Experts on the Future of Space

For a space geek like me, the nice part about living and working in Huntsville, Alabama is the ready access one can have to hearing and speaking with some of the eminent voices in the human spaceflight community. This week, a former program manager, former Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Director, and former NASA Administrator held forth at a lunch-and-learn session at MSFC's Activities Building titled "The Evolution of Space Flight from Government to Private Sector."

The talk actually mirrors the careers of Steve Cook, Dave King, and Mike Griffin, who were leading NASA, Marshall, and the Ares Projects a scant four years ago and are now all in the private sector to one extent or another. Cook and King are senior managers at Dynetics while Griffin has been an engineering professor at University of Alabama-Huntsville.

Much to my surprise, the gentlemen did not prepare any remarks. This was a straightforward ask-the-experts panel, with the audience members asking questions on a microphone or on 3X5" cards. Given the stated topic of the appearance, the questions quickly honed in on where government would most likely play and where in the space business.

Getting Started

Griffin started off the discussion, stating that he believed government should most likely fulfill the role of providing the first guaranteed market(s) for private industry, which would attract private investment. Another future role would be for the government to build what it thinks it wants first, then license the intellectual property so others could build it. However, right now Griffin believes that, "Regrettably, the market's not big enough." The biggest barrier to private-sector entry into space right now was the prohibitive cost of RDT&E (NASA-speak for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation).

Cook answered the rhetorical question, "Do we (commercial entities) have the ability to launch cargo into space? Of course. Crew? Hasn't been done yet." For Cook, the issue wasn't capacity, but market size. "Committed investment by the government could provide that and it would justify the investment."

Griffin's ideal choice of a guaranteed, lucrative government market would be providing cargo for an established lunar base. Yet he cautioned enthusiastic supporters of commercial space, stating that human spaceflight carries with it huge risks, and that while large commercial firms like Boeing might absorb the damages from a catastrophic failure, smaller firms could get wiped out.

Cook suggested future needs for the super-heavy-lift Space Launch System, including the lunar base Griffin alluded to and space solar power systems, both of which would require large payload space initially. Cook likened SLS to the Transcontinental Railroad or Interstate Highway System: a large investment made by the government for the benefit of all.

Government and Private Sector Roles

Griffin pointed out that venture capitalists like investments that give them a return on investment (ROI) ten times their initial input. Proven space-based investments like communication satellites only provide 13 to 15 percent. He pointed out that space investments are on the high end of risk for business investments. This fit well with my own personal view, and the card with my question came up next, which was "What activities do you think it's crucial for government to do in space, and what activities are crucial for the private sector?" Griffin responded that "Nobody is stopping anyone in the private sector from doing what they want in space. If they've got a proven business model, they should do it." A self-described fiscal conservative, Griffin did not think government should have a say in where the proper balance point is, that's for the citizenry to decide and for the private sector to conduct as much private activity as the market will bear.

King felt government should help the market along, taking the lead on strategic capabilities and ensure that commercial capacity is a going concern. He did point out the need to get access to low-Earth orbit (LEO) at a lower cost, but didn't make any specific recommendations as to how to effect that outcome.

Cook shifted gears a bit, talking about the regulatory environment and how government should ensure consistent safety standards for astronauts and passengers. He felt that safety standards should be the same whether someone was flying aboard a NASA spacecraft or commercial one. He also noted the difficulty in defining "commercial" missions right now (I suppose an example would be something like NASA astronauts flying aboard a private vehicle to the International Space Station--the launch provider might be getting paid, but is the flight really "commercial?") In any case, Cook felt the rules should be the same, and that would take some negotiation among NASA, the FAA, and private industry.

The Long View

The panel also touched on international affairs, with Griffin stating emphatically that "Space is a strategic human frontier for the future" and that the only way to ensure that Western values and practices such as freedom and capitalism are continued as human civilization expands outward is for the United States to participate. However, the entrepreneurial investments would not occur without a long-term commitment by the U.S. government to space activities.

The Local View

Someone asked what Dynetics' new rocket-launching partnership with SpaceX and Scaled Composites, Stratolaunch, would mean for Huntsville. Dave King felt that the Stratolaunch vehicle would be able to transform how we view space tourism, space launch, and other activities. Stratolaunch is based in Huntsville, and Dynetics has responsibility for a major component of the system as well as systems integration. One side effect would be to bring more commercial space activity to Huntsville, which King felt was too dependent on the government dollar anyway.

Life "Outside the Gate"

Marshall Space Flight Center is situated in the middle of Redstone Arsenal, which is the property of the U.S. Army and thus "gated" off from the general public. A member of the audience asked the panel about the difference in their lives outside the gate. Cook was the first to answer. He talked about the similarities first, emphasizing the need for a manager to communicate a clear vision and to get employee buy-in for what you're trying to do. He also felt the employees' passion for the work was kindred. The biggest differences he cited were the smaller bureaucracy and the lack of distinction between "institutional" and "project" functions. King felt that privately held companies could make longer-term decisions with fewer rules and less institutional friction when it comes to making decisions. Griffin added that there was less work in the private sector related to "grooming the institution."

One thing King suggested to anyone interested in jumping outside the gate was that the individual should pick an environment where the values match yours. Along similar lines, Cook stated that you need to "hold onto your core values, but be willing to change everything else" to adapt to the market environment.

What Next?

Someone had to ask the magic question: "How do we assure long-term support for programs that take 20 to 30 years to execute?" Griffin, typical of his sense of humor, responded, "Why are you asking me when I'm obviously inadequate to the task?" Still, Griffin felt that long-term support for large national programs are possible. He cited examples such as the Transcontinental Railroad system, which took over 50 years to complete; the Social Security system; and maintaining funding for the armed forces. He believes NASA has long-term public support. However, Griffin did not agree with the administration's call for a mission to an asteroid: "You're not going to have long-term support for a vision when the goals make no sense."

Another question concerned keeping the workforce motivated in periods of institutional or programmatic uncertainty. The advice wasn't too unfamiliar: decide what you want to be passionate about, focus on what you can control, and "Run to the fire, go find some hard problems to try to solve and be bold about it."

Parting Thoughts

Returning to themes that began their discussion, the panel members reiterated their belief that the future of commercial spaceflight wouldn't be too promising without a guaranteed government market as a matter of public policy. Griffin noted that "Europe sees the strategic value of owning the space launch market. What's wrong with us that we do not?"

Dave King had one of the closing comments of the afternoon in responding to the ongoing rivalry between government and commercial space, stating that people were focusing on an unnecessary conflict. He wished "we could see value in each, concentrate on the genius of the 'And' instead of the tyranny of the 'Or'."

We'll see what happens next.

Looking Back: Bart on Leadership

I was on a cleaning blitz today, and I finally decided to look through a three-ring binder I'd saved from a leadership class I took in 2004. At that time, I was still living in Northern Virginia, working for Radian Inc (subsequently bought by ESSI, which was bought by Finemeccanica) as a proposal writer. Among the items in the binder was my look at the future 25 years out.

Bart, A.D. 2030

Overview

• Writer/Intellectual
• Artist/Filmmaker
• Outdoorsman
• Executive/Entrepreneur/Consultant
• Husband
• World Traveler
• Wise Counselor
• Good Friend
• Happy Wherever I Am

What is Needed to Get from Here to There?

Education
Business, filmmaking, drawing, painting

Money / Material
Better investments, more savings, better position, side/consulting income, art/travel supplies/gear

Behavior
Better health, better diet, more exercise, stress reduction, caring for others, more self-confidence, romance, sociability

Deliverables
Books, articles, blogs, op-eds, stories, scripts, paintings, drawings, movies

Results
Better balance, more clarity, more confidence, bravery, self-awareness, financial security, ability to take care of myself and those I care about, happiness, peace

All in all, an interesting vision. It's not far off from the trajectory I've been pursuing. If I haven't become more of an "outdoorsman," I've at least spent more time in the gym than I used to. And I have managed to get some traveling done, here and abroad. I haven't pursued my artistic side as much as I probably would have liked, but I have pursued travel and outside writing. Things to work on and look forward to, anyway.

Another thing I worked on in this class was a statement of leadership philosophy. The concepts evolved a bit over the course of the six-week class. Here's what I had to say:

11/8/04
I am fascinated by leaders and the practice of leadership because, in my reading experience, a leader is an individual who is able to get others to do things they might never have accomplished otherwise. Leaders have specific goals in mind and are able to tap the best abilities of each team member in order to accomplish these goals. Ideally, leaders act as teachers or facilitators of a working body of professionals, assuming the mantle of authority only to solve problems, arrange compromises, or break logjams within the group. They respect the concerns and demonstrate loyalty toward others upward, parallel to, or below them in the organization, even to the point of being the "loyal opposition."

11/15/04
Leaders are imbued with a powerful vision of the end result and are able to tap the best abilities of each team member in order to accomplish those goals. In order to ensure success, leaders must facilitate an environment that thrives on and encourages individual autonomy, learning, and courtesy. Ideally, leaders also inspire a working body of professionals through leading by example, living by a recognizable code of integrity, and working hard to accomplish the group's goal, even if that work requires performing tasks "below their station." Leaders should assume the mantle of autority only to solve problems, arrange compromises, or break logjams within the group. They should respect the concerns of, and demonstrate loyalty toward, others in the organization, even to the point of being the "loyal opposition."

12/1/04
Leaders should be imbued with a powerful vision of an end result and are able to tap the best abilities of each team member in order to accomplish that result. In order to achieve success, leaders must facilitate an environment that thrives on and encourages individual autonomy, learning, and courtesy. Ideally, leaders also inspire a working body of professionals through leading by example, living by a recognizable code of integrity, and working hard to accomplish the group's goal, even if that work requires performing tasks "below their station." Leaders should assume the mantle of authority only to solve problems, arrange compromises, or break logjams within the group. They should respect the concerns of, and demonstrate loyalty toward, others in the organization, even to the point of being the "loyal opposition." A good leader's commitment to excellence and personal respect should be reflected in his actions and in the attitudes of those whom the leader seeks to lead.

Again, an interesting set of comments. I recognize the attitudes because that's more or less how I tried to run ISDC. I can't say I succeeded in all those ways. For instance, there were situations where I wanted to give someone more autonomy, but I couldn't because I had no budget for them and thus no prescribed boundaries or "rules of engagement," which meant that I had to do a lot of things myself until the budget became clear.

I also know that I was not as courteous as I would have liked at all points. I lost my temper on a couple of occasions because people were not sharing information with me or things were not happening the way I had planned or was told they would happen.

However, those two examples aside, the conference itself ran very smoothly because I managed to get good people in the right positions. After the first couple days (of five), I found myself able to hide in a corner somewhere and let my team do their jobs. I was brought in--as expected--only when there were high-level problems. I found out about little things afterward, and they were little, for the most part. The last "executive action" I took during the conference was at the end of the last luncheon on the last day, when I had to calmly and jokingly direct people to the basement for a tornado warning ("Folks, much as I'd like to say I'm kidding...").

Are those sirens I hear?

So I suppose, as a leadership experience, ISDC was successful as I define leadership: the team did most of the work and I was there to make the ugly/tough calls. Anything I couldn't handle got kicked upstairs, which wasn't much. Bottom line: I suppose I learned a few things about leadership in seven years. That doesn't mean I like being the boss, but I at least have a consistent philosophy of how I should behave if I'm forced to be one.

Books to Make Civilization Better

You might think I'm cheating on this, but after my previous posting on "books I'd save in the event civilization was collapsing," I realized that my list of books to make the future better isn't much different. However, instead of focusing on low-tech books concentrating on morality or how people might think, I would add a few books that assume civilization will remain high-tech and that we can progress even farther than we are now. So without further ado, here's my list:

Non-Fiction and Reference

• The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must, Robert Zubrin
• Cities in Space, edited by Jerry Pournelle
• Far Frontiers, edited by Jerry Pournelle
• The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil (with a few reservations, of course)
• Engines of Creation, Eric Drexler
• The High Frontier, Gerard K. O'Neill
• N-Space, by Larry Niven
• Playgrounds of the Mind, by Larry Niven
• The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray
• Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor E. Frankl
• Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis
• Mining the Sky, John S. Lewis
• Moonrush, Dennis Wingo
• The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes
• Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship, George Dyson

Fiction

• Ringworld, Larry Niven
• Green Mars, Kim Stanley Robinson
• Red Mars, Kim Stanley Robinson
• The Fountains of Paradise, Arthur C. Clarke
• A Case of Conscience, James Blish
• The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester
• More Than Human, Theodore Sturgeon
• The World at the End of Time, Frederik Pohl
• Mining the Oort, Frederik Pohl
• Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton
• Cat's Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut

Your additions/thoughts are welcome. I'd be particularly interested in seeing not just what others would choose, but why.

Long Day

I'll get to Books That Make Civilization Better tomorrow. My time sense is screwed up, and it felt like a longer day than usual today. In the meantime, suggested books for the list are welcome.

There's also this from Sean at IFTF:

A lot of free research via our library - http://www.iftf.org/library

Enjoy!

--Sean

Potpourri XLII

Let's see...what's lurking out there? Tell ya what, before I dive into the usual space, politics, and technobabble, some good news in the world of my e-niece, Morgan. On Saturday, Darlene the Science Cheerleader hosted a benefit for Morgan, presumably to help her family with her medical bills. The benefit raised $23,000! Gooooo, Dar! Staying tuned for further medical developments.

Tip o' the fedora to Tracy for this: Astronaut (not the singer) Tom Jones wrote an op-ed in the New York Post.

For those of you wondering what NASA has done for you lately, here's an excerpt from a press release on NASA's efforts to support environmental research:

NASA ANNOUNCES GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GRANT AWARDS

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded $6.4 million in grants to institutions of higher education and not-for-profit education organizations nationwide to enhance learning through the use of NASA's Earth science resources.

Some good editorials in Jeff Foust's The Space Review:

• To boldly go: the urgent need for a revitalized investment in space technology---NASA long invested in development of advanced technologies, but in recent years that effort withered as the agency concentrated on plans to return to the Moon. John Mankins explains why it's necessary for NASA and the nation to reinvigorate its technology development efforts. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1377/1
• The god that failed---In the mid-1970s articles and books promised a grand future in the form of space colonies, a future that has not been realized. Dwayne Day looks back at one such description of such a future, and why it hasn't happened. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1376/1
• Exchanging uncertainties---It appears increasingly likely that the White House will nominate someone for NASA administrator in the immediate future, solving one problem long identified by NASA's supporters. However, Jeff Foust notes that whoever is selected won't be able to make all the uncertainties surrounding the space agency go away. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1375/1
• NASA and the book of laws---Norm Augustine, picked by the White House to lead a new panel on the future of NASA's human spaceflight programs, is best known for promulgating a series of "laws" about management practices. Taylor Dinerman examines what those laws, and other experience by Augustine, could mean for the future of NASA. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1374/1

Congressman Blair Holt's proposed bill to put additional restrictions on the Second Amendment. Or, as the bill's language puts it,

To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.

Sounds reasonable, but as the accompanying email noted,

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm. Any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

• It is registered
• You are fingerprinted
• You supply a current Driver's License
• You supply your Social Security #
• You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
• Each update change of ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25
• Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

Most of this is unnecessary and intrusive control of law-abiding citizens, since there are already laws on the books "preventing" criminals from purchasing weapons.

Another thought-provoking video from TED on "the sixth sense." Wow!

Boy, am I glad I read science fiction! It might be the only literature on Earth that helps the reader cope with "Future Shock." The techie in me says, "Way cool!" The neo-Luddite in me is thinking, "Uh oh, what next?"

Some additional thoughts from Scott on buying gold for that ugly rainy day at the end of civilization:

In your bullet point saying “Gold (http://www.swissamerica.com/ or http://www.golddealer.com/ were recommended to me at one point).” You might want to say “Currency, or something to use as currency. I mean the real thing, not paper or other fiat money. Everyone thinks of gold, which I recommend; but you’ll also want silver for those smaller purchases. When you buy a loaf of bread the seller may not be able to give you change from your 950-dollar (at today’s price) gold piece. Buy coins from a country people have heard of, don’t buy collector-grade, uncirculated, mint, or other coins priced at a premium, and don’t buy ingots as neither you nor your seller will know if they’ve been debased or not.”

New from Hu:

• The U.S. Army is looking at more Stryker brigades. The son of one of my managers back in NoVA was captain of a Stryker brigade. And from what I heard, his team was quite effective. Of course it helps to have the right people in command and on the ground...
• Some thoughts on the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. This might be important reading, given that they're reported to be increasing their nuke stockpile.

Some interesting stats on the state of our education system/test scores.

Book Review: A Step Farther Out

I thought I'd get in one more book review for '08 before returning to my European trip planning and language learning. In this case, I decided to pick up a book that I thought might restore my faith in the future possibilities of technology (it's been a little disheartening lately, believe it or not). The book I selected to reread is A Step Farther Out by science, technology, political, and science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle.

Pournelle has had a profound influence on my outlook for the future, and on my beliefs in the benefits to be derived from a spacefaring civilization. He is in the category of "seriously smart" people who often inhabit the halls of NASA (he worked on human factors, among other things, during the Apollo program), having degrees in psychology, political science, and engineering. Thus, he is proudly of the sort who does not suffer fools gladly. You can look up his entry on Wikipedia, or visit his web site, which is a permanent link on this site.

Now, to A Step Farther Out. Written in the late '70s and compiled from a variety of columns written in the mid-'70s, the book addresses some of the wilder scientific and technological speculations that might make "survival with style" in the future possible. These include nuclear power (fission and fusion), space solar power, asteroid mining, ocean thermal conversion (OTEC), magnetohydrodynamic power, and the like.

Survival with style means that all human beings will not eventually slog downhill toward a future that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," but one where everyone at least has access to the benefits of the advanced society and conveniences we enjoy today. To overcome the problems of declining resources on one world, according to the Pournelle doctrine, we must tap into the material and energy resources of space. For further improvement of life on Earth, he even suggests exporting our more polluting enterprises--particularly metal production--into space, turning Earth into a great parkland. And Pournelle points out that the best way to reduce worldwide population is to make everyone rich (note where the highest declines in birth rate are). And according to Pournelle, the best way to make everyone rich is to make the goods of civilization, both physical and intellectual, so common as to be easily affordable by all: the simple law of supply and demand.

The alternatives to this high-technology, advanced society, Pournelle warns, are not pretty, and pretty much end up with the West becoming poor through increased taxation and regulation in an attempt to redistribute wealth to the Third World, or the West becoming a walled enclave that is eventually overrun by its poorer, hungrier, and less educated neighbors--one can already see signs of this today, 30 years after A Step Farther Out was written. The alternatives Pournelle was discussing were all feasible with the technologies we had 30 years ago. And perhaps that's the most infuriating part--we haven't done most of what he was discussing! So now we face yet another energy crisis, another surge of collectivism, an embattled space program, and even greater pressures on the world's resources, and yet little to nothing has been done about promoting the grand future Pournelle proposed.

Now Pournelle makes it quite clear that he is not for polluting the Earth--indeed, the notion of exporting all the pollution off the planet has a mighty utopian ring to it--but he also does not suffer environmentalists, collectivists, Marxists, "Club of Rome" enthusiasts, or anti-technology advocates without a certain amount of disdain. In the 30 years since A Step was written, an entire generation, including my own, got raised on environmentalism of a particular flavor, and so his condescension probably won't sell well without a lot of arguments. That said, high technology has advanced considerably since 1979. For instance, Moore's Law, which did and still does show computers doubling capacity every two years, has led to a drastic improvement in computing ability. The 8088 chip of 1980, for instance, had around 50,000 transistors on it; today, the top-of-the-line chips have two billion transistors. We have had a 25-year expansion in the U.S. economy and standard of living that is unprecedented in world history. That same generation that was raised on environmentalism was also raised in a world where space travel was commonplace (yea, nearly boring!), along with ever-improving computers, telephones, personal data assistants, and ever-new high-tech gadgets; so Pournelle's message isn't impossible to sell today.

The biggest blocks to A Step Farther Out today are the same as they were 30 years ago--they're political, not technical. With Republicans (if not old-style conservatism) out of favor, Pournelle is often ignored. The economy is experiencing a recession, so far only two or three quarters long--therefore, capitalism must be broken! Republicans who campaigned as conservatives in the '90s spent like liberals in the '00s--therefore, conservatism must be broken! The U.S. military is stronger and more expensive than the next 30 nations' armed forces combined, but we've lost just over 4,000 men in six years in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1 percent of our losses in our four years of fighting World War Two--therefore, the military must be evil and broken! Western Civilization did horrible things in its imperial past while the former colonies are still poor--therefore, Western Civ is evil and out of favor and broken! Now, I happen to believe none of this, but the statements I just wrote are running loose through the media and the culture right now, and they are some of the reasons that a pro-technology, pro-defense, pro-capitalism, pro-Western civilization, pro-conservative message might have a hard time getting through to the general population.

Nevertheless, Pournelle offers convincing arguments. It might not hurt for my out-of-favor conservative friends to give A Step Farther Out another look. It might return them to their principles and give them a better vision for the future.

A Little Utopian Thinking, Conservative-style

This could rightly be called the Pournelle Doctrine, as it's 90% congruent with the writings of Jerry Pournelle. It's a vision of America as leader, not dominator. One can always dream.

2008-2058

Quoting John Adams, the U.S. President says, “We are friends of liberty everywhere, but guardians only of our own.” America rescinds the Bush Doctrine of transformation in the Muslim world, leaving the internal governments of the Arab world to the aspirations of their people. However, America retains the right to invade and punish any nation found to actively support terrorism. Reconstruction and aid will be based on the behavior of the successor government and its willingness to restrain radical elements in its midst.

In practical terms, this also means a draw-down of U.S. military commitments in Europe (especially the former Yugoslavia and Germany) and Japan. As a matter of honor, America maintains its bases in Iraq only until the Iraqis are able to withstand incursions from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia with little to no assistance.

The military has by no means been disbanded, though. The Navy is back up to the Reagan-era levels, with 16 active carrier battle groups and an ability to strike nearly anywhere within 24 hours. American national interests have been made clear to the world: free and safe passage of innocent ships anywhere in the world; no kidnapping of American civilians; no negotiating with al-Qaeda or related groups; free flowing of oil at market prices.

The Army has a new and more straightforward task: manning the ramparts of the new security wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and tightened security fence along the U.S.-Canadian border. With illegal immigration reduced to a trickle and welfare rolls likewise reduced, there are fewer jobs that “Americans will not do,” given the proper incentives.

Attached to this massive shift in immigration and border security has been a top-to-bottom reform of the Transportation Security Agency. No longer political appointees, the senior officers of the TSA are now seasoned professionals with backgrounds in civil or military security. These professionals, in turn, are helping to root out inefficient, ineffective, and intrusive security procedures at our nation’s airports and other transportation facilities. New technologies and better databases, too, are helping to “profile” potential terrorists based on behavior and background rather than “race.”

Domestically, the federal budget is down from its record high of $3 trillion. Even at half that size, better use is being made of it, from massive investments in nuclear power to ground-solar, wind, fuel cell, and space-solar power. These changes have not made OPEC happy, but they have had to learn to content themselves with steady incomes based on petroleum purchases for plastics rather than massive purchases to fuel cars and trucks. The American public breathed a sigh of relief when the last base in Iraq was dismantled after the fall of the Iranian theocracy.

The combined reforms of the consumption tax and flat welfare checks to all citizens have freed up literally billions of dollars once spent on auditors, accountants, and tax assessors. Most taxes are included up-front in purchases and transferred electronically to the Department of the Treasury. Imports face a low 10% tax, which caused much heartache in China and Europe at first. However, once our trading partners saw an end to complicated rules for import duties on specific items, they realized that what they lost on some items they more than made up for in reduced legal and paperwork fees.

Educationally, America has undergone yet another seismic shift. “Opt-out” testing procedures have enabled students to avoid, skip, or drop out of schools, to the vast relief of many teachers frustrated by “No Child Left Behind.” With smaller class sizes, education has now become a more selective (and lucrative) career. Education reform at the state and local levels has enabled the federal government to reduce its financial and curriculum mandates. Some of those reforms have included a requirement that teachers be educated or at least certified in the subjects they teach. This movement has been particularly popular at the elementary and secondary school levels, though some reactionaries at college campuses continue to insist on guaranteed tenure and education-only credentials.

The space-solar power mentioned earlier could not have come about without an active national commitment to space transportation, both public and private. NASA has returned to its old role as explorer and a facilitator and distributor of aerospace technology while the private sector has gone forth to conquer the near-Earth heavens. Military spacecraft and government space stations still exist, but they are quickly becoming outnumbered by the number of private space stations, orbital outposts, and lunar bases harvesting the vast riches of the near-Earth asteroids. And NASA still remains the premier organization for exploring the unknown. While private-sector ventures have just begun supplying the first two Mars bases, NASA continues building its first crewed expedition to Europa, as well as the first orbital cyclotron and first automated probes to Alpha Centauri and other nearby stars.

Overseas, the world was forced to admit that this was a different, and in many ways better, America. No longer imposing its lifestyle or form of government at the point of a gun, it has become content to tend its garden, grow its businesses, raise its families, and pursue its technologies on its own. The tariff changes, education reforms, and commitments to space and energy-efficient technologies have again made American schools, students, and workers valuable commodities, even in the population-stabilized India and depopulating China. It is not “one world,” as the world-government advocates had striven for, but it is, truly, a different world from any seen before.