Slashdot Mirror


Technological Flights Of Fancy That Fizzled

prostoalex writes "MSNBC's Alan Boyle takes a look at seven futuristic dreams for the past that never managed to materialize into anything substantial in this 21st century. At the top of the list are flying cars, with personal jetpacks, passenger airships, supersonic commercial flights, space travel and colonies, with propulsion breakthroughs completing the list."

22 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Bug free Operating Systems? by PierceLabs · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surprised that's not on the list anywhere ...

  2. Passenger airships by ericspinder · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was a pretty good article, but very weak on the Hindenburg details, many people seem to aggree these days that it was not the hydrogen that exploded, but the fabric.

    Of course the Hindenburg is a fine example of how important a picture could be. Only thirty seven people died (97 lived), yet the burning fireball caught on film managed to kill decent method of long range travel. Of course there are a couple of other problems with airships, like they don't do too well in strong winds, and they take a lot of "man handling" at the field, but in some applications they might make good sense.

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    1. Re:Passenger airships by drakaan · · Score: 4, Informative
      The highly flamabble cloth you're scoffing at was coated with (among other things) powdered aluminum. For those of you who didn't already know, that's the key combustible component in solid rocket fuel. There has been at least one pretty good special on Discovery about it, and they tested some of the fabric to see if they could reproduce the results. Here are some things I recall from that special:
      • The skin of the dirigible was coated with powdered aluminum (aluminum oxide?)
      • There were special vents at the top of the blimp to vent leaking hydrogen
      • Hydrogen burns in a hard-to-see blue flame
      • solid rocket fuel burns a bright reddish-orange
      • the hindenburg burned a bright reddish-orange

      There was a lot more to the show than that, but I was sufficiently convinced that the dirigible's skin did them in, not the Hydrogen.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    2. Re:Passenger airships by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fabric wasn't merely flammable, it contained both aluminum powder and iron oxide. That combination is called 'thermite', and it needs no oxygen to react; so the fabric was approximately explosive.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:Passenger airships by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative
      Of course there are a couple of other problems with airships, like they don't do too well in strong winds, and they take a lot of "man handling" at the field

      That's an understatement. When you need a vehicle almost as large as the Titanic to move a few dozen passengers at 80 mph max, you know you've going to have a hard time maintaining profit margins.

      What's worse is the tendency for these things to get literally ripped apart any time they wander too near a wind storm. This happened to a couple of U.S. Navy helium-filled airships, as well as quite a few others from other countries.

      I don't have the exact stats, but my understanding is that there were more crashes and disintegrations of dirigibles than fireballs. It also seems like more of them ended up crashing than retiring gracefully.

    4. Re:Passenger airships by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sure speed is a problem, but why do people take 7 day crusies around a few caribbean islands? Airship travel is definately a cool way to go! Especially in our uber-busy society. I could see airship travel being a great passtime in the US if it got cheap enough. You'd never be far from telcom or internet connections as well as satallite TV. And because they are reletively slow moving, there wouldn't be the need for many of the FAA electronic regulations anyway. Again, You could tour the internals of the US..the great places like the dakotas or Montana...just drifting along. There is minimal landing requirments...anyplace you could land a single engine would do! That would allow you to stop in many remote, isolated places without disturbing the surounding area with busy roads!

      Also, Airships can have awosome lifting capacity! Many airships on the drawing table right now are for large scale construction projects...we can see in Iraq just how fickle heilos are...even when professionally piloted. We have massive reserves of liquid hydrogen and helium from the cold war days anyway...the stuff is cheaper that a gallon of milk! Once you build it and fill it up, it doesn't really require power to stay up! That makes it far more effient than an airplane. Most of the new designs still use prop engines...that's how little power they require to move! But they do cost a FORTUNE TO BUILD! Many estimates of new airships for large scale construction or crusing are in the 100's of millions of $$$$.

  3. Transportation by apoplectic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Interesting that all of these failed technologies are transportation based. Good thing we invented the SUV instead of personal jetpacks, or some nonsense.

    1. Re:Transportation by srmalloy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at the patterns of technological predictions that have failed, they tend to cluster into several groups, such as:

      1) Lack of advances with energy storage. For all the technological advances elsewhere, a tank full of gasoline or jet fuel is still one of the densest energy storage media known.

      2) Lack of advances with energy production. Going along with the previous limitation, many of the glowing predictions for the future involved each individual's having access to -- either directly or indirectly for manufacturing purposes -- many times more energy than they do now, for much less money. Nuclear power was supposed to be the genie of infinite energy -- but that hope died with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. How many people remember the NS Savannah?

      3) Cultural shifts. Look at the images of the Family of Tomorrow, living in the City of Tomorrow. Aside from clothing, they were identical to the popular image of the ideal family, living in the idealized Suburbia. You got in your aircar and flew to work, your wife zapped dinner from frozen to steaming in seconds, their home would be made entirely of synthetic materials -- but society still had all the same values. Ignoring for the moment that this was the white, middle-class future (turning a blind eye to the race-based inequities of current society), the society that made these predictions was, on the whole, considerably more responsible than today's society. The predictions expected that, with the advances in technology, mankind would become rational, well-educated, and responsible, able to face the challenge of a sky filled with aircars and devise a solution that everyone would agree on. Now contrast this with the people you see around you on the roads, and imagine what things would be like if they had three dimensions to be stupid with.

      4) Modern business management. How long do you keep throwing money into a project before you expect to get a return? For many years, this was the single biggest advantage Japanese business had over American business -- they were willing to engage in R&D programs that wouldn't even begin to pay off for a decade or more, while in the US, an R&D program that wouldn't pay for itself in two years already had two-and-a-half strikes against it with management. Business practices have improved, but research programs that don't have a hope in hell of paying off in less than twenty years, or which, despite producing results quickly, will be hugely expensive without producing anything marketable, fall by the wayside in the eternal chase for the almighty Bottom Line. And even governments, with the ever-increasing amount of panis et circenses, err, entitlement programs, are finding it harder and harder to commit the money that such research requires, particularly when failure -- or repeated failure that is inevitable in research -- constitutes grounds for yanking your funding.

      5) Paradigm shifts. People make predictions by extending what they already know; they can't predict changes that alter the underlying premises upon which those predictions are made. Technological advances can go off into directions that render a prediction useless. For example, Robert Heinlein, one of the world's most renowned science-fiction writers, described fusion-driven starships -- torchships -- that were navigated by teams of astrogators taking star sights by hand, manually converting the sight data into binary using large reference books, entering this binary data into a huge computer (again, manually) that crunched the sight data, returned a solution that had to be (manually) converted back from binary, and then applied to the engines. That was Heinlein's experience with computers; that was how he predicted their future. The invention of integrated circuits and the microcomputer rendered that prediction ludicrously anachronistic, as if you went into an FAA control tower and found the air-traffic controllers guiding planes by pushing little model planes around on a map, a la RAF Fighter Command in WWII.

  4. Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the prediction of hundreds of cable channels did come true and yet there is still nothing on.

  5. Jet Packs by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Talk about heartbreak! I saw that ubiquitous footage of the US Navy jetpack test when I was a kid, and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. There have been many inventions that have changed my life since I saw that footage, but that's "The One That Got Away" for me.

    It's funny how when you think about the past, you seldom think about your expectations at the time for the future. This article really made me think about how no invention becomes reality simply by virtue of some sort of inevitability. Money, the market, luck, and the tides of history all play a part in determining what will make it and what won't.

    Somehow I don't think I'll ever get to use a Transporter either. Dammit!

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  6. Old magazines are a great source for this by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bought a stack of Popular Electronics magazines from the 70's on ebay a few months ago. There's some great "upcoming technologies" articles.

    In the days before the magnetic strip, they predicted credit cards would have a holographic image that optically stores the credit card number. The card projects the hologram onto a sensor which reads the number into the computer for processing.

    In the letters to the editor section, someone was wondering if it was worth taking a course in TV repair because with the release of the Phillips Modular design it will be easy for anyone to fix their own TV so the repair industry would become obsolete.

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

  7. Alternative personal transport vs. regulations by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the uproar created by the Segway, its not surprising that flying cars and jetpacks never "took off." This is not an issue of what engineers can do technologically, but an issue of what society says they can do in public.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  8. Star [Wars/Trek?] by freeweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    But how about totally revolutionary physics -- the kind of thing we see in "Star Wars" or "Star Trek"?

    You mean the kind of revolutionary physics that allows multi-ton objects to turn on a dime at insanely high velocities (with nothing to "push" against) without tearing themselves apart, and also without expending the energy of a small nuclear blast in order to do it? :)

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  9. Supersonic Travel - Tragic Loss by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Truthfully, this is the biggest dissapointment out of all of the things that were listed as failed. Though, I'd like to rejoice at the idea that the military's still pushing supersonic travel, it doesn't make me all that comfortable (for more reasons than a simple sonic boom). Seeing the Concorde go, seemed like seeing a portion of the future dissapear in front of us, and all because of a couple accidents. Of course, coincidences are hardly excuses, but still, I'd like to have seen these machines continue for a while.

    I can just imagine that one day I'll have the ability to be connected with family across the globe in real life, like I'm connected to them virtually. I can just hope that what the military researches, at whatever cost it may be, will eventually reach the mainstream consumer.

  10. Went to the moon .. and then .... ummmm....... by mikeswi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what irritates me? Pres Kennedy said we're going to the moon, and 8 years later we did it. We landed Humans on the moon, we walked around, planted a flag, parked a hoopty, took some snapshots ........ and then .... We. Never. Went. Back.

    WTF? Thirty friggin years later and no one has ever gone back? Instead we're pouring money into a useless space station for political feel good points.

    There are enough metals, water, and WEALTH orbiting just past Mars to make every living Human a trillionaire, and we're still fighting wars over oil, diamonds and pieces of land measuring a few hundred square miles in size.

    All the eggs are still in the same basket. It's only a matter of time before a great big rock flies into it and breaks every damned one of them.

    1. Re:Went to the moon .. and then .... ummmm....... by mikeswi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Sure, there are lots of asteroids with valuable metals and stuff out in the asteroid belt, but getting them back here would be infeasible

      Nope. The energy needed to smack a rock out of its orbit and toss it back this way is very small. The hardest part is getting off this rock in the first place.

      > -and once they were retrieved, the market value of their contents would plummet.

      I disagree with that. It still has to be mined from the asteroids, it still has to be smelted and refined, it still has to be distributed. The great, great grandchildren of those out-of-work steel workers near Pittsburgh will have jobs and there should be enough to go around for all of them. One job will create several other jobs.

      > At this point in history, space is a pipe dream--a ridiculous and silly pipe dream.

      I disagree here too. It is vital that we spread out from this one planet as soon as possible. There will eventually be another large meteor/comet strike and we can't all be here when it happens. If we have a strong presence in space we might even be able to prevent it.

      There is also the matter of six billion Humans on one planet. At some point, we will have consumed every natural resource that can be consumed. Unlike non-sentient beings, we change the environment to suit us, not the other way around. And in the process, we are killing this planet. We need more room, and two empty worlds (Mars and Luna) and the entire asteroid belt are right there with a great big "Vacancy" sign.

  11. Cost and Weight of Energy by Maniakes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have flying cars (1). They're called "Helicopters". They're expensive because they aren't mass produced on the scale of cars, which is because fuel costs are prohibitive for wide-scale use.

    We have personal jetpacks (2). Earlier attempts ran out of gas too quickly to be useful, but this appears to be a solved problem now.

    We have supersonic planes (4), but the fuel costs are prohibitive for commercial travel.

    We have the technology to put people and equipment in space (5 and 6), but fuel costs are prohibitive for anything other than military applications and government funded scientific research.

    The aerospace breakthroughs that occured in the early 20th century were all driven by the availability of mass-produced gasoline-driven engines, which brought the cost and weight of energy down by a large margin compared to coal burning steam engines. Jet and rocket engines became practical in the 30s and 40s, producing another round of breakthroughs. Steam engines lead to a round of breakthroughs when they first became practical.

    The reason we've only been seeing incremental improvements is because we're still using the same basic technologies. As soon as a new power source which allows more power for less money and less weight, we'll have flying cars, personal jetpacks, space tourism, and space colonization.

    I don't think it'll be fuel cells, since there's no order-of-magnitude improvements in power density there. My money is on a breakthrough in Uninterruptable Power Supplies.

    --
    A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
  12. No flying cars, thank goodness! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I for one am glad the flying car has never made it. Some people can barely keep their cars on the road. Imagine if a distracted individual talking on his/her cell phone, screaming at their kids, eating a meal, and watching a DVD movie slammed into a chemical storage tank.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  13. Not really that suprising.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the vast energy required for most of these devices, their approach really isn't that practical.

    If you think that modern cars get bad milage, just imagine the fuel bill for one that takes off vertically. Likewise for the personal jetpack and for supersonic flight. Fuel cost is also a big problem in space exploration.

    I'm guessing that these technologies will find a niche if, as - and when - renewable energy costs come down a couple of orders of magnitude. Only then will these extravagant methods of transportation be practical and likely only as niche markets given that there are vastly more efficient ways of getting from A to B.

    But in many cases technology has already eliminated the need for many of these advances.

    For instance, one of the driving forces behind supersonic flight were the "high-powered" executives who found that they could attend two board meetings on opposite sides of the atlantic on the same day - and be home again in time for dinner. But with advances in broadband teleconferencing, they don't even have to leave their home.

  14. Where are the breakthroughs ? by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tesla and many scientists who furthered his work kept announcing that the fantastic technology advances seen in their time were just the beginning. Think about it: in a few decades we got phones, radio, generalised air traffic, television, nuclear power, premices of computers, and then ... it stopped.

    What common appliance do you use everyday, that is not just an incremental improvement of the some invention, or mix of two+ inventions, discovered before the end of WW2 ? What happened to inventions since then ? There are no general public usage of supraconductors, of the technologies that put a man on the Moon... Even the Internet is just an improvement of commuted networks, though it is binary instead of analogic.

    The only major breakthrough that could plausibly make its way into our day-to-day lives is hydrogen fuel cells. Where are all the other Breakthroughs ?

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  15. The new ships don't need a large ground crew. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Informative

    A 1/3 chance of surviving a jet crash? Nope.

    The new airships like the Zeppelin NT and the ATG machines can use vectored thrust to reduce the number of ground crew required, the power/size ratio and construction methodology is also enough to allow flight in much stronger winds than the first generation machines at the start of the 20th century. They can operate within similar weather conditions to other aircraft like helicopters and light aeroplanes.

    http://www.zeppelin-nt.com/pages/D/bilder_u_thum .h tm

    The airship wasn't killed from long range travel just by the film of the Hindenberg disaster, though it certainly didn't help. The much higher speed and lower cost of the aeroplanes did more damage and I don't see that changing for A->B travel in the near future.

    I think however there's a niche similar to the one cruise liners operate within which I believe airships could fill. A world cruise on something like the Hindenberg would be absolutely fantastic. Then there's the obvious military/police patrol and observation platforms.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  16. Re:That fireball did wonders for the Concorde too. by skwang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you recall an airline company called "Pan Am", the biggest one of their time?

    They were the victim of this little incident above and in Lockerbie. You may want to check out the results for Pan Am shortly afterwards, to see how well this turned out.

    We're getting off topic here, but PanAm filed for bankruptcy because of airline deregulation.

    In the 1980s the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was shut down. It was the federal regulatory body that regulated airlines. The CAB was not the modern FAA, but instead regulated such aspects of the airline industries as prices, routes, and destinations. PanAm was the greatest beneficiary of the CAB, considering it was the largest US airline during the 50s through the 70s. PanAm basically didn't have to compete with rivals because the CAB's regulations basically guaranteed it profits.

    In the past the only way an airline differentiated itself was with service. Only a few people could actually afford to fly, and as a result airlines were sort of a "luxury" form of travel with full service (throughout the cabin) and amenities.

    The the CAB was dissolved airlines realized that they didn't have to compete with service, but could do so with prices. For a while, it seemed like airlines were popping out like wildflowers (remember TrumpAir?). Again, as a consequence of deregulation consumers had more choice in their airlines, more choice in routes, and more choice in prices.

    When the things change, usually the largest and most entrenched entities are slowest to react. PanAm basically didn't know how to compete in this new environment. Airlines lowered prices to the point where anyone could fly. Today flying is not reserved for the privileged few but to most everyone in the US. In the early 90s, PanAm basically found itself barraged with "new" lower cost airlines and went out of business.

    Some big airlines managed to survive thanks to smart management. American Airlines today is the one of the world's largest carrier. Some other big airlines wound up dying but not dead. TWA is a shell of its former self. The big winner in the industry is Southwest, whose low cost model is replicated with other airlines such as JetBlue.

    Many of the airlines that sprung up thanks to deregulation no longer exist. Trump's airline is one example. When all the cards fell into place only about ten major airline remained in the 90s. But even so air travel demand kept going up, and prices still went down. Every major airline today has filled for bankruptcy in some for or another (United, American, Continental, US Air, Delta) or bought out by another airline (US Air, TWA). Ironically Southwest, although a "discount" airline is 1) the most successful 2) posts profits even post Sept. 11th.

    Many people have complained that airline deregulation ruined air-travel. I don't believe this is true. Complaints are usually about travel delays, long lines at terminals, passengers being treated like cattle, and that was before Sept. 11th! [With airport security a big buzzword today it's probably even worse.] But keep in mind what has happened thanks to deregulation. Airlines are flying to more destinations, especially those with large markets. Airline prices have dropped to almost nothing compared to the past. Passenger ridership has increased significantly in the last twenty years. I would contend that most of the problems seen today with air-travel (not a result of security measures) are a result of the "old" regulated mentality that some management still have.