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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

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.

Every other Friday the State of the Wave summarizes specific progress toward the opening of the 2015 Maslow Window and movement toward real, near-term space colonization. The focus is on events and trends from around the world of long-range significance, especially in the context of the 10 Wave Guides.

It’s easy this week, although not very pleasant, to summarize the Wave: the Russian invasion of Georgia has thrown the 2010+ future of the American space program into real uncertainty. (See Russian Invasion and the Shuttle 5-Yr Gap)

Using Russian systems as an add-on launch capability was one thing, but becoming dependent on the Russian Soyuz for American access to the Space Station is proving to be a deeply flawed strategy. Will there be a U.S. commercial alternative that can substitute for the Shuttle after 2010?

Because the Russia/Georgia crisis has implications far beyond the space program, and the U.S. feels a need to punish Russia, the prospects for U.S. human spaceflight after 2010 appear dim, even if Georgia does join NATO in the near future.

As we approach a time of ebullient global space activity, many space-related groups are very energetic. For example, a space elevator conference was recently held at Microsoft in Washington. Their hopes center on major technology advances in power beaming and ultra-strong materials, but their technology literally offers the relatively near-term promise of a frontier society in space. Likewise India announced recently that they have decided to launch their own spacecraft to the Moon, in addition to participating in the multinational agreement signed recently with the U.S. as part of the International Lunar Network.

Based on long-term trends over the last 200 years, the major economic boom expected to usher in the next Maslow Window is right on schedule for a 2013-15 take-off. However, short-term, the Wall Street Journal (8/15/08) highlights a 4-year unemployment peak in July of 5.7%, an uptick in U.S. inflation (July’s 17 year high of 5.6 % from the year before), plus sluggish GDP trends in Europe. But China, India, and other developing economies continue to expand strongly, and the dollar’s increasing strength could cool inflation somewhat.

To provide historical perspective, it’s interesting to identify analogs of major recessions that gave way to the major economic booms that drove previous Maslow Windows. One such example is the Panic of 1837. The Panic began 20 years before its 56 year cycle energy peak (in 1857) while our current economic “recession” began in late 2007, about 18 years before our peak (coming in 2025). Thus its wave timing (very similar to now) and its severity (considerably worse than now) make it very relevant to our future.

The Panic featured closure of 40% of all U.S. banks, record high unemployment, and economic turmoil until 1843; it is considered second only to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Nevertheless, the mid-19th Century Maslow Window (1847-57), powered by a major economic boom, opened right on schedule and featured ebullient behavior like Stanley’s African search for Dr. Livingstone engaged in his Great Exploration (”Dr. Livingstone I presume?”) and the California Gold Rush (1848-55). This Maslow Window also featured the “technological jewel” of the 19th Century — the Suez Canal — plus several other secondary MEPs, and tragically, the worst war in U.S. history: the Civil War. More on this Panic soon.

The current picture — sadly including Russian misbehavior and flickering of a renewed Cold War — is very consistent with our expectations 5 to 7 years out from our next Maslow Window.

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.

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.

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of NASA’s founding (in 1958) this week, we should keep in mind that this organization has provided some of the greatest exploration and technology thrills imaginable (e.g., 1st on the Moon), and has the potential to do even more as the 2015 Maslow Window starts sliding open in the next 5+ years. However, the number “50″ suggests the circumstances will be different.

The Economist (7/24/08) provides some commentary and quotes NASA boss Mike Griffin: “The moon race was more than exploration for its own sake, and a lot more than an exercise in national pride; it was considered a real-life test of the viability of our open society—a vindication of the very concept of freedom.” Although gently dismissed by The Economist, it is true that freedom and exploration are inseparable, especially for Great Explorations and MEPs of the type considered here.

In my opinion, Dr. Griffin is the best NASA Administrator since the 1960s glory days. He’s technologically sophisticated, got his head on straight about what NASA is for, and doesn’t mind enthusiastically telling you about it. In fact, he reminds me a little of Tom Paine, the NASA Administrator during the late Apollo era who had to contend with the likes of the brilliant and dynamic Wernher von Braun. I met Dr. Paine at a 1980s Case For Mars Conference in Boulder and got the sense, as did we all, of what a great visionary he was.

However, NASA has changed since then. There’s a great little book by Howard McCurdy (Inside NASA; 1993) that I highly recommend. NASA started with rapid growth in a crash program (e.g., Apollo Moon vs. the Soviets), and then with the space race won, funding levels dropped and the NASA engineers and scientists aged. And so did NASA.

Emphasizing generational culture and waves, “…the first generation of NASA employees and scientists…(were)…raised during the Great Depression and the Second World War…and accepted the middle-class values of honesty and hard-work as natural parts of life,” according to McCurdy, but NASA’s 2nd generation, “…inherited an organization with much weaker central control and far more bureaucracy.”

That’s where we’ve been until the last few years, when it became fashionable again to speak of a return to the Moon and then Mars. Interestingly, McCurdy’s little hint of a connection between long-term economic trends and generational cycles is supported in more detailed writings (e.g., see The Kondratiev Cycle, by Michael Alexander; 2002) and will play an important role in the future of NASA.

So what’s next for NASA? Is the economy going to crash? Will human spaceflight be swept away? Is the world ending? Well, if you’re looking for gloom and doom, you came to the wrong place. This is a reality-based weblog! It’s based on long-term patterns in macroeconomics, technology, exploration, and society, over the last 200 years. Most media and other commentators do not focus on these long-term timeframes, so naturally their perspectives are limited.

The last 200 years clearly indicate (see Cordell, 2006) that Great Explorations and Macro-Engineering Projects (MEPs) like Apollo are fundamentally driven by long waves in the economy. The next such “Maslow Window” will start near 2015 and run until 2025, unless terminated early by a wildcard. Growing international interest in Moonbases and robotic planetary missions suggest that NASA will flourish if it can do 2 things: 1) make international cooperation and international leadership a fundamental feature of its programs, and 2) move the focus of human spaceflight from LEO to deep space (e.g., the Moon).

If NASA can facilitate the formation of a truly global space organization (e.g., like Interspace) in the next few years, we may be able to avoid a 56-year old replay of a Cold War-style international space race complete with a Sputnik-like shock.

(Incidentally, Economics Contributing Editor Ann Hovey and I just wrote an AIAA paper for September’s Space 2008 conference in San Diego that considers these issues, including economic scenarios. As soon as I get approval from AIAA, I’ll post it on this site.)

SPECIAL NOTE: Thanks to political scientist Dr. Anny Wong for her contributions to this post.

A key issue for civilization is whether we’ll establish a significant, self-sufficient presence in space by 2025. If not, the last 200 years suggest that our next real opportunity won’t be until 2071. And by then, the world will be unpredictably different. So the 2015 Maslow Window is essentially our last forecastable shot at establishing a large-scale human presence in space.

Will China accelerate this process? The answer is ‘Yes’, and here are 10 reasons China is good for space:

10. China’s space program stretches back more than 35 years, suggesting that space will expand in importance because of the growing economic, technological, and scientific culture of the country. Responding to Sputnik in 1958, Mao Zedong asserted, “We too must build artificial satellites.” China’s first successful satellite launch was in 1970. Some of the earliest scientists involved in China’s space program were disillusioned Chinese Americans who found pride in the new China and were fed up with a glass ceiling in the U.S..

9. In manned space, China is already at the Mercury/Gemini stage. It’s first manned orbital mission was in 2003 and its 3rd is this October. With plans for a space station in hand, they’re right on schedule to play a major role in the spectacular 2015 Maslow Window.

8. China’s space infrastructure is among the most advanced in the world, and includes the development of the Long-March rocket systems, successfully entering the international commercial launch market in 1985, developing a variety of Chinese launch sites, and creating Chinese satellites for military, communications, weather, and space sciences. Plans for the Chinese manned space program began in 1985.

7. China’s very rapid economic growth hovers around 10% annually. This is very important internally to the Communist Party leaders, as well as to major export sources like Wal-Mart! It also provides the financial cornerstone for future Chinese technology and space initiatives.

6. China’s space program is very popular with the Chinese public which adds to program momentum as it bolsters Chinese nationalism, something the government leadership needs every now and then to make the public forget its faults — like major corruption, environmental problems, and huge economic disparities.

5. China has growing high-technology industries and international connections that can support future space initiatives. For example, in addition to information technology, China has made aerospace a top national priority in industrial development — so bet on China courting Boeing and all others to build their equipment there and groom human talent at the ground level.

4. China has gained international prestige from its space adventures. International prestige feeds domestic pride, but more importantly, it’s the additional weight it gives China in security and defense matters where international prestige really counts.

3. Energy-hungry China may decide to lead solar power satellite development. Facing $ trillions of energy infrastructure costs in the next 20 years, China may decide to develop this inexhaustible energy source that would reduce both environmental pollution and strategic tensions.

2. China and U.S. (and others) may form a Grand Space Alliance for the 2015 Maslow Window. If indeed we’re “less than 5 years from a new generation of Chinese leaders with whom a far stronger relationship may be built,” — see Thomas Barnett — new options are possible. With joint interests in global security, new energy sources, and the exploration of space, China and the U.S. may decide that a “Football Game” model is more productive than the previous Cold War space experience was. In an American professional football game there are rules, big money, great excitement, intense competition, and winners and losers, but at the end of the game both teams survive, learn, and remain friends; they also look forward to the next game on the schedule.

1. A less attractive option is that China (and partners) may stimulate the rapid development of space by challenging the U.S. in a Cold War-style confrontation, complete with a Sputnik-like event. Reason #2 (above) is basically a model of greatly expanded International Geophysical Year-style friendly cooperation. However, in 1957 it led to the surprise launch of Sputnik which shocked America and triggered the 1960s race to space between two very unfriendly countries.

As we draw closer to the 2015 Maslow Window it will become clearer which model of international space development — “Football Game” or “Cold War”– will occur.