Over the last 200 years, great human explorations (e.g., Lewis and Clark), massive Macro-Engineering Projects (e.g., Panama Canal), and major wars (e.g., W.W. I) cluster together exclusively during rhythmic, twice-per-century, major economic booms (e.g., the Kennedy Boom of the 1960s).  These spectacular pulses of creativity and expansion appear to be driven by affluence-induced ebullience that catapults many to higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, where their expanded worldviews make Apollo-style exploration and engineering projects seem not only intriguing, but almost irresistible. 

Since major economic booms are their hallmark, large increases in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are a necessary condition for Maslow Windows.  Thus U.S. real GDP (corrected for inflation) trends over the last 200 years should inform us of whether the expected 2015 Maslow Window is still in the cards. 

The 56 year energy cycle is a convenient, well-documented manifestation of the long business cycle (the “long wave”) that apparently drives Maslow Windows.  The economic booms culminate near energy cycle peaks, and great explorations and MEPs typically begin in the decade before the peaks.  Therefore, GDP trends 36 years after a particular energy peak year (e.g., 1969) are also 20 years before the next peak (e.g., 2025) and thus can potentially illuminate GDP circumstances just prior to the coming Window.

Figure 1.  Trends in GDP over the last 200 years support the 2015 Maslow Window.  Click

 Figure 1 shows the energy cycle peak years and the peak years plus 36 for each of the four Maslow Windows of the last 200 years; the U.S. real GDP (all are in B of 2005 USD) for each peak year + 36 years is also given.  It is interesting to compare the ratio of real GDP for peak year plus 36 (e.g., 1969+36= 2005) to that of the real GDP for the peak year (e.g., 1969).  Although the 19th century real GDP ratios are larger than 20th century ones, it is especially significant that the 20th century ratios are very close (2.97 vs. 3.08). 

This reveals that our recent GDP trajectory — from 1969 to 2005, after the Apollo Maslow Window –   is similar to the GDP trajectory from 1913 to 1949, after the Peary/Panama Maslow Window that led to the Apollo Maslow Window.  Thus Post-Peak real GDP data from the last 200 years suggests that we are on track for a new Maslow Window — probably at least comparable to both 20th century Windows – by 2015 (i.e., 1969 + 56).

 Another way to evaluate more recent GDP trends is given in the right-side column of Figure 1; it shows the ratio of real GDP for the peak year + 36 vs the real GDP for the energy cycle trough year (i.e., peak year + 28).  This is a measure of how well real GDP is rebounding during the 8 years following the energy cycle trough. 

Notice that this peak+36 -to- trough real GDP ratio gently declines from 1.45 after the 1801 Lewis and Clark Maslow Window to 1.28 following the Apollo Maslow Window.  Of particular interest are the ratios for 1949 and 2005: 1.35 and 1.28 respectively.  Because they are so close — within one sigma of each other – they suggest  that our GDP ascent just prior to 1949 (and the 1960s Apollo decade) is very comparable to our current GDP rise just before 2005.  Thus Trough Recovery real GDP data from the last 200 years — including data from the last 5 years — suggests we are on track for a new Maslow Window to open near 2015.

 Figure 2.  Real GDP values for each Maslow Window (energy peak year) have consistently increased over the last 200 years.  Click 

 Because two sets of independent GDP data show that our current ramp up to the 2015 Maslow Window is comparable with spectacular Maslow Windows over the last 200 years,  it is of interest to estimate how much national wealth will be available in 2025 to potentially fund unprecedented space activities between 2015 and 2025. 

One simple way to do this is to extrapolate the line in Figure 2.  This technique gives the 2025 GDP as $ 35.0 T (2005 USD)

Figure 3.  Real GDP trends over the last 200 years show the U.S. GDP may approach $ 35 T (2005 USD) in 2025.  Click

Figure 3 shows the ratios of real GDP at the peak year to real GDP 20 years before the peak (Peak – 20) for the last 4 Maslow Windows (GDP in 1781 is estimated).  (This is convenient because 2005 is 20 years before the expected energy peak in 2025. )  Pre-Peak GDP ratios range from 2.48 for 1857 to 1.88 in 1913, with a ratio of 2.41 for Apollo in 1969. 

The bottom 4 rows in the Figure show the range of expected real GDP values for 2025 based on ratios over the last 200 years and the U.S. real GDP for 2005. They vary from $ 23.7 T to 31.3 T (2005 USD) with $ 29.1 T being characteristic of Apollo Maslow Window Pre-Peak GDPs.  The bottom row indicates the Pre-Peak GDP ratio would have to be 2.77 if we assume the 2025 GDP value from Figure 2 (using Peak GDP extrapolation). 

This suggests the 2015 Maslow Window might be the biggest one of the last 200 years (ratio of 2.77).  Although any of the 2025 GDP estimates in Figure 3 would imply unprecedented space and technology activities that would dwarf Apollo.

This analysis shows that the 2015 Maslow Window is not precluded on the basis of GDP data from 230 years ago up through 2005.  But after 2005 the situation seems more complex due to the financial Panic of 2008 and our current great recession, and because it is not clear when it will end — e.g., some see another “global dip” as a possibility. 

However, all Maslow Windows over the last 200 years (except Apollo) experienced a financial panic/great recession in the decade just preceding them.  And despite that, no Maslow Window of the last 200 years has ever been delayed or diminshed in any observable way,  by any events.

The economics and politics of the anticipated 2015 Maslow Window  — with a focus on times since 2005 — are explored in this post: “How President Obama is Creating the New Space Age.”

In today’s Wall Street Journal (2/13/10) Peter Diamandis says ‘yes’ and Taylor Dinerman says ‘not yet.’ Their views highlight the challenges and potential for both private and public space activities in a multi-polar space world as we approach the anticipated 2015 Maslow Window — a 1960s-style golden age of prosperity, exploration, and technology.

Is this our near-term portal to space colonization? A Dream Chaser approaches the International Space Station. Click .

To understand their differing perspectives on space commercialization, it helps to know something about each. Diamandis is a Harvard-trained physician who founded and runs the X Prize Foundation and other private space-related firms including Singularity University, the brainchild of tech guru Ray Kurzweil, author of the widely challenged notion (the Singularity) that in “a future period when the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed.” Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City who writes a regular column for TheSpaceReview.com and is on the board of advisors of Space Energy, a company working on space-solar-power concepts.

Basically we have a clash of the relatively simple requirements of the personal spaceflight industry with space power satellites that will require more complex operations in space and probably larger, government-built launch vehicles. In a sense it’s entertainment versus utilities.

It’s revealing that Diamandis’ focus is almost entirely on the profit potential of space while Dinerman highlights private sector failures in space access.

For example, Diamandis suggests that “American capitalism and entrepreneurship” will lay the foundation for “the future Google, Cisco and Apple of space to be born, drive job creation, and open the cosmos for the rest of us.” He compares some people’s myopic view of space with “Seward’s Folly” (the widely criticized purchase of Alaska in 1867) in light of the unlimited “metals, minerals, energy, and real estate” in space. And he links Moore’s Law with not only “exponential growth in computing technology” but with future “breakthroughs in rocket propulsion.”

Diamandis is clearly excited about private enterprise in space: “Privately financed research outposts will be a common sight in the night sky. The first one-way missions to Mars will be launched. Mining operations will spring up on the Moon … One thing is certain: The next 50 years will be the period when we stablish ourselves as a space-faring civilization.”

Two things here: 1) The “first one-way missions to Mars” occurred in the 1960s (e.g., Mariner 4 in 1964), so I assume he means the first private one-way Mars mission and NOT the first one-way manned mission!, and 2) the history of the last 200 years shows that major pulses of human exploration and large-scale engineering projects tend to be focused in relatively brief intervals called Maslow Windows; and although Diamandis imagines privately funded space projects, they are still likely to be confined to the rhythmic. twice-per-century, decade-long Maslow Windows because the laws of economics (e.g., the long wave) and public interest (e.g., ebullience) will still drive them.

On the other hand, Dinerman believes that “The public sector simply is not up up for the job.” He cites the need for ‘man-rating’ each private spacecraft by NASA “that will take years,” and the difficulty of getting insurance. Although Dinerman doesn’t mention it, imagine the effects of a Titanic-style failure on the personal spaceflight industry. (The unsinkable Titanic was a secondary MEP of the Peary/Panama Maslow Window of the early 2oth century that has parallels with the space tourism industry (also a secondary MEP) of today.)

According to Dinerman, “Over the past 30 years over a dozen start-ups have tried to break into the launch business.” The only one to survive is Orbital Sciences of Dulles, VA. Aspiring space entrepreneurs seeking government subsidies will remember Lockheed-Martin’s private-public partnership “fiasco” with the X-33 design that was chosen to replace the Shuttle in 1996. Canceled in 2001, it cost NASA nearly $ 1 B and Lockheed Martin $ 357 M.

Dinerman concludes that,

The space entrepreneurs may claim that they can send people into space for a fraction of the previous cost, but they have not yet proved it. NASA’s policy is neither bold nor new; it is yet another exercise in budget-driven program cancellation.

Dinerman’s budgetary point is supported by the NASA administrator’s declarations that NASA “Cannot do big things very much anymore,” (Space News, 1/11/10) especially in a time of trillion-dollar+ stimulus/bailout packages. It is also consistent with the severe economic and geopolitical — and now the political — challenges President Obama now finds himself immersed in; see “State of the Wave — 10 Space Trends for 2010.” Ironically, his lack of focus on space may have led to this golden opportunity for the private space industry.

Neither Diamandis nor Dinerman mention specific grants already made to space companies including $ 20 M to to Sierra Nevada Corp. for development of its Dream Chaser crew module (launched on an Atlas V); See “For 2010 — A Dream Chaser Come True?” And $ 6.7 M to United Launch Alliance for an emergency sensing system for Atlas V and Delta IV rockets. Unlike other start-ups of the last 30 years, these have a reasonable chance of success and may play an important role in the 2015 Maslow Window.

One final question: Are there useful parallels between Lewis and Clark and the ebullient 19th century exploration and development of the United States, and the 1960s Apollo Moon program and exploration and development of space? I think there are. As I pointed out previously in “The Way Space Really Works,” 19th century analogs suggest that market-driven private space activities of today will play a central role in near-term human expansion into the cosmos.

This week the Obama administration proposed the termination of NASA’s Constellation program that targeted a return to the Moon for U.S. astronauts by 2020. After Shuttle retirement later this year (or next), crew transportation to ISS would be provided by hitching rides on Russian Soyuz launch vehicles, and eventually by developing the manned launch capabilities of American space companies — not of NASA.

Will the retirement of the Shuttle trigger a golden age for space for the U.S. and the world? Click .

Obama’s NASA boss, Charles Bolden, has already announced several grants to private space companies, including $ 20 M to to Sierra Nevada Corp. for development of its Dream Chaser crew module (launched on an Atlas V); See “For 2010 — A Dream Chaser Come True?” And $ 6.7 M to United Launch Alliance for an emergency sensing system for Atlas V and Delta IV rockets.

Our purpose here is not to debate the attributes of this paradigm shift — Not surprisingly the traditional NASA types and Congressional reps, especially in Florida and Texas (where unemployment will increase), believe the U.S. is abandoning world leadership in space, while the space commercialism folks receiving subsidies think it’s a victory for the future of space. They both are partly right; time will tell just how much, assuming Obama’s NASA plans are approved by Congress.

But a particularly striking aspect of this future NASA trajectory is the way it supports forecasts made here (and previously) based on long waves in the economy, and associated patterns in technology development and geopolitics. See: “Forecasting the Next 20 Years in Space — State of the Wave, Friday 9/12/08.”

THE TIMEFRAME
For example, in 1996 I forecasted that 2015 to 2025 would be the next major thrust into space:

The decade from 2015 to 2025 will be the analog of the 1960s; i.e., it will involve major activities in technology, engineering, and human exploration. There is every reason to believe that the focus will be on large-scale human operations in space and that they will be spectacular.

And in 2006, I identified 2014 as the likely timeframe when NASA would undergo a significant transformation.

Energy cycle timing and NASA’s birth date (1958) allow us to forecast that the new, international space organization will take shape by 2014 …

The transformation of NASA apparently beginning now is scheduled to culminate by 2016 — near the opening of the 2015 Maslow Window — when a non-NASA, commercial crew vehicle may begin regular deliveries of astronauts to ISS.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
In recent statements, Bolden has described a new style of international cooperation where the U.S. treats its international space partners as “equals” and with “respect.”

Roger Handberg (University of Central Florida) recently compared the multi-year gap between retirement of the Shuttle and onset of commercial crew launchers to the 6-year gap starting in 1975.

The full end of the Apollo program in the form of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 left the United States grounded until the space shuttle flew in 1981. However, any anxiety about that gap was minimized by awareness that the shuttle was coming, albeit slowly…

Handberg’s recent take on the looming post-Shuttle gap concludes that,

The United States at least temporarily moves from the position of dominant partner to that of dependent. This status will be uncomfortable but doable as a stopgap … one approach may be for the United States to fully opt into international partnerships led by a consortium of states with the US as one partner among others.

What this means is that the US must become comfortable with such close cooperation, as unilateral decisions with no prior consultation with partners will end … a new political arrangement needs to be developed.

Our model for a “new political arrangement” was proposed in 1992 (Cordell, 1992). Interspace is a global organization with ESA-like management structures featuring “equality” among the major international partners and the opportunity for other nations to participate according to their financial and technical capabilities.

In 1996, I forecasted that as we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, “increased parity among space-faring nations might trigger the formation of an international space agency in which the major space powers — USA, ESA, Japan, Russia — share power equally in the planning and management …”

THE PARADIGM SHIFT TRIGGER
Probably the fastest way to produce these profound transformations in U.S. space policy — extensive international cooperation, equality among partners, stimulation of the commercial space launch industry — is to remove NASA from the launch vehicle business, which apparently is Obama’s strategy.

THE WILD CARD
Until recently, most of the world expected the United States to lead an international manned assault on the Moon, which apparently is no longer in the cards with the cancellation of Constellation. Although Bolden assures us (FloridaToday.com, 2/2/10) that “We’re not abandoning human spaceflight by any stretch of the imagination.” He’s referring to Earth-to-LEO human spaceflight, not the Moon. Currently NASA has no specific goals or timetables beyond LEO, although Bolden enthuses that, “What’s exciting is that we’re now going to have a national debate about where we need to be going in terms of space exploration.” — something we’ve been doing repeatedly since the 1980s, and now we’ll do it again!

Removal of NASA from its traditional role as the launcher of astronauts to low Earth orbit and beyond is reminiscent of the mid-1950s, about one long wave ago, during the Cold War before the U.S. achieved dominance in manned space exploration during the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window.

And currently it’s possible to imagine at least 2 scenarios:
I) It’s Sputnik All Over Again — Although the U.S. has been grounded before in its space history (e.g., 1975-81), it has never happened during a crucial time in the run-up to a global Maslow Window as it will now. It’s possible this will encourage another Sputnik-style moment within the next few years when competitors of the U.S. decide to make dramatic, coordinated moves in areas like space energy, lunar colonization, and/or human spaceflight to Mars.
Or…
2) A Grand Alliance for Space — The totally new experience of truly close, equal cooperation among international space partners — including the United States — may trigger a “Grand Alliance for Space” as the world moves toward an Interspace/ESA-style global space organization.

Although we always hope and strive for the most productive, global approach to settlement of the solar system (e.g., Option 2), human history does not support such optimism. The events of the Cold War that gave birth to the 1960s space race plus the story of the international race to the South Pole (during the Peary/Panama Maslow Window), suggest that — when the stakes are high — humans may deceive and seek strategic advantage over a perceived competitor.

This is an updated end-of-January list of our readers’ favorite posts, based on the number of times each post was visited during the times indicated below. The lists below include both Daily Wavelet posts and State of the Wave posts.

Timeframes of the readers’ lists below are: I) Favorites during January, and II) Favorites during the last 7 days.

To see readers’ favorite posts for each previous month, click HERE.

The lists below give only the top 5 favorites in each category in order of reader preference.
All posts below are clickable and their publishing dates are given.

Updated 2/2/2010

I. JANUARY — Readers’ Favorites

1) How President Obama is Creating the New Space Age — 9/24/09
2) State of the Wave — 10 Space Trends for 2010 — 1/26/10
3) State of the Wave — Is Human Spaceflight “Optional”? — 10/26/09
4) How the West Was Won — The Expansionist Effects of Ebullience — 1/3/10
5) 10 Lessons the Panama Canal Teaches Us About the Human Future in Space — 5/18/08

II. THE LAST 7 DAYS — Readers’ Favorites

1) State of the Wave — 10 Space Trends for 2010 — 1/26/10
2) 10 Lessons the Panama Canal Teaches Us About the Human Future in Space — 5/18/08
3) Merry Christmas Everyone! — 12/24/09
4) The Mysterious Russia-Apophis Connection — Another Perspective — 1/11/10
5) Does Obama’s New Space Policy Indicate He is JFk, Richard Nixon, or (god forbid) Grover Cleveland — 1/31/10