Actually, as far as I see it on my perception the world there is no energy crisis and there is no resources shortage and there need not be a slow down and growth and development. Now that contravenes all over or contradicts all the limits to growth people. I know the crisis is actually rather than resources and energy and and soda and so forth is a failure of nerve an imagination. Two centuries ago Pioneers came to this country and built it because they have the determination to do it. It was a force necessity might say They had pretty much freedom of action. It was recently won from England in the Revolutionary War. And more importantly they have the whole Frontier what they considered unlimited resources land and material. They were great Potentials in this new continent of ours. And it excited the initial Pioneers 200 years ago 200 years later this nation and indeed the world seems to be used up its Frontiers the boundaries of the world. It's room and its resources are closing in. And what we need definitely is a good old 15th century Renaissance and how do we go about getting it? Well first Arthur Arthur Arthur C Clarke, I think all of you have heard put the matter very well in a book that he wrote which was not science fiction, but I consider science fact and you call science prophecy, which is profiles of the future. He says in all the long history of man ours is the first stage with no New Frontiers on land or sea and many of our troubles stem from this fact there. No more undiscovered continents set out towards any Horizon and on its other side. You will find someone already waiting to check your visa and your vaccination certificate, which is definitely true. Walter Prescott Webb put it another way, the end of an age is always touch with sadness. The people are going to miss the frontier more than words can express for centuries. They heard it's called listen to its promise and that their lives and fortunes on its outcome. It calls no more. Well, I am glad to say the professor web-sling mantas a few million your ears premature because even as he was writing those words in the small state of Texas a few thousand or actually got a thousand miles to his Northwest Rockets were pointing contrails towards Frontier on demand remotely faster than any this world has ever known. It's less than 200 miles away from every single human being on earth now, obviously what I'm talking about and have been leading up to him this last page of type is space. It's Limitless. As far as I can see beyond all possibilities of exhaustion and I mean exactly that I cannot conceive of the human race growing large enough to exhaust even a very tiny percentage of the resources of space attack. Even the resources of this solar system level on the resources of all space. It offers entrepreneurs industrialists artist adventures and other romantic to challenge a new Vista which will be measured in cubic light-years instead of square miles and it's come within our grasp only in the last decade. It's not the home as far as I could sit her to professional astronauts either Soviet or American. It's not a playground for daytime what it is. It's a potential home for humankind. It's a source of material and energy resources for the future and I like to refer to it as the industrial park of the future. Examination of certain facts leads us to believe that once we've overcome the cost for transportation, which is the major determining Factor the stage the game the whole universe or at least the solar system will open to the human race. I have a favorable saying that is machines will strip mine the moon rather than Montana. If one person well, I'll let you plead ignorance and you can say that we will be damaging the Ecology of the Moon to strip. Mine it for raw materials, but I'll let you say it only once because of anybody paid any attention at all to looking at the Apollo Landings on the moon and looking at the baron surface of the Moon. We're sure are fairly certain that it has no life. It has a limited atmosphere which is about one millionth the atmosphere of Earth and it's mainly hydrogen and helium gas. And it's mainly Rock to there's a lot of it out there. Now. It's my assumption that we can safely go in and take Rock away from the Moon without damaging its ecology. But I'm being that way I won't say what I mean, you can all tell there's no exhaust and resources the asteroids or the moon as far as I can see and when we provided that transportation, we will be able to manufacture products materials and that which is now 1/3 of the growing gross national product, which is services in space own manufactured forward neck is the factory of the future going to orbit hundreds of miles above our head or possibly they're going to rest of the baron surface of the Moon. They're going to take advantage of certain conditions in space. These are extreme temperatures weightlessness, which is the proper way of saying rather than zero gravity gravity gradients, which you can create if you can go up from being just wait Play to the Moon with a 1/6 gravitational field. Ultra Pure Unlimited vacuum, you have no idea now and I will point out a bit later how many Industries on Earth are dependent on vacuum in one form or another chemical Plastics metal production and so forth and all of these ultimately can be transferred to space where the vacuum is free. You open the door pretty much and it sits there and it's also fairly Limitless in terms of the new capability to do overload if you might say the pollutant Power supplies are another interesting point the extremes of temperature that we can get in space from about a 3-degree k three degrees above absolute zero, which is obviously very very cold and will liquefy helium up to temperatures in the tens of thousands and ultimately millions of degrees in plasma furnaces or in solar concentrators. I all of these things added together will mean that many Industrial Research processes will start to move into space. If you talk to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, they will start to move into space Sometime Late in the decade of the 80s and the 90s and will take a hundred years or so for that movement to take place until you no longer becomes economical to produce a high vacuum on Earth or extremes of temperature or so forth. If you talk to me, I will say that that process is already begun. It will accelerate to be a multibillion-dollar industry before the end of this decade and into the decade of the 80s. It could significantly contribute to the gross national product of the United States on the order of several percent. I'll buy the turn of the century. I have a suspicion that you will not be able to find a mining or metal refining at like to use the term smelting the forging facility left on the planet surface, which means somewhere in the order of 450 billion dollars a year Market in activities that are produced or done in space. Well, what am I talking about right now for the immediate future and I mean today tomorrow last year 2 years from now will mainly You probably all heard of the the NASA satellites are weather satellites the Earth Resources headlights the communication satellites. How often when you look at the television at night and you're looking at the news report on the weather and so forth and they show the picture of the planet in the cloud movements on it. Do you realize that that picture is a result of the SMS satellite in geosynchronous orbit, 22,000 miles out being beamed to the ground. How often when you watch Walter Cronkite and he's showing you exactly what did happen in Vietnam, which changed the entire way the this country viewed war and viewed as political process and so on. How often did you realize the the small statement out the bottom of the picture via satellite be an int'l sad sad lighters in cam or the 80s 6 or one of a dozen others that are in prison Communications orbit. Those are the immediate benefits of Earth space related activities toward they easily pay for all the money that was spent on the Apollo project to go to the moon now we can argue whether or not it was useful to spend money to go to the moon or not. Privately I'd like to prove that it was. The biggest deal we ever had even though it could have been done probably several times cheaper for one reason or another but our return-on-investment from space related activities. We spent it depends on who you talk to somewhere between 50 and 85 billion dollars a year or billion dollars between the years 1958 and now this amounts to somewhere if you average the GNP for the same. Of time about .2% of the gross national product of the United States per year on Space related activities Carl Sagan likes to point out that that point 2% is just about equivalent to what the federal government budgets. I might say of the Spanish and the French at the time of Elizabeth first war to explore and exploit the new world for profit. We'll see what happens in 500 years. All of this information by the way, well, I should say all of the satellites in the weather satellites are obviously run by the government. I could think of better ways to do that running them by private interests, but now we can get into the discussion of Corporations a bit later. However, at the moment most all of the communication satellites that are flown are flown by private corporations on NASA Vehicles, which the corporations pay for this includes a to Western Union satellites that have gone up in the last year the dental set satellites launched by contact Corporation for the indosat Consortium of Nations 87 Nations. Now join the Consortium and related satellites life is RCA is launching their concept for Alaska telephone and television service Muncie later this year and They'll be a few more General Electric is developing a direct broadcast communication satellite for the Japanese, which they also intend to Market in this country Aviation week & Space technology magazine reported that the market for communications headlights as last year was somewhere in the order of 2 billion dollars and it will be increasing in the immediate future. This is an interesting precedent that corporations have managed to produce not only Very large increases in service in the use of communication satellites for transmission of data and and telephone and so forth as versus microwave landlines cables undersea cables and so forth. They have also managed to make considerably more profit than the companies that were originally using microwaves and landlines and undersea cables. That's because the cost obviously were very high initially to string a hundred microwave Towers across the country to get a private line from New York to LA at the moment. One of those Towers will cost you about a million bucks at the moment for that same amount of money. You can rent a channel on the Western Union satellite with uninterruptible service for a million dollars a year that will do the same job in the future probably within five to eight years. You'll be able to rent that same channel for probably somewhere in the order $1,500. And the reason the prices will come down is the cost of the satellites will come down with the launching or the manufacturer of Cheaper boosters. Then we presently have and also the higher dependence on Space base energy and solar turbogenerators and and power sources to transmit higher energy signals to the ground. So that's going to change things when you have an elimination of what amounts to a monopoly at the moment. That is a telephone service what happens when you went all telephone calls become long-distance so to speak and that they go from your house 22,300 miles into the sky get transmitted and repeated by orbiting communication satellite, which will be man. No doubt and dub to prepare purposes and maintenance it so forth and then get transmitted down to the house next door. And you say that's not a very efficient use Perhaps. It is not on a limited scale. But how many times you called the house next door? And how often would you like to be able to call California or perhaps France to do business with a company there or England to go for one reason or another well now those calls to England that cost $7 for 3 minutes or so, which is about we pay and to California would cause me to be a buck and a half to two bucks for three minutes will cost you exactly the same as a college next door and put the call next door will probably cost a hundred percent. Which means no more long-distance charges and it will be very difficult for AT&T to support a monopoly a government regulated monopolies solely on the basis while their major argument of courses at their long-distance rate allow them to have cheap local service, which is pretty much to actually but when those rates changed significantly there will be a lot of new entry into the communications market and I suspect from that day. I'm more competitive spirit in the business. So people should benefit from it. But in any case this type of activity is immediate term. I mean it's happening now, it is mainly tied up not protect a logical reasons. Not at all for technological reasons, but for two things capital. There is a lack of capital in this country today, but the second and most important reason and 90% of the reason why there's a lack of capital is our federal government. At the moment there are certain agencies within the federal government including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will probably find it in their best interest. 2 I I I don't want to appear to be offering you a conspiracy theory of government. I don't think that's true. I think it's the people offered are basically fraud but what is happening here is that the best interests of NASA are served in maintaining the status quo orsino a 5 or 10% increase in their budget each year if they can get this. I know I have enough dealings with administrators in the agency and they are very much content to do this. Of course is a tendency to stifle Innovation the techniques that we used to launch the Apollo program. All that magnificent science was not magnificent science in the least bit. There was no science in the Apollo program that was engineering. That was pure technology Constantine eduardovich silakowski in 1890. Formulated all of the chemical relationships and is that almost all the engineering relationships to go to the Moon Verner Von Braun could have done it in 1942. And the mathematics behind it was solved by Newton. So there was no science involved and don't let anybody fool you. It was pure unadulterated technology. Well, this is one reason by the way to step back and look at a different question that the so-called war on cancer is such a farce in a fraud because essentially what happened was a group of politicians. I think we all know the name of the chief politician here, which I won't need mention said to themselves will this play in Peoria? Yes war on cancer is exactly what we need. So let's go out and do an Apollo project to the war on cancer and spend 2 billion dollars for billion dollars a year or three hundred million dollars here, which is absolutely I do not sit certainly. But it's spent on science basic science understanding what goes on in the cell and so forth not on Administration and perch yards would show you how to fast track to cancer Solution by 1982 and 1/2, you know, which is exactly what the National Cancer Institute is presently trying to do. This is why when you try and make Apollo programs do the job of science you have other failures, this is also one reason why you cannot go out and say well if we went to the moon why can't we brew a good cup of coffee or or why can't we have good mass transit cities. You cannot take the engineers out of my house and save build mass transit a most of the engineers and now so would rather go sell vacuum cleaners then build mass transit and I was one I certainly would go out and do it and B. They don't know anything about mass transit your what's a specific impulse and the pounds propellant consume per second of a barred car. They don't have the fog. Best idea I'd some of the management techniques will be valuable, but that's it. And so this simplistic statements about the Space Program are essentially nonsense and they're spoken from the point of view of ignorance rather than comprehension with facts anyway, What happens in a little bit longer term future at the moment? How do we get into space? I think that's the most important question because I've said transportation is the big problem. As I said, Newton and silakowski and Goddard and Von Braun figured it out. Essentially, what you have to do is Newton's third law. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You have to throw something out of the back of the spacecraft. It does not work that the exhaust yet York Obits rocket motor actually pushes on the air and pushes the thing out. There's a lot of people actually believe that and Arthur Clarke has to explain it practically every luxury gives on space but this is not how it works. What's happening is you're throwing Mass out the tail end of the spacecraft. Alright, the efficiency of the the spacecraft is directly proportional to the efficiency in the speed with which you throw the mass out the back and the weight of the spacecraft and so forth. This is one reason. We have very lightweight structures in space. It is also another reason that the Saturn V is a three-stage rocket and ALT and actually it's more than three stage rocket, but the three booster stages and up either in the Atlantic Ocean or in Earth orbit. And very tiny portion is all that comes back. It's a matter of energy how efficiently do we use energy. Chemical Rockets are presently the only ones in use and they use energy very inefficiently. There's a measure of performance called specific impulse which is how many pounds of thrust are you going to get out of a pound of fuel burned in one second and other words at the specific impulse is 500 pounds to burn 1 pound per second. You get a 500 pound thrust motor. That's just about the absolute limit for. Chemical powered Rockets. I will we need to find I think For Real a true large-scale exploitation of space. I use exploitation the most positive Sans before it got the black eye a long time ago is high energy mechanisms, which also have high thrust we know what these are there two processes there nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. And we can exploit those and produced a very low-cost transportation to the planets to the Moon into orbit. What does it cost to snow a Saturn V sitting on the pad is worth about a hundred fifty million dollars. in Hardware in fuel it's worth another hundred fifty million for the lunch Cruise the mobile service Tower amortization the cape and all the other nonsense that goes on to fly up 300 million bucks. It costs about $900 a pound for the pound of payload into Earth orbit on a Saturn V. It's our most efficient Rock AR at least efficient like the Scout solid fuel cost of someone the order of $22,000 a pound. So expensive obviously isn't going to do you much good the Apollo spacecraft alone, which is presently in orbit with a service module ways. Someone in the order 58,000 lb fully fueled at $900 a pound. You can start adding the concept. All right. So this is one reason why NASA has the three billion-dollar your budget. The other is in a lot of cases. We've been going out building one of a kind. 1 Apollo spacecraft or maybe 10, you know, Henry Ford would have been disappointed in us. Where is the the mass production and I have to go to a group of people who I don't I don't know by their politics all that much but their efficiency and Engineering is superb the Soviets. They build that booster that you might have seen. I don't know if any of you watch the the launch bsl-4 soyuz but that boosters build on an assembly line. They built more than 3,000 that booster probably cost them about $250,000 to build probably cost him less than a million dollars to lunch, but they sure didn't tell us that they took techniques from the German rocket program in 1948 and developed the most efficient space Transportation capability that exist on the planet today. And that is with what we have a tendency in NASA to call boilerplate construction and our Battleship construction, very heavy relatively dumb spacecraft say goodbye. And I would have probably done much better except for a few accidents that they have which related not to their efficiency but to some of their technology in any case what we need is to get rid of the rocket dinosaurs that whose Bones have been littering the Atlantic Ocean now for quite some time and we need to have a cheap Transportation capability that's reusable $150 piece of Hardware that's called the Saturn V is only $180,000 of fuel in it. 180000 bucks worth of fuel do you say how much does it cost to fly a 747 across the Atlantic Ocean from New York to London? It's going to come up about $30,000 call Dad about ten thousand dollars is fuel but $10,000 is amortization. The basic are framing Hardware over at like aa1525 year. Of time and the other 10,000 is crew salaries Landing fees at the airport blah blah blah. Ok, three times the cost of fuel that means the Saturn V Should cost us under a million to launch easy. There's got to be a problem here while the basic problem is I think you can also recognize the Explorer Explorer a little bit is that you don't when the Saturn 5 Lansing New York a group of men don't get out and run over to the edge of the East River and push it into the the river. Are they don't throw it away after each time? If they did then you'd have to advertise the 38 million dollar cost of the Saturn or the 747 on each flight and I'd like to see you buy a ticket. It would be about $25,000 or so. I'm somewhere in that range. Okay. So what we have to do is reuse boosters. This was not done because we grew up with an ammunition philosophy in rocket development. It was not no growth of building airplanes. It was an outgrowth of building missiles every single spacecraft booster of this country with the exception of the Saturn V. Even the one that launched yesterday. The one be all of those have their Heritage and if that all of them with exception to 1B, we're all ICBM Sarai RPMs that were meant to carry nuclear warheads. They were not meant to carry spacecraft into orbit efficiently. So they cost a lot doing it. Alright, so what we have to do is build reusable boosters and that burn tri-fuel NASA tried to do is their building system called the space shuttle. Unfortunately is what usually happens when you get politicians who are more interested in votes next year. Or whatever then in large-scale long-term benefits 10 years from now. Well, let's not buy the 10 billion dollar program lets by the 5 billion dollar program this so what that it increases the cost of the launch from a hundred eighty thousand dollars per flight, which is starting to get comfortable in my note with the flight of a 747. It's only about six times more expensive. All right, let's eliminate that in favor of this cheaper near turn program. In other ways. People can say we're spending that much money in the near-term, but so would cost 14 million dollars to launch each one. Now. We have a space shuttle program that Senator Walter Mondale gets up and says it's going to cost forty billion dollars. And I'm afraid I agree ultimately it will if you charge each of those launches plus all of a sudden the launch is starting to go up in price. So it seemed very expensive and that means your pillow that goes up has to be very reliable because you can't afford another 14 million bucks again to build a new payload if something goes wrong with it or to bring it back down and fix it and then take it up again. If a lunch with $180,000 you could do that a few dozen times before you start worrying about other words, you can use off-the-shelf Hardware or stuff. You can go out to Sears Roebuck catalog and buy you can't do that now with the space shuttle. So the cost of a pound in orbit goes down to a hundred sixty bucks, which is not bad. It's going to allow a lot of Exploitation in space but it's going to be limited to those companies that have very large funds to play around with who don't expect very high returns and their product and also add to the federal government and who's going to be doing most of the business and space will just sort of Peter out in the distance. Nobody talks about going to the moon and the only mention I've heard about going to Mars was John Glenn St. But maybe sometime the 21st century. Well anyway, so what can we do about this? Well, like I said, there are things that you can do with nuclear energy. But how about we meet in short-term weather also things that you can do you can go to simple dumb spacecraft like the Soviets build At the risk of being chauvinistic anything they can build on an assembly line. I can build twice as fast. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can try and in trying it's our estimation at the organization where I work the foundation Institute that we can bring the cost of a pound of payload down at the last level is $14 or $17.41. And we think I can go a little bit lower than that and what this means is you're going to get ten times more volume. Theoretically if market analysis works out in the space shuttle. I haven't figured out quite how I'm going to spend the money yet. Because our estimations of prophet prophet of our estimations of sales between now and the time the space shuttle comes into service. Exceed twenty billion dollars at the moment you say what for what in the world. Are you going to make 20 billion dollars? Will the Air Force is going to help us a good deal here the Air Force Ones reconnaissance satellites in Earth orbit. Barzon militaristic purposes. What they are is actually confirmation the salt talks so that we know how many icbm's the Soviets are building. They launch me to get reconnaissance headlights, see how many were building and everybody's happy because we don't have any direct on-site inspection which will cause the Soviets hives and our military people don't like the idea either. Okay, so military lights rather than degrading the peace actually significantly contribute to it. All right. Now they spend about two billion dollars a year on activities such as this we have made an offer to them which they can't refuse. I don't think to reduce the cost down to about $350 a year and the beginning about 10 to 12 times the benefits from our system as a wood from say using space shuttle for their present Roasters. That's one item. Another is what is a chief objection to the use of nuclear energy on the surface of the Earth. Can anybody tell me what radiation is what is radiation not necessarily from the reactor which you know very well shield in sealed with radiation from the waist. What do you do with nuclear waste that have half-lives on the order of 20 twenty-five thousand years that are going to be around for a hundred fifty or two hundred thousand years ice. I don't like the idea of burying them in the salt mine and I'd be tempted to say well, let's stop nuclear development till we figure out how I mean that's what all this more. And talk has been about well, there's a better place. For nuclear waste and that is somewhere about 300 miles into the core of the Sun. And we're not going to be polluting the sun either and I've seriously that I'm not making fun. I've seriously had that question asked the energy output of the Sun and every second is equivalent to 101 billion Megaton bombs. And or you can turn that around 100 million 1 Megaton bombs, that's a lot of energy and a few million tons of radioactive waste isn't going to do anything one way or another. I mean the sun loses in math 5 million times a second. So let's look at the the day before we make a statement but that market alone. We've been approached by general atomic in San Diego, which is the manufacturer of extremely safe and reliable new types of nuclear systems to handle the waste business to launch it from them from our proposed launch lights. And what we are going to do is have very high reliability payloads, even if the booster malfunctions the payload will be safely returned to Earth can be picked up and load it on board another one without cumming open. All of these things will combine to produce an extremely large and we're not quite sure how large are earnings for a company that has a space space launch capability. You might say what is holding us back while money is one thing at the moment. It's very hard to go into a the Securities and Exchange Commission office and ask them to allow you to float a $200 stock issue to build a spacecraft. We've tried by the way, the lawyers had the lot of fun with it, but at the moment the SEC won't allow things like that to protect the public, of course the Other problems are there are some legal questions such as the UN treaty on the utilization of peaceful uses of outer space which say that any corporate entity or non-governmental entity within a state is subject to the continuing regulation supervision of the country concern. Which is interesting because I wonder what they're going to call at the federal space regulatory agency fsra or something like that and there will be 350 staff members and 220 lawyers and it will take them about eight years. I think to get up to full gear before they are published guidelines on what we want to do. So that's another one of our problems and there were talking with the Congress. In fact Our Testimony is being robbed. I'm probably at this very instant in Washington on exactly this problem. So there's a lot of non-technical hassles that come in here. I've been performing for a while and you both in the market out. Then you have two things you have extremely high profits because of the high productivity of the processes in space would you can then turn to the development of a higher energy systems like nuclear fission and fusion And you also opened market so that your 3M is going to be sitting there saying maybe we can make Scotch tape better in space. I know I leave you with the the problems that this will generate. White extremely high productivity from space space factories very very very few things that you cannot produce in space around 1985 to 1990 more cheaply than you can make them on Earth. Agriculture is just about the only thing. Cuz we did the analysis of a typical American Automobile built on the moon and brought back to Earth and it can be built cheaper. As well as being better. Are you doing you at all? Those things up? You said he was your problem. Service or people stuttering the studying the future. What are you going to do with questions of Leisure Time? Obvia legal problems. Are you going to start putting import Duty? Will the most important issue of the campaign? And what what is a 1980 and 1984 will be the duty tariffs free trade or Duty tariffs on imported products from space rather than textiles from Japan very possibly. These are the most interesting questions. I like to explore as versus the technological ones. I can go up to the Blackboard and show you how a gas Cory nuclear engine work. In fact, I even bothered to write it down so I wouldn't forget but what happens when it does work and you can deliver a pound of payload Earth orbit for $0.06. What is cheaper than that presently on the surface of the Earth? rail almost identical Water Shipping is slightly cheaper. Now what happens when the airlines start realizing that you have now a safe nuclear powered system that you can fly in the Earth's atmosphere because the radioactive products there are very little of them in the first place and they're all contained. All right, and your propellant the very propellant you use is water. What happens to them when they sit back and say 747 that are no longer economical to fly either for Freight or passengers? That's going to cause the Civil Aeronautics board some sleepless nights. I think there's so many points here where this type of activity impacts on Earth. And where the cash registers will start to ring in space. I like to say to people now they say well, why are we spending all this money in space? I said there are no cash registers there. You know, it's the guy in the machine shop down the corner who's got a contract from Martin Marietta who got the contract from Rockwall who got the contract NASA who's getting the money and for every dollar we spend on Space almost $0.50 of it comes back as taxes the federal government. and also someone did a study saying that we get $7 of benefit for every dollar we spend in terms of research data and increases in the GMP what happens when the cash registers do start to ring in space will the space base companies become the new OPEC cartel very possibly that to And I leave you with only one final thought there's a great deal that one can talk about here. I hope you have some questions, but the final thought is this. Will the most important question of the year 2000? Be the seven planets United treaty or the potential war between utilization of the for the manufacture of high-energy lasers on Mercury, which are going to be used to heat an asteroid to three or four hundred million miles away and Mars is very upset because it's take out the asteroid belt new claims the Cobalt in the nickel and there a few hundred thousand people on Mars in a few hundred thousand people on Mercury and are they going to resort to fisticuffs or they going to sit down in the United Nations to settle it should be an interesting thing. There are legal questions, obviously and the most interesting thing that happens around the turn of the century is what I called the urbanization of the solar system. Right. Now the travel time to Jupiter is about two and a half years with the Advent of gas core engines. It will reduce to 6 months. With the Advent of fusion engines, it will reduce to 6 days. And this now means that you can take a honeymoon trip to Saturn to the Titan hotel at all the science fiction that you've read. So the good science fiction the Heinlein in the Clark and so forth is really starting to come true.