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.

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.

“The prime exploratory challenge of the next fifty years is…surely to seek firm evidence for, or against, the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence,” according to Martin Rees, professor of cosmology and astrophysics at Cambridge University and Astronomer Royal; (see The Next Fifty Years, John Brockman, Ed., 2002).

Finding extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) would be a compelling long-term goal for humanity in the spirit of Bob Scaringe, who recently suggested interstellar travel (IT) to nearby stars as a way of ensuring human survival as well as motivating a multicentury, global space program. Indeed, the dynamic ETI/IT duo could stimulate a grandiose, long-term program which might even be launched during the next Maslow Window when ebullient extraterrestrial passions are likely to be high.

As of November 14, 2008 The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia lists 326 planets — mostly “hot Jupiters” — that have been discovered orbiting other stars. Current optimistic estimates are that the fraction of stars with planetary systems is between 30% and 50%, implying that there could be 50+ billion planetary systems in our Galaxy.

On Earth, humans appeared only about 200,000 years ago suggesting that billions of years might be required for ETI to appear on another planet. Because the Sun’s H-burning Main Sequence (MS) lifetime is 10 billion years, the ratio of humans’ emergence time to the Sun’s MS lifetime is about 0.5. Brandon Carter has suggested that this ratio for ETI will probably be close to 1 (did humans appear “early”?), and that ETI is unlikely in very young planetary systems.

A Dyson Sphere would prove the existence of ETI. Click .

In a provocative article in Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (February, 2008), scientist/author Martin Beech suggests that advanced civilizations near Sun-like stars would eventually engage in planetary engineering of any Mars- or Venus-like planets (e.g., Fogg, 1995) or even Dyson Spheres that could capture most of their star’s energy for use in lofty planetary-scale projects that might be detectable from Earth.

Using age estimates for 123 exoplanet-supporting stars (as of 2005), Beech plots the number of exoplanets vs. the ratio of star age to MS lifetime (a function of star mass); age ratios vary from 0 to 1.5 and the number of exoplanets for each age ratio varies from 1 to 18. Beech suggests that terraforming and Dyson sphere construction might begin as early as 0.4, interstellar migration could flourish from 0.9 to 1.1, and “sterilization” would engulf any planetary system from 1.1 onward as the star becomes a planet-killing red giant.

Beech lists 6 stars of particular interest known to be within 1% of their MS lifetime (i.e., age ratio very near 1). Although no Earth-like planets have been detected in any of these 6 ETI-optimal systems, 3 theoretically allow stable planetary orbits within their habitable zones; they are HD4308, HD190360, and 70 Virginis.

If habitable planets are discovered near these or similar stars, ebullient Earth-bound astronomers contemplating interstellar voyages will check their spectra, to see if “the lights are on” just in case any ETI’s are home.

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 Apollo Maslow Window — aproximately 1959 to 1970 — was a remarkably ebullient time of Great Explorations like Apollo that were accomplished by great explorers. But not all of them went up into space, a few went down — way down.

Perhaps the most daring of them all was oceanographer Jacques Piccard who died yesterday (New York Times, 11/2/08) at 86 in his Lake Geneva, Switzerland home. On January 23, 1960 Piccard and a Navy officer (Lt. Don Walsh) took the Trieste straight down 35,813 feet into the ocean’s deepest spot — the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench — near Guam in the western Pacific. By the way, the summit of Mount Everest is “only” 29,035 feet above sea level, and commercial jets typically cruise between 30,000 and 35,000 feet, just for some perspective.

In 1960, Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh took the Trieste 35,813 feet down into the Challenger Deep; the only time it’s ever been done. Click .

According to Mr. Piccard, “By far the most interesting find was the fish that came floating by our porthole. We were astounded to find higher marine life forms down there at all.” The Challenger Deep has a pressure of 17,000 psi; almost 1200 atmospheres.

As a young boy during this time I had been amazed by the launch of Sputnik in 1957, the birth of NASA and the space program shortly after, but when I heard about Piccard and the Trieste, it blew me away. Although going into space had its own dangers, somehow the idea of going 7 miles into the ocean scared me to death. The daring of Piccard and Walsh still gives me chills; it was the only human mission to the Challenger Deep ever made.

Piccard studied economics, history, and physics in college, and then taught economics at the University of Geneva while helping his physicist, aeronaut, hydronaut father develop the bathyscaphe for deep sea missions. The U.S. Navy was so impressed with the Trieste that in 1958 they bought it and hired Piccard as their consultant.

Just 2 days before the launch of Apollo 11 to the Moon in 1969, the “Ben Franklin”, also known as the Grumman/Piccard PX-15 mesoscaphe, was launched into the Gulf Stream off the coast of Palm Beach, FL. It had a crew of 6 headed by Piccard and, at a depth of 1000 feet, drifted northward 1,444 miles during more than 4 weeks. Before the mission, Wernher von Braun – father of the American space program and developer of the Saturn V launch vehicle — visited the Franklin in Palm Beach. He asked NASA scientist Chet May to go on the Franklin as a NASA observer, to study the effects of long-term isolation on the crew for possible insights into long duration space missions.

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..

Einstein once said that God doesn’t play dice with the Universe, but Einstein had little to say about anyone playing golf on the Moon. However, Aristotle insisted that the highest human goal is “happiness,” which many associate with golf, maybe even in space. And this brings us to legendary Apollo astronaut Alan B. Shepard. (See New York Times, October 13, 2008.)

Alan Shepard on the Moon in 1971; Click .

Admiral Shepard’s unparalleled national hero credentials were secure in 1961 when he became the first American in space. He’d been chosen from the world’s best test pilots as one of NASA’s original 7 astronauts. But after being kept out of the space flight action through much of the 1960s because of an inner ear ailment (solved by surgery), he wanted to walk on the Moon.

Shepard luckily missed Apollo 13 — the mission that Tom Hanks made even more famous — because he needed more training. His crew wound up on the Apollo 14 trip to Fra Mauro, a spectacular valley about 360 km south of Copernicus crater that’s littered with ancient secrets.

Just before leaving the Moon, Shepard casually produced a 6 iron and a few golf balls and proceeded to become the first human to play golf on the Moon. He liked the idea because in 1/6 g (and no air), the balls will travel more than 6 times farther than on Earth. You can relive the historic moment…

To see Al Shepard play the first golf shot on the Moon, click HERE.

Shepard enjoyed golf, on any world. Towards the end of his life he spent most of his time at his home in Pebble Beach, CA, a golfer’s paradise. He also played pro-ams such as the Bob Hope Classic in Palm Springs, where I accidentally ran into him in the late 1980s. He lamented that “the wheels had come off” his game, but of course it didn’t matter.

Astronaut Shepard was ahead of his time. True space colonization will require us to live, work, and play during our lengthy times in space, and Shepard — in an ebullient lunar moment — wanted to teach us that. Although some considered his golf shots to be unprofessional during a Moon mission, they were actually among the most profoundly human moments of the 20th Century.

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.”

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.

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!