Rendezvous with Rama - Technological Progress Timescale?

[proteus]

Many of you are familiar with Arthur C. Clark’s novel Rendezvous with Rama. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, the story begins with a large meteorite impacting in Northern Italy on September 11th, 2077 resulting in the deaths of 600,000 people.

Clark writes, “After the initial shock, mankind reacted with a determination and a unity that no earlier age could have shown.” He juxtaposes mankind of 2077, with their ancestors of 100 years ago saying, “A hundred years earlier a much poorer world, with far feebler resources, had squandered its wealth attempting to destroy weapons launched, suicidally, by mankind against itself.” He refers to the people of 1977 - to wit: the people of our current time (from Clark’s perspective at the time of publishing the novel in 1973).

No mention is given of the technological progress made before 2077. He briefly explains the intense trauma mankind experiences by the impact as “if a great war had been fought and lost in a single morning; and few could draw much pleasure from the fact that, as the dust of destruction slowly settled, for months the whole world witnessed the most splendid dawns and sunsets since Krakatoa.”

In this world, never before was an event as terrifying and destructive as to wake all of man from their daily slumber of self-centeredness and petty squabbles. In the span of 54 years, the people of the Earth establish a network of radar tracking sites on Mars and numerous asteroids, establish permanent bases on the Moon, Mars, Mercury, and on the moons of Jupiter, and have spacecraft that can travel between the planets.

My questions are these: What is the feasibility of the human race making that kind of technological progress in space within the span of 54 years? Was Clark being too optimistic? Is it even plausible? What do you think would happen if a similar event occurred in real life?

I would love to get your thoughts and comments on this matter.

 

[RJDiogenes]

For the most part, the technology already exists-- the only thing we really lack is the practical experience needed to apply it properly. Could that happen in fifty years? Probably. Would it? Possibly. It would take a huge expenditure of resources, which would be compromised in dealing with the aftermath of the impact itself, and it would take a lot of political will and broad support. So if it happened today, probably not. Conflicting regions would be too eager to take advantage of the damage to Western Civilization. But who knows what the Zeitgeist of 2077 will be. We're pretty much at a low point compared to where we were forty years ago, so maybe fifty years from now we'll be at a high point.

 

[Mr Awe]

I'd agree that the technology exists, but that's like saying the technology existed in the 60s to go to the moon! We had the technology and went to the moon. However, it was extraordinarily expensive and dangerous!

Today, we have the technology that would allow much of it. But, it's at such a rudimentary level that it would be both dangerous and expensive. We also haven't figured out how to manage all of the health risks. These include radiation and the zero G effects on muscle and, particularly, bone loss. There's no way we could build a base on Mercury.

Extrapolating forward, yes, a lot more would be possible with refinements in technology and practical experience. We also need the willingness to pay the costs, which typically depend on the expectation that the benefits would exceed those costs. Consequently, if there was a way to make space profitable, yes, I think we'd do it. Other than that, probably not beyond scientific mission and security measures.

You can look at the past 45ish years since the Apollo missions ended to see how much motivation we have to get this stuff done when there is no clear profit motive--none! That's how humanity works.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Space exploration seems to have become a billionaires' playground -- the general public being mostly apathetic -- members of this board are larely atypical in this regard. We probably need to encourage the creation of more billionaires with ambitions to reach for the high frontier -- much as they can be quite annoying personality types.

 

[StarCruiser]

A billionaire's playground can eventually become affordable for the masses. Think about early automobiles - extremely expensive (and somewhat temper-mental - okay, VERY temper-mental). Then came the mass-produced car (first Olds, then Ford) and prices dropped and over time, reliability improved as well.

Is Clark too optimistic - no. Given the NEED to do it, and the means already existing, we WILL do it. It takes political and social will to get large and complex projects done.

This is one of our failings in recent years. Look at the Pyramids in Egypt (and their equivalents in Central/South America) and the Great Wall of China and so on and so forth. All of these great project required means and will. All were done.

When humanity puts its collective mind to getting something done, it very often gets done...

 

[Mr Awe]

There were very practical economic reasons for why cars became mass produced. Until there is a profit incentive for space travel, that won't happen with spacecraft!

Once that motive exists, I think it'll happen in a heartbeat (relatively speaking). I think Clark was too optimistic in assuming that space travel would be affordable and profitable. Space travel is more expensive than expected and the costs have been harder to reduce than expected. And, accessing the wealth that exists in our solar system is more difficult and expensive than expected.

Political will won't clear those hurdles!

 

[RJDiogenes]

Ironically, I think it was Clarke who said that short-term predictions are always overly optimistic and long-term predictions are always overly pessimistic.