This week the Obama administration proposed the termination of NASA’s Constellation program that targeted a return to the Moon for U.S. astronauts by 2020. After Shuttle retirement later this year (or next), crew transportation to ISS would be provided by hitching rides on Russian Soyuz launch vehicles, and eventually by developing the manned launch capabilities of American space companies — not of NASA.

Will the retirement of the Shuttle trigger a golden age for space for the U.S. and the world? Click .

Obama’s NASA boss, Charles Bolden, has already announced several grants to private space companies, including $ 20 M to to Sierra Nevada Corp. for development of its Dream Chaser crew module (launched on an Atlas V); See “For 2010 — A Dream Chaser Come True?” And $ 6.7 M to United Launch Alliance for an emergency sensing system for Atlas V and Delta IV rockets.

Our purpose here is not to debate the attributes of this paradigm shift — Not surprisingly the traditional NASA types and Congressional reps, especially in Florida and Texas (where unemployment will increase), believe the U.S. is abandoning world leadership in space, while the space commercialism folks receiving subsidies think it’s a victory for the future of space. They both are partly right; time will tell just how much, assuming Obama’s NASA plans are approved by Congress.

But a particularly striking aspect of this future NASA trajectory is the way it supports forecasts made here (and previously) based on long waves in the economy, and associated patterns in technology development and geopolitics. See: “Forecasting the Next 20 Years in Space — State of the Wave, Friday 9/12/08.”

THE TIMEFRAME
For example, in 1996 I forecasted that 2015 to 2025 would be the next major thrust into space:

The decade from 2015 to 2025 will be the analog of the 1960s; i.e., it will involve major activities in technology, engineering, and human exploration. There is every reason to believe that the focus will be on large-scale human operations in space and that they will be spectacular.

And in 2006, I identified 2014 as the likely timeframe when NASA would undergo a significant transformation.

Energy cycle timing and NASA’s birth date (1958) allow us to forecast that the new, international space organization will take shape by 2014 …

The transformation of NASA apparently beginning now is scheduled to culminate by 2016 — near the opening of the 2015 Maslow Window — when a non-NASA, commercial crew vehicle may begin regular deliveries of astronauts to ISS.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
In recent statements, Bolden has described a new style of international cooperation where the U.S. treats its international space partners as “equals” and with “respect.”

Roger Handberg (University of Central Florida) recently compared the multi-year gap between retirement of the Shuttle and onset of commercial crew launchers to the 6-year gap starting in 1975.

The full end of the Apollo program in the form of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 left the United States grounded until the space shuttle flew in 1981. However, any anxiety about that gap was minimized by awareness that the shuttle was coming, albeit slowly…

Handberg’s recent take on the looming post-Shuttle gap concludes that,

The United States at least temporarily moves from the position of dominant partner to that of dependent. This status will be uncomfortable but doable as a stopgap … one approach may be for the United States to fully opt into international partnerships led by a consortium of states with the US as one partner among others.

What this means is that the US must become comfortable with such close cooperation, as unilateral decisions with no prior consultation with partners will end … a new political arrangement needs to be developed.

Our model for a “new political arrangement” was proposed in 1992 (Cordell, 1992). Interspace is a global organization with ESA-like management structures featuring “equality” among the major international partners and the opportunity for other nations to participate according to their financial and technical capabilities.

In 1996, I forecasted that as we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, “increased parity among space-faring nations might trigger the formation of an international space agency in which the major space powers — USA, ESA, Japan, Russia — share power equally in the planning and management …”

THE PARADIGM SHIFT TRIGGER
Probably the fastest way to produce these profound transformations in U.S. space policy — extensive international cooperation, equality among partners, stimulation of the commercial space launch industry — is to remove NASA from the launch vehicle business, which apparently is Obama’s strategy.

THE WILD CARD
Until recently, most of the world expected the United States to lead an international manned assault on the Moon, which apparently is no longer in the cards with the cancellation of Constellation. Although Bolden assures us (FloridaToday.com, 2/2/10) that “We’re not abandoning human spaceflight by any stretch of the imagination.” He’s referring to Earth-to-LEO human spaceflight, not the Moon. Currently NASA has no specific goals or timetables beyond LEO, although Bolden enthuses that, “What’s exciting is that we’re now going to have a national debate about where we need to be going in terms of space exploration.” — something we’ve been doing repeatedly since the 1980s, and now we’ll do it again!

Removal of NASA from its traditional role as the launcher of astronauts to low Earth orbit and beyond is reminiscent of the mid-1950s, about one long wave ago, during the Cold War before the U.S. achieved dominance in manned space exploration during the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window.

And currently it’s possible to imagine at least 2 scenarios:
I) It’s Sputnik All Over Again — Although the U.S. has been grounded before in its space history (e.g., 1975-81), it has never happened during a crucial time in the run-up to a global Maslow Window as it will now. It’s possible this will encourage another Sputnik-style moment within the next few years when competitors of the U.S. decide to make dramatic, coordinated moves in areas like space energy, lunar colonization, and/or human spaceflight to Mars.
Or…
2) A Grand Alliance for Space — The totally new experience of truly close, equal cooperation among international space partners — including the United States — may trigger a “Grand Alliance for Space” as the world moves toward an Interspace/ESA-style global space organization.

Although we always hope and strive for the most productive, global approach to settlement of the solar system (e.g., Option 2), human history does not support such optimism. The events of the Cold War that gave birth to the 1960s space race plus the story of the international race to the South Pole (during the Peary/Panama Maslow Window), suggest that — when the stakes are high — humans may deceive and seek strategic advantage over a perceived competitor.

This is an elaboration of my recent post: “State of the Wave: 10 Space Trends for 2010,” which appeared before Obama’s state of the union address. Reports that NASA’s Moon program will be discontinued raise questions about U.S. leadership in space. And much of the current chatter in blogs and news reports ignores long-term trends in the economy, geopolitics, and politics — that have governed large-scale technology and exploration projects for the last 200+ years — and thus presents a somewhat confused picture.

When will an American astronaut see this view — Earthrise from lunar orbit — again? Click

Florida Today reports today (1/30/10) that the adminstration will kill the Constellation program designed to send astronauts to the Moon by 2020, but still provide funds for development of a new Saturn V class launch vehicle, favored by the Augustine committee. According to Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida,

My concern is that if all that $6 billion goes just to commercial rockets, then that’s going to push the development of (a new NASA heavy-lift) rocket well into the next decade, and that just means we get behind China and Russia. I think they will announce on Monday (a research-and-development) program to develop the new (heavy-lift) rocket. I just hope that it is not a puny R-and-D development that will push us off well into the next decade before we have the new rocket.

Pushing the heavy lifter “well into the next decade” would not only help China and Russia get ahead in space, it would also push our luck with Maslow Window timing; i.e., the 2015 Window should extend to 2025 but is subject to wildcards. For example, imagine what would have happened if the Vietnam War had intensified a year or two earlier than 1968. We might have lost all of Apollo instead of just the last 3 missions (Apollo 18, 19, and 20).

NASA will reveal the details of its proposed budget Monday.

Is President Obama really “worse” than Richard Nixon?

On January 27, former NASA boss Mike Griffin asserted that President Nixon’s termination of the Apollo Moon program was “one of the most significant, yet strategically bankrupt, decisions in human history.” But that President Obama’s anticipated ending of human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit is “even worse.” Despite the tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians who lost their jobs in 1972 due to Nixon, at least he “left us with the Space Shuttle,” According to Griffin, Obama’s action would leave “NASA and the nation with no program, no plan, and no commitment to any human spaceflight program beyond that of today.”

Griffin believes that the nearly complete International Space Station will be held …

… hostage to the hope that presently nonexistent commercial spaceflight capability can be brought into being in a timely way. The president has chosen to recommend that the nation abandon its leadership on the space frontier.

While it’s tempting to assign Obama an even lower place in the space history hierarchy than Nixon, it’s not entirely justified and may be premature. We need to consider the long-term economic and political context. For example, Obama was elected during the Panic of 2008 and has had to contend with the current great recession. This anti-ebullient time plus Obama’s growing political difficulties make it difficult for him to support visionary space programs. And history shows this is not the time anyway. When prosperity and affluence-induced ebullience return, the next Maslow Window will appear to open almost automatically.

Is Obama the next John F. Kennedy?

Here at 21stCenturyWaves.com, we’ve been asking this question since before the election, and still believe it’s possible but is not without speedbumps. For example, in his National Review Online (1/29/20) column — “Obama is No JFK” — Jeffrey H. Anderson states that,

at a time when the president claims his focus is on jobs, scrapping these (Moon-related) programs — on which we’ve already spent nearly $10 billion — would cut public spending in one area that actually creates jobs.

You know those great pictures of Earth from outer space … No (astronaut) has seen that view since the Apollo program ended 38 years ago … Now, unless Congress rejects the president’s recommendations, the next people to see that view will likely be the Chinese.

Whether it’s tax cuts or defense spending; or whether it’s the courage, ambition, and sense of wonder that combine to lead great souls to great feats of exploration and discovery; one can surely say this much about Barack Obama: Mr. President, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

Again, these comments cry out for context. President Kennedy was fortunate to lead the nation during the greatest economic boom up to then. Plus the surprise launch of Sputnik (1957) by the Soviets mobilized the country into founding NASA (1958), revitalizing support for education, and providing a slam dunk in Congress for anything JFK wanted in space. Obama and the nation are experiencing a 180 from JFK’s 1960s-style Camelot. But a world-altering Sputnik-like event — especially within the next few years — cannot be ruled out.

Could Obama become another Grover Cleveland?

I include the Cleveland link above for all of us history-challenged Americans (and others) who may not have read the 24th (and 22nd, by the way) U.S. president’s biography lately. To make a long story short, Cleveland was basically a principled guy who got caught up in the vicissitudes of the financial Panic of 1893 and the 1890s great recession. His economic policies were ineffective, the people lost faith in him, and he was replaced by William McKinley 4 years later.

The point is that the Panic of 1893 and the 1890s great recession have real parallels with the Panic of 2008 and our current financial difficulties. In fact, our current economic trajectory seems to have more in common with the 1890s than with the (post-World War II boom) 1950s just prior to the Apollo Maslow Window.

If Obama cannot reverse his record 20 point approval rating collapse in 2010, he could become the next Grover Cleveland. Polls reveal the public’s growing concern with unemployment, government spending, and deficits, and show the economic challenges facing the president. The public wants to see light at the end of the financial tunnel; i.e., signs that the current recession will soon begin its transformation into the next major economic boom.

All this is consistent with the long-awaited 2015 Maslow Window being a golden age of prosperity, exploration, and technology, as they all have been over the last 200+ years.

On December 30 major media outlets reported on a new, proposed Russian mission to deflect asteroid Apophis from a possible Earth-impact trajectory in 2036. Discovered in 2004, Apophis is 3x larger than the 1908 Tunguska impactor or almost 3 football fields long. NASA has estimated that a collision with Earth could produce a 880 Megaton impact — almost 20x the largest H-bomb ever tested (in 1961 by Soviets) and more than 4x the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa.

What does asteroid Apophis tell us about our world?
Click .
(Artist: Don Davis)

Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian space agency, said that Apophis’ flight trajectory was gradually approaching the Earth. “I don’t remember exactly, but it seems that by 2032 Apophis will ram into Earth,” (Pravda, 12/30/09).

Pravda also indicated that, “Russian specialists will choose the strategy to save planet Earth from Apophis and then invite world’s leading space agencies to join the project.”

This all seemed a little abrupt and surprising to me so I emailed Rusty Schweickart, Apollo astronaut and co-founder of the B612 Foundation, to find out if he’d been working with Perminov. He replied almost immediately that he had not been “involved.” The same day Rusty warned in the New York Times (12/30/09; Ellen Barry) that “It takes a very small change in the Apophis orbit to cause it to impact the Earth instead of missing it. There are a million asteroids out there. Find another one.”

Interestingly, JPL calculates that on April 13, 2036, Apophis’ closest approach to Earth will be 18,300 miles or about 8% of the Moon’s distance. And the odds of a collision are only about 1 in 250,000, justifying the Space.com (12/30/09) headline, “Russia May Attack Asteroid That’s Virtually No Threat.”

So what should we make of Perminov’s surprise December 30 announcement? Let’s speculate about two possible connections.

First, in August former Harvard professor Richard Pipes wrote that, “Russia is obsessed with being recognized as a ‘Great Power’…” This is partly due to their victory over Germany in World War II and “the success in sending the first human in space.” But Russia’s veering in the direction of a new cold war hasn’t helped them economically; “Russian aggression against Georgia has cost it dearly in terms of capital flight.” And Russia’s dependence on the global price of energy caused their exports to drop by 47% in first half of 2009.

So Russia — like the rest of the world — sees being a great space power as a key part of being an important global power. And they see the approaching new Space Age as an important time to demonstrate again their impressive capabilities in several areas, including manned space (e.g., transportation to ISS), new infrastructure (e.g., the new Vostochny Cosmodrome), and future planning (e.g., asteroid deflection missions).

But Apophis doesn’t become even a tiny threat until 2036, and even the Apollo Moon program took less than 10 years, so why make the announcement now?

This second question is more speculative than the first but the announcement’s timing may be related to two issues:
1) The Russians may have sensed that the world is rushing toward a new Space Age and now is the time to get organized and allocate resources for planetary defense; this is consistent with the timeline I’ve previously suggested for the formation of a global space agency.
And even more speculative is,
2) The Russians may feel a Copenhagen connection. As public concerns about global warming decline and because the science no longer supports a “climate crisis” (e.g. including Climategate), the Russians may feel it’s time to refocus attention on a real threat to global civilization that’s occurred in the past (e.g., 1908 Tunguska), and will occur again — asteroid impacts.

The Climategate scandal involves “some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data — facts that were laid bare by … disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit…” (Wall Street Journal, 12/1/09; B. Stephens).

Climategate connects with prospects for near-term space colonization in at least 3 major ways. One is financial.

Anything that weakens the potential for re-ignition of the major economic boom — actually the greatest global boom ever – that was interrupted by the Panic of 2008, might delay the near-term development of widespread affluence-induced ebullience that has powered each of the spectacular Maslow Windows (e.g., the 1960s Apollo Moon program) over the last 200 years.

One such potential factor is Cap and Trade. “The Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution and the National Black Chamber of Commerce all found that the bill will have devastating economic impacts … (including) significant losses in employment and GDP.” Republicans are not shy about characterizing it as “”the largest tax increase — about $ 400 million USD per year — in the history of America.” And according to Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (WSJ, 11/27/09), in response to a question from him, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated it won’t significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.

As countries like the U.S. struggle to recover from the current great recession, major new taxes are considered unwise government policy by most economists. This is especially true in the U.S.’s current deficit situation.

According to former Congressional Budget Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $ 1.4 trillion — the highest since World War II — as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.

Equally threatening to the next Maslow Window which, based on 200-year timing, should open near 2015 and extend to around 2025, is that there is no relief in sight.

Our national debt is projected to stand at $ 17.1 trillion 10 years from now, or over $ 50,000 per American …

Regarding the potential upswing (characteristic of a Maslow Window), Holtz-Eakin comments that,

The planned deficits will have destructive consequences for both fairness and economic growth … Federal deficits will crowd out domestic investment in physical capital, human capital, and technologies that increase potential GDP and the standard of living.

Mr. Holtz-Eaking concludes that the president’s “policies are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg.”

The deficits are also taking a political toll as President Obama’s poll numbers decline. According to Karl Rove (WSJ, 11/27/09),

Anger over deficits was picked up in a late October NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which asked voters if they’d rather boost “the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits” or keep the “budget deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover.” Only 31% chose boosting the economy; 62% wanted to keep the deficit down.

This is consistent with Gallup polls (9/17/09) indicating Obama’s lowest marks on his handling of the deficit; only 38% approved and 58% disapproved.

The good news for Obama’s popularity and the deficit — as well as the 2015 Maslow Window — is that Climategate has weakened the prospects for Cap and Trade. According to Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe (WSJ, 11/27/09),

Cap and Trade is dead … Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in.

The second way Climategate connects with prospects for near-term space colonization is psychological.

Over the years Global Warming has been presented as a near-certain chamber of horrors including sea level rises of 3 feet or more resulting in devastating, global coastal flooding, huge temperature increases of 5 or more degrees producing plant and animal extinctions, increasingly intense hurricanes and extensive ecosystem damage … and on and on. All because humans are commiting the sin of releasing too much carbon into the environment. And we much stop now before it is too late.

Even the wildest claims about the dangers of global warming are routinely trumpeted by much of the media, including that giant Burmese pythons will migrate as far north as San Francisco and take over one-third of the U.S.. I heard the python story on local radio one day in Southern California and was very amused, but not everyone is. For example, many young children — who are much too young to evaluate the political and scientific issues involved — are frightened. One recent survey shows that 1 of 3 children aged 6 to 11 fears that our planet won’t exist when they grow up, and over one half believe that the Earth will be “a very unpleasant place to live.”

The usual solution to global warming fears is an anti-growth, anti-technology message. The “science is settled” so all we can do is dramatically cut back our use of fossil fuels, submit to trillions of dollars of taxes, and end our hopes of increasing prosperity due to crippled economies.

Even before Climategate, the public was not buying it. For example, in 2006 Gallup found that the percentage saying global warming will “pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime” was only 35%; 62% thought it would not. And earlier this year, Gallup reported “the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.” The Climategate scandal is likely to accelerate this trend among the public.

A number of scientists have proposed innovative technological approaches to mitigation of global warming if it were to become a serious problem in the 21st century. Perhaps the most interesting examples are from Roger Angel, the discussion in March/April, 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs, and the distinguished Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson.

This trend toward a more positive and realistic approach to climate change — being accelerated now by the revelations of Climategate — is very consistent with historical trajectories of public attitudes at comparable times over the last 200 years. As I pointed out in a previous post:

As we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, two other effects will increasingly come into play: 1) the fact that Maslow Windows are characterized by unusually optimistic (even ebullient) public attitudes, and 2) the increasing global fascination with large, international technology programs and space colonization – expected during the 2015 Maslow Window — will suggest to many around the world that solutions to key global challenges (e.g., the environment, energy) will benefit from space technology and resources.

The third way Climategate connects with prospects for near-term space colonization is through science.

Science is special. It is the only objective way humans have of probing physical reality and learning about the Universe. Scientists collect data about a natural system and then propose a model for how it works. Scientists use the model to make predictions about what should be observed in the real world. Those predictions are checked by observations of the natural system; any deviations from physical reality are used to change the model and thus improve it. Repeatedly using this process — making observations, sharing data, openly discussing issues — can result in a convergence of the model with physical reality.

That’s how it’s supposed to work. But the scientific method can break down, even for major questions. And when it does it shakes the foundations of what we know about the Universe, including potentially the public’s belief in our ability to expand human civilization into the cosmos, or even just to prosper on the Earth.

Here are some examples:

1. “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Dr. Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
In his email, Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of NCAR, acknowledges privately a key point: In 1998 climate models did not predict the cessation of global warming that has occurred — despite continued increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide — over the last dozen years, and no one can explain why it happened.

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen (WSJ, 11/30/09) points out that articles by climate modelers attrribute “the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for natural internal variability …” like El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. “Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change (i.e., human-caused warming via CO2) was shown to be false.”

The bottomline is that: 1) modelers are admitting that something other than carbon dioxide can drive global climate change (e.g., natural variability), and 2) because the climate models cannot explain even the current lack of global warming, their predictions for warming 10, 20, or more years into the future are unreliable. And thus while global warming might indeed become a major problem at some point in the future — as astrophysicists assure us it will within a billion years when the Sun’s luminosity predictably increases and evaporates Earth’s oceans — we cannot accurately predict even near-term warmings or coolings with current climate models.

If the scientific method had been operating normally, these and many other secret conversations would have been shared with other scientists and the public in real-time. Instead, sadly we had to wait for Climategate to reveal them and clarify important issues.

2. “Science is not always what scientists do.” J. Allen Hynek (d. 1986), formerly Professor and Chair, Department of Astronomy, Northwestern University.
Scientists are people first and scientists second. They are subject to the same fears, greed, jealousies, ambitions, anger, etc., as anyone else. In fact, scientists are only being scientists when their professional activities conform to the scientific method as sketched above.

Sometimes scientists behave with almost quasi-religious attitudes. Religions are atrractive to the vast majority of people because they involve belief systems and world views that give meaning to life. Plus challenges to their beliefs do not usually disturb the believers because they are based on faith. In essence, while religions may be supported by historical or physical evidence, they are not fundamentally driven by it, as science is.

For example, in August 2009 more than 60 prominent German scientists — including several UN IPCC scientists — declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. They noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures and that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

Sometimes scientists behave more like politicians than scientists. In real democracies the people often vote to make decisions on important issues. In science, voting or authority figures do not determine our picture of physical reality, only data does. Today we especially admire Galileo for standing up to the authority of the 17th century Roman Inquisition and not disavowing his then controversial telescopic observations of the Sun, Moon, and planets. This idea of the primacy of observational data has penetrated deeply into modern life, even beyond the natural sciences. For example, the British economist John Maynard Keynes — father of Keynesian economics — once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Sadly, the Galileo Principle of the primacy of observational data in science is not reflected in the private emails of Climategate. For example, Professor Phil Jones, who has stepped down temporarily as head of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia while Climategate is investigated, speaks privately of modifying temperature data sets to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. According to John Lott of FoxNews.com (12/1/09), another CRU professor,

Tim Osborne, discusses in emails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise been seen in the results. Professor Mann (of Penn State) sent Professr Osborne an email saying the results he is sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data.

When ideology trumps science, some scientists act like politicians. They secretly modify data to conform to their party-line beliefs. I am not surprised that some scientists are dishonest; they are regular people and that’s to be expected. My concern is the way the scientific method has been deliberately ignored for many years by many scientists around the world, who definitely know better. This, including the destruction of the original temperature data sets by Climategate scientists, has obscured our view of the details of real global climate change. And certainly, as Professor Lindzen points out, “Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre.”

3. Is science dying?
As a planetary scientist who’s worked in the aerospace industry and in academia, and has been thrilled by the idea of space colonization since a very young age, my major concern is what Climategate means for science. Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal recently asserted (12/3/09) that “science is dying.” Henninger continues,

I don’t think most scientists appreciate what has hit them … For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. The public was told repeatedly that something called ‘the scientific community’ had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry … Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because ’science’ said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.

But because of the Climategate scandal — an “epochal event” — the public’s view of science is about to change.

The average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and “messy” as, say gender studies … If the new ethos is that “close-enough” science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter what their politics, has a stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

For some, global warming politics and ideology are all that matter; you can recognize them by their lack of interest in the details of climate science and their attempts to ignore or divert attention from the science-related content of Climategate.

Science should be quite different from politics in both methods and goals, and certainly needs to move farther away from politics so that the scientific method can flouish again. As long as politics and ideology dominate science — as they have in the climate change field — we can never know what really exists in the Universe and how it works.

If the universities and governments affected by Climategate take appropriate action against those who stifled the free and open discussion of scientific data and issues in Climategate, the essence of science and even science’s public image can recover.

In a best-case scenario, Climategate could ironically help stimulate the New Space Age by strengthening our global financial picture, helping people everywhere regain a positive, even ebullient feeling about the future, promoting 1960s-style pro-technology, prosperous attitudes, and reaffirming that science is indeed a reliable tool for expansion of human civilization from a vibrant Earth into the cosmos.

If the last 200 years of Maslow Windows are any guide, that’s what we should expect will happen.

George Friedman’s Stratfor, a private intelligence corporation, provides first-rate geopolitical and technological analyses and forecasts that I quote often in this blog and elsewhere. His recent book, The Next 100 Years, has interesting parallels with forecasts made here, partly because of his long-range perspective. For example,

So we will see … until about 2070, a period of dramatic economic growth, accompanied by social transformation.

This sounds much like a Maslow Window to me although we believe that it will continue through much of the 2070s. (However, I don’t believe in quibbling over a few years when you’re comparing forecasts for the latter part of the 21st century!)

The Ares 1-X launch points to the human future in space. Click .

However, in Stratfor’s recent analysis (10/28/09) on “Ares and the Future of Manned Spaceflight” there are key statements that appear inconsistent with our experience of great explorations and major technology programs of the last 200 years, including current global trends. For example,

A manned space program is an enormous investment … With billions being poured into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan … and the economic crisis still being felt, whether the Constellation program and its $ 100 billion price tag makes sense is a serious one even without taking into account the lack of a scientific or popular consensus for returning to the Moon.

Here, Stratfor ignores significant international momentum for a manned Moon program, as well as “early ebullience” in many countries — including Panama, Japan, India, Brazil, China, and South Korea — signaling our rapid approach to the 2015 Maslow Window.

More fundamentally, Stratfor seems unaware of our current position in the long wave. We are just beginning to recover from a great recession similar to those that have occurred within a decade of the opening of every Maslow Window of the last 200 years (except for the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window).

Within a few years, as we recover and re-enter the “greatest economic boom ever,” that was postponed in late 2007 by a financial panic, history shows we’ll enter a Golden Age of Prosperity, Exploration, and Technology, much like we did in the early 1900s. Back then the U.S. was recovering from the Panic of 1893 and the 1890s great recession, which blossomed into arguably America’s most ebullient Maslow Window. It’s unprecendented, transformational events included the opening of the Panama Canal and Peary’s expedition to the North Pole, as well as perhaps the most ebullient U.S. president of all time: Theodore Roosevelt.

No Maslow Window has ever opened late or been diminished by any financial panic or great recession that preceded it. All indicators show the 2015 Maslow Window is on schedule.

Stratfor also seems a little unsure about the importance of humans in space. As the Shuttle retires,

the implications of a nationally controlled U.S. manned access — though it is certainly noteworthy that the second nation to put a man into space and the first to put a man on the Moon will be without it for the first time since then — are not necessarily of immediate strategic concern.

This would have been like saying in 1957 that the implications of the Soviets orbiting a small satellite called Sputnik — while certainly surprising and noteworthy — do not pose a direct threat to the West and are not necessarily of immediate strategic concern. All it did, of course, was set off the Cold War space race, revitalize education in the U.S., and result in the first human landing on the Moon 12 years later. In response to the U.S. being grounded and increasing international interests in the Moon, something similar may happen again, which Stratfor seems to admit further down,

Without forward progress in this regard, countries like China … will begin to refine their understanding of manned spaceflight and reduce the U.S. lead in this area.

Stratfor also seems unclear about the timing and magnitude of future manned spaceflight.

The question is not if humans will return to space in a meaningful way after the ISS is retired, but when. When that will be, or if meaningful investment in manned spaceflight over the course of the next decade will ultimately be decisive or not, probably will remain unclear in the near future.

Global trends over the last 200 years — including current international space program developments — strongly suggest the 2015 Maslow Window will feature unprecedented, transformative activities in manned spaceflight, including international Moon exploration, space-based solar power, and/or manned interplanetary missions possibly including Mars.

Based on an extrapolation of MEP trends over the last 200 years, including the costs of recent and current secondary MEPs, large space programs between now and 2025 will cost in the range of $ 1 T to 3 T (in 2007 USD).

Aerospace America (October, 2009), a publication of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, asks an interesting question this month — one that goes to the core of NASA’s as well as humanity’s future: Is human spaceflight optional?

Is near-term space colonization almost inevitable? Click .

There are many responses to this question.

For example, the European Space agency affirms that,

Space activities help to define nations and their place in the world. Countries that explore space are envied as frontier nations with cultural vigour and leading technologies. The number of countries involved in space exploration is growing steadily and we are entering a new era of historic significance, in which we will extend human presence beyond Earth’s orbit, both physically and culturally.

The Global Exploration Strategy is key to unlocking humanity’s future in space. With increasing intent and determination, our partners plan to return to the Moon and beyond with the goal of sustained and ultimately self-sufficient human presence beyond Earth. It is an enormous challenge that no single nation can undertake on its own. We must do it together.

So for ESA, it sounds like the answer to the question is: Spaceflight is not optional because Europe associates human spaceflight with societal “greatness” through expanding the boundaries of science, technology, and industry by extending human presence and culture to the Moon and beyond. And “entering a new era of historic significance” sounds very much like approaching the 2015 Maslow Window.

The Space Foundation recently made the case for an operational International Space Station at least through 2020. Although ISS construction should be completed in 2010,

The U.S. is considering wrapping up its ISS involvement in 2015 and letting the $ 100 billion orbiting laboratory re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and burn up in 2016. The ISS is both the largest and most collaborative human-made object ever to orbit the Earth. Fifteen countries are involved in the project … ISS education programs have reached more than 31 million U.S. students.

Elliot Pulham, Space Foundation CEO, is also concerned about potential negative perceptions of U.S. leadership, reliability, and commitment to large-scale space initiatives. Just before the last U.S. presidential election, MIT suggested that the U.S. and other potential Mars-faring countries should use ISS out to 2020 to develop microgravity countermeasures for long-duration interplanetary missions. So for the Space Foundation, human spaceflight is not optional, and its most dynamic, international symbol is ISS.

21stCenturyWaves.com has previously highlighted the revealing, multi-decade history of the space station program in the context of the long wave. For example, one of the most charismatic presidents in U.S. history, Ronald Reagan, was unable to make the station materialize within a decade of its proposal (1984), because of the lack of societal “ebullience” in the years near the Crash of 1987. Later, the station was nearly canceled by the U.S. Congress but benefited from the end of the Cold War and Bill Clinton’s internationalization of the program. In the U.S., the ISS continued “under the radar” for years. (For details please see The Shocking Truth About the Father of the Space Station.”)

As we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, it’s very likely that the American public will develop more enthusiasm for the project. It would be the supreme anti-ebullient irony for the U.S. to terminate ISS just at the moment the world is entering the next Golden Age of Prosperity, Exploration, and Technology. That’s why it’s unlikely to happen.

Like ESA, Buzz Aldrin is convinced of the viability of the Moon and Mars as sites for human outposts and settlements. Last week he advocated that the U.S. forego any Moon races — which the U.S. won back in 1969 — and instead foster a global approach to lunar exploration and colonization featuring the Lunar Infrastructure Development Corporation. According to Buzz, the LIDC

will pool the financial, technical, and human resources of its member nations to build the lunar communication, navigation and transportation systems needed for human exploration of the Moon. It would be a public/private global partnership … (that) will enable a sustainable human presence on the Moon that will be accessible to all the nations on the Earth.

Similar to Interspace, a concept for a global space organization proposed by Otto Steinbronn and myself in the early 1990s, LIDC will allow any nation on Earth to participate in Moon exploration by the purchase of corporate shares at whatever budget level is convenient for them.

Concerned that manned exploration of Mars was being neglected or deemphasized, Aldrin earlier proposed an ambitious U.S.-led human Mars exploration program featuring one-way human missions to Mars; i.e., the Mars astronauts would become colonists. The Russians have recently proposed joint manned missions to Mars with the U.S. and others.

The Augustine recommendations as described in Aerospace America are basically a series of options for the U.S. future in space that suffer from a lack of funding. “The clear message was that if NASA’s budget stays at historic levels, U.S. astronauts have little chance of ever leaving LEO.”

21stCenturyWaves.com brings a unique perspective to this issue based on the great explorations and macro-engineering projects of the Maslow Windows back to Lewis and Clark.

Here are five forecasts based on the lessons of the last 200 years, including recent global trends:

1. NASA Funding Will Increase. Because of healthy international competition and interests in lunar exploration, it’s likely — even in the short term (~2010) — that NASA funding will increase to a level enabling human spaceflight beyond LEO. If the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window experience is any guide, funding will recede as a serious issue as we approach 2015.

2. Space Activities during the 2015 Maslow Window Will be at the $ 1 T to 3 T level (2007 USD). This is based on MEP funding trends from previous Maslow Windows and the costs of current “secondary” MEPs.

3. NASA will Adjust to Increasing International Cooperation and Programs Beyond LEO. In 2013 NASA will be one long wave old and will likely become a member of a global space organization like Aldrin’s LIDC or our Interspace concept. This organization might help the world avoid a costly replay of the Cold War Sputnik-style space race.

4. During the Next Maslow Window, a Manned Mars Program May Occur Simultaneously With the International Moon Program… depending on global ebullience and funding levels. But based on previous Maslow Window durations, the 2015 Window will probably close before 2025 — not enough time for a Mars program to directly follow Moon exploration.

5. Human Spaceflight Is Not Really Optional. Probably the most powerful message of the last 200 years is that great explorations and monumental engineering projects are a product of two things: the laws of economics and human curiosity.

How Exploration and Technology Booms Really Work

While humans in general are hard-wired to want to go exploring as much as possible, in the modern world the only time they can is when economic pressures are reduced during the twice-per-century, unparalleled economic booms that trigger Maslow Windows. During this affluence-induced “ebullience”, many in society are catapulted to higher levels in Maslow’s hierarchy where their momentarily expanded world views make new exploring and massive building seem not just intriguing, but almost irresistible. This “ebullience” is an enhanced form of the “animal spirits” of Keynes and more recently Akerlof and Shiller, and the “irrational exhuberance” of Greenspan. The timing of the Maslow Windows is based on long waves in the economy as first described by Kondratieff (i.e., the K-Wave) and more recently Stewart (energy cycles), Strauss and Howe (generational cycles), and others.

This theory rests fundamentally on the three pillars of Maslow, Kondratieff, and Keynes, including modern extensions of their work, and is supported by global trends and key events described in this blog and elsewhere. Maslow Window Theory shows why — every 55-60 years — humans get momentarily swept away by extraordinary explorations and technology projects. However, they are still constrained by geographical and technological knowledge of their day, and there is a discernable sequence to both.

For example, Napoleon’s adventures and embryonic “manifest destiny” pressures made Lewis and Clark’s explorations of strategic importance. One long wave later the secrets of equatorial Africa became the focus for European exploration. In the early 20th century, because North America and central Africa had been probed, the only exciting places left were the North and South poles. And in the 1960s, the development of rockets made the Moon possible. None of these great explorations was entirely rational — they were the product of “ebullience” — but a logical sequence is seen: Each target for great exploration is a new geographical site of great interest that is less accessible than the previous one, but reachable with existing knowledge and technology.

So in a human sense, space is not optional because it — like all the great explorations over the last 200 years — is a product of unusual prosperity and human nature. As we approach 2015, growing ebullience around the globe will make major space and technology programs irresistible.

The only ways to stop space are: 1) to stop prosperity by interrupting the long booms that trigger Maslow Windows twice each century OR, 2) to change human nature.

Despite numerous well-known economic and military crises over the last 200 years, neither has ever occurred.

Based on historical Maslow Window timing of the last 200 years, the world is just over 5 years from the anticipated opening of the new Space Age, a Golden Age of Prosperity, Exploration, and Technology, as exemplified by the 1960s Apollo decade and the early 20th Century Peary/Panama Window.

The Europeans envision the expansion of human civilization into the cosmos.
Click

Impressive, albeit painful supportive evidence appeared recently in the form of the financial Panic of 2008 and the current global recession which interrupted the “Greatest Economic Boom Ever” in 2007 (see Fortune, July, 23 2007). This “Great Boom/Panic/Great Recession” sequence is a common feature of the decade just before Maslow Windows over the last 200 years (except for the 1960s Apollo Window); thus the Panic of 2008 also supports the forecast that the next Maslow Window should arrive near 2015.

Indeed, no Maslow Window of the last 200 years has ever been delayed or in any way observably diminished by the Great Boom/Panic/Great Recession sequence, because the Great Boom is always reignited as the recession ends.

If this grand, 200+ year-old pattern is continuing today, then despite our great recession, we should witness the great space powers positioning themselves — financially, strategically, technologically — for the coming new Space Age. And they are.

Russia announced recently that they are planning a major, new space center — Vostochny Cosmodrome — in Amur Oblast of the Russian Far East, just north of China. This will allow Russia to launch all its payloads from its own territory; Baikoneur is in Kazahkstan and is leased by Russia.

Construction will begin in 2011 and be completed by 2018, as the 2015 Maslow Window gains full momentum. This is a major endeavor. It will have 7 launch pads, including 2 for manned flights. Over 20,000 people will work there. The announced cost is $ 13.5 B; this is over twice the initial cost (in current dollars) of Kennnedy Space Center that was built in the 1960s for the Apollo Moon program.

Europeans are also excited about the human future in space. The European Space Agency announced this week that high-level representatives from 29 European Space Agency and European Union Member States will meet in Prague on 23 October for the 1st EU-ESA International Conference on Human Space Exploration. It’s purpose is “to prepare a roadmap leading to the definition of a common vision and strategic planning for space exploration … Besides Ministers and delegates from the EU, ESA and third countries, the conference will also be attended by Members of Parliament and representatives of industry and academia.”

ESA is understandably proud of its achievements in human spaceflight including Spacelab, and the Columbus lab on the International Space Station. Another enviable highlight is that “ESA has carried out the farthest landing in the solar system so far with the successful Huygens mission on Titan, Saturn’s largest moon.” We can expect that their future vision will be Solar System-wide.

This 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 of long-range significance.

Coined by Goldman Sachs in 2001, the “BRICs” refers to the dynamic countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, who Goldman suggested “could eclipse the combined economies of the richest countries of the world” by 2050.

21stCenturyWaves.com has written about them many times in the context of economic growth and space exploration over the last 18 months. However, it is extraordinary to see the BRICs so clearly demonstrating multi-decade long wave trends as well as the style of ebullience that points directly toward the 2015 Maslow Window. This brief State of the Wave is dedicated to all of them.

BRAZIL’s Olympic Glow
According to the New York Times (10/4/09; A. Barrionuevo), Brazil is “celebrating its arrival on the world stage” with its selection as the first-ever South American site for the 2016 Olympics. Despite the direct participation of President Obama, Rio de Janeiro beat out Chicago handily. According to Brazilian President da Silva, “Brazil went from a second-class country to a first-class country, and today we begin to receive the respect we deserve.” Another Brazilian ebulliently sums it up, “My Brazil is solid. We have it all.”

Since the economic benefits of hosting an Olympics are few — it is mainly a spectacle — this is truly Maslow Window-style ebullience on display from Brazil.

Brazil’s 1960s-style ebullience — its Olympic glow — extends beyond just the Olympics to being an economic powerhouse as well as a growing global space power; it’s what we’d expect of a major player in the approaching 2015 Maslow Window. For example, its economy recently dramatically exited the recession with a 1.9% GDP increase in the 2nd quarter over the first (WSJ, 9/12/09).

Quoting from my 5/20/08 Brazil post:

Brazil has Latin America’s most prominent space program including their own launch vehicles, environmental and communication satellites (some in cooperation with China), and their enviable Alcantara launch site (within 2 degrees of the equator)! In 2006, the first Brazilian astronaut — Marcos Pontes — after training with NASA, ascended on a Russian Soyuz rocket for a $ 10.5 M, week-long stay on the International Space Station. Colonel Pontes’ instant celebrity power exceeded even the best soccer stars that Brazil has to offer, and gave him access to the Brazilian president and a prominent association with Brazilian comic books and toys! …

In 1992 writing in Space Policy, I suggested that Rio de Janeiro would be an ideal headquarters city for a new global space organization that we forecast will form by 2014. Today it seems even more appropriate considering Brazil’s likely pivotal role in the rapidly approaching international race to space.

RUSSIA and the International Space Station
The European Space Agency reported this morninig that ESA astronaut Frank De Winne became the first European commander of the ISS; he took over from Russian cosmonaut Gennady Padalka who had been ISS commander since April. Prior to this morning, only Russian cosmonauts and U.S. Astronauts had filled this role.

Russia’s continuing leadership in space is complicated by the global recession. Stratfor reports that the Russian GDP is expected to shrink by 7.5% in 2009, somewhat less than the 8% forecast previously. (For comparison, Reuters recently reported that the U.S. economy is expected to decline by only 2.5 % in 2009 (and rebound by the same amount in 2010) according to private economists polled October 5-6 for the Blue Chip Economic Indicators October survey.) President Dmitri Medvedev admitted that, “As soon as the crisis occurred, we collapsed. And we collapsed more than many other countries.”

According to Richard Pipes (Wall Street Journal, 8/22/09), former professor of history at Harvard and member of Reagan’s National Security Council, “Russia is obsessed with being recognized as a ‘Great Power’…” This is partly due to their victory over Germany in World War II and “the success in sending the first human in space.” But Russia’s veering in the direction of a new cold war hasn’t helped them economically; “Russian aggression against Georgia has cost it dearly in terms of capital flight.” And Russia’s dependence on the global price of energy caused their exports to drop by 47% in first half of 2009.

Although most Russians do not see themselves as European (and they are not Asian either), Pipes believes it is essential to convince them that “they belong to the West and should adopt Western institutions and values: democracy, multi-party system, rule of law, freedom of speech and press, respect for private property…” This is especially important in a world repeating many key trends of one long wave ago, including a new Cold War (e.g., their apparent involvement in the Iran nuclear program) and the international build-up toward large-scale space activities (including proposed joint Russia-U.S. manned Mars missions) in the 2015 Maslow Window. The obvious twist this time is a strong Russia/U.S. alliance in ISS, and the fact that they may serve as our ticket to ISS after the Shuttle is retired.

INDIA’s Ebullient Space Program
India’s space program is among the most ebullient and aggressive in the world. The recent spectacular success of their first mission to the Moon — Chandrayaan-1 — in detecting small amounts of water on the Moon is indicative of many even greater things to come as we approach and enter the 2015 Maslow Window.

For example, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is contemplating its own robotic mission to Mars between 2013 and 2015 (as the next Maslow Window opens). ISRO anticipates using their Geosychronous Satellite Launch Venicle (GSLV) and either “ion thrusters, liquid engines or nculear power” to thrust their spacecraft to Mars. India also envisions its own Earth orbital human spaceflight program in the 2014-2015 timeframe. In support of this goal is the Space Capsule Recovery Experiment, a new astronaut training center in Bangalore by 2012, and the development of a 3-person crew orbital vehicle capable of orbiting the Earth for 7 days.

India’s economy has slowed from 2007 growth rates approaching 10%, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasized recently, “There is no economic crisis in India. It is certainly true that as a sequel to the global economic crisis our exports have suffered … but even then our economy is growing at a rate of six and half per cent. Therefore there is no crisis, as such in India.”

Although India naturally feels a competition with China’s impressive space program, Indian leaders also want to enhance the development of high technology, share in space science discoveries, and excite young people. According to Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a rocket scientist who is known as the father of India’s missile program, the Indian space program will “electrify” the spirit of young scientists. This is clear evidence of early and growing ebullience in the Indian space and technology communities — exactly what we’d expect, based on international events one long wave ago, as we surge toward the 2015 Maslow Window.

CHINA’s 60th Anniversary
China recently celebrated one long wave of the People’s Republic, or “60 years of chinese communism,” says Gordon Chang in the Wall Street Journal (10/1/09). “The Chinese state will try to project strength … fearsome weapons … 200,000 soldiers … a grand procession in the center of Beijing.” And they did. Self-described “panda hugger” Thomas Barnett felt the parades showed a “lack of confidence … I see a celebration of everything that’s stood in the way of China’s return to growth and prosperity.”

From the perspective of 21stCenturyWaves.com, it’s especially intriguing that the celebration of 1 long wave of Chinese communist rule featured — in addition to massive military might — a float emphasizing Chinese success in space. The military display was intended to help the Chinese feel “a sense of security, a sense of pride,” according to one Chinese observer, whose restaurant was shut down for the celebration. However, perhaps the space float was an invitation to China’s future during the 2015 Maslow Window as a global leader in the commercial and scientific development of near-Earth space, the Moon, and beyond.

Over a year ago in “10 Reasons Why China is Good for Space,” I acknowledged Mao Zedong’s call to action in response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, the rapid growth of China’s space infrastructure including its capability of launching humans into orbit (first manned orbit mission in 2003), and the international prestige and growth of Chinese nationalism (due to its popularity in China) which space has created. And although China’s economy has featured 10% pre-crisis growth, since 2008 its economy has taken big hits. Ironically, The Economist (10/10/09) is now warning that China’s recent GDP rebound might result in a bubble economy unless China adopts an independent monetary policy that frees the yuan from the dollar.

Chang laments that “the Party is increasingly out of step with the dynamic people it governs,” and despite the paranoid parade, Barnett awaits “the truly confident China to someday appear,” while former prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair (WSJ, 10/9/09) suggests that when we consider China’s last 60 years, “reflect on how far they have to go. But spare a thought for how far they have come.”

China’s interest in space — the technology, the exploration and science, the international prestige — is very “1960s”, as it is for all the other BRICs — and that’s intended as a high compliment to their capabilities and aspirations. It’s a clear international signal that we’re approaching the 2015 Maslow Window — the next Golden Age of Prosperity, Exploration, and Technology.

However, this time — because of our knowledge of 200+ years of Maslow Windows — we’re smarter, and we may even have a choice. I vote that we have a “Grand Alliance for Space“, featuring a unified, global approach to human settlement of the solar system. But I have to admit that the history of the Cold War space race, the exploration of Earth’s polar regions, and even the Lewis and Clark expedition suggest it will be otherwise.

The world’s “first clown to go into orbit” lifted off yesterday morning (GMT) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. While some cynics might insist that other “clowns” have already been in orbit — and they shall remain nameless here — this was the first professional clown to actually do it.

Canadian billionaire Guy Laliberte is the 7th private space tourist and the 1st real clown to reach orbit. Click .

Guy Laliberte, the founder of Cirque du Soleil paid the Russians $ 35 M for a Soyuz ride to the International Space Station; he plans to give a space-worthy performance that will be streamed on the internet.

According to the BBC, Mr. Laliberte is different than anyone ever to visit orbit,

I’m an artistic person and a creator. I’m not a scientific. I’m not an engineer. Life has given me some qualities, some assets and I have built up a team of very creative people around the world. With those people I think we’ll present something that is originally creative and hopefully will have the result of sensitising people toward the situation of water in the world.

On October 9, Laliberte’s 2-hour “poetical social” performance from high above everything, will feature contributions from links to 14 cities around the world.

This is a seminal event in the expansion of human cvilization and culture into the cosmos. Although the cause celebre is the need for clean water for people everywhere, equally striking is the performance in orbit by a famous, professional entertainer.

Hopefully the 2015 Maslow Window will allow more artists to perform in space. However, in the short term — after Shuttle retirement in 2010 or 2011 — there may be few Soyuz tourist seats available as they are taken by professional astronauts on their way to work in space.

On Sundays I usually take a quick tour of the New York Times OpEd section to see if they have any interesting long-term insights. Today I was intrigued by two celebrated columnists who happen to be on the same page (12): Frank Rich on “Obama at the Precipice” about the threat of Afghanistan to Obama’s presidency, and Thomas Friedman on “The New Sputnik” about China going green.

Did China just launch its 21st century version of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite that was in 1957 “the shock of the century”? Click

I’m always encouraged when I see major journalists attempting to play the “long wave” analysis game, even if they don’t call it that. And we definitely have two of them here. But the end result is often questionable. For example, I can’t see a significant parallel with a green China and Sputnik, although Friedman does. And, although many folks are fascinated with proposed parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam, Rich’s explanation isn’t very convincing to me. So I give them an “A” for their creative approach, but have to give them a “C-” for their analysis. Here’s why.

21stCenturyWaves.com explains the clearly observed, twice-per-century major clusters of great explorations (e.g., Lewis and Clark), macro-engineering projects (e.g., Panama Canal), and major wars (e.g., World War I) as fundamentally driven by long waves in the economy — essentially a 56-year long business cycle — that is documented back almost 200 years.

This is a powerful idea that offers us scientific predictability for the next 20+ years of major exploration, engineering, and military events, based on patterns in macroeconomic data and historical trends over the last 200+ years. The basic idea is that many major events in society are being enabled and/or encouraged by our position in the 55-60 year long wave.

Rich seems excited about this idea. For example, “Analogies between Vietnam and Afghanistan are the rage these days.” Referring to the “hawkish young President Kennedy wrestling with Vietnam during his first months in office. … The remarkable parallels to 2009 became clear last week…” And as Gordon Goldstein — author of Lessons in Disaster, the new “must-read book” for Obama — recently said to Rich, “it’s ‘eerie’ how closely even these political maneuvers track those of half a century ago, when JFK was weighing whether to send combat troops to Vietnam.”

And yet Rich uses the long wave idea in a casual way. One problem is that 2009 minus 56 (the approximate length of the long wave) is 1953 — several years before John F. Kennedy became president. This date suggests there might be interesting parallels between 2009 and the Korean War, a conflict that involved the United Nations and others in a proxy war that was part of the larger Cold War; it ended in 1953.

Even a year or two makes a difference in the long wave’s influence on society. For example, in July, 2007, the world was still experiencing the “greatest boom ever,” which was only months before the Panic of 2008. This reminds us that JFK became president as the 1960 economic boom was taking off — certainly a far cry from the experience of Obama who was greeted by the Panic of 2008 and a great recession. Not to mention that no Vietnamese soldier ever directly attacked New York City. While there might eventually be political dangers for Obama in Afghanistan, parallels between the context and events of Vietnam and Afghanistan are exaggerated.

Friedman, in “The New Sputnik,” is a little better with his arithmetic, but less convincing with his analysis. Sputnik’s surprise launch was in 1957 (remember that 2009 – 56 = 1953) which is only 4 years off; about 1/2 the error of Rich. However, Friedman equates Sputnik with China’s recent energy direction, “I believe the Chinese decision to go green is the 21st-century equivalent of the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik — the world’s first Earth-orbiting satellite.” Friedman refers to China’s decision to invest in solar energy, wind power, and batteries so they can exploit future global markets in these areas.

I think the challenge that China presents to the West in these technologies will increase global competition and thus have a net positive effect. However, I see little relation of this to Sputnik, as Friedman essentially admits, “Unfortunately we’re still not racing. It’s like Sputnik went up and we think it’s just a shooting star.”

In 1957, nobody had to explain the symbolic, technological, and military threat of Sputnik to the West. Sputnik changed the world and launched the first Space Age that culminated in an American on the Moon in 1969.

Unless we are able to channel global interests in lunar bases and the commercial development of space into a “Grand Alliance for Space,” we may be forced to re-live a Sputnik-like event near 2013 when possibly a China-led consortium announces their program for the aggressive exploration and colonization of space, including the ultimate “green” technology: space-based solar power collectors that provide inexhaustible, clean energy to Earth to meet the 24/7 demands of economic growth everywhere on Earth.

Now that’s a Sputnik-like event that everyone would recognize.