By 2000 A.D. we will know a great deal about how the brain functions ... whereas in 1900 what little we knew was wrong.
I do not predict that the basic mystery of psychology - how mass arranged in certain complex patterns becomes aware of itself - will be solved by 2000 A.D. I hope so but do not expect it.
9. 1950 Cancer, the common cold, and tooth decay will all be conquered; the revolutionary new problem in medical research will be to accomplish "regeneration," i.e., to enable a man to grow a new leg, rather than fit him with an artificial limb.
1965 In the meantime spectacular progress has been made in organ transplants - and the problem of regeneration is related to this one. Biochemistry and genetics have made a spectacular breakthrough in "cracking the genetic code." It is a tiny crack, however, with a long way to go before we will have the human chromosomes charted and still longer before we will be able to "tailor" human beings by gene manipulation. The possibility is there - but not by year 2000. This is probably just as well. If we aren't bright enough to build decent houses, are we bright enough to play God with the architecture of human beings?
1980 I see no reason to change this prediction if you will let me elaborate (weasel) a little. "The common cold" is a portmanteau expression for upper respiratory infections which appear to be caused by a very large number of different viruses. Viruses are pesky things. It is possible to immunize against them, e.g., vaccination against smallpox, a virus disease. But there are almost no chemotherapies, medicines, against viruses. That is why "the common cold" is treated much the same way today as in 1900, i.e., support the patient with bed rest, liquids, aspirin to make him more comfortable, keep him warm. This was standard in 1900 and it is still standard in 1980.
It is probable that your body makes antibodies against the virus of any cold you catch. But this gives you no protection against that virus's hundreds of close relatives found in any airport, theater, supermarket, or gust of dust off the street. In the meantime, while his kinfolk take turns making you miserable, virus #1 has mutated and you have no antibodies against the mutation.
Good news: Oncology (cancer), immunology, hematology, and "the common cold" turn out to be strongly interrelated subjects; research in all these is moving fast - and a real breakthrough in any one might mean a breakthrough in all.
10. 1950 By the end of this century mankind will have explored this solar system, and the first ship intended to reach the nearest star will be a building.
1965 Our editor suggested that I had been too optimistic on this one - but I still stand by it. It is still thirty - five years to the end of the century. For perspective; look back thirty - five years to 1930 - the American Rocket Society had not yet been founded. Another curve, similar to the one herewith in shape but derived entirely from speed of transportation, extrapolates to show faster - than - light travel by year 2000. I guess I'm chicken, for I am not predicting FTL ships by then, if ever. But the prediction still stands without hedging.
1980 My money is still on the table at twenty years and counting. Senator Proxmire can't live forever. In the last 101/2 years men have been to the Moon several times; much of the Solar system has been most thoroughly explored within the limits of "black box" technology and more will be visited before this year is out.
Ah, but not explored by men - and the distances are so great. Surely they are... by free - fall orbits, which is all that we have been using. But there are numerous proposals (and not all ours!) for constant - boost ships, proposals that require R&D on present art only - no breakthroughs.
Reach for your pocket calculator and figure how long it would take to make a trip to Mars and back if your ship could boost at one - tenth gee. We will omit some trivia by making it from parking orbit to parking orbit, use straight - line trajectories, and ignore the Sun's field - we'll be going uphill to Mars, downhill to Earth; what we lose on the roundabouts we win on the shys.
These casual assumptions would cause Dan Alderson, ballistician at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to faint. But after he comes out of his faint he would agree that our answers would be of correct close order of magnitude - and all I'm trying to prove is that even a slight constant boost makes an enormous difference in touring the Solar System. (Late in the 21st century we'll offer the Economy Tour: Ten Planets in Ten Days.)
There are an unlimited number of distances between rather wide parameters for an Earth - Mars Earth trip but we will select one that is nearly minimum (it's cheating to wait in orbit at Mars for about a year in order take the shortest trip each way.. . and unthinkable to wait years for the closest approach). We'll do this Space Patrol style: There's Mars, here we are at L - 5; let's scoot over, swing around Mars, and come straight home. Just for drill.
Conditions: Earth - surface gravity (one "gee") is an acceleration of 32.2 feet per second squared, or 980.7 centimeters per second squared. Mars is in or near op position (Mars is rising as Sun is setting). We will assume that the round trip is 120,000,000 miles. If we were willing to wait for closest approach we could trim that to less than 70,000,000 miles .. . but we might have to wait as long as 17 years. So we'll take a common or garden variety opposition - one every 26 months - for which the distance to Mars is about 50 - to 60,000,000 miles and never over 64 million.
(With Mars in conjunction on the far side of the Sun, we could take the scenic route of over 500 million miles - how much over depends on how easily you sunburn. I suggest a minimum of 700 million miles.)
You now have all necessary data to figure the time it takes to travel Earth - Mars - Earth in a constant - boost ship - any constant - boost ship - when Mars is at opposition. (If you insist on the scenic route, you can't treat the trajectory approximations as straight lines and you can't treat space as flat but a bit uphill. You'll need Alderson or his equal and a big computer, not a pocket calculator; the equations are very hairy and sometimes shoot back.)
But us two space cadets are doing this by eyeballing it, using Tennessee windage, an aerospace almanac, a Mickey Mouse watch, and an SR - 50 Pop discarded years ago.
We need just one equation: Velocity equals acceleration times elapsed time: v = at
This tells us that our average speed is 1/2at - and from that we know that the distance achieved is the average speed times the elapsed time: d = 1/2at2
If you don't believe me, check any physics text, encyclopedia, or nineteen other sorts of reference books - and I did that derivation without cracking a book but now I'm going to stop and find out whether I've goofed - I've had years of practice in goofing. (Later - seems okay.)
Just two things to remember:
1) This is a 4 - pieces trip - boost to midpoint, flip over and boost to brake; then do the same thing coming home. Treat all four legs as being equal or 30,000,000 miles, so figure one of them and multiply by four (Dan, stop frowning; this is an approximation ... done with a Mickey Mouse watch.)
2) You must keep your units straight. If you start with centimeters, you are stuck with centimeters; if you start with feet, you are stuck with feet. So we have 1/4 of the trip equals 5280 x 30,000,000 = 1.584 x 1011 feet, or 4.827 x 1012 centimeters.
One last bit: Since it is elapsed time we are after, we will rearrange that equation (d = 1/2at2) so that you can get the answer in one operation on your trusty but - outdated pocket calculator... or even on a slide rule, as those four - significant - figures data are mere swank; I've used so many approximations and ignored so many minor variables that I'll be happy to get answers correct to two significant figures.