« AnteriorContinuar »
4,033,118 17 7. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein that portion of 12. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the mass of the walls of the body means relatively near to and de
material is comprised of a substance absorptive of in
frared radiation. fining the entrance opening is formed cross-sectionally
13. Apparatus for facilitating energy flow, comprisas a paraboloidal segment, the segment being mirror
sing: imaged across the longitudinal axis of the body means.
body means having walls which define a cavity and an 8. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the paraboloidal
entrance opening to the cavity, the walls being segment is defined by the relation:
formed of material relatively near the entrance
opening which is a good absorber of infrared radia. 1(1-7.) cos a - y sin al. - troll + sin a)(x sin a +
10 tion relative to the material of which the walls are y cos a + r.)
formed at portions of the body means relatively
further away from the entrance opening; wherein:
a flowable mass of material; and, 1. = the distance of a point on the entrance opening means for directing a flow of said mass along the from the longitudinal axis of the body means; and,
walls of the body means to cool certan portions of a = inclination of the axis of the paraboloidal seg.
said body means relative to other portions thereof. ment from the longitudinal axis of the body means.
14. The apparatus of claim 13 wherein the mass of
material is comprised of a substance absorptive of in9. The apparatus of claim I wherein the entrance end
frared radiation. is formed into a slot, the slot being aligned with a line 20 15. The apparatus of claim 13 and further comprising focus energy directing means.
means for directing energy into the entrance opening of 10. The apparatus of claim 1 and further comprising:
the body means, the flow of mass being directed by said thermal torage means for receiving the mass of ma
mass flow directing means away from the entrance
opening of said body means. terial after contact of said mass with the walls of
25 the body means;
16. The apparatus of claim 13 and further comprising
window means surmounting the entrance opening of means receiving said mass from said thermal storage the body means and sealing said cavity from ambient. means for producing work; and,
17. The apparatus of claim 16 wherein the energy means for returning said mass to the body means directing means are disposed within the scaled confines
after work has been produced in the work produc- 30 of the window means. ing means.
18. The apparatus of claim 13 and further comprising 11. The apparatus of claim 10 and further comprising
window means surmounting the entrance opening of
the body means and sealing said cavity from ambient, means for selectively returning said mass either to the
the means for directing a flow of said mass being disbody means or to the thermal storage means after work 35 posed within the sealed confines of the window means. has been produced in the work producing means.
of future space programs, I would like to present three
so-called "alternative futures", not just for the United
States, but for the world. I think which future becomes
reality may depend to a surprisingly significant extent
on what is decided in the near future by the relatively
few members of this committee (compared to over 4,000 million
members of the human species). It is perhaps appropriate
that this question originates in the House of the people
rather than with the Senate, the President, or even the
One possible future is for NASA to continue at its
present more or less subdued pace. In light of the testimony
at these hearings "spelling out" the great opportunities
space offers to industry, employment, and the human condition
this approach is clearly irresponsible and will not be
discussed further herein.
The other approach, then, is for NASA to quicken its
perhaps, for example, taking a realistic and flexible
step-by-step approach such as that previously detailed
The real question in my mind therefore becomes whether
we will treat the so-called "high frontier" program as a
space program or a people program. By "treating it as a
space program", I mean looking at it from a narrow technological short-run point of view which no doubt will aid industry, increase employment, and probably improve the human condition and devoid of any overarching long-term ethical (rather than technical) goal. I propose a more comprehensive human long-term "high frontier" program with an explicitly stated
overall ethical goal and time table to strive for.
Does it really make much difference whether we take
a "space program" or "people program" approach? I suggest
of the human species.
It is not often we get a chance to eliminate all human
poverty and end all war. Specifically, for the first time in human history we now have via space and space science
the practical means to acheive what the social scientists
have only speculated about. We may not get another chance
in centuries, if ever. There are realistic reasons why we
can stop spreading poverty and war beyond our tiny planet
when we have been unable to end it aboard ship. As urban
planners have noted
it would be easier to build a new
city rather than have to work with a decaying old one.
Re "fighting" the population problem and giving "utopia" (democracy) a fair chance, the settling of America (not
merely the slow evolution of Europe ) was the road (unconsciously)
taken. The difficult job of settling the American frontier
seemed to a lot of people at the time to be a silly, nutty
idea. The United States has been called the first new nation,
And because we were new, we could idealistically but perhaps
for the first time realistically give our ideals a fair
But we have come a long way in 200 years. The question
today is not whether a non-democratic government is a necessary
evil. Democracy was very idealistic
but perhaps it needed
a new land, a new frontier, to also prove itself realistic.
Today the question is whether we will end all human poverty
and war. With only a few exceptions, space scientists admit
that technologically we theoritically can end all human
poverty via "the high frontier", possibly by the mid-21st
There are no doubt various space programs (past, present,
future) which are exceedingly justified. These programs
are not discussed herein. The program herein under discussion
should more properly be viewed as a people program, not
a space program. A few points to keep in mind about this
1. Whether the program costs $50 billion or $500 billion
(how does one put a price on ending all human poverty and
war?), once the initial development (say, a few decades
at most) is done
no further funds will be required.
The space habitats will be entirely sef-sufficient, will more than pay for themselves, and will without any additional
funds manufacture more and better habitats.
2. The habitats will eventually prove to be not only
Earth-like (grass, trees, etc.) but even better than
3. Eventually, but, likewise, in the foreseeable future
(before the mid-21st century, if we so decide now)
even billions (not just thousands) will be living in space.
4. This "people program" will greatly improve the
lives of people on Earth re employment, energy (directly or indirectly), population, resources, and environment.
5. The space habitats may to some extent decrease
the felt need of people or nations to "steal" from another.
6. The space habitats will allow-encourage social
diversity and experimentation, including ethical and existential evolution of the individual.
7. To be successful, the program will have to be multi