If you know me, you know that one of my
most favorite things in ever is to look at those "
what's the future going to be like" one or two-pagers in old comic books. Usually half pie-in-the-sky exceptionalism, half scientifically illiterate, half goofy as hell--that's good reading!!
So let's go back exactly
60 years, to
October 1957, to see what our forefathers thought of...
Oh, this should be good.
Well, blow shit up, right?
What
else you got, future predictions?
Not bad. There are atomic powered ships, albeit limited to military craft. No luxury liners (that I'm aware of!)!
Next!!
I've got to grade this a fail, although it's not really the fault of atomic power, but our lack of establishing space colonies
(on Jupiter?!?!). Also, it turns out that for many "close enough to the sun" missions, solar power is more efficient and less dangerous.
Next!!
Ooh, I'll give this one a
half right. Atomic power can generate electricity pretty damn cheaply. However, the cost of the plants themselves is exorbitant, and therefore in the private sector such plants are only feasible with large government subsidies. And that's before you factor in potential environmental costs, waste disposal, and public opposition. The fact that power companies are shutting down nuclear plants, rather than building more, shows the notion of "
electricity so cheap it wouldn't pay to read the meters" was a bit of a pipe dream.
Last!!
Fail. Well, I'll give it a
partial point, as the "
car of tomorrow" may eventually put the gas station out of business. But it will be because of batteries and conventional electricity, not due to automobiles carrying atomic reactors (
'66 Batmobile excepted, of course).
It turn out I lied...this is from Mysteries of Unexplored Worlds # 5 (1957), but it turns out it's a reprint from Rocket Ship X #1 (1951). That's why you gotta research these things...
The problem with nuclear reactors is that they have to be HEAVY. Since uranium and plutonium are two of the densest substances in the world, and since the reactor needs to be shielded by lead or other dense materials, they aren't suitable as a power source for aircraft or spacecraft, where every ounce counts, or for cars, which would need massively strong suspension and brakes to cope with the weight. Mass isn't such a big deal for ships, so nuclear power is suitable for them.
ReplyDeleteThe closest to a nuclear cruise ship was the NS Savannah. From 1962 to 1965 it operated as a passenger-cargo liner, carrying a total of 848 passengers and 4800 tons of cargo for States Marine Lines.
ReplyDeleteOperating costs put it into early retirement in 1971, but the Savannah is still around. It currently resides in Baltimore, where plans are to finish turning it into a floating museum, as befits its status as a National Historic Landmark and being listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
If there's one thing I learned in "Our Friend the Atom", it's that the US Navy's first nuclear powered vessels went operational in 1957.
ReplyDeleteNow I'll go check Wikipedia and see if that is actually right...
Huh. USS Nautilus (SSN-571) was actually finished in 1955. As far as I can tell, it was public knowledge at the time? Not sure where I plucked 1957 from, unless one of the aircraft carriers went online then?
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, predicting atomic ships in 1957 was not a very bold prediction.
Ah, but read the small print--this was a reprint of a 1951 story!
ReplyDeleteHurmph, no, they started building USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in 1958. So lord only knows where I got 1957 from. Maybe it was the publication date of Our Friend the Atom or something...
ReplyDeleteOoo, 1951 is much better for predictions!
ReplyDelete