Visioneers or the Sledgehammer?
Dr. Carl Sagan and Dr. George A. “Jay” Keyworth II, contemporaries and seeming political adversaries, both championed the vision of Princeton University physicist Dr. Gerard K. O’Neill for expanding civilization into the High Frontier in a way that would promote international cooperation and competition, free-market dynamics, climate mitigation, planetary defense, and sustainable energy security.
Sagan, renowned as the David Duncan Chair of Astronomy & Space Sciences at Cornell University and co-founder of the Planetary Society, was politically and socially liberal, while Keyworth, a former Director of the Physics Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, operated within the conservative sphere during his tenure as Science Advisor in the Reagan Administration. Despite their differing backgrounds, both Sagan and Keyworth endorsed O’Neill’s vision. Sagan, known for his acclaimed science TV series “Cosmos: A Personal Voyage,” had testified before Congress in 1975 in favor of O’Neill’s concepts. Keyworth, who supported the Strategic Defense Initiative that helped end the Cold War, tapped O’Neill in 1985 to serve on the President’s National Commission on Space, contributing to the release of the of their 1986 report, PIONEERING THE SPACE FRONTIER (nasa.gov), likely the most important and far-reaching space policy document to date.
In 1968, Dr. Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little Corp., inventor of the solar power satellite, proposed that Space-based Solar Power (SBSP) could offer a solution for clean energy in a way that would promote oil, coal, and gas longevity, end the nuclear stopgap, and accommodate the growth of industry and population without apparent limits. This concept resonated profoundly with O’Neill, who quickly recognized its relevance to his own ideas for space manufacturing and settlement. By tapping into lunar and other nonterrestrial resources, SBSP could permanently solve the energy and environmental challenges on Earth while facilitating the expansion of population and economic activities within Cislunar space and beyond.
In his testimony before Congress, Sagan said, “Our technology is capable of extraordinary new ventures in space, one of which is the space city idea, which Gerard O’Neill has described to you…. The engineering aspects of it as far as I can tell are perfectly worked out by O’Neill’s study group. It is practical.”
During my February, 1990 interview with Dr. Keyworth, he said, “I think it (SBSP) could become a very viable system, so I would put it amongst any list of serious contenders for new energy technologies…. I think the lunar infrastructure that Gerry O’Neill talks about (for materials extraction) is well thought out….”
The careers of Sagan and Keyworth capped an era when liberals and conservatives, at least the bright ones, weren’t particularly at each other’s throats. They could think ahead of affairs and career on behalf of those in their concern. They articulated their views, finding common ground through agreement, compromise, or respectful disagreement. Where are our Sagans and Keyworths now?
The American ship is listing, and serious people are grappling with understanding how we reached this point in such a brief span of time. In the late 1980s, Reagan cut the ballast by directing his FCC to eliminate one of democracy’s most crucial and effective safeguards: the Fairness Doctrine. It was a calculated political maneuver made during a period of general deregulation, but its long-term repercussions were not fully understood at the time.
The elimination of the Doctrine from news reporting and discussions fragmented public attention on virtually every important national issue. This setback has delayed progress by several decades.
We can work to bridge the divide by implementing again politically agnostic fairness guidelines in television and radio news and opinion platforms. We can conduct debates on important public matters grounded in evidence and universally acknowledged realities, rather than in what has proliferated as political fairy tales, conspiracy theories, mis/disinformation, fearmongering, racial fixations, hate speak, and bad science. Three decades ago, Americans enjoyed a more balanced information landscape, and that wasn’t by chance.
The founding of the United States rested on the bedrock of freedom, liberty, democracy, equality, and the clear separation of church and state. Even in the midst of technological advancements and the perilous rise of nationalist, isolationist, racist, theocratic, cynical, and authoritarian tendencies, it is imperative that we stand firm in defending these fundamental principles.
Solving present challenges cannot be achieved by imposing an American autocracy or a nationalist theocracy, both of which rely on force. Furthermore, an authoritarian regime that undermines civil liberties, individual rights, and settled law cannot drive American leadership in scientific, technological, ecological, economic, and sociocultural progress beyond Earth, as envisioned by visioneers such as O’Neill, Sagan, Keyworth, and Glaser.
Science is facing mounting assaults from the extreme far right, met with equally unfounded counterarguments from the far left. By scientific consensus, the reality of global warming induced by industrial and transportation activities is undeniable, posing an existential threat to species if left unchecked. The encouraging aspect, for those capable of discerning reliable information amidst the noise of alarmism, is that the issue is theoretically resolved across four dimensions. This resolution doesn’t entail economic regression, resource-driven conflicts, a hard stop on traditional energy sources, or human suffering. Instead, it paves the way for economic expansion, enhanced global living standards, and unprecedented advancements in civilization — an unprecedented paradigm shift.
For those paying attention, SBSP can serve a potential market worth up to $10 trillion annually, simply by solving for new and replacement electric generating stations. This initiative can significantly contribute to meeting climate mitigation targets by the middle of the century. The late David Criswell projected that 50TW of SBSP can grow the global GDP tenfold. Peter Garretson (Lt Col-Ret., USAF), a Senior Fellow in Defense Studies at the American Foreign Policy Council, estimates that SBSP can provide on the order of 5 million new jobs plus some 50,000 service jobs per satellite.
SBSP has the capacity to fulfill the carbon-neutral energy requirements of both advanced and developing nations, serving as a reliable energy source for baseload, off-grid, and emergency response situations worldwide. It has the potential to satisfy a substantial portion of the future energy demands of an advancing technological society, even fostering its expansion. However, realizing these possibilities will require a decisive “go” decision from leadership.
Achieving this transformation requires a democratic nation with a well-informed populace, a robust current GDP, advanced space capabilities, engaged public, private, and international partners, and a competitive spirit, particularly in light of formidable contenders like the Chinese Communist Party, which is actively pursuing the Moon and SBSP. Originating in the U.S., this undertaking demands political determination to assume a leadership role globally. It must inspire ordinary citizens, offering them a sense of ownership in an exhilarating and inclusive future full of possibilities.
A nation aspiring to such heights must, foremost, uphold the integrity of its information. It must distinguish between the freedom of speech and the freedom to lie and sow confusion without challenge or consequence — a trend that has grown in American television and radio news and opinion media since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. This unchecked “freedom” to distort truth was exploited to a dangerous political degree by the 45th president and his fellow travelers. Magnified by social media, this distortion continues, and it poses an existential threat to a 248 year-young nation from within. The situation throws a sledgehammer to America’s unfinished task and potential.
If the current political and legal matters are resolved, if Project 2025 is rejected, if Americans’ imaginations are reignited and lifted from fear and cynicism, and if politically agnostic fairness regulations are reinstated and modernized to encompass cable and satellite TV news — formats that didn’t exist when the Fairness Doctrine was originally created but now dominate in many American households — web and social media platforms may likely respond with their own measures for moderation. (Note: The internet is beyond the scope of the Fairness Doctrine.) If the restored safeguards of democracy and our Constitution stand firm, future generations, including those born in space, will appreciate that we succeeded, and that freedom and facts prevailed on the ground such that their existence, freedom, prosperity, and open-ended future will have been made possible.
