The first American to orbit the Earth (in 1962) and the oldest human to travel into space (age 77 in 1998) recently articulated a position on U.S. manned space policy. From the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University, former Senator Glenn recommended we continue flying the Shuttle while we develop a heavy lift launch vehicle, and skip the Moon.

Total eclipses of the Moon are usually dark, often surprising, and sometimes downright spooky. Click

Let’s explore Glenn’s intriguing perspective.

Apollo as a recent echo of Lewis and Clark
Glenn notes that America’s early world leadership grew from exploration, research, and education.

Geographic exploration did not have the sole purpose of just remaining alive during travel to new and distant places. Travel was followed by a period of learning about, and how to use, the newly found destination to our advantage. Space travel should be no exception.

Glenn sees space exploration as the most recent manifestation of great human explorations over the last 200 years — all the way back to Lewis and Clark. This powerful perspective is the key to the secret of the past and future of human spaceflight.

The Greatest International Space Project of All Time Was Almost Canceled Twice – And Almost Nobody Squawked

The International Space Station is widely considered to be the greatest international space program of all time although the U.S. House of Representatives came within one vote of canceling it in 1993. ISS never really gained support until it became a truly international project with 15 nations as partners.

Glenn calls it a “highly successful cooperative international project, probably the most successful ever … It is the most unique laboratory ever conceived and can now start research never before possible.”

But even so, our stunning $ 100 B “National Laboratory” was scheduled for termination in 2015, only 5 years after its completion, until President Obama extended it to 2020. Yet strangely there was no public outcry. ISS has suffered from poor long wave timing but now appears to be riding the accelerating wave of globalization into the future.

Whatever became of the “greatest spacefaring nation”?
Glenn’s major concern is the multi-year gap between Shuttle retirement in 2010 or 11 and its replacement.

The originally planned gap of two or three years of our having no U.S. manned launch capability will realistically be closer to eight or ten years — or more … U.S. astronauts will…train for final launch preparation on Russian spacecraft, launch, and return to a grassland landing area at the end of the mission … launches of U.S. astronauts into space will be viewed in classrooms and homes in America only through the courtesy of Russian TV.

Glenn believes the Shuttle is safer than ever and is only 1/3 of the way through its original design lifetime. And he is unequivocal about America’s need for a heavy lift launch vehicle to enable future human adventures on the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

A heavy-lift space work horse to someday replace the Shuttle is a necessity for our space future. The flexibility that gives to our manned and unmanned programs will be key to continued world leadership as other nations develop their manned space capabilities.

Glenn’s traditional approach to our future in space is what you might expect from a major icon of the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window. While acknowledging crucial Russian cooperation throughout ISS, Glenn recognizes current space-related national prestige factors and geopolitical realities. But his insistence on a Saturn V-class (100+ ton to LEO) heavy lift vehicle for human expansion into the cosmos is questioned by some on cost, schedule, and private enterprise rationales.

“If God wanted man to become a spacefaring species, He would have given man a moon.”
…according to space visionary Krafft Ehricke (1917-1984). But Glenn feels that “To establish a lunar base is extremely expensive and can wait, at least for now.”

According to Glenn,

The principal rationale for establishing a base on the Moon, aside from international prestige, was to gain experience in extraterrestrial living in preparation for future space destinations. Those deeper space travels are far enough in the future that I agree with postponing a lunar base.

It’s puzzling that, according to Glenn, national prestige is enough to drive development of a traditional heavy lift vehicle but not the first human base on another world, especially one so closely linked to Earth with such important science and commercial potential.

For example, in 2007 the National Research Council was pretty excited about The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon — especially its “unique … microenvironment at their poles” (e.g., water deposits), and the bombardment history of the inner solar system that is “uniquely revealed on the Moon.” Not to mention astronomy from the airless, stable lunar farside.

And commercial opportunities include the development of lunar resources (e.g., water, oxygen), lunar communications and logistics, the lunar power system, and tourism (initially featuring lunar telepresence for theme parks and schools). This would be facilitated by an international organization like Interspace.

As the only scientist to walk on the Moon (Apollo 17), Harrison H. Schmitt, points out,

The investment of money and intellectual capital in going back to the Moon, permanently, brings with it, not merely geopolitical high ground and prestige of physically being there, but constitutes a deliberate pathway to economic development … history ties the expansion of democracy to a people’s access to energy…

It’s likely that our road to the Moon will interact strongly with humanity’s growing need for energy from space, especially from space-based solar power satellites. For example, the U.S. miliary has hinted at their interest in this technology. And Japan has announced a $ 21 B, 15 company space-based solar power initiative. Many countries — including China, India, and the U.S. — are facing enormous energy infrastructure costs in the next couple of decades, and will welcome this clean-energy option, particularly as it drives down launch costs.

Well, who actually won the space race?
Frustration with our current space launch gap has caused some to wonder who won after all. For example, Bill Ketchum, a long-time space vehicle engineer, program manager, and space enthusiast formerly with General Dynamics, recently (6/22/10) commented in an email,

While I agree with John Glenn, he ignores the fact that while the Russians have had an uninterrupted human space launch capability for the past 49 years, America has had several long periods with no capability: 7 years between Apollo and Shuttle, 2 years after Challenger, and 2 years after Columbia. The Russians have had their problems but never stopped flying. They continue to use the same rocket and spacecraft that they developed 50 years ago. While this seems outdated, it has served them well. America, on the other hand, has developed, flown, and then abandoned 4 systems: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and now the Shuttle. And now America will depend on the Russians to get our astronauts into space, at $50-100 million per astronaut, until America comes up with a replacement for the Shuttle (commercial operators such as Space-X ?).

So who has really won the space race ?

Although the U.S. clearly won the race to the Moon 40+ years ago, Bill’s point about the current situation is well taken.

Reminds me of Freeman Dyson’s recent speech in Chicago about Russia’s long-term approach to major space activities versus America’s Apollo-style, decade-long spurts. America has unwittingly allowed itself to be more fundamentally controlled by the previously unknown effects of long waves in the economy.

.

Eighteen months into the Obama administration it’s appropriate to check Obama’s progress on space. I first sketched his status in 9/24/09; See “How President Obama is Creating the New Space Age.”

Does the BP oil spill threaten the new international Space Age as well as the environment?
Click .
(Image: U.S. Coast Guard)

In reality — as the last 200+ years have shown — extraordinary pulses of activity in exploration and engineering are enabled by reliable, long-term business cycles. And all indicators suggest we’re sneaking up on the edge of another Golden Age of Prosperity, Exploration, and Technology(GAPET).

Typically, during the twice-per-century upswings of the long economic wave and within a decade after a major financial panic (such as the Panic of 2008) and its major recession, we emerge into an ebullient, transformative decade known as a Maslow Window. Perhaps the most ebullient one followed the Panic of 1893 and was led by Theodore Roosevelt: the Peary/Panama Maslow Window from 1903 to 1913. But before that the mid-19th century Dr. Livingstone/Suez Maslow Window produced the “technological jewel of the 19th century,” the Suez Canal, and the famous Lewis and Clark Maslow Window opened the Great Northwest to the world in 1805.

Our most recent Maslow Window — the stunning 1960s Apollo Moon decade — was unique in the last 200+ years in that it wasn’t immediately preceded by a financial panic or great recession. But the approaching Maslow Window, expected to open near 2015, resumed the much more “normal” sequence of the last 200+ years when the Panic of 2008 heralded its impending arrival.

But since last September, much has happened in the economy, in Washington, and in the world. And given the high likelihood of our next Maslow Window materializing near 2015, the key question remains: How will Obama create the exceptional prosperity that is the hallmark of such Camelot-like times?

As before, there are basically 2 options:

OPTION I: Obama becomes a 2-term President: He becomes the new John F. Kennedy without the Vietnam-style baggage of LBJ.
Historical/Economic Model: The 1960s Apollo Maslow Window.

Three ways Obama could trigger prosperity are:

a) The recession will end naturally and prosperity will follow.
Post-War recessions have averaged 11.3 months in length (with the longest 16 months) and the current one is 22 months old. Most economists think the economy hit bottom recently and is currently recovering.

UPDATE: Some indicate that recent gains in the stock market and modest economic growth suggest we are on the verge of a robust recovery. However other indicators continue to cast doubts, including U.S. unemployment hovering near 10% and the record $ 13+ T national debt.

Indeed, The Economist for May 29- June 4, 2010, leads with a front cover headline, “Fear Returns. How to Avoid a double-dip recession.” And inside they continue with, “Governments were the solution to the economic crisis. Now they are the problem.” And New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (5/23/10) argues that “There is no margin for error anymore.” He quotes experienced global investor Mohamed El-Erian who warns that, “The world is on a journey to an unstable destination, through unfamiliar territory, on an uneven road and, critically, having already used its spare tire.”

b) Obama will “reset” his presidency resulting in prosperity.
Ted Van Dyk, a long-time Democrat and formerly Vice President Hubert Humphery’s assistant in the LBJ Whitehouse, advises Obama to cut back his proposals and expectations (WSJ, 7/17/09):

“You made promises about jobs that would be ‘created and saved’ by the stimulus package. Those promises have not held up. You continue to engage in hyperbole by claiming that your health-care and energy plans will save tax dollars. Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates otherwise.”

UPDATE: For better or worse, this hasn’t happened. Obama passed his health care bill and recently revived discussion of climate legislation and new multi-B $ bailouts.

c) The Keynesians are right and major government spending and deficits result in prosperity.
For example, according to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the idea of slowing major stimulus spending would be an “error of historical proportions,” (WSJ, 9/22/09; B. Stephens).

UPDATE: The New York Times (5/23/10) reports Europe is “rethinking its safety net,”

Bottom Line for Option I:
The economic case for Obama eventually becoming the new JFK is weaker than it was last September.

However, if he can overcome current challenges, Obama can still become the new JFK. He would continue the brilliant, transformative lagacy of Theodore Roosevelt and the Panama Canal, that began with Thomas Jefferson and the Lewis and Clark expedition.

OPTION II: Obama becomes a 1-term president: He becomes the new Grover Cleveland (and possibly LBJ), and leads to a pro-prosperity Republican presidency.
Historical/Economic Model: The Peary/Panama Maslow Window (1903-13).

The New York Times (9/6/09; Richard Stevenson) observed that,

Nearly eight months after the inauguration, the economy … has stabilized sufficiently that the nation is no longer gripped by the sense of urgency that allowed Mr. Obama, almost without challenge, to carry out an audacious act of industrial engineering: reshaping the automobile industry from the Oval Office in a matter of weeks … The most relevant political framework instead appears to be a more problematic one inherited from his predecesser: a general loss of faith in government.

On August 21, the Wall Street Journal (8/25/09; William McGurn) reported that,

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said his boss was “quite comforrtable” with the idea that sticking to his agenda may well mean “he only lives in this house” for one term.

Indeed, if unemployment remains high into 2012, reelection will be a challenge for Obama.

Three things that could hinder Obama’s reelection are:

a) The Stimulus has not worked.
The Wall Street Journal (9/17/09; Cogan,Taylor,Wieland) reports that,

The data show government transfers and rebates have not increased consumption at all … and that the resilience of the private sector following the fall 2008 panic — not the fiscal stimulus program — deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the impressive growth improvement from the first to the second quarter.

And as unempoyment heads toward 10%, Obama’s promise that rapid passage of the stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8% has not been realized.

UPDATE: Little has improved here. In late February, Harvard’s Robert Barro (Wall Street Journal, 5/23/10) concluded that “The fiscal stimulus package of 2009 was a mistake.” Based on his long-term empirical model of past U.S. fiscal actions, he estimates a spending multiplier of 0.4 (in the same year) and 0.6 (over 2 years). Increased government spending reduces other portions of GDP like “personal consumer expendature, private domestic investment, and net exports.” According to Barro,

b) Obama’s economic policy may be fundamentally flawed.

Published economic research by the current head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors — Christina Romer — raises doubts about Obama’s policy of major government spending to end the recession. The Wall Street Journal (8/21/09; Alan Reynolds) considers Professor Romer’s 1999 study (J. Econ. Perspect.) and concludes that, based on economic history since 1887, “bigger government appears to produce only bigger and longer recessions.”

If this is true, Obama’s large stimulus/bailout packages and large federal budgets will not stimulate the economy in his first term.

According to William Gale of Brookings,

The budget outlook at every horizon is troubling: the fiscal-year 2009 budget is enormous; the ten-year projection is clearly unsustainable; and the long-term outlook is dire and increasingly urgent.

UPDATE: Little improvement here. According to Robert Reich (WSJ, 4/12/10), President Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, “Many outsourced jobs will never return, and median income will likely continue to fall…”

Former Reagan advisor Arthur Laffer (WSJ, 6/7/10) sees an “economic collapse” for the U.S. in 2011 unless the Bush taX cuts are extended. “The result will be a crash in tax receipts … If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

c) Afghanistan turns into Vietnam.

The New York Times (8/23/09; Peter Baker) has focused on the dangers a protracted conflict in Afghanistan could have on Obama, “The LBJ model — a president who aspired to reshape America at home while fighting a losing war abroad — is one that haunts Mr. Obama’s White House as it seeks to salvage Afghanistan while enacting an expansive domestic program.”

UPDATE: Afghanistan continues to be a controversial “roller coaster.” Although Obama has tripled the number of U.S. soldiers there, “The conduct of a counterinsurgency operation is a roller coaster experience. There are setbacks as well as areas of progress or successes,” according to Gen. David Petraeus.

Also strategically controversial is Obama’s order to begin reducing American forces by July, 2011. According the the Los Angeles Times, (6/13/10; J. Barnes), “Petraeus did not elaborate on his own reservations and left the hearing moments later after becoming ill. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he was worried that the timeline had undercut Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s support for the U.S.-led war effort.”

d) Something New — Widespread questions about Obama’s leadership capability arise.

UPDATE: This has centered on his administration’s slow response to the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill, and goes to the core of his ability to function as a visionary president.

For example, the New York Times (6/13/10) had several complaints.

It certainly should not have taken days for Mr. Obama to get publicly involved in the oil spill … It took too long for Mr. Obama to say that the Coast Guard and not BP was in charge … These are matters of competence and leadership. It;s time for Mr. Obama to decisively show both.

Response from Obama’s supporters to his first Oval Office television address was likewise unfavorable. For example, Chris Matthews (MSNBC) said, “I don’t sense executive command.” Maureen Dowd (NYT) commented that, “instead of the fairy dust of hopefulness there’s the bitter draught of helplessness.” And Time’s Mark Halperin described his own, “fierce, unforeseen disappointment.” With friends like that you can imagine the shots from the Right.

Broadening the critique to all areas of presidential leadership, Dorothy Rabinowitz (WSJ, 6/9/10) crafted the eye-catching headline, “The Alien in the White House;” not referring, of course, to his native-born status, but to “the distance between the president and the people.” And Peggy Noonan (WSJ, 6/19/10) thinks Obama is “snakebit,” in that he’s “starting to look unlucky, like Jimmy Carter.”

As before, an interesting bottomline emerges:

Re: Prospects for the New Space Age Near 2015:
Based on patterns in macroeconomic data and historical trends over the last 200 years, all realistic roads still lead to a 2015 Maslow Window featuring a Golden Age of Prosperity, Exploration, and Technology, although wildcards are possible.

Re: Mr. Obama’s Prospects:
Despite the fact that Mr. Obama is currently setting the stage for a robust, transformative new Space Age within the next 3-5 years, his presidential prospects remain uncertain and have become even more so since last September.

Obama’s long wave timing and election circumstances (i.e., panic/recession) have more parallels with the 1893-1913 Peary/Panama Maslow Window — in which a 1-term Democrat (Grover Cleveland) was replaced by a pro-prosperity Republican — than with the 1949-1969 Apollo Maslow Window of John F. Kennedy. And Obama’s continuing challenges with high unemployment, record deficits, huge budgets, Afghanistan, and now the oil spill, pose real dangers for him.

As the New York Times noted and as evidenced by Obama’s descending poll numbers, many Americans are expressing skepticism about big government and the economy. Obama will have to create prosperity — the cornerstone of the 2015 Maslow Window — and given Obama’s abilities and resources, he’s remains quite capable of doing it.

But he will have to reverse some of the above trends and perceptions.

David Ashford of Bristol Spaceplanes Limited, says the answer is “Yes!” assuming development of airplane-like, reusable launchers or “spaceplanes” by the UK; see Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (Vol. 62, No. 10, pp. 354-361). He believes the UK can become a leader because of it’s long history with rocket fighter technology, and by being (somewhat inadvertantly!) well-positioned to take advantage of the prevailing expendable launcher mind-set.

Does the Saunders Roe Rocket Fighter of 1957 hold the secret to the new Space Age? Click

Ashford’s article is particularly interesting because of his: 1) advocacy of this near-term aviation approach to space access, 2) presentation of a roadmap showing how the UK could become its leader, and 3) sketch of the “new space age” — which is compatible with the anticipated 2015 Maslow Window — in terms of markets and an approximate timeframe.

Spaceplanes are Exciting

Spaceplanes should be able to significantly reduce the cost of access to space (by at least 2 orders of magnitude) and were studied over 40 years ago. For example, the USAF/NASA X-15 rocket plane (1959-68) became “the first fully reusable spacefaring vehicle.” Although suborbital, the X-15 set many altitude and speed records. Two X-15 flights went above 100 km (both in 1963 with Joe Walker) and Pete Knight reached 4519 mph (Mach 6.70) in 1967. Neil Armstrong — the first human on the Moon in 1969 — flew seven X-15 missions.

A happy Neil Armstrong poses with his X-15 rocket plane. Click .

Early in the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window, the X-15 had a major impact on pop culture through a 1961 movie of the same name that featured videos of actual X-15 flights; it’s still available on Amazon.com. Directed by Richard Donner (e.g., “Superman”, “Lethal Weapon”, “Maverick”), several of the movie’s stars remain well-known today, including Charles Bronson, Mary Tyler Moore, and James Gregory.

Instead of spaceplanes, Cold War time pressures (the “space race”) and the need to minimize costs led to the use of converted expendable ballistic missiles, including ICBMs (e.g., Atlas), to launch early satellites and humans into space.

The UK’s Advantages

Ashford argues that the UK’s 1950s experience developing the Saunders Roe SR.53, a prototype for a mixed jet and rocket propulsion fighter, indicates that a program for a small suborbital spaceplane (the “Ascender) “does not need any new technology.” The Ascender would reach Mach 3 on its way to 100 km altitude. It would carry one pilot and one passenger (or experiment) and have 2 HTP and kerosene rocket engines (for lift-off and ascent) and 2 jet engines (for back-up). The suborbital Ascender could be used for astronaut training, technology development, and science, as well as “carrying passengers on space experience flights.”

The second UK advantage is psychological. Because the “main obstacle” to a spaceplane approach to space access is

the mind-set induced by five decades of expendable launchers. The UK is probably best placed to break from this mold of thinking because it has no significant commitment to expendable launchers or human spaceflight using these for transportation.

If the government were to match industry to fund the entry-level spaceplane, the UK could lead the way to the new space age.

Although these are clearly marketing talking points for Ashford’s firm, they also display admirable ebullient qualities characteristic of the approaching 2015 Maslow Window and may be of real strategic value to near-term human expansion into the cosmos.

The New Space Age

Ascender would be followed by a first-generation orbital spaceplane called “Spacecab” — a one ton payload-class (e.g., up to 6 astronauts), two-stage-to-orbit, piloted, horizontal take-off and landing vehicle. Spacecab could launch satellites, deliver crew and supplies to space stations and beyond, and take thrilled passengers to space hotels. It would make routine maintenance and use of space stations more economical and contribute technology and operational expertise to the development of reusable, less expensive heavy lift vehicles.

Ashford indicates that the routine use of spaceplanes will result in space losing its “exceptionalism” because “access to orbit will become routine.”

Reusable space tugs would be used for higher orbits, and these could be readily adapted as lunar transfer vehicles … The cost of the first lunar base would be about 10 times less with this approach then it would have been with Constellation. Ten times! …

The cost of science in space will approach that in Antarctica …The term “new space age” is becoming recognized as a suitable name for this radically improved space scenario.

Although our (Ashford’s and my) concepts for the new space age are defined somewhat differently, they are likely to amount to the same thing, so it’s interesting to compare timescales. He shows the spaceplane road map culminating with Spacebus in about 15 years, and the New Space Age itself beginning about 7 years earlier.

Thus Ashford’s New Space Age might start sometime between 2018 and 2020 if spaceplane development began within the next 2 years. Based on macroeconomic data and historical patterns of the last 200 years — including current global trends — the next Maslow Window should open near 2015 and close around 2025.

Definitely the same ballpark.

On a mini-vacation last week enjoying the sensational beaches and other joys of the west coast of Michigan, I stopped at a Dairy Queen on Lake Charlevoix and almost said it. “Double dip, please.” Even at a DQ the words were surprisingly hard because it’s probably the most feared economic prospect facing this country.

According to Arthur Laffer, real quarterly GDP growth from 1981 to 1984 shows the economy took off when the Reagan tax cuts kicked in (WSJ, 6/7/10).
Click

Recently Christopher Wood of CLSA Ltd. in Hong Kong warned that a “double dip recession” was in the cards (Wall Street Journal, 5/24/10). According to Wood, the hazards include: 1) the European debt crisis ($ 2.8 T at end of last year), 2) “slower growth in China,” and 3) in the U.S., a “decline in bank lending and the velocity of money in circulation.”

Wood believes that “sooner or later … the Obama administration (will) give up on their hopes of a normal recovery.” Indeed on May 1 WSJ characterized our current status as a “respectable cyclical recovery, though one that is so far less robust than we’d expect after an especially deep recession … about half as strong as it was after the last deep downturn.” And the May, 2010 employment data continued to suggest caution because 95% of the new jobs were for temporary government census workers.

Economist Arthur Laffer (co-author of Return to Prosperity…; 2010) recalls that in response to the Reagan tax cuts of January, 1983, “the economy took off like a rocket with average real growth reaching 7.5 % in 1983 and 5.5 % in 1984.” Laffer worries that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in January, 2011 — plus tax increases at the federal, state, and local levels — will have the opposite effect (WSJ, 6/7/10).

When we pass the tax boundary of January 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession.

To avoid this fate, Martin Feldstein of Harvard recommends extending the Bush tax cuts for 2 years (WSJ, 5/12/10) — something that seems politically unlikely.

It’s interesting that — consistent with the current major debt crisis in Europe — prominent Keynesian economists George Akerloff and Robert Shiller (authors of Animal Spirits, 2009) do not attribute the end of the 1930s Great Depression to FDR’s big government spending policies, but instead to the onset of World War II.

The drop of confidence during the Great Depression was so fundamental that it continued for a decade. Confidence — and the economy itself — was not restored until World War II completely changed the dominant story of people’s lives, transforming the economy.

Historian Burton Folsom (author of New Deal or Raw Deal, 2008) concurs that FDR didn’t end the Great Depression, but contends that WW II didn’t either. In fact, a Democratic Congress rejected President Truman’s recommendation of a “New Deal revival” and instead cut taxes across the board. According to Folsom, “The economy took off after the postwar Congress cut taxes,” and unemployment dropped (from double digits in the 1930s) to only 3.9 % in 1946.

Akerloff and Shiller (2009) see parallels between the financial Panic of 1893 and the 1890s great recession, and the Panic of 2008 and our current great recession. Indeed, the severe financial crisis of the 1890s led directly to a golden age of prosperity, exploration, and technology that featured “Panama fever” and the construction of the Panama Canal, “pole mania” and the first international expeditions to both the north and south poles, the civilization-altering Wright brothers first flights, and the Great White Fleet’s show tour around the world. Called the Peary/Panama/T. Roosevelt Maslow Window (1901-13), it was perhaps the most ebullient decade in U.S. history, led by perhaps the most ebullient president in U.S. history: Theodore Roosevelt.

The most recent golden age was the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window initiated by President John F. Kennedy and featuring the first manned Moon landing in 1969. Based on 200+ years of macroeconomic data and historical trends, our next Maslow Window is expected to begin near 2015.

The question is: Will our current great recession threaten the 2015 Maslow Window?

The 1890s great recession is especially revealing in this regard, because it was a double dip. According to David Whitten, professor emeritus in the College of Business at Auburn,

The financial crises of 1893 accelerated the recession that was evident early in the year into a major contraction that spread throughout the economy. Investment, commerce, prices, employment, and wages remained depressed for several years … Meanwhile, restricted investment, income, and profits spelled low consumption, widespread suffering, and occasionally explosive labor and political struggles. An extensive but incomplete revival occurred in 1895. The Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan for the presidency on a free silver platform the following year amid an upsurge of silverite support contributed to a second downturn peculiar to the United States. Europe, just beginning to emerge from depression, was unaffected. Only in mid-1897 did recovery begin in this country; full prosperity returned gradually over the ensuing year and more.

In 1893, the year of the Panic, unemployment is estimated at 8.1 % but increased to 12.3 in 1894. In 1895, the year of the “incomplete revival,” it dropped to 11.1, but the “second downturn” resulted in 12.0 and 12.7 in 1896 and 1897, respectively. The first year since 1894 with sub-10 unemployment was in 1899 with 8.7 %. By 1900 it was 5.0 and the Maslow Window was already taking off.

Although only sketched here, the 1893 – 1913 great recession/Panama Maslow Window decades have more key economic and political parallels with our current situation than does the 1950 – 1970 post-War/Apollo Maslow Window interval. Because the 1890s great recession lasted about 6 years, this model suggests that even in a worst-case scenario — i.e., assuming a double dip recession — we should easily recover before 2015. And our recovery should be accelerated by proper leverage of the last 100 years of economic history since the 1890s great recession.

This is consistent with the historical observation that over the last 200 years, no Maslow Window has ever been delayed or diminished in any observable way by a panic/great recession in the decade preceding the Window.

Sunday night the renown and beloved physicist and space technologist Freeman Dyson spoke at ISDC 2010 here in Chicago. It is indeed a pleasure to encounter such a monumental scientific mind who also possesses a powerful vision of the human future in space.

Freeman Dyson at ISDC 2010 in Chicago on “American and Russian Space Cultures.”
Click .

So much wisdom, it’s hard to know where to begin. However, I’ll sketch his major themes and expand on them in future posts.

A Public Highway to Space
Dyson reminded us that the U.S. space program is at a turning point, considering the plans of Obama versus Bush and with the Augustine report as guidance. Although Obama does not include a PHS it does feature private firms developing manned launch systems to ISS. Dyson personally favors development of laser propulsion using water as fuel, although he recognizes that other systems might also perform efficiently.

In response to a question from the floor, Dyson said a cheap launch system should be the primary strategic goal of pro-space activist groups like the National Space Society, the organizer of ISDC 2010.

What About Terraforming?
As you might expect from a superb physicist, Dyson asserted that the primary problem one faces in human settlement of the solar system and beyond is “biological not technological”. Many space scientists approach planetary colonization with the assumption that it’s desirable to make planetary surface environments more Earth-like before large-scale space colonization can begin.

Dyson’s brief but compelling counterpoint is that it makes more sense to customize humans to their particular planetary environment rather than to attempt large-scale terraforming. He even views it as an attractive future option — eventually witnessing the emergence of several varieties of humans in response to their particular worlds.

Dyson wonders what would have happened in space “if John F. Kennedy had thought more like a Russian?” Click .

Short- Versus Long-Term Thinking About Space
Dyson’s main thrust was to contrast America’s space culture with Russia’s. He began by noting that the U.S. space program is composed of two parts: manned and unmanned. Scientists who lead unmanned space projects point to a long string of successes that literally span the solar system over the last 5-6 decades, and they develop new generations of space technologies on a decade timescale. However, regarding manned space, even “40 years after Apollo we’re still stuck in LEO!”

In Russia it’s different. “When a space launch occurs the whole town celebrates with a parade.” The Russian “trinity” of Tsiolkovsky, Korolov, and Gargarin is displayed everywhere, and the atmosphere is more like a “religious sacrament.” Dyson notes that in Russia space is regarded as a key part of “human destiny”, not just science; and the Russians see ISS as an expanded Mir (de-orbited in 2001) in which they take great national pride.

Dyson suggested that in the early 1960s if President Kennedy had thought more long-term like a Russian — instead of focusing on a short decade-long Moon program — we might now have a substantial Moon base that utilizes space resources. And it might even be self-sufficient.

The basic problem according to Dyson is that “American space culture thinks in decades.” But Russia takes a more intangible, human spirit approach that embraces “centuries” as its space timescale.

Our concept of the “fractal Maslow Window” speaks to the issues of American manned versus unmanned timescales for success. For example, technology development associated with unmanned programs is usually relatively unknown to the general public partly because of low cost (e.g., Goddard’s liquid fueled rocket, 1926; Frank Low’s low-T IR detectors, 1961; multiple gravity assists and Cassini, 1997). Thus many technology developments in a variety of programs — space and otherwise –occur continuously and can produce new generations on a decade timescale. However, manned space programs are highly visible, risky, state-of-the-art endeavors with large price tags and significant geopolitical implications. And as a result they become very political.

History shows that Apollo-style programs emerge only during brief, ebullient intervals called Maslow Windows, that — over the last 200 years — occur every 55 to 60 years. They appear to be fundamentally driven by long-term business cycles (e.g., the long wave) and are exclusively associated with major economic booms. Another way to think of Maslow Windows is in a fractal context, in which the international technology/economic/geopolitical system becomes highly interactive and reaches a critical state every 5-6 decades. This appears to be both a necessary and sufficient condition for culturally transformative programs like Apollo to occur.

This explains why no human has been to the Moon in almost 40 years. But more importantly, Dyson’s experiences suggest the Russians may be more advanced than the U.S. in their approach to planning manned space programs that can transcend Maslow Windows.

This is an updated end-of-May 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 May, and II) Favorites during the last 90 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 6/1/2010

I. MAY — Readers’ Favorites

1) Space: The Fractal Frontier — How Complexity Drives Exploration — 5/01/10
2) Phobos: The Key to the Cosmos? Just Ask Russian and China! — 3/27/10
3) The Moon is Not Enough…! — 11/22/08
4) China & Russia Take the Smart Road to Mars! — 12/04/08
5) 10 Lessons Peary & Amundsen Teach Us About the Human Future in Space — 11/29/08

III. THE LAST 90 DAYS — Readers’ Favorites — Readers’ Favorites

1) DecaState of the Wave — 10 Space Trends for the Decade 2010-2020 — 3/06/10
2) Space: The Fractal Frontier — How Complexity Drives Exploration — 5/01/10
3) Obama’s New Space Policy and the Spirit of Apollo — 4/19/10
4) Near-Term Wars Threaten the New Space Age — 4/02/10
5) China & Russia Take the Smart Road to Mars! — 12/04/08