L-5 NEWS A PUBLICATION OF THE L-5 SOCIETY VOL. 3 NUMBER 7 JULY 1978 In this issue: Eric Drexler, Editor 1 The New Space Program: Conflict, Cooperation and Common Membership Services: Interest Former O'Neill research assistant Eric Drexler proposes ethical Janet Tarney standards for space researchers. Chris Naliwsky Flippo Bill Passes House William Weigle, Administrative Services 2 Suppose Isabella Had Said " No " ? Robert G. Nichols draws some Board of Directors: historical parallels. Gordon R. Woodcock Barbara Marx Hubbard 3 Space Habitats By Accident? Konrad K. Dannenberg Hon. Edward R. Finch, Jr. SPS Promoted to DOE Back-Burner James E. Oberg Leonard David People in Space—An ESA European Viewpoint P hill Parker J. Peter Vajk reports. Jack D. Salmon Phillip Parker David M. Fradin 4 A Social Psychologist Looks at the Space Program By Charles Romualdas Sviedries J. Divine Keith Henson Carolyn Henson 5 Boeing, ADL Outline SPS Development Plans Eric Drexler William Weigle wraps up the aerospace "party line " on SPS . Mark Hopkins Norie Huddle 7 Offshore Satellite Solar Power Receiver Studied Tom Bros Magoroh Maruyama describes an SPS receiver design that may meet even the most stringent Harlan Smith environmental limits. Carol Motts Publication office: the L-5 Society, 8 Laser Propulsion to Geosynchronous Orbit E ric Drexler reveals 1060 E. Elm, Tucson, Arizona the just-declassified details of a bold new propulsion system. 85719. Published monthly. Subscription: $12.00 per year, included in dues ( 20.00 per year, 9 Bibliography Update By Conrad Schneiker. students $15.00 per year). Second class postage paid at Tucson, 13 Sun Day Peter Mikes, Ken McCormick and Carolyn Henson discuss Sun Arizona and additional offices. activities, held May 3. Copyright ©1978 by the L-5 Day Society. No part of this periodical may be reproduced without 14 Inside the L-5 Society written consent of the L-5 Society. The opinions expressed by the 17 Letters authors do not necessarily reflect the policy of the L-5 Society. ' Membership Services: L-5 Society, Editor s Note: I would like to thank frequent L-5 News contributor Eric Drexler for 1620 N. Park Avenue, Tucson, holding down the editor's desk this month. His work allowed me to take a much Arizona 85719. Telephone: appreciated rest after the birth of my third child, Valerie Aurora, June 8. I'll be back on the 602/622-6351. editor ' s job with the next issue. —Carolyn Henson, President, L-5 Society. Change of address notices, undeliverable copies, orders for subscriptions, and Cover: The planet Earth, showing North and South America. other mail items are to be sent to: L-5 Society Membership Services 1620 N. Park Tucson, AZ 85719 THE NEW SPACE PROGRAM: Conflict, Cooperation, and Common Interest by Eric Drexler Because you are a member of the New The goals of the NSP require large-scale large extent a single category in the public Space Program community, you share space operations. To support any goal of mind, a common political environment strong common interests with everyone the NSP is to have an interest in better lift creates powerful common interests within who supports a goal of the New Space Pro- vehicles, large space structures, power the NSP community. gram. The New Space Program com- systems, orbit transfer vehicles, tele- Despite these common technical and munity needs a better understanding of operators, space stations, solar political interests and the limited coopera- itself and of its common interests if it is to furnace/antenna surface configuration tion they have produced, a corrosive at- act effectively on the national political technology, knowledge of human mosphere of conflict pervades the New scene. physiology in space, knowledge of Space Program community. Supporters of Recent years have seen the growth of materials processing in space, and so on differing NSP goals and means to goals renewed support for space, but with a new down an endless list of space-related (i.e., the ground-launched approach to set of goals. The old space program had knowledge and capabilities. Common SPS, the space manufacturing facility ap- three sides: human exploration, auto- technologies create powerful common in- proach to SPS, etc.) commonly object to mated probes, and useful satellites. Of terests within the NSP community. each other's efforts for one or more of the these, the first has died, the second has lan- The goals of the NSP require public and following reasons: guished, and the third has passed on into political support for space. To support any 1) The goal advocated is too far-out to the realm of the accepted and routine. The goal of the NSP is to have an interest in a be credible to anyone (or to Congress, or to New Space Program (NSP) has three major public perception of space capabilities as a conservative engineers in related fields, or sides as well: space industrialization, desirable national goal, and of space whatever), and hence advocacy of the goal satellite solar power, and space coloniza- activities as an important part of our discredits the space program and my tion. Like the old space program, with its future. Such a public perception, together project. human exploration vs. automated probes with more direct political pressure, will 2) The means advocated for reaching a conflict, the NSP has its warring factions. help increase federal support for space re- legitimate goal are too far out, or are in- Fortunately (considering the sorry state of search and activities, will encourage the ferior to my proposal, and should be funding for the old space program), US to negotiate favorable treaties, and will eliminated from further consideration or enlightened self-interest provides grounds result in a more favorable situation in the greatly de-emphasized. for greater cooperation among us. federal bureaucracies. Since "space" is to a 3) Money is scarce, and my project deserves the lion's share of it. For these reasons, planetary scientists (eyeing space manufacturing as a justifica- tion for planetary exploration) have FLIPPO BILL claimed that only space manufacturing can make SPS a viable concept, SPS ad- vocates have claimed that space colonies are not feasible this century, space manu- PASSES HOUSE facturing advocates have played up the possible environmental hazards of launch- After many postponements, HR 12505 Progress in the Senate seems less certain. ing SPS systems with big boosters, and came to a vote on the floor of the House Senator John Melcher (D-MT) introduced supporters of more modest space efforts Thursday, June 22, in the late afternoon. It S 2860 (the Senate version of HR 12505) last have called for more caution lest the public passed, 267 to 96. While this large margin May, but hearings have not yet been find itself disappointed. In articles, lec- should help smooth its future course, the scheduled. Owing to a backlog of work, tures, and congressional testimony, end is not yet in sight. Melcher expects hearings to be held no spokespeople for various camps have In the House, it must now pass the earlier than late July, shortening the time failed to support each other's goals, have Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD- available to complete the legislative emphasized the cost of technologies Independent Agencies, chaired by Rep. process in this session. required for other's proposals, have taken Howard Boland (D-MA). Its prospects in If passed, the Flippo bill will provide pains to disassociate themselves from other this subcommittee seem bright, as Boland $25 million for SPS research in fiscal 1979, groups (even those working for broadly voted "aye" on the floor. In light of his permitting vitally needed technology veri- similar goals), have joked about other's previous opposition to many of NASA's fication and development work, as well as goals, and have used other proposals as planned projects, supporters of SPS owe a closer examination of SPS environ- scapegoats when their own proposal Boland a hearty "thank you". mental impacts. comes under criticism. These efforts have 1 no1 nmic<'ahl) inc rcast·d an~om"~ funding. Second. should fe wer competing means supporting siudy or your conct'.pt. and be­ nor ha\'t' llwy funhen'd dn·dopnlC'nt of lih be proposed 10 achieve these goals? Fewer sides - whal better wa y to uncover the vehicles. large space structures, pow<'r means. like· fewer redu11dan1 systems. fl a ws in yorn compeiito r's ideas? systems, a nd so on. They have eve n wo uld decreilsc· tht cha n c(:' of reaching o ur 3) Mak<' sure the fl a ws in your com· poisoned 1he a tmosphere for the construc­ goals. a nd would weaken our case for de­ pe 1i1or's concept are studin l. by supplying tive technical criticism required to im­ velo pme nt of 1he iechno logy base common 1echn ical criticism - preferably in techni­ prove or weed out po01 idcas. In shon. 10 a ll la rge-seal<· space enterprises. So long cal cirdt·~ rather than lx·for(' congr<':.­ everyone loses. as technical n ilicism weeds out worthless ~io na l commilll'l'S. Is there a way everyone could win? Is proposals. com peting m ea ns strengthen 'I) Be o pen a bo ut uncen ainiies and dif­ there a way of looking at llw New Space the New Spate Program . fi culties both for credibility's sake a nd as Program which would cnc:ouragc mort• T hird. is destructive competition a n ef­ reason s for further s wdy. cooperation a nd less desll ut1ive forms of fenive wa y 10 help one's project? Advann·d 5) Discourage NSP comm un ity mem­ competil ion? Let us considt'r the sources o r space planning is a m inuie sliver of the bers from destructive behavior by friendly­ conflict, and possible ways or reducing i1.