Buzz Aldrin, the 2nd man on the Moon, is right. The Telegraph.co.uk (6/29/08) reports he’s publicly warning that unless we invest now in the future of space, we will “surrender leadership of space exploration to Russia and China,” for the rest of the century.

In fact, as I have shown (see Cordell, 1996 and 2006), long-term economic and social trends point to the next international Apollo-style race to space starting near 2013 - 2015, this time involving possibly China and others. This would create huge opportunities for science and math instruction, much like the President Kennedy’s Apollo Moon program did in the 1960s. And this time, it would happen simultaneously with the retirements of massive numbers of baby boomers in key engineering and related fields.

But what if we’re are not prepared? In that case we may experience a replay of the Sputnik shock of 1957, and attempt a crash program in education and space technology to catch up.

Buzz thinks it’s “abysmal” that, in NASA’s 50th anniversary year and after spending $ 100 B on International Space Station, “…we can’t get our own astronauts to our space station without relying on the Russians,” because of Shuttle’s planned retirement in 2010.

He wonders why commercial alternatives that might have taken U.S. astronauts to ISS between 2010 and 2015 were not adequately funded. These are the crucial five years just prior to the opening of the spectacular 2015 Maslow Window, when crewed access to space will be important.

The Chinese have a great opportunity to win the return to the Moon. To do that, according to Buzz, all they have to do is, “…fly around the Moon and back…” In fact, just landing a Chinese astronaut on the Moon for a day, “…and he’d be a national hero.”

“We can do wonderful science on the Moon, and wonderful commercial things. Then we can pack up and move on to Mars.” Buzz will share these ideas with both McCain and Obama to guarantee NASA is funded to greet the future as a leader.

I had the pleasure, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of meeting and getting to know Buzz when he visited us at General Dynamics in San Diego and also at Case for Mars Conferences. If he isn’t your all-time favorite astronaut, or at least one of them, he should be!

The massive Panama Canal Expansion project now extends all the way to New Orleans, but even more importantly, it points staight toward the 2015 Maslow Window! Twice per century unparalleled economic booms create exceptional affluence which elevates society to the highest levels of the Maslow Heirarchy. We call this decade-long, ebullient ride up the economic boom a Maslow Window. The chronology of the last 200 years indicates the next one starts near 2015.

Typically, the decade leading up to a Maslow Window displays “early ebullience” in the form of impressive macro-engineering projects (MEPs) and other activities. The cost and global attention associated with these secondary MEPs usually indicate how spectacular the Maslow Window itself will actually be. As I’ve indicated before, there is currently an avalanche of MEPs around the globe, but one of the most ebullient has to be Panama’s.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Panama Canal Expansion Project will require 4.4 million cubic meters of cement and cost $ 5.25 B, about the same (in constant $) as the original Canal. In an ebullient vote, the people of Panama approved this project by 76.2% in October, 2006. According to the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), the Third Set of Locks project will respond to sustained increases in international trade by allowing more and larger ships through the Canal. Scheduled completion date is 2014-2015 — perfect timing to celebrate the 2015 Maslow Window!

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune (6/19/08), Port of New Orleans officials anticipate a surge in cargo through the expanded Canal and want to beat the competition (e.g., Houston). Although their new marketing agreement with ACP doesn’t promise New Orleans any business, it identifies New Orleans as an ACP-approved port with whom they share “strong economic and commercial bonds.”. By 2014 New Orleans will have completed a $ 500 M expansion of its port facilities, to capitalize on the enhanced cargo wave from the Canal.

Last week in an international meeting of Latin American port authorities, ACP’s CEO emphasized Panama’s leadership: “It is clear that Panama is emerging as the transportation and logistics hub of the Americas,” said Alemán Zubieta. “Large-scale infrastructural improvements like the Canal expansion and the Pan-American highway, coupled with Panama’s strategic location and proximity to other regional port development projects, make Panama an ideal hub for international commerce.”

In a vast “ocean” of international MEPs, the Panama Canal Expansion stands out as a “tsunami” of early ebullience! We’ll enjoy watching this one closely.

The recent discovery of “Snow White” in “Wonderland” by the Phoenix Mars Lander reminds me of humanity’s century-long fascination with Mars as the most Earth-like planet, and that it will inevitably be another abode for humans. But the question is how soon? On the other hand, the Moon is close, holds the secrets of Earth’s impact history, and has the long-term potential to support large-scale space solar power (SSP) initiatives. The Moon is also currently the focus of NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration.

At this point it’s useful to pause and consider the two types of major programs.
1) The first is what I call a “Maslow” program that comes in 2 flavors: A) A Great Human Exploration program motivated by inspiration, science, and (sometimes) strategic rationales; and B) A Macro-Engineering Project (MEP) motivated by inspiration, technology, and (often) strategic reasons. The perfect example of both is the Apollo Moon program, but there are many others (See Economic Growth, Wave Guide 1).
2) The second is called a “Survival” program. Possible examples might someday include an asteroid impact mitigation system or a space solar power system. Such a program has never flown, but if it did it would have to achieve the same strategic priority as a war.

Both Mars and Moon plans, as currently envisioned, are Maslow-style programs. The scientific rationales for Mars include origins of life and climate dynamics on the most Earth-like planet, and frankly dwarf those of the smaller, colder (internally), and more alien Moon. Mars’ “Earth II” colonization potential plus the fact that humans haven’t been there yet argue strongly in favor of Mars as NASA’s next focus.

However, the Moon is the next logical target off the Earth, and has the potential to provide materials and logistics for badly-needed SSP satellites. This might eventually associate the Moon with the first-ever Survival-style space program. Unfortunately, fully functional SSPs suffer from huge up-front costs and are decades (or generations) downstream.

This is a problem because Maslow programs of the last 200 years only appear during twice-per-century waves triggered by major economic booms. The other bad news is that “Maslow Windows” usually only last one decade and close abruptly. For example, the last 3 Apollo missions were canceled because the Vietnam War heated up in 1968 (See Conflict, Wave Guide 9). This suggests that major programs (e.g. SSP) with huge price tags and long — decade-plus — durations will not succeed, unless its Maslow Window is planned for, or the program becomes designated Survival-style.

NASA is planning a return to the Moon in 2020. By analogy with the Apollo Maslow Window (and all others over the last 200 years), the 2015 Maslow Window should close by 2025. And it could slam shut sooner depending on the timing of the expected 2020s major war. This suggests that Mars will get squeezed out of this wave, and sadly, the next Maslow Window (and major program opportunity) won’t open until 2071.

If, after 2025, we are to avoid being foreclosed from venturing into deep space (like we have been since 1972), we must somehow achieve a space presence by 2025 that is largely self-sufficient from Earth. Which would work best: The Water-World Mars or the Proximal Moon? It’s a challenging question to answer, but it’s the one we should be asking.

Just got back from my brief TV interview with KGTV 10News anchor Hal Clement and with Mike, who operated the camera. We slipped into the San Diego Air & Space Museum in Balboa Park because they just opened their new Star Trek exhibit, which we thought would be fun for a backdrop. It was tremendous. We met James Kidrick, the President and CEO of the Museum, who explained they have, among many other Star Trek items, the original set from Star Trek used on the series. If you haven’t been there, you should be asking yourself: Why not?

Hal asked me why I think we’re moving rapidly toward the next international race to space. The basic reason is the economic, technology, and exploration history of the last 200 years. Twice a century — typically every 55 or 56 years — 3 types of things happen: 1) A great exploration occurs (the first one was Lewis and Clark), 2) massive technology programs known as macro-engineering projects (MEPs) occur such as the Panama Canal –except for the Lewis & Clark window, and 3) tragically, a major war occurs. All 3 activities are driven by unusually large 1960s-style economic booms. The timing of President Kennedy’s Apollo Moon Program suggests the next Maslow Window will slide open near 2013-2015.

Hal also asked about how current problems, such as gas prices and the economy in general, relate to this 21st Century Waves model. The gas problem goes back at least to 1973, during the economic contraction after the Apollo Maslow WIndow, when oil producers reduced the supply and forced some Americans to buy gasoline only on alternative days! That was an early wake-up call. But American leaders responded mostly with rhetoric. The current problem is not a technology issue; we know how to conserve and how to use alternate fuels. And it’s not a supply problem; we have decades of oil in offshore areas. It’s a political problem. As a group, our Washington elites do not yet perceive oil as a strategic crisis, and so are responding in true election year fashion. Coordinated government action nudging the U.S. away from a petroleum-dominated economy will occur as soon as the American public’s pain from rising gas prices reaches the ears of Congress and the President.

On the other hand, one year ago Fortune Magazine declared that the global expansion was the “greatest economic boom ever.” This is exactly the headline we expect about 15-17 years out from the peak of the economic boom. Although our current economic pain is real, it’s important to realize that recessions (to the extent the U.S. and others are officially experiencing them) do occur even during economic booms. However, the lesson of the last 200 years of economic waves is that our ascent toward the boom — although temporarily interrupted now — will resume and continue to accelerate.

Finally, Hal was intrigued by the fact that, over the last 200 years, the great explorations are always synchronized with the biggest economic booms. There are several ways to think of this. For example, why does a child in elementary school only play during recess? Is it because that’s the only time he or she wants to? No, it’s the only time they can. Likewise for humans and exploration. In the modern world, most of us are too busy making a living and caring for our families and communities to spend much time exploring. It’s only when societal affluence skyrockets during the twice-per-century economic booms, that most of us ascend the Maslow Heirarchy and ebulliently indulge our raw human exploration passions.

After all, exploration is in our genes. Anthropologists tell us that for the last 200,000 years, exploration for new food sources, territories, and expansion was our way of life. And we’re still explorers. During the last 200 years, although we couldn’t always physically go along ourselves, we’ve vicariously been enthralled with each of the great explorations. Just ask Neil Armstrong (Apollo Moon, 1969), Adm. Peary (North Pole, 1909), “Dr. Livingstone I presume?” (Central Africa, 1856), and Lewis and Clark (Northwest N. America, 1804).

Now it’s time to go play some tennis, un-vicariously of course.

As part of our continuing effort to spread the word about the next Apollo-style race to space and what it means for the U.S., the world, and of course, you and me, I’ll be doing a brief interview this week on KGTV 10 News, ABC-TV in San Diego.

We’ll focus on how a long-term perspective provides special insight into the present and future, even out 20 years or so. We’ll chat about patterns in long-term trends in the economy, technology, and society that point to the decade from 2015 to 2025 as having key similarities to the 1960s, including unprecedented space spectaculars and a Camelot-like zeitgeist. And, that data and analysis from this weblog and elsewhere show convincingly that we’re on schedule for the next ebullient Maslow Window.

Hal Clement of 10 News in San Diego:

10 News anchor Hal Clement and I will do the interview live on Wednesday (6/25/08) as part of their 11 AM news program. I’ve known and done TV with Hal since the good ol’ days around 1990 when I was planning manned Mars missions at General Dynamics in Kearney Mesa, and Hal was across the 15 freeway anchoring the news at Channel 8. He’s very professional and a great guy and I’m looking forward to it. Hope you enjoy the show; we’ll have it available here in case you miss it.

The last two weeks have been highly positive and dynamic for space, and are definitely a sign of “early ebullience“.

Although the STS 124 astronauts came down last Saturday (6/14), most of the rest of us still haven’t! The near “perfect” Shuttle mission, featuring delivery of the Japanese Kibo module to International Space Station (ISS), and the recent discovery of ice on Mars by Phoenix suggest we are approaching another golden age in space science and human spaceflight, known here as a Maslow Window.

This ebullient impression is strengthened by a new Gallup poll released this week that shows solid support for NASA (71%). However, fewer (52%) favor increasing NASA’s budget a modest amount to enable our planned Moontrips. This is characteristic of pre-Maslow times; the Maslow Window should arrive around 2013-2015.

Confidence in NASA’s ability to flourish despite future competition from the Chinese space program is comforting on the one hand, but also reminiscent American attitudes of the mid-1950s just prior to the surprise launch of Sputnik. Likewise, the American public’s relative lack of concern about the 5-year gap (after the Shuttle retires in 2010) in NASA’s ability to launch to ISS also bespeaks our current pre-Maslow mindset.

China will play an enormous role in the coming race to space, and I’ve given you 10 reasons to believe that. However, the style (e.g., mix of competition vs. cooperation) of international space development that eventuates will be strongly influenced by geopolitical factors. If we decide to have a “Grand Alliance for Space” — which may be driven by strategic, energy, and environmental factors — my Interspace model is a stimulating way to start the discussion.

One thing’s for sure: Lots of people have paid lots of coins to either get married in space, have their honeymoon there, or just just enjoy the life-altering trip up to 60 miles! While indicative of the public’s increasing thirst for space, the long-term viability of the space tourism industry depends on safety and the economy.

Because of the importance of a favorable geopolitical situation and of economic growth to both governmental and private space (and non-space) activities, the choice of our next president is huge. Early opinion polls do not yet point to a winner but, as we’ve indicated before, long-term trends in the economy and society tend to favor McCain, although it appears that Obama might take more of a Kennedy-style approach to space. We’ll devote more to this in future posts.

SPECIAL NOTE: Thanks to political scientist Dr. Anny Wong for her contributions to this post.

A key issue for civilization is whether we’ll establish a significant, self-sufficient presence in space by 2025. If not, the last 200 years suggest that our next real opportunity won’t be until 2071. And by then, the world will be unpredictably different. So the 2015 Maslow Window is essentially our last forecastable shot at establishing a large-scale human presence in space.

Will China accelerate this process? The answer is ‘Yes’, and here are 10 reasons China is good for space:

10. China’s space program stretches back more than 35 years, suggesting that space will expand in importance because of the growing economic, technological, and scientific culture of the country. Responding to Sputnik in 1958, Mao Zedong asserted, “We too must build artificial satellites.” China’s first successful satellite launch was in 1970. Some of the earliest scientists involved in China’s space program were disillusioned Chinese Americans who found pride in the new China and were fed up with a glass ceiling in the U.S..

9. In manned space, China is already at the Mercury/Gemini stage. It’s first manned orbital mission was in 2003 and its 3rd is this October. With plans for a space station in hand, they’re right on schedule to play a major role in the spectacular 2015 Maslow Window.

8. China’s space infrastructure is among the most advanced in the world, and includes the development of the Long-March rocket systems, successfully entering the international commercial launch market in 1985, developing a variety of Chinese launch sites, and creating Chinese satellites for military, communications, weather, and space sciences. Plans for the Chinese manned space program began in 1985.

7. China’s very rapid economic growth hovers around 10% annually. This is very important internally to the Communist Party leaders, as well as to major export sources like Wal-Mart! It also provides the financial cornerstone for future Chinese technology and space initiatives.

6. China’s space program is very popular with the Chinese public which adds to program momentum as it bolsters Chinese nationalism, something the government leadership needs every now and then to make the public forget its faults — like major corruption, environmental problems, and huge economic disparities.

5. China has growing high-technology industries and international connections that can support future space initiatives. For example, in addition to information technology, China has made aerospace a top national priority in industrial development — so bet on China courting Boeing and all others to build their equipment there and groom human talent at the ground level.

4. China has gained international prestige from its space adventures. International prestige feeds domestic pride, but more importantly, it’s the additional weight it gives China in security and defense matters where international prestige really counts.

3. Energy-hungry China may decide to lead solar power satellite development. Facing $ trillions of energy infrastructure costs in the next 20 years, China may decide to develop this inexhaustible energy source that would reduce both environmental pollution and strategic tensions.

2. China and U.S. (and others) may form a Grand Space Alliance for the 2015 Maslow Window. If indeed we’re “less than 5 years from a new generation of Chinese leaders with whom a far stronger relationship may be built,” — see Thomas Barnett — new options are possible. With joint interests in global security, new energy sources, and the exploration of space, China and the U.S. may decide that a “Football Game” model is more productive than the previous Cold War space experience was. In an American professional football game there are rules, big money, great excitement, intense competition, and winners and losers, but at the end of the game both teams survive, learn, and remain friends; they also look forward to the next game on the schedule.

1. A less attractive option is that China (and partners) may stimulate the rapid development of space by challenging the U.S. in a Cold War-style confrontation, complete with a Sputnik-like event. Reason #2 (above) is basically a model of greatly expanded International Geophysical Year-style friendly cooperation. However, in 1957 it led to the surprise launch of Sputnik which shocked America and triggered the 1960s race to space between two very unfriendly countries.

As we draw closer to the 2015 Maslow Window it will become clearer which model of international space development — “Football Game” or “Cold War”– will occur.

Tuesday the Coalition for Space Exploration provided a fascinating peek into the space imaginations of the American public. Their Gallup Poll registers high support for space in general, suggesting the next race to space is not far away. But other responses, reminiscent of the pre-Sputnik public in the early-to-mid 1950s, show the next Maslow WIndow has not arrived. In general, recent Gallup Polls remain consistent with 21st Century Waves forecasts.

For example, 71% of respondents in April, 2008 said the U.S. was doing a good or a very good job maintaining its leadership in space; that’s up from 67% in March, 2006. Over the same time period, Americans who said the U.S. was doing either a good job or a very good job handling the War on Terror hovered near 50%. Obviously NASA has won back the confidence of the American people.

Softer support appeared when Gallup asked about increasing NASA’s budget from 1/6% to 1% (of the federal budget) to enable America’s return to the Moon and plans for Mars. This is equivalent to giving up one large pizza every 4 months, but only 52% said they would support it or strongly support it. Young people were most interested in Moon trips (and pizzas!); 62% of those between 18 and 34 either supported or strongly supported the Moon fee. This is consistent with 71% of respondents who felt that America’s space program inspires young people to study science, math, and/or technical fields — a lesson learned in the 1960s during the Apollo Maslow Window.

Widespread (71%) warm, fuzzy feelings for U.S. space leadership coupled with only a luke-warm embrace (52%) of a pizza-like NASA budget increase is consistent with our approaching the next Maslow Window (@ 2015), but having not yet entered it. (See Education Perspective, Wave Guide 4.)

Gallup also asked about China’s announced plan to send astronauts to the Moon (in 2017), beating NASA by a year. Between March, 2006 and April, 2008 during 3 surveys, only about 1/3 of those queried were somewhat concerned or very concerned. Likewise, the 5-year gap — from Shuttle retirement in 2010 to Constellation launch in 2015 — when NASA will have to depend on Russian launch vehicles to access the International Space Station, somewhat concerned or very concerned only 47% of respondents.

Why shouldn’t Americans be confident? It’s been over 40 years since anyone challenged U.S. dominance in space. However, this calm attitude is reminiscent of pre-Sputnik times in the mid-1950s during the International Geophysical Year just before Sputnik’s surprise launch shocked the nation. On the other hand, there is no reason for anxiety or fear of either China or Russia during the next 5 - 7 years, just the realization that the next race to space will be competitive.

Actually, competition is good for space. If you don’t agree, ask yourself: When was the last time any astronaut escaped from low Earth orbit into deep space?

It was too long ago: December, 1972 when Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt traipsed on the Moon. That was the end of the first competitive race to space. Hopefully, the 2015 Maslow Window will feature spectacular, international cosmic competition in a peaceful, constructive framework.

According to Kishore Mahbubani, formerly Singapore’s ambassador to the United Nations and currently a dean at the National University of Singapore, “…the West assumes it is the source of the solutions to the world’s key problems…In fact, however, the West is also a major source of these problems.” (Foreign Affairs, May/June, 2008.)

Of particular concern to those of us here at 21st Century Waves, Mahbubani insists that, “…the West has become the most powerful force preventing the emergence of a new wave of history…” But one doesn’t have to buy into his often entertaining and sometimes hyperbolic rhetoric to agree that, “The West has to learn to share power and responsibility for the management of global issues with the rest of the world.”

Around 1990, Otto Steinbronn and I, while at General Dynamics in San Diego, decided to try to imagine what a truly global space organization might look like. Otto had spent 12 years in Germany with the European Space Agency (ESA) as their Spacelab Engineering Manager, and I had just assembled a large team (including Asian and European companies) to support our Mars/Lunar work with NASA. The result appeared in Space Policy, “Interspace — Design for an International Space Agency,” (Nov, 1992). It appears likely that an Interspace-style organization will appear before 2015. (See The Forecasts)

Although our model seems complex it had only 3 key features:
1) Power would be shared equally among the 5 key players: Russia, Europe, Japan, and the U.S. (See Fig. 1); today we might add China. The non-core nations would select a country to represent them.
2) The main Interspace Organization would consist of 9 regional organizations that coordinate operations from Earth (Interlaunch) and LEO (Interorb) all the way eventually to Mars (Intermars); See Fig. 2.
3) Global space assets would be focused on Interspace programs that are developed and run using management structures like Intelsat or ESA. If there are many participants (e.g., lunar surface activities) the Intelsat-style organization is used (Fig. 3), but if there were only a few (e.g., for the interplanetary transportation system) the natural choice is the ESA-style of Fig. 4.

We felt the location of the Interspace Headquarters was of great symbolic and practical importance, and should be outside the 4 core countries. Although Singapore was an attractive finalist (along with Bangalore and Nairobi), we felt that Rio de Janeiro was ideal. Even back then, Otto and I didn’t want to be considered “the worst of the West”…

Thanks to Tsvi Bisk and Mike Zorn for their interesting comments about the oil problem, space-impact threats, and the Manhattan Project, relative to my recent post (”The God Particle and 21st Century Waves”). I chatted about the Superconducting Super Collider as a macro-engineering project (MEP), and applied a few lessons of the last 200 years. Here, I’ll elaborate further on the way that MEPs really work.

In Cordell (2006) I adopted the definition of an MEP from Eugene Ferguson (1916-2004), who was a well-known professor of engineering and later history, a founding member and former president (1977-78) of the Society for the History of Technology, and a da Vinci Medalist (SHoT’s highest honor) in 1977. According to Ferguson, MEPs are: 1) at the state-of-the-art of technology for their time; 2) extremely expensive and usually large in size; and 3) sometimes practical in purpose, but often they are aimed at satisfying intangible needs of a spiritual or psychological nature and are highly inspiring.

This is a demanding definition that excludes many extraordinary projects like trans-continental railroads or large highway systems because, while expensive and significant, they do not stretch technology. Notice that the MEPs of the last 200 years listed in Table 1 (not intended to be an exhaustive list) of Cordell (2006) — e.g., Suez Canal, Great Eastern, Panama Canal, Titanic, Apollo program — definitely align with Ferguson.

Is Bisk’s admirable idea of “Getting the U.S. off imported oil in 10 years…” a Ferguson-style MEP? Not by the definition above because it relates closely to survival. For an affluent superpower like the U.S., survival is an expectation not an inspiration (Ferguson’s point 3). Currently, it appears to me that U.S. politicians do not yet perceive the public’s increasing annoyance with skyrocketing gas prices as a true crisis, although that may change soon.

What about Bisk’s suggestion that a planetary defense system (PDS) against asteroids/comets would be a popular MEP? PDS is like oil except that dangerous space impacts are assumed to be very unlikely by the public. It may take a tragic impact (or near impact) to realign public beliefs. In the meantime, it’s probably best to develop PDS as part of the increasing human operations infrastructure in Earth-Moon space that’s expected during the 2015 Maslow Window.

Zorn is right about the A-bomb project; it’s not a Ferguson-style MEP because it’s a weapon and a big secret before 1945. However, the last 200 years teach us that inspirational, Ferguson-style MEPs tend to cluster near peaks in the 56 year energy/economy wave, but large initiatives associated with survival — even including wars (e.g., War on Terror) — can occur at any time. More on this in future posts.