Riveting polar expeditions of the 1903 Maslow Window resulted in the discovery of the north pole by Adm. Robert Peary (U.S.) in 1909 and the south pole by Roald Amundsen (Norway) in 1911; this “pole mania” featured daring adventure, international competition, and tragic accidents. The Peary/Amundsen Maslow Window has intriguing parallels with the 1960s Apollo Moon program and many lessons for the future human exploration and settlement of the Moon and Mars.
The top 10 lessons of Peary and Amundsen include:

10. The early 20th Century Peary/Amundsen Maslow Window (1903 - 1913) featured the spectacular achievement of Admiral Robert Peary — first credited with reaching the north pole — and the “Heroic Age” of Antarctic exploration including Roald Amundsen, discoverer of the south pole, the tragic deaths of Robert Scott and his crew, and the aborted transantarctic expedition of Ernest Shackleton… For more, click HERE.
The presence of both widespread ebullience and spectacular exploration of new geographical sites forms the core of Maslow Windows of the last 200 Years, and will likely be the zeitgeist of the 2015 Maslow Window

Amundsen and crew reach the “last place on Earth” in December, 1911. Click .

9. Antarctic exploration in 1843 by Sir James Clark Ross — discoverer of the well-known Ross Ice Shelf — was the last mid-19th Century foray into the Antarctic by explorers for more than 50 years. Polar expeditions were replaced by the central African adventures of Dr. David Livingstone as the focus of the world’s attention during his Great Exploration. The postponement of polar exploration until the early 20th Century is consistent with the general rules of thumb for Great Explorations (GEs) during the last 200 years: a) GEs are separated by 55 to 60 years, b) their sequence is from closer geographical sites to those of greater inaccessibility (e.g., central Africa vs. poles), and c) new GE sites always stimulate great public interest. And thus our next Maslow Window should arrive near 2015 and involve humans to Mars, Moon bases, or possibly both.

8. Clarence King — a 19th Century version of both Carl Sagan and Howard Hughes –was one of the greatest explorers of the American West, but because of poor long wave timing he’s not associated with a Great Exploration. During his important exploits, Americans were devastated by the Civil War and Europeans were distraught by the financial Panic of 1873… For more, click HERE.
Scentist-Explorer Clarence King is a classic example of a great explorer not having the global impact you’d expect because his discoveries occurred in the decades between Maslow Windows; these often dark decades — over the last 200 years — are inhabited by major wars and financial contractions that quickly destroy societal ebullience and make Great Explorations temporarily impossible.

7. “This is the greatest factor — the way in which the expedition is equipped — the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order — luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck,” according to the discoverer of the south pole, Roald Amundsen. In the 15 major antarctic expeditions from 8 countries during the Heroic Age, there were a total of 17 crew deaths, including Scott’s entire party of 5 while returning from the pole. Having been overcome by extreme weather and questionable strategic decisions, Scott’s ill-fated crew is reminiscent of the famous California-bound Donner party during the ebullient mid-19th Century Maslow Window, who was trapped by unusual, early snow storms in the California mountains after ill-advised voluntary delays.
Great Explorations always involve significant risks, especially in an atmosphere of international competition. Experience has shown (see Stuster, 1996) that the best way to ensure crew safety and mission success is by trying to anticipate every potentially threatening situation and taking appropriate precautions.

Monument near Donner Lake indicating the 20+ foot depth of the snow in 1846 (B. Cordell, 1999). Click donner.pdf.

6. The international conquest of Antarctica was launched in 1895 when a general resolution at the 6th International Geographical Society in London exhorted scientific societies world-wide to support antarctic exploration. This echoed a similar theme ventilated by London’s Royal Geographical Society in 1893. Between 1901 and 1917 — the “Heroic Age” — 15 expeditions to Antarctica were mounted by 8 countries including the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Scotland, France, Japan, Norway, and Australia.
The Heroic Age of antarctic exploration proved that international cooperation can be a powerful tool for science and exploration, and suggests that it will be essential for human expansion into the cosmos.

5. The financial Panic of 1893 caused estimated unemployment over 10% for 5+ years. The crisis initially lasted only 18 months but was followed by another recession that continued into 1897. The combination of GDP declines of several % coupled with population growth meant that GDP per capita didn’t recover to 1892 levels until 1899… For more, click HERE.
The Panics of 1893 and 2008 have interesting parallels, including that they began 10 and 8 years before their Maslow Windows opened, respectively. The Panic of 1893 suggests that the 2015 Maslow Window might be delayed only briefly as the global economy recovers to its mid-2007 “greatest ever global boom” status.

The 2015 Maslow Window may still arrive on time and feature Great Explorations even greater than Peary & Amundsen and Apollo, and MEPs more amazing than even the Panama Canal. Click .

4. Unike the Lewis and Clark expedition, which opened the West to human settlers, the Heroic Age of Antarctic exploration did not trigger massive human migrations to the polar regions. And while important meteorological and geographical science was done, it was the sheer adventure of polar exploration that enthralled the world… For more, click HERE.
That’s why during the 1960s Maslow Window, President Kennedy did not propose sending a mission to exploit the polar areas or anywhere else on earth, he chose to go to the Moon. It was the next obvious target that would globally demonstrate America’s technological prowess (Apollo was also an MEP), as well as revitalize education and society by activating raw human exploration passions — that have been hard-wired into us for 200,000 years.

3. “To a visitor from Mars it must have seemed that the Western world in 1914 was on the brink of Utopia,” according to historians J. Harrison and R. Sullivan (1966). Unfortunately, this pinnacle of Polar Maslow Window ebullience crashed in 1914 with the onset of World War I, the “Great War.” For more, click HERE.
The Peary/Amundsen Maslow Window is consistent with the lesson of the last 200 years: public support for Great Explorations and Macro-Engineering Projects typically vaporizes shortly after the economic boom peaks due to financial, political, and/or military factors. Maslow Windows flourish for less than a decade, and — unless we make special plans for it — the 2015 Window is unlikely to be an exception.

2. Although antarctic exploration began with an international organization in the mid-1890s, the desire to be first to the pole — i.e., pole mania — was overwhelming to some explorers. When Amundsen realized that Peary had reached the north pole in 1909, he made secret plans to be first to the south pole. For more, click HERE.
The Amundsen-Scott pole mania episode is reminiscent of the 1950s Cold War, which featured the International Geophysical Year’s plans to launch satellites into Earth orbit and resulted in the surprise Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957; Sputnik ignited the Race to Space as the Apollo Maslow Window opened. As we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, is an Amundsen/Sputnik-type surprise likely to trigger the Next Race to Space?

1. Will there be a Grand Alliance for Space? Although the Polar Maslow Window failed in that regard (See #2), it’s likely the technical and financial challenges of early 21st Century space colonization will require a globally coordinated approach. The last 200 years indicate that twice-per-century pulses of Great Explorations and Macro-Engineering Projects are likely to be the focus of global ebullience in the foreseeable future — especially in space. And AIAA’s Jerry Grey and others have even suggested a multi-decade plan for unified, global settlement of the solar system. The spectacular achievement of the $ 100 B International Space Station and current international plans for Moon exploration and bases suggest hopeful movement in the right direction.

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.

In a historic election, American voters have chosen Barack Obama as their President-Elect. So it’s of interest now to evaluate how our long wave forecast model held up and what this selection means for the human future in space, and especially the onset of the 2015 Maslow Window.

As stated previously, this weblog’s major interest was not to express personal preferences for any candidate, but to reasonably project the direction of the U.S. and global space programs and related activities.

Will President Obama lead the U.S. and the world into the next race to space, and open up the planetary worlds to all humankind? Click .

21stCenturyWaves.com has shown that ebullient Great Explorations and Macro-Engineering Projects are associated with rhythmic, twice-per-century major economic booms, such as in the 1960s. The continuing global financial turmoil motivates our interest in this election, because without the return of the long global boom interrupted in 2007, there will be no Maslow Window and no 1960s-style space spectaculars.

The following points illustrate our forecast model’s robust character.

“There was only one issue — the economy,” according to close McCain advisor Sen. Lindsey Graham (Wall Street Journal, 11/7/08). With the economy as the presidential campaign’s focus, long-term economic influences initially made it reasonable to favor McCain over Obama; see Kennedy and Eisenhower.

However, three “wildcards” intervened:

1) During the Summer Olympics, the Russians attacked Georgia. This seemed to favor McCain given his war hero experiences.
2) The Panic of 2008 occurred and the Republicans took the blame. The Wall Street Journal headline (11/5/08) said it all, “As Economic Crisis Peaked, Tide Turned Against McCain.”
3) McCain was not an effective campaigner. For example, Wildcard 2 forced Sen. McCain to support Bush tax cuts that he’d previously voted against. Plus, McCain couldn’t seem to decide if Sen. Obama had lied about his relationship with Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers, or was “a decent person…that you do not have to be scared of,” (WSJ, 11/7/08).

As it turned out, Wildcards 2 and 3, trumped 1. But were these truly “wildcards”, or could they have been forecasted?

Although the exact timing of Wildcard 1 was not forecasted, this style of Russian aggression was not unexpected given the return of Cold War-like tensions in Europe — something that was likely in this timeframe based on long wave forecasts. Unfortunately, it can be expected to intensify.

Likewise for Wildcard 2 — although exact timings in market-related events are also difficult — a financial panic was also in the cards, based on the last 200 years of macroeconomic trends. Indeed, two of the last three Maslow Window openings featured major financial panics early in the decade just preceeding them: 1837 and 1893; only 1949 avoided one, see discussion HERE. With the Panic of 2008, the record is now 3 of the last 4 decades just prior to Maslow Windows were so afflicted.

Wildcard 3 was not predictable based on long wave trends, but Sen. McCain’s conflicted campaign style was obvious (New York Times Magazine, 10/26/08)

What of the future? The following points will be influential:

1. The Russians can be expected to continue to misbehave. Putin has already begun trying to intimidate Obama in the style of Biden’s campaign warning (10/19/08): “Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy… Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

2. The U.S. remains a “center - right” country politically, “and if Obama loses track of that, he’ll be a weak-ass Jimmy Carter in office, especially with all those Clinton-clones hanging around,” according to vehement Obama supporter and Democratic political strategist Thomas Barnett. Also, a revealing Rasmussen survey conducted October 2 found that 59% of all surveyed and 44% of Obama voters agreed with this: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” (Wall Street Journal, 11/10/08).

3. The long-term trend of the economy is up, based on 200 years of macroeconomic data. This suggests that the current recession will be less like the Great Depression and more like the pre-Maslow Window panics in the 19th Century; both led to spectacular, on-time Maslow Windows.

4. Obama is flexible in his approach to problems and Obama’s key political asset is his Kennedy-like charisma. We’ve indicated before that Obama’s Kennedy-like persona suggests he could be the next Space President, but his long wave timing seemed a little premature. His main problem now is the duration of the current recession. The Los Angeles Times (11/9/08) reports that Obama backs public works projects in the style of Franklin Roosevelt as a way to combat a prolonged downturn.

If Obama can turn the recession around in his first term then he still has a chance to be The One to lead the world into the 2015 Maslow Window. Otherwise, he’ll be forced to leave it to his successor.

A key question is: Given the current financial panic, is it likely the United States will play a leadership role in space colonization and exploration between 2015 and 2025? The question can be split into two more fundamental ones: 1) will the U.S. remain a global superpower in the normal sense of the word, and 2) will the U.S. aggressively pursue large-scale, unprecedented space activities of the type expected during the next Maslow Window?

Is America’s global leadership declining? Click .

Doubters abound regarding the U.S.’s future superpower status. For example, Germany’s finance minister, Russia’s prime minister, and Iran’s president have predicted U.S. “hegemony” is ending. And the New York Times, Der Spiegel, and Guardian columnist John Gray, all foresee a diminished America.

In this blog, I’ve featured rational arguments that suggest the U.S.’ superpower status will be uninterrupted, because:
1) The U.S. is not only the weathliest and most powerful country now, but in all of history; see Professor Madden.
2) The U.S. has weathered major challenges for over 200 years and continued to flourish; see Lewis & Clark.
3) The analog between Britain’s decline and the U.S. is very weak; see Zakaria.
4) America’s bright future is enhanced by its world-class universities and robust demographics; see Zakaria.

Bret Stephens, in the Wall Street Journal (10/14/08) asserts that “America will remain the Superpower,” because — referring to America’s opponents and critics — “When the tide laps at Gulliver’s waistline, it usually means the Lilliputians are already 10 feet under.” This is seen in a variety of economic stressors where the U.S. is favored vs. other countries, including inflation, ability to finance a bailout, government debt to GDP ratio, amount of foreign direct investment, and others.

The New York Times (10/12/08, David Leonhardt) anonymously quotes a senior Chinese economist who says that people in his home country do not doubt America’s prospects, “They know its ability to turn around problems is really unmatched, historically.”

Stephens concludes that no matter who wins the upcoming presidential election, “the United States will eventually regain its economic footing and maintain its place” as the Superpower.

In space, will the U.S. be a Gulliver or a Lilliputian? Click ?

Assuming the U.S. remains the Superpower, will the financial panic reduce the U.S. — in the space arena — to a Lilliputian or will it remain a Gulliver? Several points are relevant:

1) George Friedman (Stratfor, 10/16/08) notes that the current panic is less like a systemic collapse (i.e., the Great Depression with 50% GDP decline over 3 years) and more like an “inflection point” related to business cycles. For example, in the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989 government bailout was 6.5% of GDP, while currently government intervention is about 5%. Friedman concludes that a recession is coming but it “would not break the framework of the postwar economy.”

2) The timing of the current panic relative to the anticipated opening of the next Maslow Window (2015) is a concern. For example, economists believe the credit crunch could last “well into 2009,” (San Diego Union-Tribune, Dean Calbreath, 10/19/08). Until credit problems are resolved, “the current recession could be much deeper and longer than otherwise.” A worst-case scenario would be the decade-long Great Depression. This suggests the next Maslow Window could start near 2018, about 3 years “late”. On the other hand, two major 19th Century panics began within a decade of their Maslow Windows and did not delay their openings or diminish in the least their spectacular Great Explorations and MEPs. I’ve noted before that two factors — renewed Cold War-like tensions, and strong international interest in Moon bases — suggest the Maslow Window might open earlier than 2015. These geopolitical effects might even counter an unusually long recession, similar to how the war economy of W.W. II ended the Great Depression.

3) There was no financial panic in 1949, one decade before the onset of the Apollo Maslow Window, which featured the Cold War’s race to space and footprints on the Moon in 1969. Does that imply that the current panic (7 years before the 2015 Window) will interfere with realistic prospects for international space spectaculars between 2015 and 2025? It appears that the 1949 NON-panic was due to the post-war boom (for which the Boomer generation is named!) and financial reforms passed during the Great Depression. I concluded earlier that a good analog for our current situation is the Panic of 1893 which lasted through that decade but ultimately gave birth to the most spectacular Maslow Window of the last 200 years (until Apollo).

However, there is still considerable uncertainty about how our current panic will end. Arthur Laffer (Wall Street Journal, 10/27/08) believes that “this administration and Congress will be remembered like Herbert Hoover,” and that “the age of prosperity is over” because even more government bailouts are in our future. And The Economist (10/16/08) concurs: “Even if it staves off disaster, the bail-out will cause huge problems. It creates moral hazard: such a visible safety net encourages risky behavior. it may also politicize lending.”

On the other hand, it’s possible that international events will play a stimulating role. We may unify globally and have a Grand Alliance for Space, or someone might decide that a Sputnik-style surprise conveys irresistible geopolitical advantages. Either way it will get our attention.

Southern New Mexico has to be in the running for the global title of Most Ebullience per Capita, even rivaling Panama. Spaceport America (near Las Cruces) — the world’s first commercial spaceport and host last week of a major conference on commercial spaceflight — is taking off!

Spaceport America may open in 2010. Click .

Executive Director Steve Landeene says, “We’re in the very early stage of creating a new kind of air transport system. Space tourism is the first phase, along with the commercial launching of satellites and spacecraft that can carry cargo and even astronauts to the international space station and maybe later the moon,” (Washington Post, 5/10/08)

Wow — A vision for launching astronauts to ISS, and maybe later the Moon!! Not bad for a site initially eyed by Stanford University and NASA in the early 1990s as a passive, reusable space capsule landing site, and more recently, that survived the exciting prospects of single stage-to-orbit operations at the “Southwest Regional Spaceport” only to see it fade away in 2001 with the cancellation of VentureStar.

Of course it helps to have Richard Branson agree to make New Mexico the world headquarters of Virgin Galactic as well as the primary tenant of Spaceport America, explained Landeene at San Diego’s AIAA Space 08 Conference in September. And other campanies such as UP Aerospace and Lockheed Martin also plan future launches from the $ 225 million Spaceport.

The type of early ebullience characteristic of the runup to the next Maslow Window is exemplified by serious futuristic talk about “point-to-point” intercontinental transport; where rocket-powered vehicles move cargo or passengers between spaceports much faster than is possible now. In a recent interview in Space News (10/20/08) Landeene confirms that, “Even just a few months ago people were trying to keep this idea low profile…But I do believe we’re going to see that kind of transportation…I don’t hear any naysayers.”

Spaceport America’s recent success includes passage of a sales tax in support of the Spaceport in 2 nearby counties. A third county will vote in November and then a Spaceport Tax District must be formed to administer the revenue by the end of 2008. Assuming their pending Environmental Impact Statement is approved and the FAA grants a Spaceport Operators License, they’ll become the first commercial portal to the cosmos in late 2010!

And, indeed the social scientists think so too. As we approach the spectacular 2015 Maslow Window — a decade that economic and other indicators over the last 200 years suggest will be the analog of the 1960s, including a Camelot-like zeitgeist — a new academic social science journal is bursting over the horizon. “The Sixties: A Journal of History, Politics, and Culture.” It’s published by Routledge and edited by Jeremy Varon, Michael Foley, and John McMillian.

The 1960s was the time of humanity’s greatest explorative event: the first man on the Moon. It was and is the greatest because it was the first time humans left Earth and set foot on another world. The Sixties was also the first time in the last 200 years that a Great Exploration (i.e., Apollo to the Moon) was thoroughly integrated with the predominant macro-engineering project (i.e., the Apollo program infrastructure) of its time. For example, the Great Explorations of 1909-11 (the polar expeditions) — which many decades later were judged to be among the top 100 greatest events in all human history — were unrelated to their great contemporary MEP: the Panama Canal — except maybe in their joint sharing of a feeling of almost global ebullience.

The momentous Saturn V symbolized the first time a Great Exploration was thoroughly joined with an MEP in the last 200 years. Click .

The Apollo Moon program was fundamentally triggered by an unparalleled economic boom accompanied by the surprise 1957 launch of Sputnik and the intense confrontations of the Cold War. However in the typical pattern of Maslow Windows during the last 200 years, Apollo was effectively terminated by declining 1960s ebullience and affluence due to the Vietnam War. Nevertheless, Apollo remains a major international symbol of the Sixties.

Although, in their Editorial announcing the new Sixties journal, the editors somehow forgot to mention the most compelling technological and geopolitical theme of the Sixties — the race to space — maybe in time they will rediscover it, because they are on the right track. For example, they sense that the 1960’s produced an ebullience “that continues to initrigue, inspire, confound, amuse, tempt, repel, and capture us.”

In the Sixties, the editors recognize that “all this energy — by parts dignified, militant, uptopian, and delusional — was of great consequence…No recent decade has been so powerfully transformative in much of the world as have the Sixties.”

The Sixties decade “has become plainly iconic.” It continues to “not only define us but remains urgently with us.” But the editors display frustration with their lack of understanding of what created the Sixties’ “transformative longing”: “As time passes, and periodic predictions that a given society or the world is poised for a similar experience prove false, the very fact that ‘the Sixties’ happened at all seems increasingly remarkable.”

We can help them with this one. The last 200 years show that rhythmic, twice-per-century major economic booms create climates of affluence-induced ebullience (known as Maslow Windows) that are momentarily manifested by Great Explorations (e.g., Lewis and Clark), massive MEPs (e.g., Panama Canal), and a utopian feeling of “transformative longing” (e.g., Apollo). The record shows that exceptional ebullience does not propel all people to elevated levels in Maslow’s heirarchy. Tragically, some trigger major wars.

The Sixties editors prefer to consider the “long Sixties” from 1954 to 1975. According to the 56 year energy/economic cycle, the year 2008 corresponds roughly to (2008 - 56) 1952. So it’s not surprising that academics have renewed interest now in the Sixties. Long-term trends — over the last 200 years — indicate the “new 1960s” will begin in only 5 to 7 years..

Earth’s greatest hits don’t just include “Rock Around the Clock” by Bill Haley and the Comets; most actually cosiderably predate him, such as the the 6 mile-wide asteroid that took out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and even the 1908 Tunguska impact in Siberia where a 5 megaton explosion leveled 2,000 square miles of forest.

Tunguska-size events — caused by an object one half the length of an American football field — may occur every few centuries or so but when they do, can dramatically impact regional agriculture possibly triggering famine. Our current knowledge of possible future impacts includes Asteroid 99942 Apophis which has a small probability of hitting in 2036 but would produce a 500 megaton explosion — about 10 times larger than the largest H bomb ever tested — and unimaginable destruction. And astronomers estimate that over the next 15 years, several dozen Near Earth Objects (NEOs) will be discovered that could produce local or regional devastation on Earth.

Because, given enough warning time, we are far from helpless against such gobal threats, former Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart and the Association of Space Explorers International Panel on Asteroid Threat Mitigation recently (9/25/08) recommended to the United Nations the establishment of a global organization to “assist the international community in preventing loss of life and property” from space impactors.

After detecting a potentially threatening NEO, questions will arise about what nations are at risk and who should be evacuated, if and how the NEO should be deflected, and who is authorized to make mitigation decisions with accompanying liability and financial responsibility. In all cases, “timely adoption of a decision-making program is essential to enabling effective action.”

Schweickart suggests that within 10 -15 years, an international Mission Authorization and Oversight Group could develop policies and procedures and eventually make recommendations about any looming NEO threats to the United Nations Security Council for action.

Assuming the United Nations proves to be the appropriate entity for this type of responsibility, this global asteroid organization might eventually expand into non-asteroid space functions until it becomes a truly global space agency, similar to our Interspace model (see also TWTW). Another possibility is that by the 2015 Maslow Window, an Interspace-type global organization might become the centerpiece of a Grand Alliance for Space, in which the major international space powers cooperate peacefully and productively in the colonization of space. In this case, Rusty’s global asteroid mitigation group would be a natural outgrowth of the Grand Alliance.

As the old saying goes, “The first A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.” Well, at least one speaker at the AIAA Space 2008 Conference in San Diego last week thinks it shouldn’t.

Arthur Hingerty (AIAA 2008-7718), president of the MagLifter Research Consortium in Denver thinks Aeronautics should be dropped and NASA should refocus its efforts on Exploration of the solar system.

This is consistent with expectations here at 21stCenturyWaves.com because the world has changed since 1958 when NASA was formed. Two key things driving NASA’s evolution are: 1) NASA’s plans to establish bases on the Moon and later Mars, and 2) serious international interests in human spaceflight beyond LEO, including lunar bases.

A NASA JSC Lunar base concept by John Frassanito & Associates. Click .

The pointless, age-old squabble over using human crews vs. robotic systems is easily resolved by recognizing that both are required to “…advance and aid the establishment of human settlements on our Solar System’s planetary bodies…,” which Hingerty wisely proposes should be the “central purpose” of the new agency.

Hingerty believes that without long-term space exploration providing a clearly defined goal, future Apollo-style programs could be subject to Cold War-like influences and “once the geopolitical influence is removed or changed the human spaceflight program will lose direction…”

In fact, “geopolitical influences” are a prominent feature of every Maslow Window of the last 200 years and can indeed be expected to affect future human space exploration programs, including those likely to start in the next 5 - 7 years.

This is not to discourage Hingerty’s powerful idea, because NASA needs exploration as its central purpose. However, it is to say that geopolitical influences will inevitably interfere with major space programs, and the best counter to declining public support — when it occurs near 2025, depending on wildcards — is to strive for a measure of self-sufficiency at Moon bases or Mars ouposts at the earliest possible opportunity.

NASA would become NSEA: the “National Space Exploration Administration!”

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish…if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take.” Such was the historic vision of President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961 to the Congress.

Who will be the next Space President? Between 2013 and 2016, who will give the speech committing the U.S. to the development and colonization of space?

While it’s possible that neither of the current contestants will be president in 2013, one of them might, so it’s interesting to consider their qualifications. Just a reminder that at 21stCenturyWaves.com, forecasts are based on our perceptions of trends over the last 200 years, not necessarily on personal preferences. Our major interest is how the political season plays into our space forecast models.

Our future Space President must develop the following characteristics: 1) be willing to spend money on big projects, 2) have an interest in technology and space, and 3) be able to sense the zeitgeist of the times and lead the U.S. and its friends at crucial moments in history.

For example, President John F. Kennedy’s brother (Senator Ted) has campaigned energetically for Obama and definitely sees parallels with the former president, as does Ted Sorensen, one of JFK’s closest advisors. Obama’s campaign confirms #1 and his public personality suggests #3 is probably secure. One could argue, by analog with President Kennedy, that when the the next international race to space begins, he will become qualified for #2.

McCain’s campaign suggests he’s less inclined to spend than Obama (#1); interestingly, his tax proposals are more in line with President Kennedy’s than Obama’s are. On the other hand, McCain has already in principle endorsed a human mission to Mars (#2), and in recognition of his long experience in the Senate and the military, McCain (in 2005) was awarded the Eisenhower Leadership Prize. While President Eisenhower saved the world from the Nazis in WW II, near the end of his political career he was slow to appreciate the profound significance of Sputnik for the West (see Kennedy quote above). Is there a parallel for McCain?

So in a sense, it’s “Kennedy” vs. “Eisenhower” in 2008. This is a race that never happened in history and there may be reasons why.

Indeed, based on long-term trends in economics and history over the last 200 years, this blog presents strong evidence that the great explorations (e.g. Lewis and Clark), macro-engineering projects (e.g., Panama canal), and even major wars (W.W. I), were fundamentally driven by long waves (56 yr period) in the economy. Although generally invisible to the public and the media because of their multi-generational length (56 yrs), it appears that long waves provide a framework for the day-to-day economic, social, and geopolitical conditions that affect us all.

So it’s logical to ask if long waves in the economy play an influential role in presidential elections. And the unusual circumstances of Kennedy vs. Eisenhower provide a wonderful laboratory for investigation.

In addition to the interesting economic, geopolitical, and personal parallels between Eisenhower and McCain and Kennedy and Obama, we’ve also sketched the analogs between President George W. Bush and Truman. These continue to suggest to suggest to us that long-term trends play an influential, and possibly even a pivotal, role in presidential elections.

However, one of my favorite columnists — Peggy Noonan — gently dismisses this notion, although her analysis seems to support it (Wall Street Journal, August 9-10, 2008). For example she states that “McCain’s not Truman, not so far.” She’s correct here — George W. is Truman and McCain is Eisenhower — and both analogs are explained by long-term trends. And she recognizes that “Mr. Obama’s problem on foreign affairs is his own youth and experience. In a time of high stakes, do we want Mr. Untried and Untested.” Long term trends show that we are entering a period of growing international conflict — possibly resembling a new Cold War. At this stage in the wave (circa 1952) the nominal forecast model suggests that the lingering conservatism of Americans will opt for McCain’s experience over Obama’s charisma. Author and political scientist Thomas Barnett, initially an enthusiastic Hillary supporter and now a gung ho Obama guy, gently criticised the McCain choice as just “safe.” And his opinion is likely the way American voters will see it. Even the Russians fit the forecast. They sought the cover of the Olympics to launch their aggression against Georgia, but they also reminded American voters shortly before the election that it’s a dangerous world.

David Greenberg in the Los Angeles Times (8/17/08) suggests that “Not only Bush but the conservative movement that he led and embodied seems to have run its course.” But Noonan counters that, “…the ’silent majority’…It’s been called many things the past 50 years…but the fact that it’s big…and somehow always latent, maintains.” Our nominal forecast model suggests that Peggy is right here, because the electorate is feeling similar economic, geopolitical, and social influences to the world of 56 years ago when Eisenhower became president. Greenberg is premature either 4 or 8 years, when the Maslow Window’s ebullience will trigger a 1960s-style zeitgeist and a new “President Kennedy.”

And what of internal wildcards? Consider the V.P. choices: both candidates seem to have weakened their basic themes. Obama’s theme is “change,” but he chose someone who’s been in the Senate longer than McCain. And McCain’s theme is “experience,” but he chose someone who is a young, first-term governor of Alaska. In the end, do VP choices even make a difference?

The real question is: Will Americans vote more like 1952 — exactly one 56 year economic/energy wave ago — when Eisenhower was elected over another Chicago intellectual (Stevenson), or will they vote more like 1960 when John F. Kennedy was elected at the beginning of the first race to space. Our nominal model suggests the former is more likely this November, followed by the latter in 4 or 8 years as the spectacular Maslow Window swings open!

The seminal Lewis and Clark expedition (1804-06) explored the Lousiana Territory through to the Pacific and has more parallels with the 1960s Apollo Moon program and lessons for future human exploration and settlement of the Moon and Mars than most people realize. The top 10 lessons of Lewis & Clark include:

10. Despite political opposition, Thomas Jefferson was enthralled by the exciting science and monumental strategic implications of exploring an overland route to the Pacific. Analogous to President Kennedy’s 1961 speech to Congress announcing the manned Moon landing, Jefferson pursuaded Congress by explaining his visionary rationales and requesting funding in a letter. Like both of these Great Explorations,
Presidential leadership will be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for any major space initiative like humans to Mars.

9. While Kennedy had the Soviet’s Cold War aggressions to deal with, Jefferson had to deflect Napoleon’s desires for a North American empire. In 1802 Jefferson wrote, “Every eye in the U.S. is now fixed on this affair of Louisiana. Perhaps nothing…has produced more uneasy sensations through the body of the nation.” Jefferson decided to send Lewis and Clark through Louisiana to the Pacific no matter who controlled it, and Kennedy boldly decided to go to the Moon in 8 years, although no one was sure it could be done. Like Lewis & Clark and Apollo, a compelling national strategic challenge (including international confrontations) will play a role in motivating Moon and/or Mars programs.

8. The 1960s Apollo Maslow Window featured the spectacular Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space programs which — in 8 years — culminated in the first man on the Moon in 1969. While not as well-planned as Apollo, Jefferson’s 3 pre-Lewis & Clark attempts to explore the northwest go all the way back to 1783 and, although unsuccessful, were highly instructive. They included a plan to explore from the Pacific coast eastward to St. Louis after a water passage from Russia; unfortunately, the would-be explorers were arrested in Russia and deported. The bottomline is: the first manned Mars expeditions may experience difficulties and will require at least a decade (one Maslow Window) of intense operational and technological preparations.

7. On April 11, 1803, when Napoleon decided it was more important to fund his European war machine than keep Louisiana for France — “I renounce Louisiana…not only New Orleans…the whole colony…reserving none of it,” — it may have surprised Jefferson, but he was definitely ready for action. Indeed the Corps of Discovery departed St. Louis only one year later. Likewise, although initially caught offguard by the surprise Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, NASA was formed in 1958 and Neil Armstrong took “one small step for a man…” on the Moon less than 12 years later. Although the world is full of wildcards,
the antidote for a Sputnik-like surprise in the next 5-7 years is focused preparation, many international partners, and the ability to anticipate the unexpected.

6. As is typical for Maslow Windows, the decade just prior to Lewis & Clark was a major economic boom; per capita income increased by 25%, international credit was almost unlimited, and by 1800 the U.S. population’s doubling time was 22 years! The 1960s economic boom was unparalleled and, “For the first time in human history, a majority of people (in the U.S.)…could have all of their needs and most of their desires met on demand.”
The last 200 years — including Lewis & Cark and Apollo — show that Great Explorations (and Macro-Engineering Projects) are fundamentally triggered by major, rhythmic, twice-per-century economic booms that result in an unusual level of societal affluence and ebullience. This creates a mindset — as people ascend Maslow’s Heirarchy — where great explorations and large technology projects are not only favored, but seem almost irresistible.

5. Lewis & Clark were “shocked” to learn that the Rockies are not just a single wall of mountains immediately adjacent to the Columbia River headwaters; imagine the shocks awaiting future explorers on a complex, Earthlike world like Mars! On Mars there will be no friendly natives (such as at the Nez Perce Camp) willing to feed starving explorers, suggesting that a “split mission” strategy — where food, consumables, and return propellants are sent FIRST to Mars — makes a lot of sense. Lewis & Clark’s length of mission (2+ years), planned wintering in Oregon before return (like waiting for an orbital launch window to open), and other parallels suggest that aspiring Mars explorers need to be scientifically and psychologically prepared to handle anything, and might even benefit from the journals of Lewis & Clark and other long-term explorers (e.g., Magellan).

4. The Jay Treaty in 1794 opened new markets in Canada and the Great Lakes for the North American fur trade industry and by 1800 made some wealthy, including John Jacob Astor.
Inspired by Lewis & Clark, Astor used his wealth to open up the West by founding Fort Astoria and by sponsoring the Astor Expedition (1810-12), during which South Pass in Wyoming was discovered. For Oregon Trail emigrants and others, South Pass became the key to continental passage by land.
Entrepreneurs and adventurers (e.g., mountain men) played a major role in opening up the West. Today Richard Branson and others may be the new John Jacob Astors as they seek the low energy, safe, economical path — like Astor’s South Pass — to space.

3. The War of 1812 — a tragic example of post-Lewis & Clark ebullience gone wild as Americans unrealistically attempted to militarily conquer Canada — delayed post-Lewis & Cark attempts (like Fort Astoria) to open the West to commerce and people until about 1820. And by 1834 the fur market had declined. The famous Bank Panic of 1837 was a financial collapse second only to the Great Depression; the Panic delayed economic growth for several years until it accelerated again toward the next Maslow Window in 1847. Despite creating great financial hardship for many, the 1837 Panic also provided incentive for some to move west. Alhough economic recessions cause turmoil and hardship for many, the last 200 years show they are usually relatively brief (< 1 year) and inevitably give way to the major economic boom of the next Maslow Window. On the other hand, wars -- like 1812 or Vietnam -- always reduce or terminate Maslow-driven ebullience as well as the great explorations and MEPs (e.g., manned Mars) linked with them.

2. The journals of Lewis & Clark generated great interest in the West and made it possible for many to migrate there during the NEXT Maslow Window (opening in 1847). The migration westward did not follow Lewis & Clark immediately because of the War of 1812, economic stresses (including the Panic of 1837), and the time needed for both Lewis & Clark’s message to diffuse and emigrants to get organized. By 1846 the nation was really on the move with about 20,000 westward-heading emigrants.
The following are consistent with Lewis & Clark and the Great Migration West: 1) the colonization of space did NOT occur immediately after Apollo but is expected to begin during the 2015 Maslow Window, 2) Mid-19th Century westward migrations were limited by financial, operational, and safety factors, which will also influence early 21st Century space colonization, and 3) the first humans may start exploring Mars (during the 2015 Maslow Window) simultaneously with the first steps toward space colonization (orbital and lunar hotels) and space industrialization (solar power sats).

1. Ebullience!!! The California Gold Rush began in 1848 (until 1855) with 300,000 people being drawn to California. In the first 5 years about 370 t of gold was removed ($ 7 B at 2006 prices) with many times that being extracted over he next few decades. The Gold Rush coincided almost exactly with the mid-19th Century Maslow (Dr. Livingstone in Africa) Window, 1847-57, and displayed classic ebullience. One author sees the Gold Rush as a national fork in the road because it, “marked the moment when people stopped believing that hard work leads to a good life…(and) that anyone could strike it rich…a pursuit that continues to this day,” — a very ebullient mindset! The end of the Gold Rush and threat of the Civil War in 1860 moderated this attitude. One gold rush analog for space will be tourism. In the 1950s, New York’s Hayden Planetarium solicited reservations for Moon trips and collected 100,000; how’s that for pre-Apollo ebullience?! And in the late 1960s Apollo era, Pan Am’s commercials used to feature the tease line, “Who’s the only airline with a waiting list for the Moon?” after collecting tens of thousands of eager Moon trippers. So the market’s definitely there. Space tourism will start next year with brief suborbital jaunts but will soon graduate to weekend stays in Earth orbit hotels. Honeymoons at the Moon could materialize in the 2020s. Space resource “gold” could eventually include the Sun’s energy (collected in space for use on Earth), and oxygen (from the Moon) and/or water (from Mars) for habitation and rocket propellants.

With Moonbases becoming the international status symbol for aspiring space powers and entrepreneurs beginning to tap the $ multi-Billion space tourism market, the 2015 Maslow Window may eventually make us think of the California Gold Rush as a rather quaint, restrained period in U.S. history!