phasizing the impact of the technological system on international relations and fundamental human values (e.g., social justice, freedom).
The committee then devised a specific teaching plan, dividing the course into five major units:
(1) Technological potential and limitations;
(2) Economic constraints and business opportunities;
(3) Literary, historical, and religious analogies and insights;
(4) Diplomatic and political constraints; and
(5) Social organization and experimentation.
Committee members then proposed topics for each lecture, noting two or three issues that the lecture should either address directly or encompass by providing relevant information or analytical techniques to students. Each unit concluded with a discussion session to clarify the lecture materials, stimulate student activity and reflection, and apprise the faculty coordinating committee of student views on issues raised by the course. This built-in feedback system helped the faculty assess the need to modify materials in the latter part of the course and provided general guidance relevant to offering the course in the future.
The committee then considered the question of course staffing. By committee appointment, one of the members assumed the responsibilities of course coordinator and incorporated the course into his regular teaching schedule. The committee members scheduled themselves for many of the lectures. However, the committee felt that certain lecture topics were within the specialties of either Georgetown faculty not on the coordinating committee or, in some cases, professionals not affiliated with the University. The commit:ee decided that guest speakers should be strictly limited‹despite the wealth of qualified professionals in the Washington area‹beause guest speakers would be unfamiliar with the structure and aims of the course and, consequently, would lecture largely on their own terms. After a careful review of available professionals, the committee invited three guest speakers: a physics instructor from Princeton University, a NASA official specializing in advanced technological planning, and a State Department official familiar with international space policy issues. The course coordinator familiarized the professionals about the course beforehand, and the resulting lectures were well synchronized with the material presented by the Georgetown faculty.
The lecture schedule and discussion topics included the following elements.
(A) Technological potential and limitations
A Georgetown physicist, a Princeton physics instructor, and the NASA expert discussed:
(1) the current state of space technologies and projected development schedules.
(2) space industrial facilities, including precise descriptions of manufacturing, energy production, and service activities.
(B) Economic constraints and business opportunities
Members of the departments of economics, philosophy, and theology and of the School of Business Administration presented lectures, including analyses of issues such as:
(1) probable costs of the proposed industrial system and possible economic benefits.
(2) implications of the proposed system for national energy policy and general economic policy.
(3) the role of public and private institutions and corporations in the development of the proposed system.
(4) ethical norms relevant to investment decisions and public policy questions, including: What should be done? How should the industrial system be structured to avoid demeaning important societal values? Who should make the policy? Who should implement policy? Who should benefit?
(C) Literary, historical, and religious analogies and insights. A physicist with expertise in science fiction and members of the departments of history, political science, philosophy, andtheology analyzed:
(1) the image of the frontier and the relation of the proposed technological system to American history and culture.
(2) the role of science fiction in stimulating the collective imagination and molding attitudes toward technology.
(3) the effects of the proposed system on human self-awareness, esp