It’s always interesting to go back and see how people predicted the future and how close (or far off) they turned out to be. As we’re cleaning house and I sort through books, I came across my copy of Arthur C. Clarke’s July 20, 2019: Life in the 21st Century. Clarke is a master of science fiction and brought us such tales as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rendezvous With Rama, and Childhood’s End. The date in the title is in reference to that most significant date in human history – July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the Moon.
The book was released in 1986, only seventeen (17) years after the historic first landing on the moon, and thirty-three (33) years before the date of the book’s title. So, there is plenty of room for speculation and how things might turn out.
Of course, one speculation he writes about is having a base on the Moon, where people live and work. Regrettably, here we are more than five years after the proposed timeline, and no Moon base. We could have had one, but the Government didn’t think it was as important as other things. NASA gets something like 0.001 percent of the federal budget. If even one percent of the Federal budget were dedicated to NASA and space exploration we’d have bases all over the solar system and be well on our way to pushing our understanding of the Universe leaps and bounds over what we know now. We might even be on our way to other solar systems. Maybe not people, but at least robotic probes.
There are still many people who argue “why should we spend any money on space when we have problems here on Earth?”
I actually had that conversation with a lady during a plane flight back when I was working at NASA. It went something like this:
“Why should we spend any money on space when we have problems here on Earth?”
“Well, there are benefits to space exploration and technology.”
“Nothing we use every day.”
“Oh. Well, you do realize you are on a airplane, right?”
“Yes.”
“And that airplane has to travel from point A to point B, right?”
“Yes.”
“How do you think it navigates?”
“I don’t know. I’m sure the pilot has a map or something.”
“Well, you’re almost right. Have you heard of GPS? The thing they use in cars to give you directions?”
“Yes, I use it all the time.”
“OK. Those GPS systems use satellites orbiting the Earth, sending signals back and forth, to precisely locate where you are. Those satellites are there because of the type of work they do at NASA. So, you are using something every day derived from space exploration and technology.”
“Yes, but all that other stuff like going to the Moon is a waste of money.”
I can’t help this planet.
At this point I’m going to have to hope Elon Musk and SpaceX eventually want to put a base on the Moon. I’m not sure that I want the exploration of space to be controlled by consumer interest, but that is probably the only way to get off this planet. I’m currently trying to figure out how to get enough money to pay Elon Musk for a ride on one of his rockets to launch my remains into space to follow the same path the Voyager probe (either one) took after I die.
If you’d like to support my efforts, why not buy me a chocolate chip cookie through my Ko-Fi page? https://ko-fi.com/jhusum
“I’m still waiting for the flying cars.”
— Avery Brooks
He can wait a very long time as far as I’m concerned. Until people can learn to drive in two dimensions safely I sure as Hell don’t want them navigating in three dimensions.
In 1950, Robert Heinlein published an essay called “Where To?” in which he made a series of predictions concerning scientific, technical, social, economic, cultural and political change for the next 30 years, and beyond in some cases.
He followed up with updates in 1965 and again in 1980, commenting on what he got right, admitting what he got wrong, etc. The essay, including the 2 updates, is printed in his book Expanded Universe.
Unfortunately, Heinlein tends to flavor his essay too much with his political opinions, which may detract from your reading pleasure, but even his political musings are grounded in premises (which may or may not be faulty) but are then advanced primarily by reason. This is a far cry from today, when hardly anyone of any political stripe seems to even know what reason is, and just shouting something loud enough will establish any statement as factual.