18

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,

15

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

United Nations.

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

2

step-by-step approach such as that previously detailed
in these hearings by Gerard K. O'Neill or G. Harry Stine.

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
it may be one of the most important decisions in the history

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

3

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
( "neutral") chance. At the time, the miraculous results
greatly surprised a large number of supposedly intelligent

level-headed people.

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

century

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

program:

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
Earth (no pollution, complete control over environment, etc.)

They will be homes in space, not "space capsules".

3. Eventually, but, likewise, in the foreseeable future

(before the mid-21st century, if we so decide now)

millions, 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