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.

Last week the National Intelligence Council (NIC) released its most recent unclassified global briefing, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World that closely parallels forecasts of this weblog. 21stCenturyWaves.com forecasts are based on patterns in long-term trends in the economy, technology, exploration, and society over the last 200 years, that include spectacular pulses of Great Explorations and Macro-Engineering Projects (MEPs) known as Maslow Windows.

NIC provides long-term strategic thinking for the U.S. Intelligence Community and reports to the Director of National Intelligence. It has a Deputy National Intelligence Officer for each of 12 areas and subject matters, including East Asia, Europe, Russia and Eurasia, Economics and Global Issues, and Military Issues, etc., and consults with experts in academia and the private sector.

Global Trends 2025’s preliminary assessments for the next 15 years include:

1) We should expect “unprecedented economic growth.” This NIC assessment is completely consistent with this weblog’s economic forecasts that include rhythmic, twice-per-century major economic booms; the next one should culminate around 2025. This “unprecedented economic growth” is essential for the affluence and ebullience that’s driven the spectacular Great Explorations and MEPs of Maslow Windows over the last 200 years.

2) “The whole international system — as constructed following WW II — will be revolutionized.” There will be “new players — Brazil, Russia, India, China — …at the international high table…bringing new stakes and rules…” This NIC expectation is consistent with the history of exploration over the last 200 years and supports our forecast that NASA will become more globally oriented. More specifically it supports our 1992 concept for a truly global space organization (like Interspace) that could take shape in 4-6 years to optimally focus global assets on human exploration of the solar system.

3) “The potential for conflict will increase…and the unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East …will continue…” Sadly, the last 200 years show that every Maslow Window of the last 200 years is terminated by a major war; this NIC assessment is consistent with our forecast of another major war in the mid-2020s. If this war comes early (e.g., 2020), in addition to widespread death and destruction, we could lose many or most of the Great Explorations and MEPs anticipated for the next Maslow Window. The timing of the major 2020s war remains a total wildcard of crucial importance.

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.

The Big Question is what to do after 2010 when the Shuttle is retired? Many ask if it makes sense to rely on a guy like Vladimir Putin for a ride to the Space Station.

For Putin’s violent little adventure in Georgia, President Bush has sought appropriate punishment and Secretary of State Condi Rice has said “There can be no business as usual…” As a result, the President’s major initiative to increase US-Russian collaboration on nuclear energy production is at least temporarily dead in the Senate (Wall Street Journal, 8/23/08). And, although supported by US Senator Bill Nelson (FL), a waiver that would allow the US to buy launch services to ISS from Russia (required because they sell nuclear technology to Iran) must be passed ASAP (e.g., by January) by a reluctant Senate.

One result of the long-term approach used here at 21stCenturyWaves.com, is the realization that as we approach a Maslow Window (coming in 5 - 7 years), international tensions will probably increase; sadly, the last 200 years shows they always have. And in this dynamic international environment, while collaborations with potential geopolitical opponents are usually productive, becoming dependent on them for key space services is not.

But the good news is that SpaceDev of Poway, CA is here to potentially save the day. They want to stack their Dream Chaser piloted spacecraft on an Atlas V launch vehicle — a modernized descendant of the early Atlas, developed by my former company General Dynamics, that launched the first American — John Glenn — into orbit in 1962. (Incidentally, I remember little about my first day on the job in the early 1980s at the Kearney Mesa plant in San Diego, except being given a tour of the Atlas assembly facility. A life-altering experience for a total space guy like myself!)

A view of the spectacular General Dynamics Atlas assembly line in Kearney Mesa (San Diego);
Click .

SpaceDev’s Frank Taylor and Russell Howard reported recently (AIAA-2008-7837) on preliminary trade studies and analysis of this Dream Chaser/Atlas V concept for servicing missions to the Space Station and judge it to be “promising.”

The Atlas V includes a dual-engine cryogenic Centaur upper stage and 2 strap-on Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). Dream Chaser is always a piloted vehicle with 6 crew on a personnel mission and 1 pilot on a cargo mission, with 4000 to 6000 pound payload capability to ISS. Atlas V can enhance payload capability by using up to 5 SRBs. The need for rapid separation and escape during an abort after launch drives their preference for a no-fairing option (surrounding the DC). The DC/Atlas V combination would launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and could use the Shuttle Landing Facility if necessary.

Key remaining issues include achieving human-rating for the Atlas V and aerodynamic controllability of the integrated vehicle. Possible development schedules were not discussed in the AIAA paper and neither was cost, although it is likely to be considerable.

But with a little luck, for 2010, it’s potentially a Dream Chaser come true!

“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!

Until a few days ago the plan was to hitchhike a ride on a Russian Soyuz after the Shuttle is retired in 2010 and before its replacement is ready in 2015, when American astronauts need access to the International Space Station (ISS) .

Now we’re not so sure.

According to U.S. Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who spent 6 days in 1986 orbiting the Earth in the Shuttle Columbia (STS- 61C), “There will be consequences not just for Russia but for the U.S. too. That’s a $ 100 billion investment up there that we won’t have access to.”

The problem is a 2000 law that prohibits U.S. purchases of Russian technology — including Soyuz spacecraft — as long as Russia is exporting nuclear technology to Iran. The planned Congressional waiver would have enabled NASA to use the Soyuz to transport astronauts to the space station after 2010.

Now, the word from Washington is the waiver is DOA and there’s no back-up plan for ISS. This turn of events is particularly interesting considering Buzz Aldrin’s and other’s recent comments about the lack of plans for a commercial vehicle to reach ISS and opinion polls that revealed a relative lack of public concern.

Unfortunately, an increase in tensions potentially with Russia and/or other nations is expected based on the last 200 years of international conflicts. Despite our desire to avoid it, some see a return already to a Cold War mentality; for example, Russia’s recent attack of Georgia has similarities to the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. That was rapidly followed by the surprise launch of Sputnik which triggered the first race to space.

Hopefully this time we can avoid most of the violence and engage cooperatively in our global 21st Century thrust into space, as we approach the spectacular 2015 Maslow Window.

In addition to the expansive joy of Great Explorations from Lewis & Clark to Apollo, and stunning Macro-Engineering Projects (MEPs) like the Panama Canal, the last 200 years also teach us one sobering fact: Each Maslow Window is also associated with a tragic, major war (e.g. W. W. I).

And sadly, the 2020s are unlikely to be an exception.

For example, the early 20th Century Maslow Window (1903-1913) was one of the most ebullient, productive decades in history. I highly recommend Jim Rasenberger’s new book America 1908; it was an amazing time “…of boundless imagination — everything was bigger, better, faster, and greater than ever before.” President Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet on a show tour around the globe, as a precursor to his leadership of the greatest MEP of the last 200 years (until Apollo): the Panama Canal. Admiral Robert Peary and many others began their long, arduous (in some cases, deadly), globally enthralling treks to both the north and south poles. Some 50 years later, reaching the north pole was still considered to be one of the top 100 historical events of all time. Not even to mention the technological ebullience of the Wright Brothers flight and the New York to Paris automobile race!

The zeitgeist of the Polar Maslow Window was perhaps best expressed by a couple of 1960s historians, “To a visitor from Mars it must have appeared that the Western world in 1914 was on the brink of Utopia,” (see Cordell, 1996). Tragically, it all came screeching to a halt with World War I.

The Apollo Maslow Window (1959-1969) was even more ebullient. According to historian Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman, “For the first time in human history, a majority of people in one of the largest countries on earth could have all of their needs and most of their desires met on demand.” However, the heating up of the Vietnam War in 1968 hurt the spirit of the Peace Corps and terminated the Apollo Moon program; the last three planned Moon landings were canceled by President Nixon.

So what does the future hold? The Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM) of the University of Maryland has published Peace and Conflict 2008, which shows global trends in wars from 1946 to 2005 (by J. Joseph Hewitt). 98% of violent conflicts since 1946 show a flat trend at about 80,000 annual deaths. However, the other 2% - represented by 5 especially lethal wars (including Korea and Vietnam) - show an average decline of 3600 annual fatalities per year since 1946, with an mean of one major conflict every 12 years.

The bottom line is that roughly once-per-decade major wars have continued since 1946 but have a downward trend in battle deaths. And during the last 200 years, a major war always occurs at the end or shortly after a Maslow Window (between 2020-2025+). The possibility of a major war is the biggest threat to the peace and security of the world in the 2020s and has the potential to force postponement of Moon and Mars explorations and MEPs to sometime after 2071, the opening of the next Maslow WIndow.

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.