifteen years. I recall a1971 review in Scientific American, inwhich the author stated that fusion wasto get only $38 mil l ion, and wistful lyhoped that more would come.

The dif ference is that la te in 1971,fusion proponents had become sufficient-ly secure in their understanding that theyw e r e a b l e t o g o a n d r e q u e s t m o r e - -which they soon got. So this fact, thatfusion funding increased tenfold in a fewyears, should give SPS proponents hope.Do not despair. Your time will come.

T.A. HeppenheimerHeidelberg, West Germany

A note or two on the contents of theDec. issue of L-5 News. First of all, Ithink that the remaining Shuttle Orbitersought to be named for the cosmonautsand astronauts that been killed to date inoperations. The Kamarov, and perhapst h e G r i s s o m . O r p e r h a p s , t o t a k e adifferent tack, the Goddard and the VonBraun. The Oberth, so on.

Let’s get someone clearly on the otherside of the political spectrum to become aboard member too! (Jerry Brown?) If thepublic associates our goals only withpeople like Goldwater & Heinlein we maybe cut t ing our own throats . We musts t r e s s t ha t bene f i t s f r om space he lpeveryone, and that ordinary terrestr ialpolitical affiliations do not define. theideological scope of the uti l izat ion ofspace.

Jon CoopersmithPoint Pleasant, PA

Space Colonies MakeStrange Bedfellows?

In general I find the L-5 News great.But please forgive me the statement that Ialways felt uncomfortable whenever Tim-othy Leary appeared on the pages, andjust 10 minutes ago I first was shockedand then got mad a t the nonsense T.Leary is writing in “The PsychologicalEffects of High Orbital Migration” (L-5News, Sept. 1977, pg. 18). I have lived int h e U . S . f o r t w o y e a r s a n d i n S o u t hAmerica for three years, and know fromm y o w n p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e t h a t T .Leary’s arrogant characterization of theSouth American individual and socialcharacter is quite wrong. There are peoplewho would even name quite a number ofreasons why one should exchange severalcharacterizations between 1 and 2.

Please do not put Gerry O’Neil l incompany with Timothy Leary. O’Neil land space colonization deserve better.

Prof. R. KummelUniversitat Wurzburg

West Germany

17