On the Cover: A NASA artist’s conception ofthe exterior of the “Bernal Sphere” spacecolony, a space-habitat for some 10,000people. The inhabitants, members of theworkforce of a space manufacturing complex,would return after work to homes on the innersurface of a large sphere, nearly a mile incircumference, rotating to provide them withgravity comparable to that of the Earth. Theirhabitat would be fully shielded against cosmicrays and solar flares by a non-rotating sphericalshell, accumulated from the slag of industrialprocesses carried out on lunar surface material.Outside the shielded area agricultural crops,far less sensitive to radiation than are humans,would be grown in the intense sunlight ofspace. Docking areas and zero-gravity industriesare shown at each end of the space-community,as are flat surfaces to radiate away the wasteheat of the habitat into the cold of outer space.In the 1976 NASA Study on SpaceManufacturing, just completed, habitats of thistype, very efficient in their use of materials forshielding, are thought of as possible next stepsbeyond more utilitarian structures. Thesewould be shielded versions of the agriculturalareas shown here.

C o p y r i g h t 1 9 7 6 L - 5 S o c i e t y1 6 2 0 N . P a r k A v e . , T u c s o n , A Z 8 5 7 1 9(602) 622-2633Al l R igh ts Reserved : Pr in ted in the U .S .A .N e w s M e d i a m a y q u o t e u p t o 1 0 0 w o r d s f r o mL-5 News w i thou t permiss ion . For quo tes inexcess o f 100 words , p r io r permiss ion f romL-5 Society is necessary.

This Page: Interior of the “Bernal Sphere.” Inthis year’s NASA Study on SpaceManufacturing, habitats of this kind, efficientin their use of materials and structurally strong,are thought of as possible next steps beyondearlier, transitional structures of a moreutilitarian design.

The “equator” of the rotating habitat isnearly a mile in circumference, and near itwanders a small river whose shores are madeof lunar sand. Natural sunshine is broughtinside through external mirrors. Rotation ofthe sphere at about 1.9 RPM would producegravity of Earth-normal intensity at theequator, gradually diminishing to zero at the“poles,” where human-powered flight andother low-gravity sports would become easy.For the short distances within the space-habitat,automobiles would be unnecessary, andtransport would be on foot or bicycle. A climbfrom the equator past the small villages on thehillsides, to the rotation axis where gravitywould be zero, would take about 20 minutes.A corridor at the axis would permit floating inzero-gravity out to the agricultural areas, theobservatories, the docking ports, and theindustries.

In the economics of space-manufacturing,the provision of attractive living areas of thiskind appears to be worthwhile relatively earlyin the program, because families so locatedcould remain for several years at a time, ratherthan coming for short tours of duty at highcost for transportation.

2

CONTENTS3. J. Peter Vajk: 1976 Summer Study

5. C.H. Holbrow: 1975 Study Report

6. K. Eric Drexler: Another View7. Ann Elizabeth Robinson: Space

lndustrialization Contracts Awardedby NASA

7. Carolyn Henson: Sklarew to HeadSAI Team

8. O’Neill to Teach at MIT

8. 1000 Women Apply for Astronaut Status8. Single-Stage-to-Orbit Study9. Ann Elizabeth Robinson: Satellite Solar

Systems, ERDA, and Space Colonization9. The lnternational Space Hall of Fame

10. Ian Richards, James Kempf:Space Farming: The Debate Goes On

11. Conferences:

Third Princeton/AIAA Conference onSpace Manufacturing FacilitiesSeventh Intersociety Conference onEnvironmental Systems

12. Jon Coopersmith: lnstitute on Man andScience Conference Report

13. Keith Henson: Lecture Tour14. Tom Heppenheimer: Home, Home on

Lagrange17. Spend a Day on Mars

18. lnside L-519. Letters

19. Keith Henson: Boosters of Big Boosters,Take Note

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

NUMBER 13 A NEWSLETTER FROM THE L-5 SOCIETY SEPTEMBER 1976

NASA Ames

1976 SUMMER STUDYJ. Peter Vajk

On July 30, NASA Ames ResearchCenter in Mountain View, California,hosted a press briefing to present asummary of the results of this year’ssummer study on space manufacturing,sponsored by NASA, Stanford University,and the American Society for EngineeringEducation. Gerry O’Neill presented abrief overview of the project, and thenintroduced, in turn, the other fourspeakers.

Frank Chilton discussed the newdesign for the Mass Driver which wouldlaunch packages of lunar soil from theMoon for use as raw materials in spacemanufacturing. Basic design parametersincluded a capacity of 600,000 metrictons per year in 20 kilogram packagesaccelerated up to escape velocity,2.4 km/sec, with tolerances in velocitycomponents at release of less than

10 cm/sec longitudinally, 1 cm/seclaterally, and 0.1 cm/sec vertically.

Each “sled” would be subjected to athrust somewhat smaller than the thrustsrequired for magnetic levitation trainsystems planned for terrestrial use, butsince these sleds are much lighter thanrailcars, much higher accelerations wouldresult. Chilton said his team would havedesigned the system to provide 1000 Gacceleration with total confidence that itwould work, but O’Neill told him nobodywould believe it, so they stuck to only100 G! (It should be remarked that theSprint ABM missile accelerates at wellover 50 G). The sleds containsuperconducting electromagnet coils,with the entire liquid helium systemcompletely sealed tight; the sleds arenever exposed to sunlight. Totaltracklength is about 4 kilometers.

Since the dispersion betweenconsecutive payloads on arrival at the

MASS-DRIVER (0.6-6.0 MILLION TONS/YEAR THROUGHPUT)

ELECTRIC POWER

PASSIVE GUIDEWAY (BUCKET RETURN)

LOADCOOL

BALANCERECHECK

+RETURNTO LINE

PAYLOADCASTING

ANDCHECKING

SURFACEMINE

Catcher, 60,000 km away, must be quitesmall, the dispersion is still minute only150 kilometers downrange from launch.If the payloads are initially aimedslightly below horizontal, then finalguidance can be provided by letting thepayloads fly through a l-meterdiameter “tunnel” about 100 meters inlength placed on a suitable plateau ormountain 150 km away from release.Fine-tuning to 1mm/sec in all three axescould be provided by zapping the payloadwith an electron beam and then usingelectrostatic plates to adjust the velocity.Chilton did not expect, however, that itwould be necessary to go to suchextremes, as initial release velocitiesshould be within that level of precisionanyhow.

Total mass for the launch system(including the Rube Goldberg downrange“tunnel”) is down 40% from previousestimates. Based on present solar energytechnologies or small nuclear reactors,the mass needed would be 4067 metrictons; with extrapolated values for solarenergy sources, the mass would drop to3067 tons. About 100 workers would beneeded initially to assemble and align thesystem, but only about 20 would beneeded to maintain and operate it.

Brian O’Leary then discussed theextensive computer calculations whichwere done to pin down the launchprecision required for the Mass Driver.Precision needed depends on the locationon the Moon of the launch point. Thedispersion in payloads is least sensitive tovelocity errors at release if the launcheris placed at about lunar longitude 33.1°.(Looking up at the Moon in the sky, thatmeans the launch point would be abouthalf-way from the middle of the Moon’sface to the right limb of the Moon.)

Extensive calculations were also doneto define the Catcher’s orbit. Because the

3

NOMINAL PRELIMINARY MASS-DRIVER SECTION (HALF - SIZE)

month does not keep perfectly in stepMoon’s revolution around the Earth each

with the Moon’s rotation on its own axis,the launch site does not stay in a fixedposition relative to the Lagrange librationpoints. To minimize the work theCatcher has to do to follow the stream ofpayloads coming up from the Moon, itturns out that the Catcher should make aonce-a-month orbit around L-2 with aradius of about 10,000 km, with theCatcher’s orbit standing on edge relativeto the Earth-Moon orbital plane. Thusthe Catcher would always be visible fromthe Earth.

rename itself the “Two-to-One Resonancethat the L-5 Society might have to

Orbit Society.”William Phinney then discussed the

problems of chemical processing in spaceto extract metals, oxygen, silicon, andcalcium from the lunar soil, with somepreliminary description of lunar soilcomposition variations among the sixApollo landing sites. For example, soilsfrom the lunar highlands were relativelymore rich in aluminum than were soilsfrom the maria; the converse held foriron.

The kinds of reactions, catalysts, andtemperatures needed to separate lunarsoil into the desired elemental fractionshave been worked out in sufficient detailto think about building a pilot plant towork out chemical engineering bugs. Thiscould be done here on the ground forstarters, then in zero-G in low-Earth orbitwith the Space Shuttle. Since theprocesses all begin by melting everything,the physical texture of lunar soils isirrelevant to testing. Pilot plants could beadequately debugged using syntheticlunar soil samples containing appropriatemixes of terrestrially available minerals.Total power requirements for processing

Keeping the Catcher accurately onthis orbit requires a “delta-vee” of about150 m/sec per month, with a peakacceleration of less than 0.2 mm/sec/sec(20 millionths of one-G). To transfer theCatcher and its cargo of lunar soil to L-5would require an additional “delta-vee”of 440 m/sec and would take about 14days. Alternative locations were alsoconsidered for the Space ManufacturingFacility (SMF) which would be thedestination for this cargo. One interestingpossibility turns out to be the “two-to-one (2:1) resonance orbit” and transferthere from the Catcher’s orbit wouldrequire only 9 to 31 m/sec and wouldtake about 65 days.

The “2:1 resonance orbit” is asolution of the restricted four-bodyproblem (Earth, Moon, Sun, and satellite),as are the kidney-shaped orbits aroundL-4 and L-5 shown in the L-5 Societyliterature. The orbit is roseate-like, andcan be thought of as an elliptical orbitwhich precesses around the Earth everyrapidly, with a satellite in such an orbitreturning to the same location relative tothe Earth and the Moon every twomonths. Such an orbit is relatively stable,requiring nominal station-keeping, andhas the advantage of a relatively small“delta-vee” to transfer completed powersatellites from the SMF to geosynchronousor lower orbits. O’Neill suggested in jest

600,000 metric tons per year will beabout 500 megawatts, corresponding toabout one square kilometer of solarcollector area.

Gerry Driggers concluded thepresentation with a discussion offabrication, logistics, timetables, andcosts. A careful analysis of what parts ofpower satellites could be easily fabricatedin space at an early stage of spaceindustrialization showed that about 91%of the mass of a silicon photovoltaic cellpower satellite could be built in space,with only 9% shipped up from Earth.For a turbogenerator-based powersatellite, however, only 68% of the masscould be readily fabricated in space, sothat the photovoltaic system appears tohave a very strong advantage, at leastinitially, even if the total mass requiredfor it is significantly higher.

The chemical extraction plant couldbe housed in a more or less cylindricallyshaped “factory” about 50 meters indiameter by about 140 meters in length,while the fabrication machinery wouldrequire about a 100 meter extension ofthat same cylinder.

Three different scenarios weredeveloped for a Space ManufacturingFacility/Solar Power Satellite program.The most conservative was based on“minimum concurrency,” that is,development of each part of the systemis undertaken only after other parts onwhich it depends have been fullydeveloped and tested in orbit. The fastestscenario was based on an Apollo-styleprogram, where various logicallydependent parts of the system areconcurrently developed. By the slowestof these timelines, the first solar powersatellite would provide 10,000 megawattsof electricity for the Earth in 1999; bythe fastest timetable, in 1992.

To establish the lunar base, operatingat 11,000 to 22,000 metric tons per year,well below design capacity, and toestablish a prototype orbitalmanufacturing facility with 300 workerswould cost, according to the estimateDriggers considered most reasonable,$30.2 billion. By a highly conservativeestimate, the cost might be as high as$63.9 billion.

Working up to a full-scale SpaceManufacturing Facility with 6,000workers, with annual productivity of 5power satellites of 10,000 megawattsgenerating capacity, the cost of theproject up to the point at which 20satellites are in operation (totalgenerating capacity 200 gigawatts) wouldbe (reasonable estimate) $102.5 billion to(conservative estimate) $207.4 billion.(All figures are in 1976 dollars.)

Instead of last year’s estimate of twoyears for a SMF to replicate itself,Driggers’ team now estimated 2 months;productivity for power satelliteconstruction is ten times higher than lastyear’s estimate. If the entire project wereabandoned at the point of 20 powersats

4

in operation, the program would alreadyhave proven competitive withconventional ground-based generatingplants: the 200 gigawatts would havecost between $500 and $1000 perkilowatt, which is the present cost ofpowerplants!

L-5 Review:1975 StudyReport“SPACE COLONIZATION:A DESIGN STUDY”

C. H. Holbrow

Where is the long expected report ofthe 1975 summer design study of spacecolonization? Well, it’s coming. In fact,I recently held in my hand all eightchapters and most of the figures set ingalleys with headings, captions and all.But it will be a while vet. The large colorfigures prefacing each chapter have stillto be put in place; the figures need closeproofreadings; and then the documenthas to go through a GPO printingschedule.

I think it will be worth the wait.Representing some six person-years ofeffort by a team of scientists drawn fromeconomics, sociology, anthropology,biology, aerospace engineering, planetaryscience, civil, sanitary, electrical,chemical and industrial engineering,physics, and architecture, the reportprovides the most detailed andcircumstantial exposition of thepossibility of colonizing space publishedto date. In eight chapters and manyappendices it gives a design for living inspace, a program for achieving thatdesign, a number of alternatives, and awealth of background material useful tothose who wish to make their owndesign.

Except for the wheel shape of thehabitat, the design of the summer studydraws heavily upon O’Neill’s concepts,and so by now the basic proposal isprobably well-known to the readers ofthe L-5 News. The plan is thoroughlyoutlined in the first chapter so that thereader can more easily follow the rest ofthe report. The 1790-meter-diametertorus is described; it rotates at 1 rpm, atthe Lagrangian libration point L-5, and10,000 colonists live inside the 130-meter-diameter tube of the torus raisingtheir food and living normal lives in asimulated earth-normal gravity. Briefmention is also made of the manufactureof satellite solar power stations for saleto Earth. All this is to be done withmillions of tonnes (that’s the way wewrite a metric ton these days) of materialbrought up to the colony from the Moonin two stages-an electromagnetic launchfrom the Moon to L-2 where the materialis caught, and then by ferry to L-5.

The next three chapters lay out arationale for the design choices of thesummer study group. Chapter 2 describesbasic properties of space such as vastdistances, gravitational topography,weightlessness, vacuum, intense sunshine,cosmic ray fluxes. Chapter 3 considerstheir impact on human needs-physiological, psychological, andeconomic. These needs are defined (e.g.normal gravity, atmosphere, familiarfoods, openness of the habitat but withhidden views and variety, a means ofearning a living) and various ways tomeet them are considered with the aimof achieving a conservative credibledesign within the limits of “near-term”technology. Anyone concerned aboutalternatives will find Chapter 4 especiallyinteresting.

Those whose interest focuses on theoverall system of the colony and whatlife in it might be like will be mostinterested in Chapter 5. Here the readeris taken on a tour through the system.Starting on Earth the reader travels toL-5 and tours the Stanford Torus, itsresidences, factories and farms. After avisit to the Moon to see the 150 peoplethere mining the lunar soil andmaintaining the electromagnetic launcher,you return to Earth. The conversationalnarrative sticks to the facts of the design.Mention is made of the tedium of life inspace, of the long hours and hard work inwhat is really a small, isolated communitynarrowly focused on a very fewproductive tasks. The colony is definitelya frontier community and as such not tobe romanticized.

In Chapter 6 schedules and plans forrealizing the proposed design are laid out.These naturally lead to the questions ofcost and funding. A schedule of fundingthat would go on over 20 years ispresented; the payouts would averageabout $10 billion per year. By the timethe first colony is built, solar powershould be producing income, and, aboutfifteen years later, Earth’s initialinvestment can be fully repaid. All thiswould be accomplished while buildingmore colonies, more satellite powerstations, and paving an annual interestrate of 10% on the investment.

A longer view is taken in Chapter 7.It considers possibilities of using

5

asteroidal material, developingmultiplicities of cultures in space, andexamines the ultimate limitations oncolonizing space.

The final chapter sets out theconclusions of the summer study andrecommendations for further researchand study. The conclusions areenthusiastic and advocate that the UnitedStates, possibly in cooperation with othercountries, take definite steps towardcolonizing space. Five specific items arementioned in this connection:(1) continued development of spacetransportation, in particular the Shuttle;(2) start of development of a heavy-liftlaunch vehicle; (3) the establishment ofa space laboratory in low Earth orbit;(4) the setting up of a base on the Moonwhere the needed lunar technology canbe tested out; (5) an unpiloted, sample-return mission to the asteroids todetermine their composition.

There are several assertions of humilityin the report to which attention shouldbe called. The actual length of the studywas only ten weeks. There was no timefor optimization of the design, and infact the design had to be frozen fairlyearly on in the process with the resultthat good ideas with large potential forimproving the overall system could notbe incorporated. I do not think that anyof the participants would recommendbuilding the “proposed” design. By thecompletion of the study each membercould see very radical departures fromthe proposed design that seemed quitepromising. A principal recommendationof the group is that a major systemsstudy be undertaken of spaceindustrialization and colonization.

But even within the terms of thereport itself there are some difficultiesthat should give the careful reader pause.The radiation problem was much greaterthan expected. To make a habitat safefor long-term living led to a brute forcesolution of piling 10 million tonnes oflunar slag around the rotating wheel ofthe torus to protect the inhabitants fromcosmic rays and solar flares. Other moreelegant possibilities such as magneticshielding were considered but rejected asunfeasible or beyond “near-term”technology. The colonists end up livingin a “cave” built at great expense ofeffort and resources; they cannot easilylook outside the habitat.

There was initially a desire to makethe environment as earthlike as possible,but the result is not particularly earthlike.The atmosphere is at half earth-normalpressure; the recycling is almost entirelyartificial because natural means are tooslow for such a small system; there is noweather; day and night are controlledartificially; the gravity of the systemcomes from rotational pseudo-forceswhich produce small effects differentfrom those experiences in a genuinegravitational field. Considerable thoughtwas given to the use of architecture and

environmental design to alleviate theartificiality, but there can be no denyingor obscuring that colonists would live incity-like surroundings.

Also the engineering problems are verygreat and stretch technology to its limits.On the Moon cryogenics andsuperconducting magnets are to beoperated near a system pumpingmegawatts of power into the launchingof payloads. All these devices are to bemaintained by small crews. There are newdesigns of transit vehicles, the rotatingpellet launchers which each year propelthemselves and a million tonnes of lunarmaterial through space by throwing rocks.Their energy is derived from nuclearreactors which power rotating arms. Ofeven greater engineering difficulty is thecatcher which with radar detects andtracks the individual 10 kg payloadscoming from the Moon. They are each40 m apart and moving 200 m/s. Amechanically driven net in one of severallarge frames about 1 km across must beactivated and aligned with each incomingpackage. The packages arrive .2 sec apart.It’s a kind of trap shooting in reverse,collecting together the pieces of a giantclay pigeon.

Another subsidiary goal of the designwas to base the transportation onrelatively simple extension of existingSpace Shuttle technology. In principlethe proposed design achieved that goal,but the Table 4.18 which presentsexpected launch rates shows that theachievement is only in principle. To liftthe needed materials and fuels wouldrequire about a launch per day with avery heavy environmental burden. Clearlya new generation of lift vehicles is neededfor the project to be practical.

Despite a valiant effort to overcomedeficiencies of expertise, the report hassome serious omissions. There is acomplete absence of any consideration ofmicrobial ecology. The reportacknowledges this weakness and calls fora strong program of research into thesubject. The political problems offounding and organizing a colony getlittle attention. In general, although thereis discussion of the problems of theimpact of space colonies on theenvironments of the Earth and Moon, thedemography of a space colony, theesthetics of life in space and the likelyattendant cultural shock, the engineeringconcerns are dominant. Much more needsto be thought about the social andpolitical organization and institutionsnecessary to foster a good life in space.

The wary reader will surely find othergaps of consideration and treatment, butthat should be a large part of the pleasureof reading through this document’s richesof fact and conception. There can be littledoubt that despite the omissions andpotential flaws which are on the wholebrought candidly to the reader’s attention,this report will serve for a number ofyears as the principal focus for further

creative consideration of the excitingprospect of colonizing space.

ANOTHER VIEWK. Eric Drexler

In reading and publicizing “SpaceColonization: A Design Study” oneshould know what it is and what it is not.The 1975 summer study suffered fromlimitations of time, organization, andexpertise. The study group favoredbreadth over thoroughness; the reportreflects this by omissions andinaccuracies.

Because of its breadth and startingpoint, the report can serve as a goodgeneral introduction to spacecolonization. It presents the neededsystem elements, the motivations behindthe project, and the magnitude of theendeavor. Its discussions touch onvirtually all the major designconsiderations of work in the spacecolony field. As an introductory text,however, it is not as smooth and engagingas some other books now nearingpublication. This may be the price ofwriting by committee.

The report’s usefulness as a startingpoint for future work is questionable.While it contains many ideas, some bothnew and useful, it has shown many flaws.

As is usually the case, the writings onsocial and psychological aspects are moreopinion than fact. They deal with theuncertain effects of still unconstructedhuman environment.

The full impact of the designassumptions on space colony economicsis not made clear. By lowering estheticstandards slightly (see last month’s L-5News for an artist’s conception) andincreasing rotation rate (to where anestimated 95% rather than 100% of thepopulation would feel no adverse effects),this summer’s study reduced colonystructural mass by a factor of four andshielding mass by a factor of three. Thisaffects the sizing and economicprofitability of the whole system.

As was shown by the MIT study lastspring, the stressed-skin structural design

1976 NASA/Ames “Hatbox”

of the Stanford Torus is unsound. Thedesign presented in the report wouldsplit like a dropped melon whenpressurized due to growth of undetectableflaws in the metal and welds.

The mass driver design has beensuperceded by this summer’s work, whichdemonstrated that all performanceparameters could be improved withoutsignificant pressure on current technicalabilities. A side effect of this iselimination of the complex active masscatcher through reduced payloaddispersion. A further side effect is thereplacement of rotary pellet launchesby low-throughput mass drivers forspace propulsion.

The metal refining system has alsobeen superceded by this summer’s work,which demonstrated that the system’smass payback time could be reduced bya factor of four while recovering agreater fraction of lunar rock as usefulmaterials. Partly as a result of the aboveconsiderations, the estimated programcost has dropped by roughly a factor offour.

The agricultural system was subjectedto a detailed mass balance, but theunderlying assumptions approach theridiculous. A goal was dietary diversity;a sub-goal was provision of a variety ofmeats (in addition to eggs and milk).While omitting whale meat and lizardmeat, the study diet included equalamounts of trout, rabbit, beef, andchicken. While rabbits may be raised instacked wire pens and fed alfalfa, troutrequire large volumes of clean, flowing,heavily aerated (not provided for in thespace farm design), refrigerated water,and are carnivorous by nature. Theymight pass on the luxury market.Economical cattle raising depends onvast tracts of land good for little else,a condition unlikely to exist in space forsome time. Chickens require virtuallythe same diet as humans, hence aredifficult to justify as a major part of thefood chain. The diets proposed forruminants (soybeans?) take littleadvantage of these animals’ ability toconvert agricultural wastes into high-protein food.

A major goal of the 1975 summerstudy was to provide participants withan educational experience. While I cannotspeak for others, it provided such anexperience for me.

A POINTTO REMEMBER:

L-5

SPACE INDUSTRIALIZATIONCONTRACTS AWARDEDBY NASAAnn Elizabeth Robinson

Rockwell International Corporation,of Downey, California, and ScienceApplications, Inc., of Los Angeles,have won the negotiation rights for theNASA-sponsored study on spaceindustrialization. For all practicalpurposes, the two companies have wonthe contracts; the right to negotiatemeans that the details of the contracthave to be finalized by both the companyconcerned and NASA.

Twelve organizations submittedproposals to NASA by the June 29, 1976,deadline: Rockwell International: ScienceApplications, Inc.; Arthur D. Little;Battelle Columbus Labs; Econ, Inc.;Hudson Institute; Northrop Services, Inc.;the Polytechnic Institute of New York;Space Colonization, Inc.; StanfordResearch Institute; University ofArizona; and Boeing Aerospace.

The NASA statement of work for theproject was publically announced onMay 28 by the Marshall Space FlightCenter (MSFC), Huntsville, Alabama.MSFC is the NASA center in charge ofadministering the space industrializationstudy contracts.

Mr. Claude Priest, the ContractingOfficer’s Representative for the program,commented on the major objective ofthe study: “The main objective of thisplanning study program is to develop anevolutionary space industrializationprogram which could lead from theshuttle, space lab, and early space stationexperiments to the permanent practical,commercial use of space.”

In a press release issued on Sept. 1,1976, MSFC stated that outstandingconsultants from throughout the countrywill assist Rockwell International andScience Applications, Inc., in “evaluatingand prioritizing the needs, opportunities,and methods for industrializing space.”

NASA defines “space industrialization”as “space activities which are undertakenprimarily for the production of goods andservices which are of major economicbenefit to the U.S. and the world. Thismeans utilizing the environment andvantage point of space in a productiveand cost-effective way. This envisionednext phase of the space program is incontrast to most space work undertakento this time, which was primarily forscientific or other exploratory purposes.”

The September 1 press releaseelaborated: “Space authorities areconvinced that the state of technologypermits and world needs demand thatspace industrialization accomplishmentsachieved to date be expanded now intoa number of disciplines beyondcommunications and metereology, inwhich they have already proven to behighly profitable and beneficial to people

When asked about MSFC’s interestin space colonization, Priest said theinterest is very long term-beyond thescope of the space industrialization studynow underway. The present study islimited to about a thirty year timeperiod, ending around 2000 A.D.

Priest continued: “What we will seekis a reasonable balance between the boldopportunities of the future, such assatellite power systems and the desirefor relatively immediate widespreadpayoffs of space utilization, such as spaceprocessing. Prospective activities includethe manufacturing of materials,chemicals, and medicines; thedevelopment of new materials andprocesses; new communications industry;weather services; new earth resourcesdevelopment-ultimately, the movementof people to space for tourism or medicalpurposes, and the eventualindustrialization of the moon.”

The space industrialization study is asixteen-month effort funded by theOffice of Space Flight; the total contractvalue is approximately $400,000, equallydivided between two consecutive eight-month, $200,000 segments. Part I of thestudy will concentrate on “Why SpaceIndustrialization?“; Part II, on “HowSpace Industrialization?”

Part I of the space industrializationstudy is being contracted to two differentcompanies at a value of $100,000 eachfor the eight-month segment. Mr. Priestof MSFC explained: “What we wereseeking was two kinds of viewpoints-onefrom a predominantly systems/hardware-oriented aerospace company, who wouldbring a hardware development perspectiveto the study. We were looking for anothertype of contractor who would be apredominantly research-orientedcompany, who would bring a non-aerospace/hardware industrial andplanning perspective to the study. Theywould both be working at the same studyscope, but would be bringing twodifferent perspectives to the study-thedifference being that one company’sperspective would be what comesdownstream in terms of hardware. . . theother would strictly be research . . .th ink- tank. ”

According to Mr. Priest, NASA willonly commit to Part I of each contract.Part I I is an option to be exercisedprior to the end of Part I of the study.Around January 1, 1977, NASA wouldlook at the results obtained to date; atthat time, it would decide whether ornot to renew the contracts granted forPart I.

In a recent interview, Jesco VonPuttkammer, Aerospace Scientist andStaff Specialist in the Advanced ProgramOffice of the Office of Space Flight, saidNASA has a "pretty good idea of somelong range goals-space colonies, peopleliving and doing useful work in space,products, energy." He stated that suchgoals demand a long range program --

about 25 years and between 150 and200 billion dollars, which isapproximately ten times the cost of theApollo program. Von Puttkammercommented: “Knowing this, and that thepublic will not commit to a 25-yearprogram, we have to decide what kind ofsteps we have to take to reach our goals.Space industrialization is the mostefficient way of establishing thesecapabi l i t ies . . . by making each step inspace pay its own way, so the public doesnot have to pay.”

Captain Freitag, Deputy Administrator,Advanced Space Programs, when askedabout NASA’s 1978 budget proposal forspace industrialization and colonization,explained that the details of the 1978budget are not releasable until after thePresident submits his budget to Congress.He said, “If it’s Ford, that meansJanuary; if it’s Carter, it may take untilApril. It usually takes about 90 days fora new President to review therecommendations made by the previousadministration.”

SKLAREW TO HEAD SAI TEAMCarolyn Henson

Science Applications, Inc. (SAI) isone of two companies receiving researchcontracts for NASA’s spaceindustrialization program. Ralph Sklarew,a participant in the 1975 NASA SummerStudy on Space Colonization, will headthe SAI study team, which includesGerald Driggers from Southern ResearchInstitute and consultants RobertSalkeld, Paul Siegler, G. Harry Stine, andJ. Peter Vajk. Driggers, who was aspeaker at the 1975 Space ManufacturingFacilities Conference at Princeton, is anexpert on propulsion and constructionof space facilities. Robert Salkeld, oneof the top experts in the field of singlestage to orbit and mixed modepropulsion vehicles, is also an expert inoperations research and holds a degree ineconomics from Harvard. Paul Siegler,who edits the Earth/Space News, alsoholds a degree in economics fromHarvard. G. Harry Stine, author of TheThird Industrial Revolution, combinespractical experience both in business andmany phases of space engineering.Physicist J. Peter Vajk has developed aForrester-style world dynamics modelincorporating space colonization; he iscurrently writing a book on spacecolonization for Stackpole.

Sklarew plans to study spacetechnologies which can provide aneconomic return within the 1980-2010time frame. “We will try to be objectiveabout the potentials,” he said in a recentinterview. “We may even conclude thatthere is nothing beyond weathersatellites and communications that’sworth doing.”

Sklarew’s team plans to consider abroad range of space projects in itssearch for economically viable products

for space industry. “We want to findthings in addition to solar power,”Sklarew commented, adding that he feltexcessive concentration on powersatellites was a major weakness of theL-5 concept.

The team’s contract runs 8 months.During that period Sklarew says they will“Look at what can be done in space,constrained only by engineeringlimitations. Then we will consider whatis the need for these products andservices on Earth. We will then developa rationale of what could make aneconomic impact in the 1980-2010 timeframe.

“We will place each of thesepossibilities into evolutionary programsthat make sense. There will be a synergyeffect-things will be needed in commonto reach these individual goals. When weget to the stage where we have definedseveral possible programs, each withmany goals, we will analyze eachprogram for technical requirements andeconomic viability.”

While this is a pretty big goal for a$100,000, eight month study, RalphSklarew is confident the SAI teamcan handle the job: “The biggestproblem of the study will not be gettingpeople to do their share, but to get themto stop working long enough to writedown their results!”

O’NEILL TO TEACH AT MITPrinceton Physics professor Gerard

O’Neill, on sabbatical this year, hasaccepted the Jerome Clarke HunsakerVisiting Professorship in the Departmentof Aeronautics and Astronautics at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.

Eric Drexler, one of the studentparticipants in the NASA/AMES 1976study on space colonization, will be aresearch assistant to Prof. O’Neill.Virginia Reynolds, O’Neill’s Princetonresearch assistant, will also spend theacademic year at MIT. Dr. Brian O’Leary,another space habitat researcher, willremain at Princeton.

Boston area members who wish moreinformation on MIT space colonizationactivities should contact the MIT SpaceHabitat Study Group through BeverlyHazelton, Department of PoliticalScience, MIT.

1,000 WOMEN APPLY FORASTRONAUT STATUS

HOUSTON (UPI) -- A thousand womenhave told the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration they would like tobecome astronauts for the nation’s spaceshuttle.

Officials are accepting it in stride.“I’ve been pleased with the number ofresponses and with the quality of people,including women, who’ve responded,”said Duane Ross at the Johnson SpaceCenter’s astronaut recruiting office.

“We’ve mailed out about 4,000

SINGLE-STAGE-TO-ORBIT with the assistance of a sled, fly into

STUDYorbit, then land horizontally on arunway.

Seattle, Washington-The Boeing The Boeing Aerospace Company hasAerospace Company is conducting been studying the single-stage-to-orbitpreliminary studies aimed toward the concept for two-and-a-half years.development of a shuttle-type spacecraft Andrew K. Hepler, the firm’s manager forwhich would take off and land much the advanced high speed transportationway an airplane does. systems, pointed out that a single-stage

This Earth-orbit transporter-known spacecraft would not need to jettisonas a Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) any part of its launch equipment orsystem-would be designed for use in boosters, thus allowing reuse of all its

the 1990s. following a successful NASA parts.Space Shuttle program. It will be Boeing, he said, will propose the usedesigned to offer clear and significant of a unique advanced structural conceptcost/performance advantages over current which will allow spacecraft reentry intosystems. Earth’s atmosphere without the need of

The $213,802 contract, awarded by ablative material.NASA’s Langley Research Center, The firm visualizes a family of theseVirginia, calls for the identification of futuristic land-to-space craft which wouldtechnologies necessary for the be designed for carrying payloads as smalldevelopment of this advanced space as 3,000 pounds (1,361 kg) to payloadstransportation system. as large as the 60,000 pounds (27,216 kg)

The transporter, as defined by NASA, planned for the Space Shuttle. Fullywould use advanced hydrogen-fueled fueled, a SST0 craft capable of carryingrocket engines for its main propulsion 60,000 pounds would weigh about 2.2system. It would take off horizontally million pounds (997,920 kg).

responses to inquiries. I would guess thatprobably 25 percent of those inquirieshave been from the female population.

“They (women) seem to be verypleased that there’s an opportunity forthem to enter the space program.”

Ross said his staff had made notabulation of requests for informationsince the February announcement that30 new astronauts including some womenwould be chosen by July 1978.

The aim is to have them on board fortwo years of training prior to the nextfull-scale manned mission, the orbitalshuttle tentatively planned for 1980.

Ross said 30 (15 in an “astronaut-pilot” category and 15 in a “mission-specialist” group) is a minimum number

8

and that more might be selected.He said many more men and women

likely would apply before the June 30,1977 deadline.

“Most of these people are going towait until late to apply because it givesyou more time to build up yourcredentials, your academic background,flying time.”

Aside from the selection of women,Ross said, the first astronaut recruitmentprogram since 1967 is similar to sixearlier selections that chose 76 trainees,all men.

“I think the approach we’re taking isjust about the same. But therequirements are quite a bit less stringentthan they have been in the past.”

SATELLITE SOLAR POWERSYSTEMS, ERDA, AND SPACECOLONIZATION:An interview with Dr. H. RichardBlieden, Assistant Director, SolarEnergy Applications (ERDA)

Ann Elizabeth Robinson

In an interview conducted August 31,1976, Dr. Richard Blieden, AssistantDirector for Solar Energy Applications atthe Energy Research and DevelopmentAdministration (ERDA), discussedERDA’s plans for funding solar powersatellite (SPS) production and ERDAresponse to the space colonizationapproach. He began with a history ofERDA’s involvement with the SPSprogram.

History“Late last year (1975). the President

asked ERDA to look at SPS and place itwithin the priority of the ERDAprograms. Work had been underwaywithin NASA, so, as a first step, a taskforce was set up within ERDA to reviewthe ongoing SPS work that NASA haddone and to make a recommendation tothe President and to Congress.

“In the course of this review, therewas an opportunity to hear from Dr.Gerard K. O’Neill of Princeton on hisconcept of space colonization as itapplies to the production of power forindustrial use.” (Note: On January 19,1976, Dr. Gerard K. O’Neill of PrincetonUniversity, testified before theSubcommittee on Aerospace Technologyand National Needs in the hearings on“Solar Power from Satellites.” Thissubcommittee was formed in July, 1975,by the Senate Aeronautical and SpaceSciences Committee.)

The Change of Responsibility for SPSfrom NASA to ERDA

“The main rationale for SPS is theproduction of energy for terrestrial use,and, as such, it would be an ERDAdecision to proceed with such a project.However, it is important that NASA beinvolved, because NASA has the expertisefor the development and deployment ofspace power systems. . . . It is acooperative effort, but ultimately thedecision lies with ERDA, based on theenergy needs of the nation.”

Dr. Blieden commented on thereaction to O’Neill’s presentation toCongress. It was “. . . one of considerableinterest and something that needs to belooked at carefully. The whole area ofSPS is one which needs considerablestudy and analysis before one can moveinto a project-oriented phase.”

Blieden said that entering the project-oriented phase depends upon trade-offswith other problems ERDA is seeking to

address and the resources available --monetary, people, competition for othermajor energy projects by ERDA. Forexample, he said, “. . . if we were toproceed with terrestrial power systems,then resources may not be available forthe SPS. . . . I’m saving this is notnecessarily the case, but is a possibility.We will be comparing across the boardfossil, nuclear, solar, geothermal, oceanthermal systems, and wind systems.

“The ERDA SPS Task Force hasmade some recommendations whichshould lead to action on the part ofERDA and NASA. This would primarilyconsist of the further support andconduct of studies of the SPS concept.Over the next year, ERDA will look atthe various energy concepts anddetermine major problems and potential

9

advantages. We have to answer a numberof questions before moving into aproject-oriented phase.”

Blieden stated that, according tovarious studies by NASA andindependent researchers, power fromSPS will be available no sooner than theyear 2000.

“A number of technologies understudy have a lower front-end cost, butthey may lack the advantages of SPS.ERDA needs to answer somefundamental questions about SPS -- suchas, where does the orbiting systemapplication fit into the energy system ofthe country?”

Blieden said the results of the nextyear’s study could range from continuingor stopping the study effort immediately,proceeding at the level of further studies,or proceeding with a specific project andtime scale. He offered no speculation asto which is the most probable direction,as he has not yet seen the results of theSPS Task Force. Dr. Blieden, however,did say that some of the results of theTask Force are now available.

Dr. Blieden made a closing commenton space colonization: “It’s certainly aninteresting concept. At the current time,the support for the O’Neill approach isunder NASA’s guidance in the AdvancedPrograms area of the Office of SpaceFlight. In view of the mandate of thatprogram (i.e., Advanced Programs) thatwould appear to be the proper place forthe O’Neill concept to be supported.”

THE INTERNATIONALSPACE HALL OF FAME

On October 5, 1976, in the presenceof notables, scientists, and people fromall over the world, the doors of theInternational Space Hall of Fame will beopened with an impressive ceremony thatis not only part of the program of theInternational Academy of Astronauticswhere more than 450 international spacescientists will discuss the past, present,and future in space. . . it is also theofficial Bicentennial Event for the Cityof Alamogordo, New Mexico.

Outside the building in the clear, dryNew Mexico desert air is a growingdisplay of historic space launch vehiclesand spacecraft. . . some of them the lastof their kind. Future plans call for displayof launch vehicles from all world nationswho have operated them.

Inside the International Space Hall ofFame building, space pioneers of manynations will be honored at the opening. Itis planned to add additional individualseach year. The individuals honored havebeen and will be chosen with theassistance of the International Academyof Astronautics. The identities of thefirst space pioneers will not be revealeduntil the opening ceremonies.

For additional information contactthe Alamogordo Chamber of Commerce,P.O. Box 518, Alamogordo, New Mexico88310 U.S.A.

SPACE FARMING: THE DEBATE GOES ON...

SOIL CULTURE vs.HYDROPONICS

Dr. Ian Richards

James Kempf (July L-5 News)advances the case for hydroponics forcolony food production, stressingadvantages of yield and convenience oversoil culture. He gives yields of eight cropscompared under soil conditions andhydroponics. While I have little directexperience of all these crops, the yieldgiven for potatoes grown in soil (3 tonsper acre) is quite unrealistically low.

The usual seeding rate for potatoes isaround 1 ton per acre so this yield isequivalent to three small tubers perplant! In the UK, average yields areabout 15 tons per acre. It is quite easy,by irrigation and pest control, to achieve40 tons per acre or more, andoptimization of fertiliser rates wouldprobably increase yields further.

In the experimental program of theCompany for which I work, we regularlyachieve a state in the field for many cropswhere the yield-limiting factor is input ofradiant energy, rather than anything todo with the soil or nutrient supply. Underthese conditions a change to hydroponicswould be unlikely to increase yield.

The point is that for full growth,plants require certain amounts ofnutrient elements-provided these aresupplied, it matters little how. Yieldadvantages of hydroponics over fieldculture are more likely to be due toexclusion of pathogens and to closerenvironmental control in the hydroponicssystem. On a colony, the same care couldbe applied to soil culture.

However, the apparent conflictbetween soil culture and hydroponicsmay not really exist. As Kempf states,hydroponics is essential if materials mustbe transported from Earth as during theinitial phase of colonization. At thestage of a fully-fledged colony of 10,000people, there will be extensive use oflunar material and soil culture becomesmore attractive.

James Kempf also mentionedaccumulation of organic matter incultivated regolith and this may beroughly quantified. The rate ofaccumulation of an element i in theorganic form (Oi) is given by:

dOid t = RI - RD

where RI is rate of addition of Oi, andRD is rate of mineralization of Oi.

RD is likely to be related to Oi by afunction of the form:

RD = aOib (1)

An artist’s conception of the agricultural area of a space colony, designed by theNASA-Ames/Stanford 1975 summer study. The area is shown situated between twoparks on the top four levels of the farm, soybeans, wheat, sorghum and some othercrops would be grown. The bottom level is a drying facility. Water would be supplieddirectly from the river and indirectly through the fish tanks that line the sides

a and b are constants and b is likely to be If we assume RI = 20 g/m2 year, then atgreater than 1.0. Thus: equilibrium, Oi = 722 g/m2. The rate of

d O i = R I - a O i b

d t

If RI remains constant, Oi reachesequilibrium when:

aOib = RI

and the equilibrium level of Oi is:

(R l / a ) 1 / b

Nitrogen is one of the most importantconstituents of soil organic matter.Equation 2 derives from a small amountof data collected at North Wyke andRothamsted Experimental Stations (bothUK). The amounts of organic nitrogenin soils were measured and the quantitiesof nitrogen mineralized were estimatedfrom crop nitrogen uptake and leachinglosses.

loge RD = 1.963loge Oi - 9.923 (2)

r = 0.931 residual SD = 0.349 P 0.001

RD and Oi were on a g/m2/year basis

Equation (2) may be expressed:

RD = 0.000049 Oi1.963

attainment of this level can be estimated.In year t, the level of Oi is:

Oit = Oio + RI - aOib/(t-1)

where Oio is the level of organic nitrogenin year zero (itself zero for lunar regolith).Combining equations (1) and (3) providesa crude dynamic model of organicnitrogen accumulation. For a constantvalue of RI = 20 g/m2/year, the rates ofchange of Oi and RD are shown in Fig. 1.The process of accumulation of organicnitrogen is clearly long-term, and soil inthe colony might be expected to evolveover many decades. However, values ofa and b in equation (2) derive from alimited amount of terrestrial data; theirvalues would be affected by the lack ofwinter seasons on a colony and by thespecies of micro-organisms chosen forinoculating the soil. The value of RI alsoaffects the rate of attainment ofequil ibrium.

The accumulation of organic matterwould not increase substantially theamount of soil per unit area. Soil organicmatter typically contains around 5%nitrogen and, in the example above, thefinal level of organic matter would beonly around 14kg/m2 .

10

REPLY TO DR. RICHARDSJames Kempf

The conflict between hydroponicsand soil cultivation is actually moreapparent than real, as Dr. Richards haspointed out. For the immediate future,the cost of lifting biomass from the Earthwith projected lift systems will probablylimit agriculture to a system with a lowrequirement for biomass and a shortrecycling time, namely hydroponics.Once the lunar mass driver and lunarmining facilities have been constructedand construction of large scale habitatsat L-5 is underway, soil farming becomesa possibility. The time scales for theimplimentation of the two systems arethus of different orders.

According to Dr. Richards’calculations, the time which would berequired to build up organic nitrogen inlunar soil is upwards of 20 years andwould involve a final level of soil organicmatter (after about 100 years of soilevolution) to about 14 kg/m2 ofagricultural area. If one figures on 250m2 which Dr. Richards has cited asnecessary to feed a single person, a finallevel of organic matter of some 3500 kg/person would be required (vs. about200 kg/person for a hydroponic system),plus whatever amount is stored as food,unrecycled biomass, carbon dioxide inthe atmosphere, etc.

At shuttle lift costs ($180 per kilo),lifting enough organic matter to supply asoil farm would cost over eighteen timesas much as for a hydroponic system.Since carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen arerare on the moon, most organic matterfor initial habitats must be lifted fromEarth, until exploitation of carbonaceouschondrites in the asteroid belt can bearranged. Hydroponics becomes morecost effective than soil farming, butconsiderations of soil farming are notpremature, since extensive landscapingof the habitats, if it is deemed desirable,will involve just such calculations as Dr.Richards has presented.

F i g . 1 C h a n g e s i n 0 n a n d R D n w i t h t i m e

conferencesTHIRD PRINCETON / AIAA CONFERENCE ON SPACEMANUFACTURING FACILITIES May 10-13, 1977Princeton UniversityPrinceton, New JerseyAbstract Deadline:December 1, 1976

The Third Princeton/AIAA Conferenceon Space Manufacturing Facilities(including space colonization) will becosponsored by the Princeton UniversityConference and the AIAA. Its purpose isto provide a forum for papers ofsubstantive content, in both technicaland relevant nontechnical areas, toconsolidate in a single meeting and in asingle publication the many and oftendisparate studies and research effortswhich have been undertaken in thisrapidly growing field since the previousConference was held in May 1975. It isexpected that the Proceedings of theThird Conference will provide thedefinitive technical and non-technicalbasis for accelerating the evaluation oflarge manufacturing facilities located inspace. Papers are solicited in the specificareas of “Space Manufacturing Facility(SMF)“, “ Assembly and Maneuvering ofLarge Structures in Space,” “Propulsionand Transport,” ” Mining and MaterialsProcessing, ” “Applications for LargeSpace-based Facilities,” “Economics(Including Applications),” “LifeSupport, ” “International, Political, andLegal Considerations,” “Anthropological,Sociological, and Esthetic Implications”;however, relevant papers of high qualitywhich do not fit within these specifictopical areas will be considered foracceptance by the Program Committee.

Prospective authors are invited tosubmit abstracts of 500-1.000 words orpreliminary drafts of final papers foracceptance review. These abstractsshould be prepared in accordance withthe “Instructions for Preparation ofMeeting Abstracts” appearing in theAIAA Bulletin, September, 1976, andthree copies must be submitted byDecember 1, 1976 to the ProgramCommittee Chairman: Dr. Gerard K.O’Neill, Department of Physics, JadwinHall, Room 302, Princeton University,Princeton, New Jersey 08540.

Authors will be notified as toacceptance of their papers about January,1977. Authors of accepted papers will beexpected to submit photoreadymanuscripts no later than March 18,1977.

11

7th INTERSOCIETYCONFERENCE ONENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMSJuly 11-14, 1977San Francisco, CaliforniaAbstract Deadline:December 1, 1976

This conference is sponsored jointlyby the Society of Automotive Engineers(SAE), the host Society, the AmericanInstitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics(AIAA), the American Society ofMechanical Engineers (ASME), theAmerican Institute of ChemicalEngineers (AIChE), and the AerospaceMedical Association (ASMA). TheGeneral Conference Chairman is Dr. J.M.Spurlock, Engineering ExperimentStation, Georgia Institute of Technology,Atlanta, GA 30332.

The Conference is open to participantsfrom any nation. Individuals who wish topresent a paper need not be affiliatedwith any of the sponsoring societies.Proposed papers will be evaluated solelyon the basis of their suitability forinclusion in the program.

There will be four days of technicalpresentations, with at least one morningand one afternoon session every day.Each session generally will be limited tosix papers. Contributed papers aresolicited for all sessions listed below.Authors who wish to contribute a papermust submit for evaluation a summary ofapproximately 200 words (or a full-lengthmanuscript), in accordance with theabstract preparation instructions of anyof the sponsoring societies. Three copiesof these summary abstracts are to besubmitted to the responsible programchairman. Each abstract should include alist of names, affiliations and mailingaddresses of all authors.

Section topics and responsibleprogram chairmen are:

Topic Area I: Marine Technology andApplications for Effluent Control,Environmental Control and WasteManagementSession OrganizerMr. Paul SchatzbergNaval Ship R&D CenterCode 286Annapolis, MD 21402Topic Area II: Advanced Technology forSpacecraft EC/LSS; Personal ProtectiveSystems; and Waste Water ReclamationAIAA Program ChairmanDr. Stacy Hunt, Jr.General Electric Co.P.O. Box 8555Philadelphia, PA 19101

Topic Area III: Space Shuttle andRegenerable Shuttle EnvironmentalControl Systems and Regenerable LifeSupport System EvaluationASME Program ChairmanMr. Franz SchubertLife Systems Incorporated24755 Highpoint RoadCleveland, OH 44122

Topic Area IV: Spacecraft/MissileThermal Control, Environmental Controland Thermal Protection Systems (paperscan involve ground or space applicationsfor missiles or spacecraft; or thermalcontrol aspects of terrestrial energysystems, their management andconservation. Papers can cover results ofanalyses and/or tests in support ofresearch, design development, andproduction or implementation); andAircraft Environmental and ThermalControl SystemsSAE Program ChairmanMr. P.B. ClineGeneral Electric Co.3198 Chestnut StreetRoom 3700 DPhiladelphia, PA 19101Session Co-organizersMr. J.I. GonzalezMartin Marietta AerospaceP.O. Box 5837Mail Point 129Orlando, FL 32805andMr. John G. RoukisGrumman Aerospace CorporationDept. 410; Plt 35Bethpage, NY 11714

Topic Area V: Chemical EngineeringApplications in Life Support SystemsAlChE Program ChairmanDr. Robert C. ReidDept. of Chemical EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, Mass. 02139

Abstracts for papers which fall outsidethe above session topics will be consideredif of sufficient merit and should besubmitted directly to the GeneralConference Chairman.

Offers of papers must reach the listedProgram Chairman no later thanDecember 1, 1976. Authors will benotified of papers or abstract acceptance by January 23, 1977. Authors ofaccepted papers then must submit threecopies of manuscripts to organizers forreview by February 16, 1977. Final,approved manuscripts are due by April 1,1977 and will be published by the ASME.Late papers will be rejected by the ASME.An author whose paper has not beenpublished will not be permitted topresent his paper at the conference.

INSTITUTE ON MAN ANDSCIENCE CONFERENCE REPORT

Jon Coopersmith

I was in Rensselaerville, New York, toattend a program of the Institute on Manand Science on space colonies. It was veryexciting as we (eighty odd in all) exploredsome of the human aspects of spacecolonies for five days.

Before I proceed, I should explainwhat the IMS is. A non-profiteducational center, it explores socialproblems and possibilities where scienceand technology are major factors. Theinstitute uses many different methods inattempting this, but always puts peoplebefore science. Our conference was anannual event and the actual title was“A Week with Isaac Asimov” whichindeed it was.

The format was elegant in itssimplicity. We were divided into fivegroups, each chaired by a volunteer andassigned a resource person. Each groupdiscussed a topic, then presented itsfindings before a meeting of the wholebody. Several of the presentations werequite impressive, being full stageproductions.

In his opening, Harold Williams, theInstitute president, emphasised that wewere here to deal with people-nottechnical problems. With one significantexception, we did that.

Our group’s first task was to determinethe degree to which the first colonyshould represent a cross-section of theAmerican people. We discussed severalaspects of this problem, finally decidingthat there should be no skewing of ethnic,racial or sexual factors, but that thereshould be a skewing of age, physical andmental characteristics, as well as a person’seducational background.

We also brought forth a few thingsthat seemed, on hindsight, obvious, buthad not been mentioned although theywere important factors. For instance, thefirst colonists will probably go throughsome common training, possibly for a fewyears. Aside from ensuring that neededskills will be provided, this will also washout those who are not sufficientlymotivated. And when the colonistsactually inhabit L-5, they will not all goat once, but will go up in stages. Theseare small things, but indicative of whatwe were trying to do.

Another group in the first session dealtwith death. This provoked the mostintense emotional discussion of theconference. What do you do with thebody? Is it just matter or somethingmore? Graveyards are unthinkable, butwhat about cremation? Or putting thecorpse in orbit around L-5? Possiblyshooting the body into the sun or out ofthe solar system (what would happen ifan ET found the bodies and becameaddicted to these frozen dinners?)?Or should we simply recycle the bodyright away for the greater good instead

1 2

of waiting a few billion years? I see no“right” answers, but I have a few ideas.

After a delicious dinner (the food wassuperb) we had a series of speeches. PaulSiegler, the head of EARTH/SPACE Inc.,spoke on economic and technocraticperspectives of L-5. He expressed theneed to have a diversified rather than asingle base to allow for failure,experimentation and better response toneeds instead of catering to a rigid plan.

A sociology professor, PauI Meadowsof SUNY, speaking about utopiancommunities, summed up four criteriafor long-term success:

1. a sense of mission;2. an acceptance of the meaningfulnessof work (variability of jobs helps);3. a communalized power structurewith control of property, finance andauthority;4. a need for committmentmechanisms to (a) instill sacrifice andreinvestment; (b) develop feelings ofsolidarity; (c) formulate beliefs andprinciples to unify the colony andexplain its justification andmeaningfulnessThe University of Florida’s Bert

Swanson posed several questions of apolitical nature, ranging from Earth L-5links to the functions and form of theL-5 government. He also solidified ourthinking on two important concepts,random selection and random rules ofgovernance. The former is basically anadmission that we do not know theanswer as to who is the best qualified,though we may know many who are wellqualified. In addition, the gene pool isstrengthened through diversity, a matterof no small import.

In the latter, interchangeableresponsibility is built by having everyonehandle a variety of tasks and functions.This is most egalitarian in nature andis a feature of a new society that I feelwe should try. A higher redundancyfactor is achieved also.

To be honest, I do not recall what our

The CoEvolution Quarterly

Asimov: “Expert on almost everything.”

second task was exactly. I know weproduced a wonderfully enjoyable skitand rewrote the question, but I forgetwhat we dealt with exactly. I think thatthose long social hours which usuallyextended until four in the morning mayhave had something to do with this.Basically, we tried to express what wethought would be good characteristics forcolonists to have. I won’t bore you withour conclusions; suffice it to say thatPlato would have been proud.

Another group worked on possiblenames and, after considering some sevenscore, selected Chrysalis.

Yet another group, studying designoptions, developed a novel colonyconcept. Instead of a cylinder or torus,it is essentially a giant corkscrew, capableof unlimited growth and opening winebottles several kilometers in length. Mostimpressive.

Our third assignment after rearrangingtask groups was to discuss how theeducational system should/wouldsocialize the colonists. The main result ofthis was a demonstration of the powerof the group. Over lunch the leader of thegovernment group confided to three of usthat her group was proceeding alongrather limited lines and not consideringseveral concepts of government that wehappened to like. We generously offeredto stage a coup d’etat to present theseviewpoints, but made the mistake ofmentioning this to the rest of our group.We were, to put it mildly, put down inour places.

Our fourth question dealt with thepopulation mix of L-5. Will it be mostlypermanent or transient in nature? Is L-5a stepping stone, an observatory or acolony first? What proportion oftransients should there be?

Other groups dealt with propertyrights (should there be any?), the rightsof children, childrearing possibilities --well, you have the general idea. Weexplored-not too deeply, but we didexplore-some of the less thought outaspects of an L-5 habitat.

Several things are clear from theconference. A lot more thinking is goingto have to be done over a very wide rangeof subjects. Designing a new world-aviable new world-is more complicatedthan it seems. For example, human rights

as we perceive them in our society mayhave to undergo change. There may be alessening of the sanctity of the individual.

The form of government remains avolatile question. My thinking is that adual government will emerge-a technicalsemi-authoritarian part to ensure thecontinuance of life support systems anda semi-libertarian part to handleeverything else.

Our group experience was excellent --for five days we worked, ate, joked andlived together in a very congenialatmosphere. We had Isaac Asimov,accurately billed as an "expert on almosteverything," and Ben Bova as resourcepersonnel to comment on our proposalsand to launch us forth onto other ideas(Isaac, by the way, proposed that a spacelaboratory be set up to undertake DNAmutation experiments so they would notendanger the earth if contaminationprocedures failed). We had NASA’slsidore Adler to help us also. People-andthe ability to interact-were the heart ofthis conference. Terri Rapoportcoordinated everything very well.

See you either on Chrysalis or at theInstitute conference next year!

Lecture Tour

World Con -- Ready to GoAbout half of the members of a

general audience who have heard alecture on Space Colonies will raise theirhands in response to the question “wouldyou like to go?” Not science fiction fans,though-they respond at about the 99%level.

L-5 Director Keith Henson queried1500 science fiction fans when he spokeon the Life in Space panel atMidAmeriCon, the 34th World ScienceFiction Convention, held over the LaborDay weekend in Kansas City. Hensonspoke on the L-5 concept, ‘76 SummerStudy results, the political and popular

1 3

support for the program, and theactivities of the L-5 Society.

Moderator of the panel was L-5member Jerry Pournelle; other panelmembers were Joe Green of NASA, whotalked about the lack of public supportfor space programs, especially Marsmissions; Larry Niven, who spoke onpossible futures on and off planets, andMarion Zimmer Bradley, who spoke onthe need to carefully consider the socialside effects of space colonies.

Poul Anderson responded to thepanel speakers and there was a livelyquestion and answer period, mostly onspace colonies.

Austin, tooThanks to the dedicated efforts of

L-5 members Gayle Watson and HarlanSmith (and Dr. Smith’s excellent staff),Austin turned out a crowd of about 500to hear a lecture (by Henson) on spacecolonies.

Lunar Science Institute“You mean we could have tons of

moon rock?”A hastily called meeting organized by

L-5 members Larry Friesan and JimOberg at LSI brought out 50 people fromJohnson Space Flight Center and LSI.Though initially skeptical, the discussionswhich followed convinced most of theaudience that this is a serious proposalwith a lot of technical merit and thestirrings of large scale political support.

The rate at which new members arejoining seems to have increased as a resultof these lectures.

The Society has several experiencedlecturers in various parts of the country.Some travel for business reasons and areavailable at low cost to the Society.Considerable advance work is required tomake these events effective: publicity,scheduling, slide projectors and thearranging of newspaper, TV and radiocoverage. This kind of activity is a primereason for the Society’s existence. It alsogives a local organization a large step upby bringing together people with interestin L-5 from the community. Write theLecture Coordinator at SocietyHeadquarters if you are interested.

BIBLIOGRAPHY NEWSA copy of the complete L-5

bibliography is available from the Societyfor $1.00. It will also be sent free toanyone who orders publications from theSociety.

The society is in the process ofgathering permissions to reproduce copiesof as many items as possible from thebibliography list. We hope to become anational (and international) clearinghousefor information on space industrialization,satellite solar power, and the permanenthabitation of space.

Part 2

HOME, HOMEON LAGRANGE

The first installment of Heppenheimer’s story (see August issue) told of theselection of colonists and training procedures at Houston.

In the on-the-job training, some taskswere quite familiar. The manufacture ofwire, needed in huge quantities forstrengthening pressure chambers, wasnearly the same as on Earth. Similarly,there were few changes in the rolling ofsteel and aluminum plates or beams. Onenovel process, however, required a gooddeal of care: vacuum-vapor deposition.

In this process, aluminum structures arebuilt up by being literally sprayed on.The aluminum is vaporized in a furnace,and in vacuum the vapor is made toescape through a small hole. The resultingspray then is directed at a form whichrotates past, as if it were paint from anaerosol can. Over time, the form buildsup a thick coat of aluminum, which canthen be further strengthened with wire.

We had to contend with the problemof weightlessness, because so much ofour work was to be in zero-g, yet ourtraining was in Houston at normalgravity. Thus, we spent a fair amount ofour time in simulators. These had TVscreens and joysticks to be moved byhand, all hooked up to a computer. Atrainee would be shown computer-generated scenes typical of actualindustrial activities to be encountered inspace; he then had to move the joysticksso as to respond appropriately. Thejoysticks had mechanisms attached togive a proper feel to the motions, aswould indeed be experienced in space.The computer-would allow the test toproceed if the trainee was doing thingsright, but if he goofed, it would informhim of the consequences: YOU ARETUMBLING ASS OVER ELBOW AT 13.5RPM or YOU HAVE JUST CRASHEDINTO THE WIRE-DRAWING MACHINEAT 20.3 MILES PER HOUR.

Also, some of the colonists were to beengaged in agriculture. In space, theywould have sunlight round the clock,available whenever the plants needed itfor optimum growth. In Houston, therewas artificial lighting to serve thatpurpose; but apart from that, the setupwas very much as it would be in space.The agriculture is very intensive up here;it’s the equivalent of a 100-acre farmproviding food for 10,000 people.Though this yield is much higher thanyou get on a farm in Illinois or Indiana,it is only twice the yield of the best

greenhouses, in deserts like Abu Dhabi.The trick is to adjust the growing

conditions to what the crops like best.This means adjusting the lighting,temperature, humidity, as well astreating the crops with just the rightmixture of chemicals. A lot of the workin Houston was of the nature ofexperimental agriculture, determiningoptimum conditions and things likethat. One important task was to developfarmers’ judgment as to how individualcrops were doing. This required practice;a stand of wheat or alfalfa, which in Iowamight win a 4-H prize, by the standardsof the colony might be positively sickly.

There was quite a lot of humbugabout space agriculture, in those days.Some people pointed out, quite correctly,that on Earth crops are grown within acomplex ecology, or web of life. Theythen stated, quite incorrectly, that cropscould not be grown apart from this web.If you take that kind of argument at allfar, you find yourself arguing that wecan’t grow crops without the mealy-bugand the locust and boll weevil. Actually,the scientific basis of agriculture goesback to the German chemist, JustusLiebig, in 1840. He showed that it was amatter of adding the proper chemicals tothe soil, and plants would grow. That’s

T h e C o E v o l u t i o n Q u a r t e r l y

all; it’s very simple. Actually, though, wehave always raised our colony’s plants aspart of a web of life. The plants grow, andwe eat them-there’s your web.

I’m getting a bit ahead of the storynow, but I can’t help bragging about ourcrop scientists and the wonderful thingsthey’ve done. Like dosing the crops withghiberellic acid, for super-fast growth.Or introducing new varieties bred foremphasis on growing fruit, not stems orleaves. We get oranges as big ascantaloupes, and watermelons youwouldn’t believe.

Well, about a year after we all got toHouston, it was announced that theflights to the colony were about tobegin. We were grouped in batches of200, and every couple of weeks one ofthese batches would leave our center inHouston, to go to Cape Canaveral for thelaunch. For most of us, it was the firstchance in a year to see the world outsideour earthbound space colony-and, weknew, the last such chance, quite likelyfor many years to come.

We all had seen space launches, bothon TV and as part of our training, butthat wasn’t quite the same as seeing ourrocket up close and actually flying in it.The thing was really impressive. Thefirst stage was as big as a Boeing 747,standing on its tail, and a good deal fatter.The main stage was mounted upon itsbelly, and looked nearly as large as theW ashington Monument, though at 300feet tall it was, of course, a lot shorter.The top 100-odd feet of it was fitted outas a wide-body spaceliner. There weretwo decks, each with a hundred couches.We also had partitions which we coulddraw around the couches, for privacy,somewhat like in the old Pullman cars.There were portholes, and a large viewingarea at the nose.

Since we would initially be living inthe construction shack, we could nottake along all our household furnishings;there simply wouldn’t be room in thelittle cubicles where we’d be living. Eachof us was allowed to take 500 pounds,which at least was enough for things likeclothing, books, stereo, and tapes orrecords. The Government announcedthat it would store the rest of our stuffuntil the colony was completed and wewere ready to move in. At least theyhad the decency not to charge us for thisstorage.

The flights out were rather uneventful.There was the flight to orbit, witheveryone lying on his couch. After theend of thrusting, the passenger sectionwouId separate from its second-stagebooster, with a loud bang which used tostartle some people. Then a ratherstrange-looking collection of tanks witha single rocket engine in the middlewould approach. This was the space-based rocket, to take us to the colony.The trip took five days.

It was, for most of us, our firstexperience with weightlessness. There

was always a doctor or two on board, tohelp some of us adjust; you’d see peoplerunning round the aft bulkhead, to getacclimatized. The food was okay, andthey served steak a couple times-just tolet us know what we’d be missing, oncewe got to the construction shack..

That shack had initially been built inlow Earth orbit, and carefully checkedout there. It wasn’t quite what you’d calla pleasure dome, but it had all thefacilities we’d need to build the colonyand the powersats. There were largesolar-energy systems for power, and anextensive ore-processing plant whichwould turn out a couple hundred tons ofaluminum per day, I believe. There wasa construction sphere, a hundred metersin diameter-a closed sphere in whichassembly of major components couldtake place. And there was a cluster ofthirty-foot-diameter modules for peopleto live in. After it was assembled, abunch of astronauts and other seniortypes went on board to live, in orderto see that it was fit for human beings,and to check out the equipment. Thesesame people were there when we arrived,to make sure we’d quickly be able to getworking in it.

Before we could start building acolony, there was a little matter of somehousekeeping around the constructionshack. We had to strengthen theconstruction sphere with wire, spun fromsteel and titanium smelted in the ore-processing plant. This was so the spherecould be pressurized. The projectmanagement very thoughtfully hadarranged that most of our work wouldbe without space suits, in chamberspressurized with oxygen. We had beenintroduced to space suits during ourHouston training, and they were a hell ofa thing to wear. They were described tous as “constant-volume” suits, whichsupposedly should flex and bend easily,but the only thing that was constant wasthe volume of our complaints as to howdifficult it was to work in them.Anyway, the arrangement was that wewould assemble major structural sectionsin the construction sphere, then movethem out into space for final assembly.That way, only for final assembly needanyone work in a space suit.

As I say, we had to strengthen thesphere with wire. We also had to builda thick shell of lunar soil over majorparts of the shack, for protection againstradiation. This shell also served forstorage of lunar materials, since fromtime to time we would take some of itand feed it to the ore-processing.

Our lunar material did not come tous directly from the Moon, but came in abit of a roundabout way. In the OceanusProcellarum there was the lunar base,with its mass-driver. That was, and is, anelectromagnetic catapult-l don’t reallyunderstand the principles involved. Itlaunched chunks of lunar material withvery high accuracy, to a point behind the

Moon where they could be caught. Thecatching was done by catcher vehicles,huge, cone-shaped affairs somewhatresembling a sawed-off dirigible both insize and shape. There were two of them,and some fan of the New York Yankeeshad named them the Yogi Berra and theElston Howard. Every couple of monthsone of them would hove into view-theywere self-propelled-and deliver to usabout half a million tons of lunarmaterial.

It didn’t take long to settle down intoa routine. We built the power satellitesbecause that was our job, but we builtthe colony because it was our futurehome. There was a master scheduleticking down the days till the colonywould be complete and we could movein, and of course everyone knew fromday to day just how construction wasprogressing. It was one of the things thatkept our spirits up. We certainly neededall of that we could get, because life inthat construction shack really could bequite unpleasant.

It just was too cramped for any realcomfort. It made some of us think ofsea duty in aircraft carriers, while otherswere reminded of freshman days atcollege, squeezing four into a two-manroom. We had these little cubicles, eachfor two people. Since we were big boysand girls, we could choose ourroommates, so from that standpoint atleast it was okay. The lucky ones hadrooms with a porthole. We had thesezero-g showers, and zero-g toilets, inwhich currents of air served in place ofgravity. Also, there was zero-g eating.

We got our food at various stores inthe shack. Most of it was grown in theshack, after a while. The variety wasn’tall the greatest, but it certainly wasn’tthe freeze-dried crap which they stillwere serving in the Spacelab missions.And it was a far cry from that marvelousdiet, of distilled urine and toastedChlorella algae, which had been proposedback in the early days of astronautics. Inaddition to fruits and wheat, we grewlots of soybeans. Some of our chemistsrigged equipment to turn soybeans intoTVP -- textured vegetable protein -- andthey tried to make artificial steaks andthings from the TVP, using artificialflavors. I think most of us appreciatedtheir effort, if not their product.

We got real meat from rabbits. Wegrew alfalfa for their feed, and the factthat rabbits multiply like, well, rabbits,meant that they were another veryproductive crop. Rabbit meat tastes andhandles like chicken, and we found lotsof ways to prepare it. Some enterprisingguys even opened a fast-food stand,“McPeter’s”, which served quarter-pound rabbit burgers with cheese.

We also raised chickens, which gaveus eggs. And we kept a herd of dairygoats, fed with the leaves and stems ofthe plants. These goats were chosenbecause they were very good at producing

15

milk. We got enough milk to have plentyof butter and cheese, not to mention icecream. It got so we were eating ice creamtwo or three times a day, and thosechemists I mentioned kept whipping upnew flavors for us. I guess it was to helpboost our morale. But what reallyboosted it was when some of us learnedto run the milk through a still.

Our recreational activities mainlycentered around various types of media.We had excellent radio facilities forcommunication with Earth, of course, soit was easy to make phone calls to ourformer homes. This has remained trueever since, that there is the policy ofmaking it easy to make phone calls toEarth. Certainly, in those days it waseasy enough to get to feeling isolated onan outpost, and a long phone chat thencould be much better than a letter fromhome. The public has always been quiteaware of what we were doing and howimportant it was, and our friends andrelations back on Earth were usually veryproud of us. After the first colony wasfinished, quite a few of them wereintrigued by our stories of life in space,and came up to join us.

We had a film library of about fivethousand movies, on videotape, datingback to the 1930’s. We had a library ofrecords and tapes numbering in the tensof thousands. Also, there was a TV andradio station, retransmitting programssent from Earth. Mostly the TV showedbaseball or pro football from thepreceding week; it also ran two or threesoap operas. Not exactly the PublicTelevision Network, but it suited ourtastes. Also, there was a big library ofbooks and magazines on microfiche, withportable plug-in readers that wereactually convenient for reading in bed.We used to get new tapes or microfichesalong with our mail, on the regularflights up from Earth.

We got our paychecks every week,with Social Security and income taxdeducted, of course. The colonyadministrators had gone to some effortto ensure that the internal economywould not be too different from what wewere accustomed to. There was a systemof subsidies for the cost of spacetransport, so that a tube of toothpaste,imported from Earth, cost 79 centsinstead of the thirty-odd dollars it wouldhave cost if we had had to pay the actualfreight charge. Our food costs were alsoadjusted so that we paid pretty muchwhat was reasonable. We paid rent of$300 a month for those little cubicles,$400 if it had a porthole-and for whatwe were getting, that sure was a lousydeal, even though it included the cost ofutilities. Our finances didn’t really involvepaying cash or check; we would haveneeded too many people minding cashregisters. Instead, we used credit cardscoded with electronic data, to charge ourpurchases and expenses with the aid of acomputer. Similarly, our paychecks

really were notices of the earnings anddeductions credited to our accounts. Allour banking was by computer, and if wewanted to put money into a bank, thattoo was handled via communications withEarth. You could go for months withoutseeing a dollar bill. But the system wasenough like the checks and credit cardswe all were accustomed to, that it workedokay.

Except for having to live in thosecramped cubicles, those years in theconstruction shack weren‘t bad. We hadplenty of work, and the pay was good.Most of us were regularly saltingsomething away, and the microfiche WallStreet Journal was heavily read. Ofcourse, we could communicate with ourbanks by phone or letter (the spacemailrates also were subsidized), to arrangefor investment.

After the first few weeks in the shack,we were ready to go ahead with round-the-clock construction. The firstpowersat took a Year to build; the onesafter that went more quickly. The firstone, when it was finished, was sent offtowards the Moon. That was to provide agreat deal of additional power for thelunar base. This, in turn, meant that indue time they would be able to greatlyincrease the rate of shipping material outto us. The second powersat, and all theones after, went down to synchronousorbit around the Earth. When the firstof these was turned on and began sendingdown its power, we all stopped work towatch on TV. There was a ceremony withthe President, and he was making somesort of speech about a “new inexhaustiblesource of power”. Really, the TV camerasshould have been on us and not him,since we were the ones doing the work;but that’s the way it is.

Those powersats really are beautifulthings. If you think of the old clipperships, you may recall their tiny hulls and

tall masts, spreading such huge expansesof sail. That’s what a powersat is like.There are the generator plants, withradiator panels attached, which are athousand feet across. There also aresupport structures, which are barelyvisible at a distance. But largest of allare those huge solar mirrors. The mirrorsurfaces are nearly two miles across, andeach powersat has four or five of them.It’s not the size, though, that makes thepowersats impressive. In space there islittle perception of distance, and a ten-mile-wide powersat a hundred miles awaylooks much the same as would a muchsmaller one, closer in. But those hugeexpanses of mirror surface, shimmering inthe light, with barely visible ripplesrunning slowly across them-those arewhat sticks in my mind.

We began building the actual colonyabout the same time as the firstpowersat. There had been rumors thatthe program would be changed on usand that we would wind up buildingpowersats only; I think there’d have beena mutiny if that had happened. The mainpart of the colony was in the shape of ahuge bicycle tire, a mile and a half wide,with the rim being four hundred feetwide. To start the construction, we weresent from Earth an actual inflatableplastic form, in the proper size and shape.Certainly it was the largest inner tubeever built.

We inflated it just enough so it wouldhold its form, in the vacuum, thenwrapped it with miles and miles of wireand cable. That was to strengthen it, sowe could inflate it some more. Then ourvacuum-vapordeposition people went towork. Over a period of about a year, theybuilt up a thick layer of aluminum overthe form. Also, our glass workers fittedthick panes into the inner rim. This wasso that by placing mirrors in the centerof the colony, at the axis of that bicycle

tire, it would be possible to reflectsunlight into it. Once that outer shellwas complete, of aluminum and glass, westrengthened it with another wrapping ofcable and pressurized it up to a normalatmosphere. This meant that whenworking on the inside, we would bebreathing real air again. Also, we removedthe plastic form from the inside, to beused in time for building the nextcolony. Then that shell was slowly spunup to one rpm, to give normal gravity.

The part that took the longest tobuild was the radiation shield. If youthink of the colony as resembling abicycle wheel, the shield was the tireover that wheel. It was of ordinary rockand soil covering the whole colony, andsix feet thick. There were angled sectionswith mirror surfaces, over the windowedareas, to let the sunshine through. Thisshield weighed ten million tons, so ittook several years to build. It kept downthe level of radiation inside, from solarflares, cosmic rays and whatnot, to aboutthe level of Denver, Colorado. Thismeant that those of us who wanted tocould go ahead and have kids.

We had all along had a few kids in theconstruction shack. Some were oldenough to learn the exercise routineseveryone did, to stay healthy inweightlessness. Those who weren’t, werecontinually fussed over by doctors, andgiven frequent rides with their motherson centrifuges so they could see whatgravity is like. I think the young babiesreally were better off for living so muchin zero-g. It was somewhat like what theyhad known in the womb.

Once the main, bicycle-tire portionswere completed, the rest went veryfast. The agricultural areas, the apartmentcomplexes, the shops and parks, and thecentral hub with its big spokes to therim-those all were completed while theradiation shield was being filled. Thensome of the main industrial areas of theconstruction shack were detached andhooked up to the central hub. We builta big radiator, for temperature control,and installed the necessary systems tomake the colony run. Then everyone hadto wait impatiently until the Presidentcould arrange to come up and formallydedicate the colony, before we couldmove in.

He came up along with a bunch ofCabinet members and Congressionalleaders. He shook as many colonists’hands as he could, grinning all the whilefor the cameras, and then he made hisbig speech. He quoted from JohnKennedy, and talked about humanity’snever-ending future on the High Frontier.Maybe I’m a bit cynical about politicians,but it really was a fine speech. He said alot of what we’d been thinking all along.And, of course, it’s nice to see thePresident supporting so strongly what wehad been doing.

Then he unveiled a plaque whichstated that our colony was the Morris K.

Udall Center for Space Industrialization.Mo Udall was a Senate leader, who formany years had supported and advocatedthe colonization of space, working on itsbehalf even while he was still a memberof the House of Representatives. Ofcourse, the real founder of the wholething was Gerard O’Neill of PrincetonUniversity. Starting in the early 1970’she and his associates had developed themajor ideas, and in time won enoughsupport in Washington to put it over.Still, O’Neill never was a member ofCongress, which is why the colony didn’tget named for him.

There was one O’Neill idea which goesback to the earliest studies ofcolonization, which we all very muchappreciated. This was that there shouldbe a lot of effort and attention paid tomaking the colonies pleasant places tolive. From the first, O’Neill had talked interms of garden apartments, of trees andgrass and flowing streams, and of similarpleasing prospects. Unfortunately, hehadn’t reckoned with the fact that thearchitects and designers would be workingworking for that vast and unimaginativebureaucracy, the Space IndustrializationAdministration. Still, if we aren’t livingamid the scenic beauties of O’Neill’s earlydescriptions, what we have is at least asgood as anything most of us have everhad on the Earth. And it’s a far cry fromthe construction shack cubicles.

We have terraced garden apartments,with nice rooms, furnished with the stuffwe had initially brought to Houston andthen left in storage. The bedrooms andfamily rooms are quite attractive. Mostapartments have patios facing out overthe colony interior. They were built in asort of a cluster style, resting on top ofeach other, but arranged in such a wayas to leave room for the patios and forour little lawns. The floors and ceilingsare well soundproofed.

We were able to buy small electriccarts, similar to golf carts, with which toget around. This meant that even though

the colony was as crowded as a majorcity, it was quiet and free of auto fumes.Also, quite a lot of us have boughtbicycles.

It didn’t take long before thepopulation began to grow. We set upnew day-care centers and began to set upschools, too. The teaching is by TV andradio link to the Earth. The teachersthere work with the children a quarter-million miles away, but we try to havereal, human teachers to drop in on thechildren as often as they can.

The space colony really seems to be agood place for children to grow up. Thereare not a great many kids here, so they’revalued and wanted more, quite likely,than if they lived on the Earth. On Earth,children and teenagers often havetrouble finding appropriate roles, insocieties that don’t really need them. Butwe need ours, to help our society grow,and they know it. From early in theirlives they learn what it means to be spacecolonists, and we see it reflected in theirplay and in their games, as well as in theway they talk.

So that pretty well brings us up towhere we are today. Since those earlydays in the last century, we’ve builthundreds of powersats, and half-a-dozenor so new colonies. We’ve built a settledtype of life here. Most of us expect tostay here quite happily, except foroccasional vacations back at Earth.

We can take such vacations now, nowthat there is the new Super-Shuttle. Itcarries as much payload as the oldHeavy-Lift Launcher, but it’s completelyreusable. So now it’s no sweat gettingfrom here down to Earth; and next week,that’s exactly what my wife and I willbe doing.

Our daughter is already down there,at the University of Michigan. One ofthese days we’re probably going to geta good university up here, but meanwhilewe send our bright young people downto the Earth. We’ll be visiting her,certainly, but we’ll be doing much more.

We’ve been round the world hundredsof times, but always at high altitude.Now we’ll be going around it once more,but this time at ground level. My wifehas always been fascinated with HongKong. As for me, I’m intrigued withvisiting the castles in the northeast ofEngland. So on the next Earthboundflight, we’ll be aboard.

SPEND A DAY ON MARSAs the answers to questions hundreds

of years old crackle across space to theplanet Earth from the Viking spacecrafton Mars, new questions are being raised.Theories concerning the basic ingredientsof life are being challenged, changed, andfortified by the Viking Mars missions.The ramifications of the search havebroad scientific implications, as well asthe philosophical and sociologicalquestions of “Who are we?” “How didwe get here? ” “Are we alone in theUniverse?”

FASST and the American Institute ofAeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)invite you to take part in a studentsymposium, “The Search for Life in OurSolar System.” The conference is to beheld at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory inPasadena, California, October 8, 1976.

Involved in the program will be:Ray Bradbury, Noted Science/Fiction

Writer: “Evolution of Our CosmicPerspective”

James Martin and Dr. Gerald Soffen,Viking Project Team: “The VikingProject and First Results”

Jesse Moore, J.P.L. Flight ProjectsPlanning Office: “The Future ofUnmanned Probes”

Scientist/Astronaut Dr. Karl Henize,Johnson Space Center: “MannedExploration of the Planet Mars”

Dr. John Billingham (Special DinnerPresentation) Ames Research Center:“The Search for ExtraterrestrialIntell igence.”

Participation is directed, but not

L-5 SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP FORM (please type or print)N L 6 0 9

NAME:

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

COMPLETE ADDRESS:

AFFIL IATION (OPTIONAL) :

TITLE OR POSITION (OPTIONAL):

I am -- am not -- interested in being active locally.

__ Back issues of L-5 News available, $1.OO each.

__ Please enroll me as an L-5 Society Member. I am enclosing a check for $ (regular membership, $20.00; studentmembership, $10.00; memberships include subscription to L-5 News).

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

1 7

limited, to college students and faculty.The registration fee is $9.00 whichincludes a tour, materials and dinner.

For those wishing to participate, sendyour registration fee with the followinginformation to FASST, 1785Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington,D.C. 20036: Name, mailing address,college represented, major field of study,phone number. Registration deadline --October 1st.

Inside L-5The L-5 staff this month included

New Yorker Bill O’Boyle; Jim Parker ofCovina, California; Eric Drexler ofCambridge, Massachusetts; andTucsonans Fred Michael, Dennis Riggin,Jim Kempf, Keith and Carolyn Henson,Daniel Lomax, and Jonathon Nix.

Those who wish to come to Tucson towork on the L-5 staff are offered freeroom and board with the Hensons. TheTucson staff enjoys the stimulation andfresh perspectives of the visiting staff.Visitors enjoy encountering the quaintcustoms of the Southwest and oftencomment on the stimulating nature ofthe contents of the Society’s files. Thefile labeled “Vituperation” is one of themore popular. For an exciting vacationin the balmy winter resort of Tucson,make your reservations now!

CHANGE OF POLICYL-5 library subscriptions are being

reduced to $20 per year. Newsletters arenormally priced very high to libraries-ifthey are available at all-as a librarysubscription displaces many regularsubscriptions. (People just copy them.)But the L-5 News has now grown so bigit costs more to copy it than to subscribe,so library subscriptions are now to ouradvantage. We would appreciate it if L-5members would ask their local librariesto subscribe.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, L-5 NEWSThis month the L-5 News is one year

old. That first issue was only 4 pages long.It carried articles on Gerard O’Neill’stestimony before the House Committeeon Science and Technology; thepreliminary report of the 1975 NASASummer Study on Space Colonization; aquote from Peter Glaser, father of thesolar power satellite concept, and anextensive bibliography.

One year later the L-5 News is up tothe status of a regular magazine and newmembers are coming in at a record rate.The L-5 staff would like to thank thoseof you who forked over $20 formembership in the Society back when wewere first starting; without you we wouldhave never gotten off the ground. Withthe continued support of our members,in our second year we can further raiseour standards.

Special thanks goes to the manyresearchers in the field. The Societywouldn’t have had much use for membersand donations if research on spacehabitats and industries had failed to showpromise.

We also really appreciate thecooperation of NASA in providing theL-5 News with artwork, and all ourmembers who have contributed articlesand letters.

Writing Letters to the Editor“What do I have to do to get my

letter printed,” some members haveasked. (1) Stick to one subject. Letterswhich ramble from one topic to another

are hard to read and understand.(2) Be brief. In general, an opinionstated in 500 words is a great deal moreinteresting than the same opinionelaborated on for 2000 words. (3) Don’tcall people names. We have a file labeled“Vituperation” for those letters. (4) Geta friend to read a draft of your letter.What appears crystal clear to you maylook like mud to a friend. Rewrite untilyour letter is easy to understand.

ADMINISTRATOR’S DESKSome of you will be receiving notices

that your membership in the Society hasexpired (or will be expiring). If thisnotice does not match your expectationsas to membership expiration, let us know.Some of the volunteers who made entriesinto subscription files did not record theeffective date of the subscription.

For the same reason, some of youmay not receive a notice who should begetting one. If this is the case, please sendin your membership renewal, and tell uswith what issue of the L-5 News yourmembership began.

The financial base of the Society ismemberships. The more members wehave, the better service we can provideeach member. You may notice that wenow have a larger newsletter and arebeginning to expand our membershipservices. This is because of the generosityof a private donor, who has providedadditional funding for the Society for alimited period of time. If each currentmember would find us one new member,we would be able to continue to operateon this level with no additional miracles.

L-5 SOCIETY,LOS ANGELES CHAPTER

W alter and Dorothy Travis will behaving a combination swim party, potluck, L-5 meeting and star party at 6 pm,October 16, at 1000 Wardman Dr., Brea,CA. RSVP: 714-529-5437.

AVAILABLE FROM L-5 SOCIETY

Nontechnical Presentation Slide Set: 16 slides, $6.00

Technical Slide Supplement: 16 slides, $6.00

Slide information for Nontechnical Set: $4.00(includes lecture material)

Supplemental Slide Set: 8 slides, $4.00

Back Issues of L-5 News: Numbers 1-13, $1.00 each.

CoEvolution Quarterly: Fall, 1975, and Summer, 1976issues largely devoted to this fascinating subject:space colonization. $2.50 each.

1 8

LETTERS

I would like to suggest that theL-5 Society consider changing its nameto the “Space Colonization Society” forthe simple reason of more rapididentification from the general publicwith the goals and purposes of theSociety. I would like to suggest that avote be put before the Board of Directorsregarding their desire to continue the useof the name L-5 Society or, change tothe name Space Colonization Society. Inaddition, an item in the newsletterregarding the proposed change mightalso be appropriate.

Although I am personally quitefamiliar with the problems of changingnames, I believe that the logo of theorganization can be maintained. I fearfor the day when another group ofindividuals forms a separate societyutilizing the name “Space ColonizationSociety” which would then, unavoidably,leave those of us in L-5 far behind as faras membership is concerned.

Sincerely,David M. FradinExecutive Vice PresidentEnvironmental BalanceAssociation of Minnesota

How do you feel about changing theorganization name from L-5 to UniverseSociety? Some people get the impressionthe only place we can build is at L-5.W ould appreciate your comments.

Bill Agosto

As a fellow active member of the L-5Society, I read with interest about our$25 reward “for an interview with eitherof the candidates for President on theL-5 project.” I quote again the same issueof the L-5 News: ”‘But what does hethink the ideal society would look like?’Brand (tolerantly): ‘He’d say that’s thewrong question, because the answering ofit prevents the realization of it. As soonas you’ve got a plan of what everyonewants to do, there’s no way it’s goingto happen.‘”

Realizing the overwhelming influenceour $25 reward will have on the course ofthe American Presidential election, Imention the possibility this year of athird major Presidential candidate.

I agree with independent Presidentialcandidate Eugene J. McCarthy that cutsshould be made in military spending(where the money is); I disagree withhim about cutting space spending (wherethe money is not). (Indeed, I supportDr. O’Neill’s space colonization program.)Two close friends of Gene, GovernorJerry Brown and economist JohnKenneth Galbraith, apparently alsodisagree with the Presidential candidatehere, while agreeing about cuttingmilitary spending. (Whether Rep. MoUdall would play a role in a McCarthyadministration I cannot say at this time.)

Gene has expressed his desire thatmore decisions be made by Congress orthe Cabinet rather than by a singleperson (no matter how benign) who inAmerica is called President rather thanKing or Dictator.

Gene is, I feel, the most honest andthe most intelligent of the Presidentialcandidates. When one tries to think innet effects, however, it is difficult.Thomas Jefferson, also honest andintelligent, had always claimed thefederal government possessed no right toincrease the national domain by treaty.Yet as President he bought via treaty“a scrap of paper” also known as theLouisiana Purchase.

With McCarthy, a compassionateeconomist and a person of duty andcommon sense, the American economyand spirit might radically improve. TheAmerican spirit and economy may be ofmajor importance re space spending andthe L-5 project.

Working for the ideal society andvoting for the best candidate sound easy.It is easy to fool ourselves. The properroles of reason and intuition remain amystery. Good Working and GoodVoting!

Charles E. Tandy

In regards to Dr. Leary’s article in theAugust ‘76 L-5 News, I would just liketo say, “He’s right you know.”

Donald C. Flintmember L-5 Society

l was watching Dr. Timothy Learyon the Tom Snyder program a few weeksago and immediately wondered if he hasthe support of the L-5 Society. I wonderif having Tim Leary as a vocal ally of thespace migration theme will help or hurtthe cause. Dr. Leary is not exactlyW ashington’s favorite armchairphilosopher. In fact it seemed to me thatif you replaced the words “spacemigration” in his recent article in theL-5 News with “psychedelic experience”you’d be reading an article he might havewritten in 1968. It’s not that I don’t likeTim Leary, because in ‘68 I was a big fanof his. It’s just that I don’t see him beingof any real help to the project when whatthe project seems to need is friends inW ashington. I’m afraid too many peoplewill begin to equate the L-5 project withTimothy Leary and all the negative thingshe may represent in their minds such asthe single most responsible person forthe undermining of the nation’s youth inrespect to the drug revolution. The L-5project must not appear in the least as anew way for Tim Leary to Turn on andDrop out. I cannot support Dr. Leary inhis new quest for a far out cause that hecan be spokesman for.

I’d very much like to know the L-5Society’s position on Dr. Leary. If youdon’t support him I believe it should be

19

so stated in the next issue of the L-5News.

Sincerely,Jim RyanIndianapolis, IN

Dr. Timothy Leary is not a memberof or representative of the L-5 Society.However, he has been in communicationwith Society headquarters (see his articlein the August, 1976, L-5 News), and wehave “‘supported” him to the extent ofproviding him with information on spacecolonization and materials promoting theL-5 Society, in the same manner as wewould act in support of any member ofthe public who needed assistance inspreading information about the subjects.

To repeat, however, he does notofficially or unofficially represent theSociety, and we can take noresponsibility for his actions. We printedhis article because we felt it would be ofinterest to our readers; the opinions werehis own and not necessarily those of theL-5 Society or staff.

On the other hand, we feel the L-5project is big enough to accommodatethe support of all kinds of people,orthodox and unorthodox.

BOOSTERS OF BIG BOOSTERS,TAKE NOTE!

Keith Henson

A worrysome note to some NASApeople has been the tendency of those inthe Space Colonization/SpaceIndustrialization (SC/SI) camp to holdforth that the very large boosters (1/2million pound up) will not be required.They argue that Solar Power Satellitescan be built from Lunar materials withoutwithout them. This may, or may not betrue, but if the big boosters come first,SC/SI will look much better economicallybecause of the reduced front-endtransportation cost. Alternately, if SC/SIcan be made to pay at all with Shuttleand Shuttle-derived vehicles, then it’sclearly worth while to build the big onesto take over the freight load as soon aspossible. SC/SI as we see it now has totake a radical step to lunar resources tomake sense, but if it does, thetransportation system can evolve just asaircraft have evolved from DC-3s to 747s.A very interesting concept to consider isbuilding the Heavy Lift Lunar Vehicles inspace by vapor deposition (the metallurgyis well understood). Absolutely seamlesstanks and shapes can be deposited oninflated forms at low fabrication cost,and foamed metal is a distinct possibility.Best of all, a lot of you would have to beon hand, and I haven’t met a rocketengineer who wouldn’t jump at thechance to go.

(See illustration on back cover.)