Like James Bond, who believed that “The World is Not Enough!”, The Planetary Society thinks the Moon is not enough…and frankly I agree with them!

The World is not enough… Click .

I’ve always liked Lou Friedman and The Planetary Society! Explore the planets, humans to Mars, an international team — what’s not to like? It’s practically the meaning of life! I also enjoyed their new roadmap to the solar system: Beyond the Moon: A New Roadmap for Human Space Exploration in the 21st Century. And the title of their plan says it all: the Moon is not enough. They have clear differences with NASA’s current Vision for Space Exploration.

The Moon is not enough… Click .

There are now three fundamental visions for space: 1) NASA’s current Moon-focused Vision for Space Exploration, (VSE) 2) The Planetary Society’s roadmap featuring Mars, and 3) a vision with interstellar travel to the nearby stars as its focus. Vision 3 has been championed by the British Interplanetary Society since its 1970s Project Daedalus study, as well as by Gene Roddenberry. More recently it has resurfaced as a way to promote a multidecade, global commitment to human space exploration; in essence they believe that Mars is not enough.

Is Mars enough? Click .

The model of this weblog (e.g., Cordell, 2006, and “Forecasting...”) has met with considerable success in explaining great explorations and technology development over the last 200 years in the context of long-term fluctuations in the economy. For example, a) this model explains why Apollo began when it did and why it ended abruptly (as well as all the other Great Explorations over the last 200 years), b) the model pointed to a financial panic near 2008 and Obama’s likely election (although I failed to explicitly forecast them!), and 3) the model projects what we currently observe — increasing global interest in space as we approach another ebullient 1960s-like decade: the 2015 Maslow Window.

So in the context of this long-term economic model, I want to offer a few comments on the Planetary Society’s roadmap:

1. The program focus — Moon, Mars, interstellar — really matters from a marketing perspective. The Moon suffers from the fact that humans went there 6 times almost 40 years ago. This might encourage a “been there, done that” attitude. Or will the global public see human exploration of the Moon like past generations viewed terrestrial Great Explorations; i.e., progressing from more accessible locations like northwest North America (Lewis & Clark) to more distant ones like central Africa (”Dr. Livingstone I presume”) and both polar regions (early 20th Century)? However, if the global public views the Moon as just one more stop on the road to Mars and beyond, the sequence of Great Explorations over the last 200 years — North America, central Africa, Polar regions, Moon — suggests that Mars makes a more alluring program focus — from a marketing perspective — than the Moon.

2. Global momentum is currently toward the Moon. The U.S., with its International Lunar Network, as well as many other countries (including China, Japan) have expressed strong interests in Moon bases circa 2020. Authoritative sources (e.g., National Intelligence Council) forecast a “revolutionized” international system toward 2025 (during the 2015 Maslow Window) including new players at the high table (e.g., Brazil, India) and new rules. This will enhance U.S. plans for expanding ISS-style coorperation to the Moon and beyond, and may even make a truly global approach to space (such as Interspace) possible. This trend, plus the closeness and easy access of the Moon, may make a Mars focus — even in the 2020s — less attractive to the global public.

3. Astronaut safety will drive any deep space program strategy.
Current NASA boss Mike Griffin contends that safety requires a Mars program to go through ISS and the Moon in logical steps, much like the Apollo program carefully approached the Moon. The Planetary Society report deemphasizes lunar surface infrastructure in favor of near-term human exploration of near-Earth asteroids. Although not mentioned in their report, developing human space ops experience at near-Earth asteroids will be extremely valuable at Mars when establishing human bases on Phobos and Deimos. The Planetary Society Mars-focus strategy elegantly integrates the first human missions beyond the Earth-Moon system with planetary defense (from near-Earth asteroid impacts), and with specific preparations for future human operations in the Mars system.

4. For a multidecade, global space vision to be viable, it must include a realistic geopolitical and economic framework provided by long-term trends over the last 200 years. The Planetary Society roadmap asserts that the NASA VSE goal of a human return to the Moon by 2020 may “lead to multi-decade delays in expansion of human activity beyond the Earth-Moon system.” They are absolutely right as I pointed out previously, although it’s not fundamentally because of programmatic and funding conflicts. They are more on target here: “The national economic situation exacerbates NASA’s budget difficulties and makes it likely that the stated lunar exploration timetable cannot be met.” In fact, the national (and global) economic situation is a predictable consequence of technological, exploration, and military trends that have persisted over at least the last 200 years. Ignorance of them results in disappointments like the abrupt end of the spectacular Apollo program. However, in reality, they provide a dependable framework within which multi-decade programs of any kind (including space) can be structured so they flourish and enable human expansion into the cosmos.

There is little doubt that proper use of modern marketing techniques would help NASA sell human spaceflight. Bob Scaringe, president of AVG Communications (Marietta, GA) quotes a 2007 poll (AIAA 2008-7872) indicating that, on the average, responders believed NASA received 24% of the federal budget, when in reality it got only 0.6%. This may be influencing the relatively large fraction (51%) of Americans who think we should cut NASA’s budget and the relatively small fraction (<10%) who actively support space exploration.

Should it be Mars?… Click .

What’s most interesting is Scaringe’s point that a truly compelling long-range goal will be needed to sustain the space program, and that Mars isn’t enough. He proposes targeting the estimated 10 Earth-like planets within 30 light years of Earth. “We should make interstellar travel a long-term aim…over the next 200 to 500 years.” This program would be “responsive to short-term ROI needs on Earth as well as…the long-term survival of the species.”

…Or the stars? Click .

This is multigenerational, Star Trek-style planning in the most inspirational sense of the word!

Scaringe, a marketing consultant, suggests that the decade-long 1960s Apollo program provides evidence that a new Kennedy-like president might be able to inspire the world to seriously consider our multigenerational Galactic aspirations — which paradoxically is sadly reminiscent of the political, economic, and military realities that have afflicted us in the past.

In fact, the Apollo experience suggests that more will be required than just mega-leadership. For example, the last 200 years show that Great Explorations and Macro-Engineering Projects (including Apollo) occur in short-lived, twice-per-century pulses (i.e., Maslow Windows), that are triggered by the momentary ebullience of major rhythmic economic booms, and terminated by major wars (e.g. W. W. I).

However, imagine the power of combining a multigenerational (or multicentury) vision for space such as Scaringe suggests with a realistic, multicentury understanding of long waves in the economy — going back 200 years — and how they influence technology development, global security, and human exploration.

This scientific and inspirational approach will eventually achieve humanity’s ultimate destiny: Interstellar colonization.

The last 200 years teach us that approximately every 56 years great explorations like Lewis and Clark splash into history along with stunning macro-engineering projects (MEPs) like the Suez Canal. Tragically, they are usually followed shortly by a major war like World War I.

Most of this twice-per-century action occurs in the decade just before a peak in the well-documented 56 year energy cycle. These Maslow Windows are invariably the time of exceptional economic booms that create widespread affluence and elevate society to higher realms of Maslow’s Heirarchy. Thus many people momentarily find great explorations and MEPs not only tolerable, but almost irresistible.

Our time is coming. We’re rapidly approaching the opening of the next Maslow Window near 2015, and can expect the usual unfortunate escalation of international tensions of the type we saw in the 1950s during the Cold War.

Unfortunately the current parallel with the 1950s is striking. The Wall Street Journal (8/12/08) suggests that Russian tanks in Georgia revealed “Vladimir Putin’s Napoleonic ambitions”: to dominate Eurasia again. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asserted that “Georgia can be rebuilt. Russia’s reputation is going to take a while, if ever,” (CBS TV, 8/17/08). Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical analyst with Stratfor, which Barron’s once referred to as “the shadow CIA,” suggests that, “Russia is attempting to reforge its Cold War-era influence…”

One attractive Russian target is Cuba. Since space centers are the rage around the globe these days, Russia’s offered to build them one (Reuters, 9/17/08). Of course this would just involve little things like joint use of “space equipment…and space communications systems.” If this doesn’t remind you of the Cuban missile crisis (1962) during the early Apollo Maslow Window when WW III almost began, you need to Google it. For their part, the Russians openly acknowledge that “they want to renew Cuban ties that were neglected after the Soviet Union’s collapse.”

One of the greatest sources of joy to the American public, as revealed by opinion polls over the decades, is the prospect of true international cooperation in space, especially with the Russians. And now word comes from the recent International Astronautical Congress in Glascow, Scotland that not only the Russians, but the Chinese want to go to Mars… with the U.S.!!

Such a sparkling joint great exploration concept brings to mind the phrase, “Where do I sign?” But students of long-term trends in geopolitics and history must reluctantly advise caution.

Once upon a time, about one energy cycle ago in the 1950s, there was the International Geophysical Year (IGY), an exhuberant time of global scientific devouring of Earth’s atmospheric and space environment. In 1954 the International Council of Scientific Unions announced plans for artificial satellites to be launched during the IGY, and in July, 1955 the U.S. confirmed its intention to launch one for the IGY. Almost immediately, according to Professor Asif Siddiqi, the Soviets began a secret, crash program to beat the Americans and launch the first satellite.

The shocking result — at least to the U.S. — was the Soviet launch of Sputnik in October, 1957; an event that ignited the 1st race to space and culminated in Neil Armstrong’s footsteps on the Moon in 1969.

What will ignite the next race to space? One possible, but chilling response comes from Stratfor’s Zeihan, “It’s a fairly straightforward exercise to predict where Russian activity will reach its deepest. One only needs to revisit Cold War history.”

Space News reports (9/30) that building bases on the Moon followed sometime later by human spaceflight to Mars, is a logical sequence for NASA, according to NASA boss Michael Griffin. Indeed, those advocating near-term human Mars missions may not be “fully cognizant of the difficulties of sending astronauts to Mars.”

To be safe, Griffin recommends that a human mission to Mars should be simulated by a stay at the space station (like interplanetary flight to Mars), and 6 - 9 months on the Moon without resupply (like being on Mars). This strategy’s been supported by the National Academy of Sciences and others in the past. In fact, going back to the Moon might be more fun than it sounds because a recent National Research Council report suggests we know more about the Moon than any extraterrestrial world, but “we have barely begun to solve its countless mysteries.”

Griffin’s strategy is reminiscent of how the Apollo program worked: every key step was rehearsed in a relatively safe environment before men landed on the Moon. For example, Borman’s Apollo 8 crew in December, 1968 was the first to achieve lunar orbit, but it did not simulate a landing. That was reserved for Stafford’s Apollo 10 crew who flew to within 14 km of the surface. And before astronauts flew to the Moon, the rendezvous operations of the Command and Lunar Modules were perfected in Earth orbit on Apollo 7 and 9.

NASA carefully rehearsed each key step before astronauts landed on the Moon in 1969. Click .

However because of the Soviet-American race to the Moon, not everything was done systematically by the book. For example, George Mueller initially drew the ire of Wernher von Braun by suggesting “all-up” testing of the Saturn launch vehicle to save time.

Great Explorations over the last 200 years offer a unique perspective on the next step into space. The rhythmic, twice-per-century sequence of the hugely popular explorations was: Lewis & Clark/North America, Dr. Livingstone/Equatorial Africa, the Polar Expeditions, and Apollo/Moon. The lesson of the last 200 years is that although all four sites were riveting to the public, their chronological sequence was determined primarily by accessibility of the most interesting, unexplored site given the technology of the time.

So maybe we should bypass the Moon and go directly to Mars — the next logical Great Exploration target — because six Apollo crews already landed on the Moon almost 40 years ago. However, the Moon’s proximity (relative to Mars) and increasing international interests in Moon colonies (and even tourism) suggest the global public may soon be riveted by the spectacle of the irreversible, large-scale expansion of human civilization to the Moon.

But for Mars fans there is one lingering problem. If we take the history of the last 200 years seriously, it’s clear that even Great Explorations have only brief moments in the Sun — generally less than a decade — before ebullience fades, public support declines, and/or a war tragically intervenes. And based on the last 200 years, the next Maslow Window is likely to open near 2015 and close in the mid-2020s, assuming wildcards do not shorten it.

Assuming the U.S. (or someone) is able to return to the Moon by 2020, the bad news is that will leave only a few years at most to develop Mars systems, rehearse the crews, and execute the first human missions to the Red Planet. If we miss this Window the next one opens late in the 21st Century (~ 2071)!

But maybe the Moon will be enough for a while. In 1984, the wonderful German rocket scientist Krafft Ehricke — who ironically under NASA EMPIRE contract in 1963 described mid-1970s launch windows for manned Mars as “realistic” — once told me in San Diego that Earth-bound parents would someday love being able to go into their backyards on cool, clear nights and point to the exact spot on the Moon where their children were serving!

Albert Einstein called him “the father of modern science” for his insistence on the primacy of observation in the scientific method. But according to the Wall Street Journal (8/28/08), some others — i.e., Monsignor Melchor Sanchez de Toca of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture — claim his controversial story is “like a Mexican soap opera; it never ends.”

Indeed, in today’s world, when someone says “What goes around comes around,” they’re not usually referring to Earth’s orbit around the Sun — a major interest of Galileo’s — but they could be alluding to Galileo’s continuing, 400+ years of turmoil with the church.

Galileo’s troubles with the Roman Catholic church began in 1632 when he published his powerful defense of Copernicus’ helocentric theory based on solid telescopic evidence. Apparently, the 17th century church had already endorsed the dictum of a well-known Fox News commentator — “The spin stops here!” — because they summarily dismissed Galileo’s advocacy of a circling Earth as “absurd, false, and altogether contrary to scripture.” Plus Galileo was given an indefinite prison sentence.

Click .

However, things began to cool off in the early 18th century when the church allowed some of Galileo’s writings to be published. In 1835 it endorsed discussion of the Sun-centered model by removing all heliocentric publications from the list of banned books. More recently in 1992, after a 12 year study of the Vatican’s secret archives, Pope John Paul II publicly expressed regret at Galileo’s conviction and treatment.

As part of next year’s celebration of the first use of a telescope to study the sky (by Galileo), the Vatican received an offer from an anonymous donor to fund a statue of Galileo in the Vatican. Nuclear physicist Nicola Cabibbo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences remarked that “The Church wants to close the Galileo affair and reach a definitive understanding not only of his great legacy but also of the relationship between science and faith,” (Times Online, 3/4/08).

In fact, Galileo has become not only the Inquisition’s most illustrious heretic but also a global icon of an apparent church/science conflict. This time the Catholic Church wants to be on the right side of history, including being officially open to the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrials as well as supporting the research of professional astronomers at the Vatican Observatory.

Galileo not only laid the foundation for modern science, but by being the first to use the telescope to study mountains and valleys on the Moon as well as the Sun and other planets, he pointed humanity toward its ultimate destiny in the Galaxy: space colonization. As we approach a time of accelerating global space activities — i.e., the 2015 Maslow Window — more people are coming to appreciate the monumental contributions of Galileo to the human future in space.

For example, young people fresh from a study of Galileo’s troubles with the church and infused with an exhilarating sense of humanity’s near-term potential for space colonization, sometimes react with anger as they unintentionally judge Galileo and the church by 21st Century cultural standards. This partially explains students at Rome’s La Sapienza Univ who rejected a visit by Pope Benedict XVI last January, because of his 1990 lecture that some interpreted as a defense of the Church’s conviction of Galileo.

But we can take some consolation in the fact that, unlike some others, Galileo was not burned or beheaded, but lived his life in comfort under house arrest. Let’s hope the anonymous donor comes through with the money and the Vatican can find a suitable place for a statue of “the father of modern science.”

Larry King — on his 1994 TV special from Rachel, Nevada (near Area 51) — introduced him as the “Dean of UFO researchers.” And why not? Stanton Friedman has been doing research and scientific investigation of UFOs for 50 years, published more than 80 scientific UFO papers, and has appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs. He’s the original civilian investigator of the Roswell Incident and co-authored Crash at Corona: The Definitive Study of the Roswell Incident among other books.

A classmate of Carl Sagan at the University of Chicago, Stan received his BSc and MSc degrees there in physics. He was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist at GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas on advanced, classified, eventually cancelled, projects as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and nuclear powerplants for space.

Although Stan doesn’t make this claim himself, I’d be surprised if anyone in history has talked in person to more people about UFOs than he has, given that since 1967 he’s lectured on the topic “Flying Saucers ARE Real!” at more than 600 colleges and over 100 professional groups in 50 states, 9 provinces, 16 other countries. I had the pleasure of meeting Stan about 12 years ago in Arizona at one of his presentations; they are data-rich, exciting, and very thought-provoking.

Needless to say, Stan’s an excellent human barometer regarding public opinion about extraterrestrials and their ability to come here, and he devotes a chapter to this in his new book Flying Saucers and Science (2008).

Public Opinion is Wave Guide #2 because it often drives major technology and exploration activities during a Maslow Window and serves as an early indicator of an impending Maslow Window. For example, public opinion is linked with generational waves (e.g., Millennials), pop culture, and even long-term social cycles (e.g., Sarkar) that point to increased public interest in space, technology, and/or exploration and expanding ebullience.

Indeed, as we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, when Moonbases, international competition in space, and the possibility of alien life, begin to take center stage again, the public may insist that all information about UFOs be revealed by government sources. As the 2015 economic boom elevates the public to higher Maslow heirarchy levels, the need to explore and know the truth increases.

In his book, Stan paints a picture of typical UFO witnesses as feeling alone and being afraid of ridicule, “They would think I was some kind of nut.” When in fact, about 10% of his large audiences have made a sighting. He quotes Gallup polls over decades back to 1966 showing the percent of Americans that believe UFOs are real hovers between 46% and 57% and — contrary to popular belief — that educated individuals (e.g., college vs high school) are more likely to believe UFOs are real. As I’ve mentioned before, many engineers and scientists are increasingly intrigued by UFOs.

Reversing these common misconceptions about UFOs is important according to Stan because they make journalists afraid to cover a UFO sighting or lecture, scientists reluctant to study UFO data or sponsor UFO theses, and people with sightings hesistant to report them. If you’d like to “lift the laughter curtain” that inhibits “full disclosure by individuals and full investigation by scientists and journalists,” contact Stanton Friedman at fsphys@rogers.com or through his website.

The Daily Telegraph (London, UK) reported yesterday that Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell definitively stated his belief that UFOs exist. In a phone interview, the former Apollo 14 moonwalker claimed that extraterrestrials have visited Earth many times. Mitchell, who has a doctorate in astronautics from MIT, also claims this has been covered up by the U.S. government for 6 decades; naturally NASA denied any knowledge. He’s scheduled to appear soon on a Larry King Live to explore these views.

Opinion polls going back decades have consistently shown about 1/2 of the American public believes UFOs are real and have actually come here. Dr. Mitchell’s message is reminiscent of the 1950s when UFO “waves” were reported, movies carried the ET message (e.g., “Day the Earth Stood Still”), and interest in manned space exploration was increasing.

As we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, when Moonbases, international competition in space, and the possibility of alien life, begin to take center stage again, the public may insist that all information about UFOs be revealed by government sources. As the 2015 economic boom elevates the public to higher Maslow heirarchy levels, the need to explore and know the truth increases.

Actually Mitchell’s UFO claims are not new; I remember him saying similar things at least 15 years ago. But I must admit frustration with those who ridicule him for it. Mitchell is exactly the kind of guy who could have inside information — NASA Apollo astronaut, test pilot, Navy Captain, MIT doctorate — if it exists.

As an astronomer who’s never seen a UFO myself, I’m impressed with the people who’ve talked with me privately, who have. I’m also impressed by the number of engineers in the aerospace industry and even academic astronomers who believe UFOs are worthy of scientific study. Probably the best book on scientific ufology is by Stanford physics professor Peter Sturrock, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence.

Actually the public is generally unaware of the considerable antipathy between the SETI community and the UFO researchers. Both groups believe intelligent space aliens are out there, but the SETI folks are convinced they can’t travel interstellar distances to come here, while the UFOlogists believe they already have.

As we approach the next race to space and the public refocuses on things extraterrestrial, maybe this time we’ll find out who’s right!

Thanks to E.P. Grondine for interesting comments this morning on “10 Reasons China is Good for Space,” particularly with respect to the comet/asteroid threat issue.

For example, “…Neither “football game” nor “cold war’ is the correct analogy, as neither accounts for cometary and asteroid impact . The currently emerging facts about asteroid and comet impact have severe implications for all existing frameworks of political-economic analysis…”

‘Football game’ and ‘cold war’ are functional approaches that competing groups could use to organize their assets for an important task. In a pro football game there are high stakes and a large engaged audience, but there are also rules, schedules, and a framework of cooperation within which the competition occurs. In ‘cold war’ there’s little cooperation and the atmosphere is generally hostile. So doing an asteroid mitigation program in either program mode (especially ‘cold war’), might be inefficient and uncoordinated.

Much closer cooperation would be possible with a truly global space organization like “Interspace” that may be formed after 2013 as a result of Maslow programs and/or asteroid/comet threats.

In an earlier post (”Mars vs the Moon…”) I contrasted ‘Survival’ vs. ‘Maslow’ programs. Asteroid or comet mitigation is one example of a ‘Survival’ program; it might have the same strategic priority as war. A ‘Maslow’ program can be either a Great Exploration (e.g., Apollo) or a Macro-Engineering Project (e.g., Panama Canal). The key difference is Survival programs are threat-driven (just like a traditional war) and so can occur at any time. However, Maslow programs are easier to forecast (see this Weblog!) because they are driven by major, twice-per-century economic booms that elevate society to high levels in Maslow’s heirarchy; this momentarily creates a societal mindset — “ebullience” — highly supportive of major technology/exploration initiatives.

Grondine continues, “China’s space leadership will be pursuing CAPS (the Comet and Asteroid Protection System) like a laser, with major decisions to be undertaken in 2016. China will seek international partners … the reactions of Japan, Europe, the US, Russia … to these invitations to cooperation are unclear.”

I’m not aware of China’s interest in asteroid mitigation so I emailed Rusty Schweickart this morning. Rusty indicated that, although China is a member state for Action Team 14 (NEO), he’s unaware of any specific interest in NEO deflection. But obviously it would be very welcome! Incidentally, Grondine’s 2016 timeframe is consistent with the opening of the 2015 Maslow Window.

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 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.