November 1978 L-5 NEWS A PUBLICATION OF THE L-5 SOCIETY VOL. 3, NUMBER 11 , NOVEMBER 1978
In this issue:
Carolyn Henson, Editor l Russia's Guest Cosmonaut Program: A Commentary Jim Oberg, Membership Services: an expert on the Soviet space program, documents his contention that the Janet E. Tarney USSR "guest cosmonaut" program is purely cosmetic. Linda Salisbury William Weigle, 3 What Are Solar Power Satellites? This special supplement to the L-5 Administrative Services News is an in-depth treatment of the most controversial future space project. Board of Directors: The lead art£cle outlines the ABC's of power satellites. Solar Power Satellites: Isaac Asimov Boon or Boondoggle (pg. 5) is a lively debate over issues of cost, feasibility, Barry Goldwater, Sr. military hazards, environmental impact, and more. With SPS in the Time of Robert A. Heinlein Timidity (pg. 7) laser pioneer Arthur Kantrowitz lambasts antitechnologists. Barbara Marx Hubbard A Solar Power Satellite Bibliography (pg. 13) is a guide to those who wish to Gordon R . Woodcock get deeper into the topic. What is the L-5 Society position on SPS? Find out Philip K. Chapman on page 14. Arthur Kantrowitz Konrad K. Dannenberg 15 News Briefs A modern day Robin Hood tries to finance space colonies in Edward R . Finch, Jr. ]. Peter Vajk Far Out Crime. A more socZ:ally responsible method is outlined in LA Space jack D. Salmon Capitalists Form Investment Club. Folks who've been holding their breath Harlan Smith waiting to hear what Carter's space policy will be, can end the suspense by Norie Huddle reading Carter Announces Space Policy. And another nation prepares to Mark Hopkins enter the space age in 'Egypt to Put Small P a yloads Aboard Space Shuttles. H. Keith Henson Carolyn Meinel Henson 16 Inside the L-5 Society job o'f?portunities and local action are featured. William Weigle Ph£llip Parker 17 Letters Publz"cation office: the L-5 Society, 1060 E. Elm, Tucson, Arizona 85 719. Published monthly. Cover: Record breaking second crew of Salyut-6, Vladimir Kovalyonok and Subscription: ¢12. 00 per year, Aleksandr lvanchenkov, who hosted visits by Polish and East German "guest included in dues ($20. 00 per year, cosmonauts". (Photo courtesy Novasti.) (Note this is a mockup of Salyut.) students $15.00 per year). Second class postage paid at Tucson, Arizona and additional offices. Copyright © 1978 by the L-5 Society. No part of this periodical may be reproduced without written consent of the L -5 Society. The opinions expressed by the authors do not necessar£ly reflect the policy of the L-5 Society. Membership Services: L-5 Society, 1620 N. Park Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85719. Telephone: 6021622-6351 .
Change of address notices, undeliverable copies, orders for subscriptions, and other mail items are to be sent to: L-5 Society Membership Services 1620 N. Park Tucson, AZ 85719 Russia's ''Guest Cosmonaut'' Pr- A Commentary • I
Triumphant return of Czech cosmonaut Vladimir R emek. (Photo courtesy Orbis.)
by ] ini Oberg
With the t•nd o f Lhe recent token spa
2 L-5 News, November 1978
What Are Solar Power Satellites?
by Carolyn Henson
Solar power satellites may someday to be able to be converted at any better orbit has advantages because the catch the Sun's energy and beam it to than 20% to 30% efficiency. Second, satellite would always hover over the Earth. the microwaves come in at the same in· same place on Earth. There are several How will they collect energy? tensity day and night all year long. T hus sun-synchronous orbits where the They might use silicon or gallium a given area of microwave antenna satellite circles Earth along or near the arsenide or "sandwich" solar cells to could provide 3 to l 0 times as much dawn-dusk line. convert sunlight directly to electricity. electrical output as the best possible How will power satellites be built? Or they might convert sunlight to heat Earth based solar farm. They might be prefabricated and which can power thermionic converters What would energy from a solar shipped into orbit where space workers or turbogenerators. There are other power satellite cost? would build them. possible ways, as well. Researchers believe the capital cost, Another possibility is that ores from How will they get the energy back to including the ground receiving station , the Moon or asteroids could be process· Earth? would range between $1000 to $2000 ed into raw materials in lunar or space One way is with microwave beams, per kilowatt installed capacity. This factories. Power satellites, space craft, another is by infrared laser. Both can would be competitive with nuclear and space habitats and more could be built pass through clouds, although a rain ground-based solar power. However. it in these factories. However power slorm can block lhe infrared light. should be emphasized that lhese are satellites are built, they are a major Once the energy reaches Earth it estimated costs. stepping stone towards opening up the must be converted to electricity. How large will solar power satellites solar system for human habitation. Microwaves are converted by rectifying be? Why do researchers believe solar antennas. An infrared beam might be power satellites could be the key to fed into a "reverse laser" or specially ... power satellites are ... a major cheap and plentiful power? tailored solar cells which would convert stepping stone towards opening First, sunlight in space is abundant - coherent light into electricity. six to ten times as much per area as we How intense would the microwave up the solar system for human receive on Earth. And it isn't inter beam be? habitation. rupted - no long winter nights and At the center of the beam it would be rainy spells. 23 milliwatts/cm2 (A milliwatt is a The most popular design at present Second, space solar collectors can be 2 thousandth of a watt. Noonday desert would be almost 100km - about the made out of exceedingly light materials. 2 sunlight is about 0.1 watt/ cm . ) Three size of Manhatten island. A satellite that In free fall they need only resist tidal kilometers from the center of the beam size would provide ten gigawatts (10 forces, orbital perturbations, micro 2 the intensity falls to 10mw/ cm , the US billion watts) of electricity. This is meteorites, solar wind and light industrial standard for safe exposure. enough to power the entire city of New pressure. Earth structures are subjected The most stringent microwave guideline York with plenty to spare. Because of to gravity, wind, rain, hail, roosting 2 in the world is 0.01 mw/ cm • This level inherent optical limitations, to be birds ( and their inevitable aftermath) is reached about 13 km from the center economical a microwave style power and more. of the beam. This level could be satellite would have to be at least 25km2 Third, solar power satelites are a reached far closer to the center of the in area, transmitting 2.5 gigawatts. young technology. Remember how beam by using slightly more costly Some researchers have suggested the use pocket calculator prices plummeted? transmitter optics. of giant microwave mirrors in space as a Space transportation, solar cells, space You may wonder how the microwave way to deliver smaller power beams. processing, fabrication , construction, antennas could compete with ground Power satellites using laser transmission mining of extraterrestrial materials, solar power plants. (After all, the could also be much smaller. and more are following the same microwaves the antenna receives are less Where will solar power satellites be trajectory. than a quarter of maximum sunlight located? We've told you what the solar power intensity.) First, the microwaves are They might be placed in orbit where satellite is. But we left one thing out. It converted back to electricity about 90% they will be continually, or almost is also controversial. That's what the efficiency, whereas sunlight is unlikely continually, in the sun. Geosynchronous next pages are about.
This supplement published by the L -5 Society, 1620 N. Park, Tucson, AZ 85719 © 1978 all rights reserved. 4 Solar Power Satellites: Boon or Boondoggle? Solar power satellites (SPS) once inspired nothing worse than disbelief But now that their technical feasibility has been established, anti-SPS forces have started doing their homework. Collected here are a series ofpro and con statements. The individuals quoted were never all in the same room together. This "debate" is composed from statements made by Senator Charles Percy (R-IL), Garry DeLoss, a professional lobbyist with the Environmental Policy Center, Mark Gibson, who did a study of SPS at the University of Maryland; Gordon Woodcock, solar power satellite study manager for Boeing, and Carolyn Henson, editor, L-5 News. Are solar power satellites a boon or a boondoggle? Judge for yourself.
Mark Gibson the present shuule costs are S300/ lb. represent 1he total developme111 a nd Es1ima1cd R&D costs, just 10 develop Increases in transportation costs will indus1riali7.a 1ion inves1men1 required to tech no logy- S40-80 billion (J PL significantly increase the tota l system build 1he first 10,000 megawa us of SPS es1ima1es S60 billion). energy costs as well as the tota l cos1. gener,uing capacity and a lso provide 1hc Estimated cost per sa1elli1r- Sl5 According 10 NASA, in order 10 be industrial capacity 10 continue 10 install billion. (Peter Glaser quOtC's S7.6 billion competitive wi1h 1erres1rial systems. 1he 10.000 mega wa11s per year indefinitely. for a 5 giga wall sa tell i 1e, other figures go as SPS must meet all projected electricity Government funds need not be spent fora II high as S10 billion.) demands by 2025. This mea ns 1hat 1120 of this. If the SPS is economically sound, Total rnst: about $500 billion! Gw (112 ten Cw SPS) must be installed at comrncrrial inves1me111 would be exp<'<'IC'd Cost to develop 1he Heavy Lift Launch an average implementation rate of 3.37/ yr. 10 provide the bulk or the S40 to $80 \lehiclC' is SlO billion. included in 1hc R&D Any lowering of 1ht rat(• or 1he level of billion. costs. installed capacit)' would significantly Further, i1 is no t presenlly proposed that Cost per kilo wa11 estimated al SI000- increase costs. The systems could be cos1- this t• mire program be accomplished. The 1500 kw. in 1he range of o ther power effective at 300 Cw (30% of the elec legislation now before Congrt·ss wo uld sourcC's (nuclear is SI 100 kw). As Charles tricity demands). fund suffic ie nt 1echno logy a nd E. Hansen, director o f l111erna tio na l All terrestrial cos1co mparisons with the crwi ronmcntal research to enable a Business SC'rvices. poi111s out in his Report SPS haw been between solar powc·r responsiblt: t•valuation as to whether sur h o n Economic and T ec hn o l ogy a program should be accomplishtd. The Oevelo pme111 of 1he SPS. the aerospace issut• o f 1hc tens of billions of dollars arises indus try ha s a pas t record of • ... the aerospace industry has a Olli of Confusion between (a) true underestimating costs of large projects. He past record of underestimating 1cch nology research, and (b) 1he crcmion of suggests 1ha1 we should expect the cost 10 costs of large projects. sufficient industrial capacity to insta ll be a1 least double the projected cost, raising generating capacity on a reasonable scale. the cost to $2000-3000/ kw. well o ut of the S PS propo ne nts have inc luded comp<:titive ra nge. tower (which is not economical) with a indus1rializa 1i o n costs in candid The cost projections vary greatly bet back-up system and 1he SPS wi tho ut a s1a1emen1s of the 101a l real costs involved ween reports. The discrepancies make back-up system. "l11is deflates the SPScosts in bringing a majo r new energy sys1em the validity of any of the figures rather while inflating the costs o f ground-based into bcing. The problem has been doubtful. systems. h a lso overlooks other viable. candidness is accounting a ll identifiable Component costs - The percentages economic ground-based systems and costs rather than in SPS IJcing an of the capital costs quoted for the decemrali7.ed energy sys tC'rns. exceptio nally hig h cost system. (Under the receiving antenna costs are as follows : NOTE: At present, the amount of energy bookkeeping rules usually adopted by Peter Glaser - 17 % , J ohnson Space produced 1ha1 is corwt•ned into electricity distributed-energy enthusiasts Flight Center - 42%, Marshall Space is approaching 30%. (U.S.) interest costs not considered - the con Flight Center - 8 % . For a $7. 6 billion Gordon Woodcock struction of even just the first SPS at 40 5 Cw satellite, Glaser predicts the The costs 10 develop 1ht• 1echnology have to 80 billion dollars would be receiving antenna to cost $1.3 billion. been es1ima1ed a1 Sl50 10 S250 million. economically feasible. That is to say, if run at least S2 billion. Costs thro ugh engineering 1rs1 units in all of the presently - identified Transpona1ion costs-The costs of space have been t•s1ima1ed at S3 10 S6 development costs were written off propellants arc assumed 10 be th<' same as billion. In fact. no one has proposed that against a single SPS, it would pay for today's costs. T he cost of transporting 40 to 80 billion dollars of government itself in about 30 years if interest costs materials is assumed 10 be SI0-20/ lb, while funds be commiued. These large sums were not considered.)
5 Overruns have been experienced by the shown. and argued to be attainable. This five times the size of today's rockets. The aerospace ind us try. pa nicularl y in a llocation of goals, by the way. is widely cos1 is estimated by Boeing to be SI O weapons systems where Lhe maintenance used : it is called " Design-to-Cost. " Design billion. Large launching complexes arc of a tech nological edge over the military to-Cost analysis definC's, on an overall needed to handle the weight of the rockets. competition is accorded more importance economic basis, a set of cost targets for a Some son of automatic assem bly than minimizing costs. In fact. the system or a project. These targets are Lhen "factories" as well as other equipment for propensity o f the aerospace industry for allocated against elements of the system, stock fli ghts must be developed. cost overruns is no worse than that and the design activity a ucmpts to meet, or T o put enough SPS in orbit to meet o ur exhibited by construction o f sports beat, the a llocated targets. SPS cost fi gures electricity needs, there will have lO be 4-6 stadiums. Cost overruns do not arise from published in 1976-78arecostes1imatesand fli ghts daily for 30 plus yea rs. Grumman inability 10 estimate cost. but ra ther than a not ta rget figures. The present cost estimates 150 launches per satellite. using a tendency of procurements agencies to estimates indicate that SPS electricity will rocket wi th a carrying capacity of 400,000 change their minds about what they really be competitive wi1h the cen tralized lbs. NASA's present shuttle has a carrying want; from competitive bidding to beat the sources, e.g., breeder reactors and fusio n. capacity of 65,000 lbs. Other estimates go competition: and from poor management. with which SPS should be compared. h is as high as 500 fligh t satell ite. In the case of the Boei ng C.ompany, about nonsense 10 compare SPS with rooftop c w 75% o f its business comes from delivering solar collectors because 1hese systems It ii. sometimes argued that span·-bascd a ircraft to commercial airlines at fixed address different st•gmc· nts of the energy arrays must be more expensive than pricC', with performance a nd delivery dat(' market. ground-based arrays. The argument is guaran tees, and in a market in which all MG basc·cl on the premise that somC' th ing dcvdopmcnt costs are incurred by Boeing Energy payback period-estima tes go technicall y sophisticated must cost more and amoni1.ed against even tual delivery of from a low of 3 years to a hig h of 16 years. than something simpler. One can, 300-500 airplanes. most o f which arc not Gordon Woodcock: however. buy a scientific pocket calculator yet sold at the time the project is launched. A recent JPL stmly (900-805. Aug. 1978) for fc·"·er 1978 dollars than om· could buy a If Boeing were not capable of accurately detennined energy payback periods of 0.7 high-quality slide rule in 1968dollars. Asa estimating costs. the company would haw to 1.6 years: Boeing estimates are I LO 3 rcsuh. one can no longer buy a high long sinn· gone bankrupt. years. The consumption o f rocket quality slide rule a t all. Since solar crlls It is imponant lO recognize· that solar propellants to launch one SPS per year is med in the SPS will be of lighter \Wight power satellites have not yet cntC'red the than those presently under dewlopment phase o f compet.itivc· cost estimating in for ground-based service. thc·y will which 11nclt-r-bidding the competition is of therefore· consume less resourn·s and sig nificant imponance. The cost estima tes It is nonsense to compare SPS ultimately be lower in cost. Further. for a that have been published are those that with rooftop solar collectors ground basc·d system. the structural have been calc11la1eci h y rh f' rnsr mndf'k because these systems address supporr syswm s wi II dorn i nate the Garry DeLoss different segments of the energy ultimate· cost of photovoltairs: whneas in The supposedly objective cost span'. ~tructural systems art• minimit«d estimates for the SPSare being made by the market. due 10 lack of grnvity and wind. Spa('(·· corporations, NASA space flight centers, based phowvoltaic systems should consulting firms, and academicians who ultimatdy become much dwapc·r in cost ha\'t' a vested interest in encouraging a equivalent lo kss than I IOOOth of current per unit an:·a as wdl ascollcctingabout six massive government commitment to SPS. ll.S. fossil fuel consump1i on. Conversion times as much C'nngy per unit an·a ai. the This leads to a cost estimates that arc mere of natural gas (a supposedly scarce eq ui va lt·nt ground-based sys 11·111 . self-fulfilling prophesies. o r what o ne resource). 1ha1 is now wasted by burning at GD critic, Dr. john Cummings of the Electric the wellheads, into propellams would The SPS proponents prefer to set up Power Research InsLitute, calls 'legislating suffice to launch more than 50 SPS's per the straw man of a centralized solar energy all the answers.' Ri chard Caputo, who yea r. powcrplanl alternative and then knock it directed <1 two-year j et Propulsion One article alleged a high use of down by claiming high costs for land Laboratory (JPL) study of the SPS pla tinum. Thai S PS d esign was acquisition, e lectrici ty slOragc. and recogniLcd the same paLtern of behavior. abandoned O\'Cr fin· years ago. Current transmission lines up lO 2,000 miles long and characterizes the cost estimates he designs use no plaunum and very little from solar powerplam s concenir.ucd in examined as based on ·assumptions of a luminum. Small qua ntities of refranory the Sou1hwcstcrn states. Even the most success' rather than a real data bas<'. The metals ar« used in certain speciality parts. objective o f the SPS studies. the report by SPS proponents appear LO begin by Critical resource con sumption is JPL, compared the SPS wi th what its calculating the cost goal which thl· t0tal miniscule compared to that for most other director has described as the 'worst solar SPS system must meet to compete wi th energy options and t•spccially so compared terrestrial options.' centralizc·d solar othn cm·rgy sources, and then a llocatt• tha 1 to that for ground-based solar. The energy powcrplants a1 sites remote from cost goal among the various subsystems of principal raw material requirements for their markets ... The JPLstudy concluded the SPS. Hence. they tend 10 reach similar current SPS designs arc sand (for si licon. tha1 thl' SPS would cost more than a land conclusio11s about the total cost of the SPS glass. and concrl'tC) and steel, which has based. ccntralited solar energy powerplant based o n widely varying estimates about replaced aluminum in tlw ground receivC'r using a solar thermal process and fossil the cos•~ of the sub-systems. support structur<'. Requirements for fue l backup system, and about the same as GW foreig n-supplied resources likewise ha\'C' a centralized photovoltaic solar energy T he idea that the current SPS cost been minimized. system with a fossil fuel backup system. estimates 6 Solar Power Satellites, supplement to the L · 5 News, l 978 Arthur Kantrowitz is seen here against a backdrop of the Andromeda galaxy. (Photo courtesy Charles Divine.) The Solar Power Satellite in the Time of Timidity by Arthur Kantrowitz The time of 1imidi1y is best defined by Xerox research laboratory. to ld a story rocke try." In a timt· o f timidit y contrast with the idea o f progress. Progress about how F.D.R. in 1937 wanted 1oge1 the technological forecasting is not so to my mind is best described by the best estimate of the scieniific community frequently disrupted by technological disunguished philosopher of science. Sir as to what was coming in the next decade. surprise. thus the elimination of error Karl Popper's descriptio n of the scientific Accordingly, he summoned a commiueeof before trial is a doctrine which carries method, namt:ly ii is trial and the within itself the basis for its plausability. elimination of error. By contrast, in the If, indeed, wt· become a stagnant society. time of timidity we eliminate 1he errors Progress is best described by .. . then predictability will at last be accessible first. Before we act in the time of timidity trial and elimination of error .. . to us. There arc 1wocavcati. that I'd like to we will insist on a certainty human being~ In the time of timidity we be sure you rc·mcmber. First, thai perhaps can ne\'er attain. eliminate the errors first. the domain of timidity might not be all Perhaps 1h err is o n e way that inclusive. Unless the idea of progress can predictability can be achieved. If we make be stamped out everywhere we must expect li fe hard eno ugh for the creative people 1he best scientists in 1he country, and as that techno logica l surprise might still among us, thr n maybe they will not Stevenson dt·scri bcs the result, he found i111rudr from 1hose barbarian domains endanger the technological forecaster. himself "on a par '"ith the greatest where 1he idra still survivci.. T he second Contrast thi~ with a typical time of scientific minds of the time. -for I. 100, caveat is tha t in 1hc nearly stagmmt society techno logica l progress. Adlai Stevenson. fa iled to foresee nuclear energy, amibio· any residual action may result in in an address he made inaugurating a tics, radar. the electronic computer and irreversible side effects whereas in a time of 7 techno logical progress unanticipated side the Department of Energy documen t: scientific uncertainty we have already seen. effects. which do not appear until years "Satellite Power System (S PS) Concept One of the problems of our time is that we later. can be more readily dealt with by a Development and Evaluation Program lack any credible process for dealing with technology which will have greatly Plan, July 1977 - August 1980," dated the high level or noise created by this advanced in the mean while. Thus, there February 1978. This document describes partisan invasion. When there is active arc important forces Lhat drive the nearly the most important issue of societal partisanship, partisan voices tend 10 stagna nt society toward comple te interactions of the solar power satellite obscure what scientific in£ormatio n we do stagnation or more hopefully toward a concept as " the cen1ra li7.ation of power possess. The development of due process renewal of vigor o us techno logical sources, and hence society ..." The for dealing with scientific controversy progress. proposition 10 reverse the cen1ra liza1ion of would make an important contribution by In my opinion the most important society and to deny rhe United States dispelling some of the fear of rhe unknown statement that has been made on the solar energy opportunities because Lhcy do not which is characteristic of the time o r power satellite, after Peter G laser's fit the quasi-religious views of a small timidity. original proposition, is the carefully Since we live in a time when predictions considered judgement on the feasibility of are fashionable, I'd like to make a that proposition to be found in Amory My prediction is ... that the prediction. My prediction is 1ha1 the solar Lovins' article ir1 Foreign Affairs, October power satellite will not fl y in the time 1976, which made the whole th ing clear by time of timidity will destroy the or timidity, that the time of timidity wi ll the sia tement: " The sch emes that solar power statellite OR ... the destroy the solar power satellite O R (and dominate ERDA's solar n·search solar power satellite will destroy this is o ne of my rondest hopes) rhe solar budKet-such as ma king electrici ty from power satellite will destroy rhe riml' of huge collcct0rs in the desert, or from the age of timidity. 1imidi1y. temperature differences in the oceans, or Peter asked me to rry 10 set thl· tone £or from Brooklyn Bridge-like satellites in this gathering, and I would propose: space-do no t satisfy our criteria. for thc·y minority on the centraliza tion of society Arise creators of worlds yet are ingenious high-technology ways to constitutes a tyranny 1ha1 the majority of unimagined supply energy in a fon11 and at a scale rhe United States needs 10 understand far Yo u have nothing to lose bur your inappropriate to most end-use needs. Not better than it does today. limits. all solar technologies are soft. Nor, for the· In moving toward the decision to build a (Invented for a review same reason, is nuclear fu sion a soft demonstration Solar Power Satellite we of Limits 10 Growth) techno logy." must, o f course, assess the required This is the text of a speech prese11ted at It is important to understand that in this techno logy and possible side effects as well the a11 11ual m eeting of the Sunsat energy statement we hear the expression of a as we can. However. we must anticipate Cowicil, October;, 1978. Dr. Ka11trowit:. is categorical impera tive reminiscent of that there will be considerable scientific one of the foremost researchers i11 ln.ters religio us imperatives. This is a view which and technological uncertainty regarding and artificial hearts. H e is a 111e111ber of the today has wide currency in Washing to n these assessments. We can expect a board of directors of both the Stmsat and in particular in DOE. I would quote continuatio n or thr partisan invasion o f E11erg)' Cou11cil and the L-5 Society. A solar power satellite under construction. 8 L-5 News, November 1978 ... Boon or Boondoggle rcontinuedfrom page 6J even worse. Decentralized solar energy photovoltaic is probabl y grossly energy aim for different sectors of the systems would b(' lower cost than inadequate unless cloudy-day backup overall energy market and each should be centralized solar energy systems used in !he capacity is available; no costs were evaluated on economic and environmemal JPL study because transmission costs can assigned for such backup. grounds with respect to legitimate· be eliminated. land acquisition costs can • The idea that storage costs can be alternatives. be reduced by using a ir spaces over drastically reduced is probably fallacious: GD rooftops and parking lots, a nd waste hea t Storage of electrica l energy is today an A utility receiving electricity from an can be put to work near the generating site. economicall y mature market. Everyone SPS would require a reserve of standby Objections by SPS proponents that who drives an automobile has under the power capacity equal to or greater than the e lectri ci t y s torage costs are an hood an energy storage system for which SPS power of five gigawaus. insurmountable barrier LO lowering the the costs have been minimized for decades cw cost of land based solar energy ... have to by intense economic competition: the Power pools carry from 10 to 20 percent be taken with a grain of salt. The people battery. reserve capacity and the loss of a five who suggest that major reductions in the • Installation com for distributed gigawatt generator in a 50 gigawatt power cost of electricity storage are not likely are systems were ignored. They will be pool would not be catastrophic. In fact, the the same people who are extremely sign ifica nt for for distributed ex1sung iruenie between the Pacific optimistic that costs for the various photovoltaics. Northwest and Southern California pools subsystems of the SPS will fall drastically. • Photovoltaics were priced identica lly now transfers up to 4 gigawaus over a cw for ground-based and space-based systems. single transmission corridor. The loss of Solar power satellites and distributed My conclusions from the table are that: this transmission is equivalent 10 the energy systems really aim at different • Economies of scale are real. shutdown to a SPS in terms of its effect on segments of the energy market. In a true • SPS may be able to compete with the power pool: these power pools today economic sense, there is liule competition nuclear power. especially breeder reactors. deal with that evemuality. between them. The distributed energy • Fuel-burning decentralized systems It is true that a 5 gigawatt unit size is enthusias ts' arguments against the approach cost-competitiveness, but their uncomfortably large, even impractical. for application of solar energy to cemralized, costs are dominated by fuel costs. which many individual utilities and power pools continuous-supply energy systems are makes the future uncertain. I doknowofat today. However, in the time frame in ideologica l rather than factual. In the first least one instance where a building which SPS power could be available. this place, the often-advocated use of solar does not appear to be a serious problem. In energy for home heating deals with an addition, smaller SPS's down to 2000-2500 already decemralized energy system: megawatts are quite feasi ble; this smaller almost every home already has its own .. . much energy could be saved if size would undoubtedly be built initially. heating plant. The appropriate argument the hundreds of billions of GD is that home heating should switch from dollars proposed for SPS No report on SPS economics thar I have fuel-consuming to non-fuel-consuming development were instead spent reviewed includes speculations on how energy sources. This is a relatively simple on improving energy. much energy could be saved if the cost tradeoff which each consumer can hundreds of billions of dollars proposed make for himself. for SPS development and deploymem were Electricity generation could, of course. instead spent on improving energy be decentralized. The technology has been devt;loper in New York City has recently effi ciency. available for decades in the form of diesel elected to go with diesel generators in the cw or gas turbine generators. Diesel basemem of the building rather than Conservation is frequently advocated as generators at the neighborhood level buying power from Con-Ed at their rates, a more economical solution to our energy would consume no more fossil fuels than which apparently exceed the 6-7¢ kWh rate problem than construction of new energy cemralized power generation; the slight estimated for diesels. sources: "the cheapest power plant is one differences in efficiency would be made up All of this is not intended to discredit the that is never built.·· Actually. conservation by differences in losses in power idea of distributed energy systems. There and construction of non-fuel (i.e. solar) distribution. Diesel generators would are many applications for distributed e n ergy sources are economicall y require far less land than distributed solar systems where large-capacity storage is not equivalent: both are capital-intensive, electric systems, would require far less required or where centralized electricity is neither consumes fuel. Conservation is storage since they could run at night quite not available. In these cases. distributed more economical only to the extent that easily, and would have all the other so· energy systems offer advantages. In conservation measures are cheaper in cost called advamages of decentralized solar addition, there seems to be little per unit e nergy than new plant electricity except that they consume fuel advantage in generating energy in a high construction. It stands Lo reason that and produce air pollution. grade form, i.e., electrical, and then rational people will opt for the most In order to illustrate the facts of the convening it to heat for heating buildings. economical of the alternatives. Many "diseconomies of scale" argumem, I have Heating by direct collection of solar energy conservation measures are, today. indeed constructed Table I. This provides an will continue to improve in economic cost-effective, especially beuer insulation approxi mate comparison o f three a ttractiveness compared to consumption in homes, and are being implemented. distributed options with two centralized of fossil fuels. The potentials of conserva tion have options. All are configured as continuous, When one examines the energy market been sometimes grossly overrated. The ra ther than imermiuent, supplies. Several rationally, it is clear that we need both statement has been made that conservation points are significam: central and decentralized systems for techniques could cut energy use in • Some energy storage was allocated to power generation. Arguing that SPS building by as much as 600 gigawatts of the diesel/ gas turbine system to allow for competes with decentralized energy is generating capacity. In the first place. the peaking. fallac ious, beca use it does not. entire United States does not have 600 • The storage allocated 10 solar Decentralized and centralized solar gigawatts of generating capacity. Further, 9 TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTED VS. CENTRALIZED COST COMPARISON ILLUSTRATION Gas Distributed T u rbine Diesel Solar SPS Nuclear Generator Generator P hotovoltaic P lant Generator Unit Rating 32.5 MW 5MW lMW 5000 MW 1000 MW Nominal Duty Cycle (hr./24 hrs.) 92% 92% 25% 100% 100% Storage Required 2 kwh/kw 2 kwh/kw 3.2 kwh/ kw 0.1 kwh/kw* rating rating rating rating Net Avg. Output 26.65 MW 4.1 MW 180 KW 4960 MW 1000 MW Distribution Loss 5% 5% 53 10 % 10% Plant Factor .8 .8 .95 .9 .7 Net Avg. Useful Output (kwh/kr) l. 775 x 10' 2.73 x 10' 1.42 x 106 3.52 x 10' 0 5.52 x 109 2 2 Generator Cost Factor Current Cost Current Cost $40/ M , 16% $40/ M plus Current Cost other system costs. Generator Cost $4.2 million $1.25 million $312,500 $10 billion $1.2 billion 2 (7812 M ) Storage Cost ($50/kwh, 10-yr. life) $3.25 million $500,000 $160,000 $25 million Switchgear & Power Processor Cost $1.63 million $250,000 $104,000 Included in Included in ($50/kw for switchgear and trans; generator cost generator cost $150 for DC-AC converter) Fuel Rate 3.13 kwth/kee 2·78th/ kwe 3 kwth/ kwe Fuel Cost, $/ kwhr th .016 .016 .002? Fuel Cost, $/ kwe .05 .05 .006 Total Plant Cost, (excludes installation $9.08 million $2 million $576,500 $10.3 billion $1.2 billion and land cost for distributed systems) Annual Capital Charge Factor .18 .18 . 18 .18 .18 (depreciation, interest, taxes and insurance) Capital Cost/kwh .0092 .013 .073 .051 .039 Storage Replacement Sinking Fund .002 .002 .011 > .0001 Distribution Cost/ kwh .002 .002 .002 .01 .01 Total Cost/ kwh .063 .067 .086 .061 .055 *Buffering to reduce transients if SPS beam shuts off. 10 Solar Power Satellites, supplement to the L -5 News, 1978 drc1ric power is no1 ordinarily ·used for ionisphere, heating 1he upper atmosphere areas of land: the size 1s inversely space heating. I l'Slimate the national (greenho use effect) as well as o ther possible proportional 10 the intensity of the spare·hl'ating usage as about 300 problems. microwave beam. A 10 GW SPS with an gigawaus 1hermal. n1 ui\'akn11oabou1 100 The fuel is assumed to come from coal intensity of 20 milliwaus/ cm2 would need gigawaus elenric The figure of 600 gasification plants. These plan1s , 2500 plus km2, including an exclusion appmrs 10 be about ll'll 1imes too high. according to NASA reports (my area. This is equal 10 213 the size of Rhode MC studies), may require up to 400 Island. An SPS of this size would probably Defects are inevitable considering the million gallons of water daily, 60% more requirl' 2 receiving antenna rather than size a nd high power level of the sa1elli1es. than a city tlw size of Houston uses. These one large area. These requirements prese111 Repa irs will be expensive if no 1 planes are still in the experimental stage, enormous land-use planning problems. impossible. Environ menial degradation in che cn vironmen1al effects of 1heir There is talk o f utilizing the underl ying space will causl' some power loss due to operation haw not been fully considered. land. This would be both impractical and micro-me1eori1es and proton radia1ion. CW uneconomica l as the area would have 10 be Solar s1orms may ca use severe damage 10 The engines contemplated for SPS completely shielded from the microwaves. 1he cells. launch vehiclt'!> will burn metham· or CH cw hydrogen and · oxygen. The principal Land undl'T tht• rectenna il> shielded The results of the SPS system studies 10 exhaust product is water vapor. with from mino\\·an·s for the saml' n·ason yo u da1e indicate that SPS's will be ex1remely significant amo unts of carbon dioxide. ca n't hear tht car radio wht'n you drive rrliabk; 1hese results mus1, of course. be carbo n monoxide, and h ydrogen . under a concrete bridge: steel regarded as very pn·liminary. and need Nitrogen oxides rannot be produced in the reinforcement bars blcKk out the radio confirmation by resea rch and engineering primary combustion process becaus(' no waves. A meta I grid opc·n t• nough to let l('Sls o n compone111s and subsystems. nitrogen is prest·n t. Secondary combustion through the short wavelength Carolyn Henson occurs as the rocket jet mixes with air: this electromagnetic radiation we call US astronauts and Sovie1 cosmonauts process will prcxlun: some nitrogen oxidl's, "light" is a barrier to the longer ha\'C' performed successful repairs on an ·but the a mounts will be small by wavelength radiation we call Apollo command module {Apollo 13 ). comparison to circumstances whert• the "microwaves" and "radio waves". Skylab and S;i lyut. B(·cause SPS consists of same quantity of fuel is burned with air in cw many identical uni1s in parallel. it will the primary combusti on process. One such s1atemen1 assnced that a usually be possibll' I<> continue operation NASA study "could find only 69 potcmial while technicians fl•pair a nd maintain 1he sites." Not mentioned is the fan tha t 69 satellite. There will be no lack of peopk sites would more than double tht· present vying for a chance to work as SPS If nuclear power plants are total tt .S. base load electrical generating technicians. required to employ cooling capacity. CD water holding ponds, their land As for h11111rh vehicles. BO<'i ng studies Saboteurs could auack the ren·iving use is about equal to an· SPS indicate that they can be 01x·rated from the antennae. which would have almost curre111 facility (KSC ) 10 susiain an SPS inddensible perimeu:rs of many miles, or rectenna. construction rate of one 1x·r ytar. 1he high voltage 1ransmission lines. Uhimately. t·quatorial launch sitl'S may be Sen. Charles Percy prefer red. Preliminary s tudies have SPS would funhtr legitimatize our The total quan1i1ies of fuel required to indicated kasibilicy of locating a fl oating spending ,-ast amo unts on o rbital arm !> place an SPS in g<'o~y nchrono u s orbit are launch sit(' in interna1ional wa1ers. sys1C·ms. roughly 850.000 io ns of me1hane and This is not to dismiss tht· land use C W 150,000 tuns of h ydrogl'tl (plus about 3 problem. RtTtnma siting will be a As for vulnerability. all energy systems million tons of oxygen). At an SPS problem, bu1 land use is a problem for all are vuhlt'rablc. especially fon:ign supplit·s. constructio n rJH' as high as 2 to 4 JX'r year, energy systt·ms. The SPS land use· is a t least Almost any system e:"rept SPS is the fuels consumed by the SPS launch flee1 relatively benign. vulnerable :o terrorist actio n. The idea that (ll't's assulllt' it 01x·ra1es ou1 of the Kt·nnedy SPS land requirements compare more· a terrorist could do much damagt· to an Space C.enter in Florida) wo uld be roughl y fa\'or.:tbl)• with a hernati\'eS than might be SPS recC'iving si1e rccogni1.es neiLh er the equal to thl.' fuels consumed by cars and supposl.'d. In the cast· of dw SPS. the si7t' nor redundancy of the receiving trucks in Florida. Ano1her way to t•valuate ground terminal itself (rccccnna} req uircs a system. SPS launch fud 11sagl' ratl's is 1ha1 1ht· fuel lot of area: in the case of most alternatives An arms race in space. cited as one of 1he consumption n·quirn l to plan· om· 10.000 the suppon operations. l'.g.. mining. possible o utgrowths of SPS. will tend w megawall SPS in space is abou1 equal 10 requirl' a lot of area a lso. ·nw onl y t•nergy arise as a resu h of ('Xistence of strategic the annual fut'! 11 s;1ge of om· 1000 option that appears 10 be· significantly less resources in span'. Systems already in mrg II effect on the nervous system. The US is related to long-term effects of the small system. This can be measured in the standards will be redone by Dec. 1979. amo unts of beam energy that spill owr labonuory once test hardware is developed. Wha t arc the effects of direct exposure to outside the receiving area. Thu~ . S PS e nvironme ntal impact a high-intensity microwavt· beam on The spillover l eve l~ arc within the range assessment depends on the accomplish birds, airplane passengers. a ir-borne of experience of significant numbers or mt·nt or a research program such as the one species? peo ple exposed to the saml' kind or presently under consideration by the Wha t art· theconscquencesoflong-tem1 , radia tion from radio transmiucrs, Congress. low-lc\'cl radiatio n o n the whole micro"·avc o,·ens. and o ther similar Depending largely on the o utcome of population? Microwaves han~ been shown sources; nonetheless. before embarking on a s c: s s Ill c tl t 0 r t h c m i c r {) w a \' e tO cause central nervous system disorders. a large-scale program to transmit powc:1 c:n\'ironmcnta l issue. SPScould tum out to cataracts, genetic changes. a nd have been from space by this means, o ne would \\'i)h be one of the most cnvironmemally benign identified as possible factors of cancer lO be considerably more sure than we are of the energy options prescmly considered development and Sudden Infant Death. today that there reall y arc no long-term, possible, compared with the quamity of Micro waves may c-a use heating of the low-level, harmful effects. Thus. the energy produced. This possibility alone is upper atmosphere by a~ much as I000- research programs presc:nily p1oposed fo1 sufficient justification fo r the modest 20000 K. according t0 Fred Koomanoff of solar power from space give major research program presently before the the DOE SPS program. This heating could emphasis to environmental effects Con~ress of the United States. ca use local weather changes a nd possible assessments as well as technology research. CH larger scak climatic changt·s. Environmental questions canno t bt· If the microwave transmission system is There is potential for inicrfcrc:ncc: with separated from the technology questions. unable to meet environmental srnnclards, radio frequency systems becaus~ ,of the The level of public exposure to laser transmission may be substituted. high power levels (gigawatts) of the beam. microwaves from SPS's will depend on thc NASA and DOE arc currently studying By heating the upper atmosphere and the tt•chnical perfo rmance or the beam control this option. formation of io n belts, the SP could interfere with commt· rcial radio and TV Is the debate over? Not yeti If you wish to join the SPS debate, send your statements communica tio ns, radio a nd radar and questions to Editor, L -5 News, 1620 N. Park, Tucson, AZ 85719. navigatio n systems. radi oa~ tr o nom y, amateur radio. The receiving antenna captures 90% of the beam: 10"1. is disper ed by atmospheric paniclcs. Areas of bo th low-a nd high-level microwave radia tion ca n occur up to 500 • miles fro m the i-ccciving antenna. (This is why micro waves have no t replaced power lines fo r te rres tri a l e l ectri c ity transmission.) CW The use of electromagm•tic radiation to transmit energy raises potential environmental issues. The effects of microwaw-band radio waves o n the atmosphere arc well -understood and are essentiall y nonexistent. The: effects of microwaves on the ionosphere, the extremely tenuous ionized fringes of the upper a tmosphere, arc less well-known. Significant co ncern has been expressed that the ionosphere wo uld be di ruptc:d by po wer beams. Recent e xperime nts. however. indicate that the effects a rc much less than supposed by some investigators: neither thermal runaways nor instabilities were seen at simulated intensities twice those proposed for SPS use. These tests indicate tha t ionospheric effects will no t be a detriment to power transmission; additional tests arc needed to confirm this preliminary result. The effects of electromagnetic radiations on living things arc also of concern. The microwave power beam system currently proposed for S PS utilizes e nergy intensities too low to be of immediate physical danger. Further, the more intense region of the beam would be absorbed by a receiving antenna. The principal concern 12 Solar Power Satellites, supplement to the L-5 News, 1978 The microwave receiving rectifying antenna (rectenna). The uncultivated area around it has been closed to human access in order to limit microwave exposure. Under the rectenna the microwave level is very low, allowing cultivation of crops. A Solar Power Satellite Bibliography Glaser, Physics Today, February 1977. "Satellite Power Stations: a New "Alternate Approaches to Space-Based "The Potemial of Satellite Solar Source of Energy?", William C. Brown, Power Generation", O.L. Gregory, Power", Peter E. Glaser, Proceedings of IEEE Spectrum, March 1973. Journal of Energy, March/ April 1977. the IEEE, August 1977. "On the Feasibility of Small Power " Perspectives on Sate Iii te Solar Power". "Economic and Environmental Costs of Satellites".. K. E. Drexler and T.A. Peter E. Glaser, Journal of Energy, Satellite Solar Power", Peter E. Glaser, Heppenheimer, Journal of Energy, March/ April 1977. Mechanical Engineering, January 1978. May /June 1977. "Space Solar Power - the Transpor "Satellite Power System LEO vs. CEO "Rationale for High Energy Lasers in tation Challenge", Hubert P . Davis, Assembly Issues", John Mockovciak Jr., Space", John G. Rather. May 1978 (a paper Space Manufacturing Facilities II, Rudolf J. AdornalO, Journal of Energy. prepared as part of a Depanmem of Energy pub. AIAA. January / February 1978. study). "Solar Power Satellites - Space Key "Space Colonies and Energ)' Supply to "An Orbiting Solar Power Station", Sky to Our Power Future", Gordon R. the Earth", Gerdrd K. O'Neill. Science. and Telescope, April, 1975. Woodcock, Astronautics and December 5, 1975, Volume 190, Number "Solar Power from Satellites", Peter E. Aeronautics, July/ August 1977. 4218. 13 Solar power satellites, as this special supplement to the L-5 News shows, raise many unanswered questions. Will they aggravate the orbital arms race? Are microwave or laser transmission of power safe? Will they be able to deliver power at a reasonable price - and can we afford the initial investment? The list goes on. What does the L-5 Society have to say about this? We believe that the nations of the world should face the energy problem by pursuing any and all possible solutions. At this date, we believe the SPS is a possible solution. We won't get solar power satellites built by opposing other energy research projects. It won't give any credit to the New Space program if we become a mirror image of virulent SPS foes. We hope L-5 members will help set an example of how civilized people go about solving a problem: look at all the alternatives, study them care/ully , do some tests, and make decisions without resorting to insults or hyperbole. SPS may flounder in a morass of technical, environmental or economic problems. Or it may provide Earth with large quantities of cheap, clean power. We don't know yet. But the cost of finding out is small compared to the benefits it could bring. A demonstration solar power satellite. It could be built before 1985. 14 Solar Power Satelli'tes, supplement to the L-5 News, 1978 NEWS BRIEFS Carter Announces Space Policy Egypt to Put Far-Out Crime " No news is good news say ve teran Small Payloads Aboard If the US media has any impact on its Caner watchers in the aftermath of his Oct. Space Shuttle n ation's criminals. the "forcible I speech in Cocoa Beach , Florida. Some financing" or spact· colony construction space program boosters were upset by a The Egyptian gowrnnll'nt has resl'rwd may becomt: as popular as hijacking once Los Angeles Times article which reported £our small self-containC'd payloads to be was. that "The National Aeronautics and Space £town o n the Space· Slrnttle in the 1980 s. At It all started when Ste\'cn Masowr. 19. Administration's budget, now $4.3 a NASA headquart(•rs ceremon y held lai. t held up a ban k in Menlo Park. California billion, may shrink significantly . . . ". J uly 13. Dr. MohanlC'd Shaker. Minister 0 £ last Novt·mber. Apprt•hended with $78.000 However, a close examination of this thC' Embassy 0£ Egypt in Washing ton. in cash, an unloaded gun. a fake bomb. and speech and a press release dated Oct. 11 D.C .. and Dr. Farouk El-Baz. Research three hostages. it looked as i£ Masover was reveal that the "new" Carter space Director fo r thl' Ct•nter for Earth and slated for a lo ng stay bt· hind bars. policy is mostly more of the same. Pl a 1H·tary Studit·s. Smithsonian Howe\'er. when his trial came up, he to ld In C0<·oa Beach Carter told the Institution. prt•st·ntt·d NASA offi cia ls with the jury that ht· had o nly borrowed the audience, "I am often asked about space a down payment to reserve Shuttle space. money in ordtr to i1wcst it in a spacC' manufacturing facilities, solar power Tht' payloadi.. n>mmonly called colony. and d aimt·d he had plan1wd to pay sa tellites and such o ther large scale "gc•taway specials ... can weigh no mort' it back in 20 years or so. enginet•ring projects. In my judgc• m t• nt it is than 90 kilograms and he no larger than .5 The district attorney madt• the 111i s1<1kt• too early to commit the nation to such cubic meters. T ht·y are £town on tlw of claiming that inv<'sting the loot in space projects. But wt• wi ll continue the evolvi ng Shuttl e on a span· available basis for co lo nies wou ld be "pnnHllH' ntl y development or our technology. taking sdt·nti£ic research and de,·elopment dep riving someonC' of their rn olll')'. in intermediat<• steps tha1 wi ll keep open purpost·s. commo n h orse se nse". Thl' jury. IX>Ssibilities £or the future." Thl' Egyptian pu1chast· marks the first apparently bdie\'ing otherwisl'. frcc·d Howtwr. Carter made no comm itment foreign educational UM' of the payloads Masovt·r. to any s1x·ci £ic intl'rmediate steps such as µrogram. Egyptian studl'nts will compete· Mason·r was rC'cently awarded a technology ckvclopnwnt on tht· ground, in a na ti onwide crnlll'St by submitting scholarship to attt·11d tht· Universit y or assembly of structures in space, or a space proposals for a n expt•riml'nt to be flown California at Bt•t kt·ll'y where h t• p la ns to power mod 111<-. aboard Space Shutt It- missions. Ernluation study physics. T hl' Octol)('r 11 press rl'lea:.e. tht• " White 0£ tlw proposals wi 11 ht· undn the direct io n And ... in ca~l' you werl' wondering ... House Fact Sheet on LIS Civil Span• 0£ El-Bat no. Ma:.o"er i~ 1101 an L-5 member. Policy", went into more detail. "It is neither £casibk or necessary a t this time to commit tlw llS to a high cha lknge space engim·t·ring- 111111 a 11 ve com parahll' to LA Space Capitalists Apollo .... It is too t•arl y to makt· a commitment to the development or a Form Investment Club satellite solar power station or space manufanuring facility dut• to the On October 13. 1978 the Span· in\TStment:. a n d additio nal capital uncertainty or the technology and Dt•\•clopment Co mpany was officially subscriptio ns. OC' tf'm1ining the spt•cific cost bendits and environml'ntal concerns. formed, followin g two months o r steps from an invt·stnwnt club to an The re an'. h o we ,·c· r. \'l' l' Y u sdul pn·µaration. Tht· purpose o f tlu· opc·rat ing company will rcquirt t11 on· intermedia tl' steps that wi ll allow partnership is to accumulate sufficil'nt research and di ~n 1 ss i on . deve lopmt•n t a n d testing o r key capita l to undt·rtakt· the serious r\s the company grows. we want to tech nologin aml experit·nn· in space industriali7.ation or span·. consider many options for dn·l'loping industrial opt·r.11ions 10 be gained. The l lS \\'hen we lwgan discussing pri\'atl' space. \\'t' abo wa11t to offl'r whatt·n·r will pu1 :,i1t· an tvolutio nary progrn111 that im·estmc·nt in span· industriali1..at ion and assistann· wt· can to o thC'rs who arc is directt'd towanl assessing 1ww options st·t1kmt 11t. w t' wcrl' fan·d with a difficult intt·n·stt'd in starting their own ill\T:. tmt·nt which will lw rt•\•icwed pniodicall y hy thl' qm·scion : how can a group of small groups. If you havt any suggestion:.. or if P ol icy R t·v iew CommitH'C'. Th C' im•t•stors becornl' involved in a mw you would likt· to ri nd out morC' about our evolutionary program will stress science hundred billion dollar entcrpisc? Tlw club. write to: 'l'c-rry C. Sarnge. SOC Agl'nt, and bask HThno logy intt'gratt·d with a SpacC' Developmt·111 ('.0111pany is our 1900 Dufour. Apt. 16. Redondo lkarh. Ca. complt·m{·ntary ground R&D p1 ogram - anS\\'t't to tha t qm·Mion. A~ an inn·stmt•n t 90278. a nd will continue· to e\'aluate the relati\'C duh. \\'C' can pool our n ·soun n PIC'ast· nott·: thi, is 1101 to bcconstrut·d as costi. and bt·ndits of till' proposed immed iatel y. and rvol\"{· into a a n in vita tio n to jo in tht• Space acti\'itit·s. corporation as our a~st·ts increase. In tlw Tk\"C'lopment Company. It is a pri11t1/<' So, whilt• Cartt'r may not have come up ~ hon t«rm our main activity will bl' to part ncrsh i p. with anything 1ww. a t ll'a ~ t lw hasn 't tried t•xpa nd our a sst'!!> through wi se to dose thl' door 011 o ur dreams. 1.·, Inside the L-5 Society Nova Scotia L-5 We would like to inform the Society that we have recen tly formed the Nova Scotia chapter of the L -5 Society. Officers for 1978 are as follows: High Schools Debate Power Satellites, Space Colonies President: Dr. Hugh A. Millward Se::cretary: Mr. Michael Oja Treasurer: Mr. Dennis Doof Across the United States thousands of opt to o nly study the problem some more Our address for correspondence is: high school students are avidly and then go ahead with a development Nova Scoti a L-5 Society researching and orating on the space effort without making any commitment to cl o Department of Geography colonization concept. This year's high space at the present time? Sain t Mary's University school debate resolution reads : 2.) Would an international plan be Halifax. N.S. " Resolved; th at the federal government better than the national plan discussed in B3H 3C3 should establish a comprehensive pro· this year's debate resolution? What do the Canada gram to significantly increase the energy proponents think? Would Professor independence of the United States." Of O 'Neill would wan t his concept adopted Please:: note the new address for Ho uston L· course it was not long before many of through the structure of the debate 5: Box 10161 , Houston, TX 77206. the more enlightened debate teams resolution or would he prefer an realized the potential of space coloniza internatio nal development sch cmt·? tion and power satellites under the (Needless lO say, because of the insistence Virginia Tech imperatives of the topic. The participa· of most debate teams using space plans lO Speakers' Bureau tion of h igh school students in discus· defend the specifics of the O'Neill plan to sions on space will help further the goals the teller, it would be most useful if the If you live in the Blacksburg, Roanoke of the L-5 Society by involving some of professor himself could ma ke statements and Richmo nd, Virgina areas and need a the people most likely to be in L-5 by concerning tlw applicability of his concept speaker on space settlements. contact 1995 - today's high school students. to the high school debate topic.) David j onl's, VA Tech information offi cer. We hope that the members of the 3.) Is there a distinction made by 7 11 -9 Townside Rd., Roanoke. \IA 2101-1. Society will take interest in the attempts experts between ground launched of debators promoting the L -5 ideal by satellites and colony manufactured tailoring your remarks on the subject to ones? Too many times teams advocating Space Futures Newsletter encompass discussions on how a program the O'Neill concept are losing rounds of space development could significantly because of evidence read that only The Philadelphia based Space Futures increase (the energy independence of the applies to ground-launched SPS, (i.e. Society has inaugurated the Space Futures U.S. Articles in L-5 News and popular that SPS would create climatic distur· Newsleller with a twel ve page November magazines on the subject are of the bance from launches, that SPS costs 1/2 issue. It contains news items on Landsat, greatest benefit as they are easily trillion dollars, etc . . . ) O'Neil l's SpaCt' Studies Instilllte. the available to most high school students. Many L-5 members will hear from us Soviet space shuule. Venus probes and Researchers, including ourselves, will be this year and we look forward to our more. The newsletter is free to Space attempting to contact many supporters earnest effort to sincerely advance the space Futures Society members. Dues are $10 per of the colonization effort and attempt to colonization movement through the year. S5 for students. Send them to 1627 find elusive evidence that we might not medium available to us . . . dc·bate. Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. uncover elsewhere. Inquiries on the subject. helpful offerings If by chance you are comacted by a of eviden ce showing colonizatio n 's debator (an example: during the Redlands effectiveness under the debate resolution. Canadian Lecturer University Debate Institution, over the and other members of the society who are summer o urselves and a friend, Paul debators and would like lO correspond Alan R. H ilclt'hrand. of tlw Roya l Munch of Pomona, California. attempted with your forensic comrades can write to us Ast ronornica I Socit't y o f Canada. • ~ desperately to arrang(• a phone call to at: 465 Riviera, Turlock, Cal, 95380. availabk to ~in· lt·ctun·s on span· Professor O 'Nei ll ) they would appreciate Matt George &: Michelle Richardson S(' ltlc·1m·11ts. I It- can lw rontacwd al RR 7. your cooperation in helping them develop Captains of Debate, Turlock High School Frnlnicwn. N8Canada l·::.l lHX8.506 363- a better knowledge of space power conn·pt P.S. We were just informed that the 2050. throug h acquiring printed and published collegiate debate topic a lso has space documenta tion that you as ··insiders" 011 colonies as an option, (thl·ir topic deals Errata the progression of the effon might have with providing employment opportuni available. ties) and that furthn inquiries and info on We've piled up a few lately is our Most debate teams have chosen to use the the subject should be obtained and sent to: face red over listing a UCLA L-5 (L-5 O'Nei ll plan as the basis for their proposals Cindy Fraliegh, 9021 Sutlers Gold Drive, News, October 1978). It's at arch-rival in debate rounds. Some of the problems Sacr.rniento. Ca .. 95826. USC, care of John Blanton, Box 77206, that need IO be addressed to make advocacy Los Angeles, CA 90007. of space colonization easier for debato rs Slide Recall In "Careers In Space" (L-5 News, arc: No. you don't haue to return any of your August 1978) we tell Houston area I. ) Arc we really ready to progress in a slides. However, if you bought slide A36. students to contact the Physics Dept. of development program within the time you can trade i1 in at no charge for a beuer Rice University. That's the Space scale that O 'Neill provides? Or should we version of that slide. Physics Dept. and Astronomy Dept. 16 L-5 News, November 1978 SPACE- ORIENTED INDIVIDUA LS are 2) Don't use no double negative. What would you do if the printer said invited to sl'nd resumes £or eventual 3) Make each pronoun agree with their they're too busy and the News will be consideration for employment with widt• antecedent. printed a week la te? H the typesetter ranging project. We anticipate several job 4) join clauses good. like a conjunction suddenly goes out of business? If the paper openings in the coming year. Noaerospan· should. company is on strike? or technica l background required . All 5) About them st· ntence fragments. If none or these questions faze you. write fi e lds wdcollll'. Send to: Sabrt' 6) Whe n dangling. watc h your or call Carolyn Henson . 1620 N. Park, Foundation. Eanhpon P roject, 221 \V. participles. Tucson. AZ 85719 or 6021622-6351. Carillo St., Santa Barbara, CA 93 101. 7) Verbs has to agree with their subject. 8) J ust bt't ween you and I, case is . . .. . important to. - ~ 9) Don't write run-on sentences they are So You Want to Write hard to reacL Lette~. .: · ::: } for the L-5 News? 10) Don't usl' commas. which aren't necessary. 11) Try to not o,·crsplit infinitives. Skyhook Reply We welcome articles for the L-5 News. 12 ) Its im portant to u se your lWO apostrophe's con enly. Pay is ro1ten : extra <:opies or the iss ue· The observations about rotating carrying your opus, and your own 13) Proo fread your writing to sl'e if any skyhooks made in Dr. Brakke's letter to L-5 personal press card. wo rds o ut. News are correct, but not all his Howt·ver, indirl'ct ly your L-5 pn·ss card 14) Correct spelliug is esential. assumptions are the same as mine. can Ix· worth a grea t dea l. It will get you Happy writing- CH My analytica l calculations ass umed the free admission to almost anything. free skyhook remaim·d straight to keep the photos. papers. press rdeast's. you name it. problem tractable, but I never expected It ·s up to your discretion where you go and it to remain perfectly so in actuality. Not how you use it. Editor Wanted mentioned in thl' l.-5artide\\'t•n·a snic·sor If you have ewr wri1ten for the L-5 digital simulations of both graphite News. or sent us photographs or artwork Do you cringe at the choice of anidl's, tcrrC'stria l L-5 SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP FORM (please type or print) CI TY / STATE/ ZIP: ------ AFFILIATION / TITLE OR POSITION ______(OPTIONAL) I am __ am not __ interested in being active locally. Phone (optional} ------ __ Please enroll me as a member of L-5 Society ($20 per year regular. $15 per year for students). A check or money ord er is enclosed. (Membership includes the L-5 News. the monlhly magazine of the L-5 Society. Subscription of $1 2/ year included in membership dues). L-5 Societ y llll'mbns who sign up Im thl' Space L<'gislation I lot Lint· option n·tei\'C' fr<'quc·nt firs1 da:.s- mailing:. on llw :1< tion~ of Congress and lhl' Pr<'sidcnt which affl'ct tht' spaCl' sh111tlt-. ~pact· colonit·s. solar pown sa 1dli1 t'~. spa< t ' 1·xplor;11io11 and 01hn spat t' projens. L-5 Society _ _ Sign me up for th e Space Legislation Hot Line. 1620 North Park Avenue Tucson, AZ 85719 several m inutes, where they reflected and I would like 10 make a co m ment a bout o ther tha n Professor O'Neill, since I was reinforcC'd themselves a nd snapped o rr a Ken McCom1ick's article on the Solar teach ing a course called T he Space p iece of cable. In 1he damped cases the Power Satellite Hl'arings. . Venture when O ' Neill's Physics Today waves were su Hiciently auenuated to be It seems to me that Senator Abourezk a rticle was published , and I incorporated ' negligible when they got to the o ther end. sho uld immediatc:l)• be take n to the ne-<1rest the to pic in my course that fal l. A brief Su rprisingly, undamped skyh ooks d idn't hospital in 1he a11l'mp1 to save himself discussion of my experience was published run into trouble as long as the masses at from an a lmost sun· to be fa tal dose of in L-5 News (page 6, December 1975). A their ends were no t a ltered (i.e. nocap1un:s Foo1-in-Mo111h dism sc. I lis comment full article describing my experiences in or releases). a bo ut the 'Sunsat' group is d irect evidence teach ing about space colonies will be You r obsl'rvation a bout varying rotation of a well advanced case. He says 1ha 1 published in the American J o urnal o f rail's is correct, bu1 1he si1ua1ion is even 'Sunsat' is con1 rolled by Gem·ra l Electric. Physics this spring. I sha ll send the more complica1ed, because 1he extendl'd McDon nell Douglas. Grumman. ct al, a nd reprints (gratis) to 1he L-5 S0<·ic1y for skyhook does not orbit exaclly like a point that if they get control of the SPS then they dis1ribu1ion. a1 its mass center. as the a nalytical will. in effect. control our energy resources. J ay S. I luebnn deri\•ations assumed. At wuchdowns 1he He finish ed by saying: "Massive DC'partmcnt of Natural Sci(•nces downward half of a symme1rical cable government rq.;ulation wo11ltl lw m·ccssary University of North Florida pulls down more than 1he upward half to proLC'CI tht• con ~11 nw r ... pulls up, and thus 1he mass center NO\\" mayht• l\ ·e misst·tl M>llle of his logic momcn 1<1rily fa lls. T h is is actually an somcwhl'rl', but if I rt·ca ll correctly. all of advan tage because it lowers 1he takeoff these compan it•s an· American nm acceleration , and thus the force on tht· o rgan i1.a 1i ons and 1h is would seem 10 bt• Pipefitters Passe? cable in th is maximum stress orieniation. much mon· prl'frn·111ia l over tht' Middle The elongation changes add yet more [as1em con1rol 1ha1 wt· now ha\'e. In fact I must say that I find Jack's advice £or comµlication, and adding and removing isn't this return IO Am t·rican control our edito r·s daughter (Sept. L·5) 1ypical o f masses really screws things up. exactly what we have bee n preaching him bu1. in this case. totally wrong. Let ht.•r By experimentation I've managed lO ahot11? At least tlwn Wt' would havc 1ha1 become mu lti-discip lined-a ge1wrc1list. tweak skyhook lengths and initial o ption of govrrnmc·m concrols if it \\"t•n· For it will be the generalists who will live conditions so that they nearly touch down needed. wht'reas 1his1 on1ml is not possibl<· in .the span· habitats; no1 the specialists six limes µer orbit, if you don "t spoil things now as we can sn· c·wrytinw \\"l' pull i1110 a wh <'I will be needed only o n a tem porary by adding payloads. T he parameters are gas s1a1ion . hasis. II will be the generalists who will be d ifferen t from 1h e anal yt ic in itia l l .arry D. E van~ able to adapt 10 a new and constan1 ly approximation in a bo u t the third decimal Fairchild, WA ch anging e n v iron men 1 w h ert· t h l' p lace. -. • unexpt·c1cd will happen daily and Operating a skyhook transporta1ion I am one o f those who joined L-5 after makeshi£1 will be the password. system will obviously ke<'p sevc·ral 1he Pla yboy publici1y. somewhat out of David J orws computers pre11y busy calculating ('ither curiosity but mainly out of concern for our Va. T ech Chapter 1he minor corrections needed 10 kee p the energy situation. ('.olonies a nd industry in Blacksburg. VA skyhook in place and on timl', or else sp ace m igh t work out , but the sola r predicting where i1 will show up so that a powe r satellite won't. small rocket ferry can rendevo us with i1. At one 1ime I believed till' solar power R egardin g your a n d Carol yn·s sa tellite was a good idea. bu t 1ha1 was comments o n meta llic h ydrogen. I don't before I discovered what it really is: a th ink 1he evidence is in yt'I. II may be multi-bill ion dollar corporate scam 1ha1 Feel What Can 't Be Said m etastable like diamond or nitro a rrords 1he m 11hinationals lraditio nal glycerin . The linear theories that a pply to objectives: monopoly a nd big. big profits. 11 \ 11011·11011gh to just li w. ona 111i11i111a l normal pressures and de nsities ca11'1 be Not 10 mc111 ion 1he radiation hazard sur\'i\'al kwl. \ \'t' han· 10 t• nsurt that 111ore m1s1cd at 1he 2 million atmospheres (we'll cook more than gl'cse), and other 1ha11 abundant Ii[(" that \\"l'are pmrnisnl. in m·t·d ecl 10 make metallic h ydrogt·n . environmental problems (the incredible Cod '~ \\"Ord. and 10 do 1ha1 wt• have 10 haw Nobody is wi lling to gm•ss <1bou1 its influx of e nergy will ultimately result in faith. and 10 look up. Tht•rt' 111ay ht.'. one stability. a nd you couldn"1 believe them if waste heat. and we're aln·ady warming 1he day. nowhere 10 go but up. 1hey did. planet frightening!} fa st). I lans Mora we The solutions 10 1he energy problcm I .t•ora E. l\lon·y Artificial ln1ell ig<'ll<"<' 1..ab m ust be econominal. safe. decentralized. Metlfonl. O R Stanford llniwrsity a nd democratically controlled. Solar Stanford. CA power sa1ellitcs arc· none or thl'se. Kevi n Gillooly Columbia. MO Look Up SPS Pro & Con \\'(' m •t•d colonies for tht' saml' rt•a:.cm~ You sho uld try to show antin uckar Space Colony Course 1tw Egyp1 iam created the p yramids: for 1ht· pt'Opk th<' potential of spare power joh:.. the fl'l'ling of LC>getht'm1·ss and stations. I don't agree with Woodcock that I was disappo inwd not to find m y cn·ativi1y. and so that others may look hack n 11dt·ar fol'S arc .. irrational". I live wht•rt• courses on space colo nil's among those 1housa11d s of y<'ars and feel what rnn '1 Ix· they m inc it - i1 isn 't safe or clean. listed in L-5 News(pagd). August 1978). 1 said. Anonymous suggest that I havt· iaugh1 a bo ut the Michai:I C. E111 111t·r1 Niwo1, CO colon i1.a1ion of s pacl' longer than anyont San Anwnio. T<·xas L -5 News, November 1978