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

The World is not enough… Click .

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

The Moon is not enough… Click .

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

Is Mars enough? Click .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should it be Mars?… Click .

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

…Or the stars? Click .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is America’s global leadership declining? Click .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce’s presentation last Thursday to the AIAA Space 2008 Conference in San Diego is now online here.

“Forecasting the Next 20 Years in Space: The New Race to Space,” has 3 purposes: 1) to briefly introduce the macroeconomic and historical data of the last 200 years for Great Explorations, Macro-Engineering Projects, and major wars, and to explain how they provide a framework for 21st Century space and technology forecasts, 2) to explore the basic forecasts themselves for the next 20 years and summarize global events and trends supporting them, and 3) to feature space policy-related implications of the forecasts. The bottomline is that long waves in the economy provide a framework in which major exploring, impressive building, and tragic warrior behavior are especially enabled roughly every 56 years.

The 56 year energy cycle (discovered by Stewart, 1989) provides a remarkable indicator of macroeconomic activity; the energy peaks (e.g., in 1969) correspond directly to peaks in major decade-long economic booms. Indeed, the energy cycle and the better-known Kondratieff waves are directly correlated. And Alexander (2002) has shown that the popular Strauss and Howe (1991) generational cycles are also correlated with (and apparently influenced by) K Waves.

Historical data from the last 200 years clearly show that Great Explorations, massive MEPs, and major wars, cluster near the 56 year energy cycle peaks in 1801, 1857, 1913, and 1969 (and soon 2025). (See the presentation charts and The Articles.)

The close association of Great Explorations, MEPs, and major wars with the 56 year energy/economics cycle suggests the following “Maslow Window” model: Rhythmic, twice-per-century major economic booms create widespread affluence. As societal “Maslow pressures” are reduced, many people ascend the Maslow Heirarchy into an affluence-induced ebullient state and momentarily find exploring and building to be almost irresistible. While others also reach ebullience — but do not ascend the Maslow Heirarchy — and tragically trigger major wars. This unusual confluence of affluence and ebullience creates what we call a “Maslow Window” — a spectacular decade that rapidly declines just after the energy peak. The impressive economic, political, strategic, and scientific parallels between Lewis and Clark and Apollo are, for example, easily explained by this model, as are many other such parallels over the last 200 years.

Projecting the last 200 years into the next 20 suggests that the decade from 2015 to 2025 will be the analog — in the economy, technology, exploration, politics — of the 1960s, complete with a Camelot-style zeitgeist.

Many signs of the times (documented in this weblog) — most good and some bad — support the idea that society is approaching the 2015 Maslow Window, including: the greatest global economic boom ever (July, 2007; momentarily postponed by our current turmoil), energetic international space programs, return of Cold War-like tensions in Europe, birth of the space tourism industry, a global explosion of non-space MEPs (e.g., the $ 5 B Panama Canal expansion), the emergent exploration-loving Millennial generation, and many others.

Policy-related implications of this Maslow Window model abound and include: 1) public ebullience and support for major Maslow programs (e.g., manned Mars) will fade abruptly near the next 56 year energy peak (2025), 2) timing of the expected 2020s major war is a major wildcard, 3) planned human Moon and Mars initiatives should strive for self-sufficiency in space so at least some deep space (i.e., beyond LEO/GEO) operations can continue after Maslow Window closure near 2025, 4) current U.S. Moon base plans and Maslow Window timing appear to preclude American spaceflight to Mars during this Window (next Window opens in 2071), 5) the next rapidly approaching Maslow Window (opening in 2013-15) requires action now, not paralysis by analysis, … and many others.

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!

That’s Aviation Week & Space Technology’s quote of MIT’s Maria Zuber during her testimony before the House Science and Technology Committee hearing July 30 on NASA’s first 50 years. She was apparently responding to John Glenn’s assertion that a Moon base is not the best way to Mars. Along with the robotic vs. humans debate, the Moon vs. Mars thing has to be the oldest, most time-consuming argument in the history of NASA, and it’s apparently being revived.

Her comment does not appear in prepared testimony and apparently is in response to the committee, but with apologies to Dr. Zuber, let me take it out of context and depersonalize it from her because I have no idea what she meant, plus she does actively support NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). But many others have used language like this before regarding humans to the Moon and Mars, and here are a few “translations”:

1) “It really will take a lot more study…because we like to do studies.” Excuse me, but how much is enough? Let’s see, we have the recent VSE Exploration Systems Architecture report (2005), The President’s Moon, Mars, and Beyond (Aldridge) Commission (2004) — of which Dr. Zuber was a member, and the U.S. Space Policy (2004) — the OECD Space 2030 document (2004), the Stafford Report (1991), the NASA 90 Day study (1989), the Ride Report (1987), the National Commission on Space (1986), not to mention all the Case For Mars volumes, and the NASA Lunar Base & Space Activities of the 21st Century reports, plus all the myriads of other important engineering and policy studies since the 1960s, …it doesn’t end!

People who are good at studies always want to do more (myself included!). I suspect we don’t need more studies of what we need to do, but maybe we need more people reading the studies that have been done!

2) “It really will take a lot more study…because more study is sometimes the best way to avoid taking any action…” Paralysis by analysis folks are often opposed to the program anyway. Enough said.

3) “It really will take a lot more study… because we’re just not ready, the risks are too great.” Balancing risk with costs and benefits is a key aspect of planning for any space initiative, but reducing the risk to zero is impossible and unnecessary. I have a copy of the Final Summary Report for the NASA EMPIRE program (manned Mars) by General Dynamics, Astronautics (San Diego), “Preliminary schedule analysis strongly indicates that a 1975 (manned) mission…to Mars is in the realm of realistic technological planning...” It was 1963 — 6 years before the Moon landing — and Krafft Ehricke, Bill Strobl, and the other authors of the document calculated we were nearly ready to go to Mars.

4) “It really will take a lot more study…because otherwise we might make a mistake.” Of course we will, no matter what. For example, the Apollo program did not leave us with a space architecture to enable human expansion into the cosmos and it cost billions of dollars. Does that mean we shouldn’t have done it? Of course not. President Kennedy’s spectacular vision of human spaceflight to the Moon provided a global demonstration of the West’s stunning technological capability, its economic strength, and the value of freedom. Plus, along the way some fun science was done.

Speaking in 1990 of manned Mars missions, former NASA Administrator Thomas Paine confessed, “I think we should do it sooner than later…one of the great glories of the Apollo program was that we only had 8 years to do it. Believe me if we had 16…we would have used every week of that time…”

Our current challenge is the near-term opening of the 2015 Maslow Window (which may open closer to 2013). The well-meaning voices of “…a lot more study…” may make it hard for America to avoid another Cold-War Sputnik-like surprise. One way to avoid that is for the U.S. to conceptualize and fund the best version of its Moon/Mars program by involving as many international space partners as possible, now during planning, and later in operations.

While celebrating the first manned Moon landing 39 years ago, Sunday’s USA Today (7/20/08, by Dan Vergano), painted a bleak picture of a NASA in transition and human trips to Mars as far-future things. Unfortunately, it fits the profile of a world still 5 - 7 years from the next Maslow Window (see below).

Our long-term approach to 21st Century space forecasting is based on the concept of a “Maslow Window”, in which major, rhythmic, twice-per-century economic booms do two things: 1) each fuels the societal affluence required to spur large-scale technology and engineering activities, and, more importantly, 2) each creates widespread ebullience by briefly elevating society to the higher levels in Maslow’s hierarchy. Ebullience briefly creates an atmosphere of social well-being and confidence vital to undertake and support large, complex, risky, expensive, multi-year programs and explorations.

This powerful confluence of affluence and ebullience is seen only infrequently over the last 200 years, when major economic booms triggered the four great explorations: Lewis and Clark, Dr. Livingstone in Africa, the Polar Expeditions, and Apollo Moon.

But we’re not there yet.

NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration — featuring a return to the Moon by 2020 and Mars later –is a reasonable strategy, but according to John Logsdon (George Washington University), at this point, “Neither the White House nor Congress … seems to care!”

Well surprise…surprise, we have a lame duck president, an active presidential campaign, and a variety of other issues (e.g., budget, war) that are attention grabbers. And also, the economic stresses are still with us and are interrupting the “greatest global economic boom of all time” as described by Fortune magazine in July, 2007. When the boom returns in a few years — which it always does, over the last 200 years — the 2015 Maslow Window will start to swing open.

Speaking of the campaign, according to USA Today neither candidate is leading the charge into space, yet. Obama wants a debate on NASA’s goals, and McCain officially supports human Mars missions, but wants to freeze federal spending. But it’s not really fair to attack either of them. We should ask ourselves: In the 1960 presidential campaign, what did John F. Kennedy say about sending people to the Moon? And he rapidly became the greatest exploration and technology president of all time … so far.

International space powers will help the U.S. resolve the issue of what to do next in space — either by a Sputnik-like shock or by forming a global space agency — and then the new president (either candidate) will step up to the plate. However, long-wave timing suggests this may not happen until 2013 - 2015.

In the meantime, Lennard Fisk (University of Michigan) hits a homerun when he states, “The real problem is that NASA needs to be tied to a real, overriding national priority, such as protecting the planet from asteroids…Otherwise, NASA will just limp along.”

That’s the way life is when you’re 5 - 7 years from your 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 again to E.P. Grondine for ventilating some key ideas that relate to the unique long-term approach of 21stCenturyWaves.com.

Over the last 200 years (see Cordell, 2006), Great Explorations (and Macro-Engineering Projects; MEPs) are not accidents and do not happen at random times. They cluster around peaks in the 56 year energy cycle that coincide with major economic booms. The explorations become “great” not only because they open new geographic sites (e.g., arctic) to human scrutiny, but because large, international audiences of people become riveted by them.

In this model, the assertion of anthropologists that humans are by nature explorers — because of their 200,000 year history of exploration and expansion — is adopted. In the last 200 years, the explorer’s impulse can’t often be indulged by typical individuals because of economic and security (Maslow) pressures. However, during the twice-per-century major economic booms, widespread affluence elevates society to the higher levels of Maslow’s heirarchy. Thus for a brief period (called a “Maslow Window“), society reaches a semi-rational (almost giddy) state of “ebullience,” where Great Explorations are not just favored by most people, but seem almost irresistable.

However, ebullience rapidly decays as the economic boom slows, or as a major war (which typically occurs at these times) threatens peace and security.

Back to E.P. Grondine:
“Space launch costs are high, and likely to remain high, … Realistically, (and sadly) a likely date (for manned Mars) would be about 2030-2035. The only chance for manned Mars flight in my lifetime ended with the collapse of the Energia storage shed.”

While Grondine is correct about launch costs and heavy launch vehicle issues, manned Mars expeditions also appear to be a casualty of the rapid decay of ebullience; i.e., Maslow Windows usually linger less than a decade. Attempting to do both a Lunar Base program and a Manned Mars program sequentially in the same Maslow Window (between 2015 and 2025) will be impractical, unless a more-or-less independent human presence on the Moon or Mars can be established. In principle, this would allow the deep space base to continue operations as the Maslow Window closes.

Continuing with Grondine:
“…you don’t seem to have considered that Antarctica is easier to exploit than space.”

Polar regions are classic examples of Great Explorations. Both poles were reached by 1911. Little science was done but the sheer adventure enthralled the world. In his time Admiral Peary was the celebrity equivalent of Neil Armstrong. Up to now, the collective judgment of humanity has been to avoid large-scale colonization or exploitation of the polar areas, to establish international scientific stations there, and then move on.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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