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.

As a Senator from Massachusetts campaigning for the U.S. Presidency in 1960, John F. Kennedy visited this stunning 1950s Macro-Engineering Project (MEP): the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan.

To see JFK and Michigan Governor Williams on the Mackinac Bridge in 1960, Click jfkmac.pdf
(See Mackinac Bridge by Mike Fornes)

JFK himself was just warming up.

Indeed, he was less than a year from setting in motion some of the most powerful exploration and technology symbols of all time: namely the Apollo Moon program.

Because he initiated the Apollo program — both the greatest Great Exploration and the greatest MEP in history — President Kennedy can rightfully be considered the Thomas Jefferson of his time (for Lewis and Clark, a Great Exploration) as well as the Theodore Roosevelt of his time (for the Panama Canal, an MEP). Revealingly, all three were president during the same portions of their respective economic booms (i.e., the Maslow Windows) during the 56 year energy/economic wave.

Last Monday the Chicago Tribune (Jill Zuckerman, 7/14/08) suggested there are parallels between John McCain and President Theodore Roosevelt that might explain why McCain sees Roosevelt as a “soulmate.” Aside from the obvious military connection, McCain admires Roosevelt’s vision for America in the 20th Century. Shockingly, the Tribune article fails to even mention the Panama Canal — the greatest pre-Apollo MEP of the last 200 years — nor Roosevelt’s quintessential role in it.

This weblog continues to test the hypothesis that the key reason Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy had many similar opportunities, accomplishments, and interests was because they all governed at similar times during the major, rhythmic, twice-per-century economic booms that produce affluence and ebullience (i.e., Maslow Windows), and invariably result in Great Explorations, MEPs. and sadly, major wars.

This similar timing, relative to their economic waves, of the 3 presidents means their electorates — although widely separated in time (about 160 years) — would have been subject to a similar economic and social framework. For example, Theodore Roosevelt took office in 1901, twelve years before his energy cycle peak in 1913. But McCain, if elected, will take office in 2009, a full 16 years prior to the next energy peak in 2025. This economically significant 4 year difference means that McCain will not experience the relative economic boom that greeted Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy when they took office; McCain’s ebullient Exploration/MEP agenda — if he has one — would have to wait 4 more years. Indeed, in 4 or 8 years is when long-term trends suggest the next JFK-like president will be elected.

This also suggests that parallels between McCain and Roosevelt may be overestimated. Instead, we continue to see impressive economic, political, and military parallels between McCain and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Because Eisenhower was elected one full 56 year cycle ago, and assuming that long-term economic and social trends are relevant to the electorate today, John McCain — the most Eisenhower-like candidate — should be favored this November.

The Mackinac Bridge has connected the lower peninusula with the upper peninsula of Michigan since 1957, the same year that the 1st race to space began with the Soviet launch of Sputnik.

The bridge is a stunning example of pre-Apollo ebullience and impressive state-of-the-art technology in a 1950s secondary Macro-Engineering Project (MEP). Although a bridge at this location had been discussed since the 1880s, when the growing emotional and financial ebullience of the mid-1950s intersected with the engineering brilliance and vision of Dr. David Steinman, the Mackinac Bridge became a reality.

Construction actually began in 1954, about 5 years before the opening of the Apollo Maslow Window (men first landed on the Moon in 1969). Total cost was about $ 1 B (current $). Given the world-class technological challenges of severe and changeable winter weather (wind, ice) — that dwarf those of the Golden Gate built in 1937 — the bridge is a marvel and was designed by New York engineer Dr. David Steinman.

During his interview for the position, Dr. Steinman was asked what would happen if a ship loaded with iron ore crashed into the bridge; his ebullient response was, “The boat would sink with a serious loss of life.” That was the right answer, and needless to say, he got the job; See Mackinac Bridge (2007) by Mike Fornes.

This week I experienced a near-perfect weather day at the Mackinac Bridge and took this picture (and others) of what is still an amazing structure, especially if you attempt to cross it during high winds! These views are from Mackinaw City looking north.

To see Bruce’s beauty shot of the Mackinac Bridge, click mac11.jpg.

The Mackinac Bridge’s 5 mile length replaced the Golden Gate Bridge as the longest suspension bridge in the world. Steinman actually designed the bridge to withstand winds up to 600 mph. Not to worry, the highest wind ever measured on the bridge was only (!) 124 mph in 2003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The world’s largest scientific instrument — CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) — is approaching “switch on” and the search for what physicists call “the God particle” is on again! The sparkling excitement associated with this type of Big Science and its pursuit of the nature of matter, black holes, and the origin of the Universe, reminds us of another project…

Once upon a time there was an American project called the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). SSC was to be 3 times more powerful than LHC and targeted the same holy grail of physics. But despite being advocated and managed in the U.S. by the world’s best physicists, it failed.

SSC’s fate is illuminated by the last 200 years of patterns in the economy, technology, and society, and provides lessons for future macro-engineering projects (MEPs) and great explorations.

Lesson 1: Never initiate a $ multi-B MEP during the downgoing portion of the 56 year energy/economic cycle (it peaked in 1969). Society was not affluent (we were headed for the 1987 stock market crash; largest since the Great Depression) and cost was an issue. SSC cost was estimated at $ 4+ B in 1987 and $ 12+ B in 1993 when it was finally canceled by Congress.

Lesson 2: Never propose a big MEP during the downgoing portion of the 56-year energy/economic cycle when another spectacular MEP has already been approved. President Reagan announced Space Station Freedom in 1984 and SSC site selection began in 1987. We’re reminded that SSC wounds haven’t healed yet by Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg who last year called the International Space Station (ISS) an “…orbital turkey,” and ridiculed human spaceflight in general.

Lesson 3: Large MEPs like SSC that are proposed between Maslow Windows (i.e., “trough” projects) must be associated with a strategic conflict (e.g. the A-Bomb project during WW II) for them to be viable. SSC was a competition between the U.S. and our friends the Europeans; Congress lost interest.

Lesson 4: MEPs proposed at any time must be impressive and inspirational to achieve public approval. Unlike the pyramids, European cathedrals, and the Panama Canal, most of SSC was buried underground and invisible. Although the physics was profound, the message was lost.

I highly recommend Matthew Parker’s new book, Panama Fever - The Epic Story of One of the Greatest Human Achievements of all Time — The Building of the Panama Canal. (See Non-Space MEPs, Wave Guide 8) Parker dazzlingly explains how the greatest macro-engineering project (MEP) of the last 200 years - until the Apollo Moon Program of the 1960s — set the stage for the “American Century” and dramatically accelerated globalization. Indeed, the Panama Canal of 1914 was the equivalent of Apollo for the early 20th Century Maslow Window.

Just as Apollo captured global attention and passion during the 1960s, “Panama Fever” spread through the early 20th Century Western World, despite the fact that the cost, management, and technological challenges of the Canal were unparalleled. And the tragic war-like death toll exceeding 25,000 — although the “war” was with disease and disasters — indicates the high international stakes associated with the Canal.

Roughly every half century during periods of unparalleled economic booms, exceptional societal affluence makes monumental MEPs financially possible, and the associated ebullience (as society ascends the Maslow Heirarchy) makes them, at least momentarily, politically irresistible. Panama and Apollo show how compelling this combination of affluence and ebullience can be. As I remarked in the Wave Guide 8 Perspectives piece, there is no shortance of early ebullience on display around the world today. Perhaps the most impressive example is the Panama Canal Expansion project. The overwhelming political support by Panamanians for this risky, estimated $ 5+ B MEP (more than original cost) is stunning. It’s precisely the sort of early ebullience we’d expect within 10 years of the rapidly approaching 2015 Maslow Window.

Surprisingly, one of the most reliable indicators of an approaching Maslow Window has nothing to do with space; we call them Non-Space Macro-Engineering Projects (MEPs). Our definition of an MEP is adopted from a former president of the Society for the History of Technology, Eugene S. Ferguson; An MEP is 1) at the state-of-the-art of technology for the time, 2)extremely expensive (multi $ B) and usually physically large, and 3) sometimes practical in purpose, but often aimed at satisfying intangible needs of a spiritual or psychological nature and 4) it is always highly inspiring.

One lesson of the last 200 years is that each Window (except the first in 1801) is decorated with at least one MEP. Typically, one MEP is especially ascendant, but the secondary MEPs are often precursors of the approaching Maslow Window and a measure of real-time “ebullience”.
For example, the Mackinac Bridge, which connects the upper and lower peninsulas of Michigan, began construction in 1954 after many decades of frustrating attempts. It opened in 1957 for a total cost of $ 1 B (2007 $). In 1959 an Air Force pilot deliberately flew his RB-47E Stratojet (a reconfigured bomber) under the bridge and promptly lost his wings! (Who could resist?!)

Secondary to the Panama Canal, the main MEP of the 1903-1913 Maslow Window, was the luxury passenger ship, the Titanic. Unless you haven’t been paying attention for the last 10 years, the words “Titanic” and “ebullience” definitely go together; if you haven’t seen the 1997 video, go rent it. Likewise the MEP jewel of the 19th Century was the Suez Canal, but it was preceeded by a gargantuan ship called the Great Eastern. Intended as a passenger ship, the Great Eastern only found use laying the first trans-Atlantic cable (another mid-19th Century secondary MEP).

Today the world is littered with so many plans for non-space MEPs you can almost hear them screaming, “Maslow Window approaching in 2015!” The current non-space MEPs include the 2001 foot Tokyo tower (due 2011) to be the tallest free-standing antenna in the world, the new 1,588 Kowloon Tower in Hong Kong (3rd tallest commercial building in the world), a proposed $ 16 B canal project in South Korea, Moscow’s $ 4 B Crystal Island development (due 2014) to be the largest building in the world and was recently compared to the biblical Tower of Babel by the LA Times (2/2008), mega-projects in China, mega-projects in Dubai, and many others.

Perhaps the best evidence for early ebullience is provided by the Panama Canal Expansion Project. At an estimated $ 5.25 B it will slightly exceed the original Panama Canal cost, and the original Panama Canal was the greatest MEP in the last 200 years until Apollo. In 2006 the Panamanians approved the risky, expensive project in a national referendum by 76.8% of all votes, and the president of Panama recently stated that the revenues from the expansion will transform Panama into a first-world country.

These and many other non-space MEPs will be tracked in future Wave Guide 8 posts for consistency with our expectations and forecasts for the increasing affluence and ebullience characteristic of an approaching Maslow Window.