Slashdot Mirror


Transportation Retro-Futuristics

jpatokal writes "Flashback to the future with UC Berkeley's Transportation Futuristics! An excellent exhibition of amazing diagrams on how transportation was expected to evolve, featuring flying saucer buses, airplane escape pods and, yes, monorails. But where are the Segways and SUVs?"

129 comments

  1. Back to the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least we know for sure we'll have hovercars by 2015...

    1. Re:Back to the Future by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I fear that this is the first of many 'where is my flying car' gags.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Back to the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe you all should read this:

      http://www.renatojanine.pro.br/LEstrangeira/rich .h tml

      It appears the future is here, just not HERE.

    3. Re:Back to the Future by isorox · · Score: 1

      More importantly hoverboards! I'd use a skateboard and hang on to the back of cars to get to work, but

      1) too many bumps
      2) quicker to walk

      Hoverboards would solve this

    4. Re:Back to the Future by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem is that there's hardly any metal to 'poon on today's cars.

      -Peter

  2. monorail by Kujah · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car MONORAIL!
    What'd I say? Monorail!
    What's it called? Monorail!
    That's right! Monorail!

    ah that loveable Lyle Lanley...

    1. Re:monorail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Kujah:


      Monorail!



      Were you sent here by the devil?

    2. Re:monorail by WebMasterP · · Score: 1

      See the monorail reminds me that it recently caught on fire.

    3. Re:monorail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car MONORAIL!
      What'd I say? Monorail!
      What's it called? Monorail!
      That's right! Monorail!

      I've heard those things are awfully loud...

  3. How about space travel ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have not read this article but I remember reading something similiar before and they didn't have any mention of space travel. So I guess we are ahead of our times.

  4. No Transporters? by Alphanos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suppose this was before the age of Star Trek. Much better than an underground subway between New York and Los Angeles would be a simple door you could walk through that instantly teleported you to the destination.

    --
    Alphanos
    1. Re:No Transporters? by nz_mincemeat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Very funny Scotty - now beam me back my clothes!

    2. Re:No Transporters? by zonker · · Score: 0

      the future is calling via a pokia phone.

  5. The Future Ain't What it Used To Be by ewhac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Future may not be available as shown; individual fates may vary. Future not available in India, Africa, or Central/South America.
    -- Tom Servo, Mystery Science Theater 3000, "Design for Dreaming"

    Beg, borrow, or make a copy of MST3K episode 524, "12 to the Moon," which leads with the short subject, "Design for Dreaming," a corporate promotion film by General Motors. Produced in the 1960's, it depicts THE FUTURE! as General Motors will bring it to you. Astounding labor-saving kitchen devices! Amazing new cars! ("For the electronic highway of the future, the new Firebird-II!")

    Corn-ball as it is these days, part of me still wishes the future were like this.

    Schwab

    1. Re:The Future Ain't What it Used To Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Design for Dreaming is part of Rick Prelinger's ephemeral films archive (the source of many an MST3K short), which means you can legally download it for free from the Internet Movie Archive. No incisive voiceovers, though :).

    2. Re:The Future Ain't What it Used To Be by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      When I went to see the recent remake of "The Stepton Wives" (Yes, I admit to this - we all have our embarassing moments), I was laughing myself silly during the opening credits.

      People thought I was nuts but I just couldn't stop laughing - see, over the opening credits there was a montage of these '50's commercials depicting the perfect housewife, complete with poodle-skirts and everything - and one of the things they kept using clips from was "Design for Dreaming". I kept picturing the bot's making comments about it in my head.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  6. Trans-planetary subway misses the boat. by juggledean · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The trans-planetary subway http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/exhibits/f uturistics/oddities/5.html has a description of accelerators and things to take care of the g-forces but, if they'd even read Scientific American they'd know that if you dig the tunnel in a straight line, through the planet, from Los Angeles to New York, you can get gravity to do most of the work and free fall all the way in about 45 minutes, coming to rest at the surface at the far end. You just have to worry about friction and the temperature rise.


    Retro-future isn't what it used to be.

    1. Re:Trans-planetary subway misses the boat. by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Huh? Gravity doesn't work sideways. Either I misunderstood your post or you're pulling my leg.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    2. Re:Trans-planetary subway misses the boat. by juggledean · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even "sideways" you would be going closer to the center of the earth, sliding downhill until you are halfway there, then using the kinetic energy to coast uphill the rest of the way.

    3. Re:Trans-planetary subway misses the boat. by Man+of+E · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but just kind of "slipping" into a sideways tunnel and back out the other side wouldn't be fast enough for the true futurist. Pack some enormous magnets in there to give the subway pod a good kick in the back and have it boosted from NY to LA at Mach 5, then you have something that can fill a center spread in Life magazine. Isn't that what so much of this rubbish was all about?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig
    4. Re:Trans-planetary subway misses the boat. by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Which is why it is obviously impossible to fall down a hole.

      I don't think that OP was talking about, for instance, LA to San Fransico. More like LA to London.

      -Peter

  7. Tulsa Monorail by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

    When I was a high school student in Tulsa in the 1980's, a monorail system around town was being kicked around. I thought it was pretty cool, although it didn't actually *go* anywhere in particular. It went by my school, and that was good enough.

    I don't know what it is about monorail that gets the imagination so fired up... as the site notes, the engineering required for something as simple as switching tracks is daunting. But what's the runaway #1 selection in an online poll of Tulsa students? 80% say... Monorail, baby! (Note, this is before Slashdotters hit the poll and skew the results...)

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Tulsa Monorail by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      for those who want to skew the results, here you go
      http://student-voices.org/modules/index.php3?C ityI D=3

      i can't figure out how to vote cowboyneal yet, maybe someone else can

  8. Stephen Hawkings Kills the Idea of Warp Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    When Stephen Hawkings clung stubbornly to the idea that black holes eventually collapse into nothing, he raised the prospect that traveling into a black hole will teleport you suddenly into another corner of the universe. However, he later renounced his previous belief. In a stunning admission of error, last week, he publically conceded that black holes eventually implode, releasing all the matter that it has vacuumed. So, Hawkings basically destroyed the idea of travel at Warp speed.

    Sorry. We are doomed to live and die in this galaxy.

    1. Re:Stephen Hawkings Kills the Idea of Warp Speed by I7D · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      A) We know this

      B) Why did you bring it up? It has little to do with the topic

      C) Its not unfeasable that we'd exit this galaxy. In fact there is another galaxy colliding with ours as we speak. (on the other side of it)

      D) Thanks to special relativity, we can get to just about anywhere in a few years with constant acceleration, Earth will age much more quickly though.

      --
      Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
    2. Re:Stephen Hawkings Kills the Idea of Warp Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not. There are thoeries on how to compress space. I'm too lazy to google for it, but these theories would make faster then light travel technically possible. You wouldn't actually be travelling faster then light, you'd just be making space shorter to travel through.

      Besided, don't rag on Hawkings. He's a genius, AND he can admit to making a mistake. That's a rare combination that should be encouraged.

    3. Re:Stephen Hawkings Kills the Idea of Warp Speed by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      The calculations are pretty interesting when you look at them. No matter what mass an object is, accelerating it at constant Earth gravity will attain lightspeed in almost exactly one Earth year and require the total conversion to energy of exactly the mass of that object. Messed up, huh?

    4. Re:Stephen Hawkings Kills the Idea of Warp Speed by EdipisReks · · Score: 1

      Stephen Hawking did NOT kill the idea of warp speed. afterall, Warp Speed (when you capitalize 'warp' and 'speed' you invoke Gene Roddenberry) involves subspace bubbles which, to the best of my knowledge, are make believe. what Hawking MAY have killed, however, is merely the idea of a certain type of wormhole. which was already make believe, anyway.

    5. Re:Stephen Hawkings Kills the Idea of Warp Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, warp drive depends on the revised Alcubierre equations, not the black hole stuff. Unfortunately, you need an absurd amount of exotic energy to maintain the warp bubble.

    6. Re:Stephen Hawkings Kills the Idea of Warp Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that while that sounds like star-trek babble, it's actually right. There are serious problems with the naive Alcubierre design though, it's not just "exotic energy" you need, you need "negative energy".

  9. Did you see those short haul seats? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Damn 503 errors, I've been waiting to post for nearly a half hour, so no link, but did you see those seats for the proposed short-haul plane? I guess they expect their passengers to either be very skinny- or to just kind of lean against the seat standing up.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Did you see those short haul seats? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
      Yeah, those 503s were pissing me off too. I hate it when I can't read /. at work!

      But yeah, I was thinking, why don't they just amputate passengers' legs while they're at it?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Did you see those short haul seats? by xs650 · · Score: 1

      Compared to existing seats in short haul planes (and long haul steerage class seats), standing up sounds like the better option.

    3. Re:Did you see those short haul seats? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Really pissing me off today- I've spent every break I've had at work just trying to log in....

      Yep, amputating the passengers' legs would be easier, and then you could fit them in the overhead compartments for even MORE PROFIT!

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  10. Could do it with Nanotech by Ghostgate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Far in the future, with nanotechnology, transporters could be something that is actually possible. But I think it would only work for inanimate objects and not living creatures. With inanimate objects, you just break down the object into its individual molecules, recording the data of each one so that you can send the data to the other end of the transporter and build an exact copy of the original object. But with living creatures, this process would effectively kill the original. So you walk in a transporter, and you die, while a copy comes out the other end. The only way to remedy this would be to send the actual molecules down the transporter "line" rather than the data, but this would be much, much more complicated (and not even possible unless there is an incredibly efficient physical link between the two transporter locations).

    1. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by Eric604 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So you walk in a transporter, and you die, while a copy comes out the other end. The only way to remedy this would be to send the actual molecules down the transporter "line" rather than the data, but this would be much, much more complicated

      Both methods breaks down the living creature so I don't see a huge difference. Anyway, I would be curious to know how many people would refuse to use such transporters because of the die/recreate thing.

    2. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by Ghostgate · · Score: 1

      Still, if you were broken down, and then those exact molecules were sent and reconstructed, all in just a few nanoseconds, wouldn't you still be yourself? It's the same physical matter. Why would this process, assuming it could be done fast enough, destroy your individual consciousness?

      I don't think it would... but the problem, of course, is that there's no way to test it. Even if the original being that goes through is dead, the version that comes out on the other side is always going to say "Don't worry, it's still me!"

    3. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The particles that we are made of are constantly winking in and out of existence due to quantum fluctuations anyway. It's only a matter of degree to compare that to being completely disassembled and reassembled somewhere else from different particles.

      At a more concrete level, most of the chemical elements your body is made of are gradually dissolved and replaced over several years; you literally are not the same person you were 15 years ago.

      In other words, you are already being subject to similar "transporter" like effects as you travel through time.

    4. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      If you disassemble a living being, I don't think it really matters if you ship all the molecules to the new location or use stuff that's already there. For a while, the being is dead either way depending on your theology.

      I'd be worried that the other end would be running a nanno-nanny filter and I'd come out the other end without any naughty bits. Also, even if you do break down the original, there's no limit on the number of copies. I'd rather not get people spam.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      On the up side you could do pretty much anything you wanted to the spam people with no legal repercussions.

      Spammer:How would you like to increase your penis size up to eigth inches?
      You:Hold on let me get my machette.
      Spammer:Err...

    6. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I would be curious to know how many people would refuse to use such transporters because of the die/recreate thing.

      A lot... but, as with any new technology, it would become accepted over time.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    7. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by d474 · · Score: 1

      I think the interesting part is going to be the confusion the researchers have in trying develop this technology when no matter how exact and precise they (transport the particles/replicate the particles), the living creature, once reassembled, hits the floor dead everytime.

      If you transport the molecules in a "disassembled" format, you are killing the living creature, moving the molecular constituents to another location, and reassembling them. The meat gets there, but the life doesn't ; it is a dead construct.

      If you replicate the particles then things get interesting. In the idea of scanning some living creature, recording the position of all the particles, and replicating that creature in another location, the original creature need not be disassembled. In effect, you are making a copy of the original, but the original is still alive. The problem is that the replication and the new location has no "life", the spirit isn't made of physical particles so as it can't be "scanned" and duplicated. The creature is constructed into a dead state.

      This stuff would work just fine with a computer, but not living creatures, IMHO.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    8. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by Ghostgate · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the replication and the new location has no "life", the spirit isn't made of physical particles so as it can't be "scanned" and duplicated. The creature is constructed into a dead state.

      We don't know this for sure, though, because we have such a long way to go before this kind of technology can even be attempted.

      But who is to say the "spirit" cannot be duplicated? Our consciousness, our self-awareness, the thoughts that run through our minds, all of it... one can argue that all of that is made up simply of physical things like chemical reactions and electrical impulses. It still seems to me that if the process can be done fast enough (so that the living being's body is in as "frozen" of a state as possible), that the replicated or reconstructed version would indeed be alive. But the kind of speed necessary to do it may not even be possible.

    9. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the spirit isn't made of physical particles"

      Really? Why not? Who told you that? Why did you believe them? And what is the "spirit" made of then?

    10. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by d474 · · Score: 1
      Our consciousness, our self-awareness, the thoughts that run through our minds, all of it... one can argue that all of that is made up simply of physical things like chemical reactions and electrical impulses.
      I don't disagree that a lot, if not ALL of our psychology is dictated or processed by the physical structures of our nervous system. However, I liken those physical structures of our nervous system to the hardware & software of a computer system. Without electricity, a computer just sits there, and the same with a body. "Life" or "Spirit" is the electricity that runs that system. The reason I like that analogy, is that our spirits are really coming from the same grid, or source...

      But, we digress....
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    11. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Perhaps something like David Brin's Kiln People? (Interesting book, but it never quite turned golem magic into science and technology for me.) Cheap clay duplicates that last a day or so, with memory transfer back possible at the end of the day. Send dittos to work each day. If it's a boring job, don't even bother to download the memories afterwards. (Since the copy is you, you'll be "killing" it, oh well.)

      Destroying someone's ditto might get you a fine, but then, if it was trespassing and wasting the time of an original, it's owner would be fined. (Dittos have ID pellets baked into their foreheads. Naturally spammers would continue to forge .. headers.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    12. Re:Could do it with Nanotech by MrRTFM · · Score: 1

      Yes, the only way this method would work is if the person was either frozen to 0 degrees kelvin before being scanned, or having some super scanner which gets every data point instantly.

      Either way, its going to be a very neat feat when they eventually work it out - Beta testers anyone?

      --
      You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
  11. Monorails, schmonorails... by while(true) · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...where's my flying car!?

    1. Re:Monorails, schmonorails... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, now that you mention it... look at the caption for the flying saucer photo in the Oddities section: isn't that Paul Moller?

    2. Re:Monorails, schmonorails... by The+Zody · · Score: 1

      Right here: http://www.moller.com/skycar/
      It just costs a little bit more then expected...

  12. Hovercraft? by Enaku · · Score: 0

    Where are the 1950's style hovercrafts? THEY PROMISED US HOVERCRAFTS! *whimper*

  13. Most of the stuff on the site is ugly... by I7D · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but I seriously wouldn't mind piloting this thing http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/exhibits/f uturistics/auto/3.html

    --
    Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
  14. Park-n-ride by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looking at the image they have for the "flying-saucer bus", one would think that a slight part of that dream is alive in the form of "park-n-ride" bus services that many suburbs offer for their work commuters looking to get into the city without the wear on their cars and frustration of rush-hour traffic.

    Sure, the buses don't fly, but the end result is somewhat similar in a "it's 2004, but no weekend trips to the moon" kind of way.

  15. Re:Hey Man by mikael · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm. I don't think you should eat magic mushrooms and read slashdot at the same time. It wouldn't be good to have your kernel killed by a hallucinogenically distorted page fault.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  16. Poll by Ghostgate · · Score: 1

    80% say... Monorail, baby! (Note, this is before Slashdotters hit the poll and skew the results...)

    Haha, I can see it now. The poll gets /.'d and then by tonight the leading poll result (in a landslide), despite it not even being a choice right now, will be: CowboyNeal.

  17. This is all great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful


    but how are they going to power all these wonderful things ? if you are thinking oil then think again, we will be lucky to see oil in 2025 never mind in the distant "future", how are those fusion generators coming along ?

    still you can always apologise to your grandchildren now because they will be the ones to suffer

    1. Re:This is all great by Greg@RageNet · · Score: 2

      As I recall everything was going to be fission powered, until the fearmongers and FUDers came along. So while you are sitting in traffic wondering why you aren't cruzing home in your very own aircar blame the guy ahead of you with the air-fowling VW minibus and the greenpeace sticker.

      -- Greg

      --
      Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
    2. Re:This is all great by autophile · · Score: 1
      As I recall everything was going to be fission powered, until the fearmongers and FUDers came along...blame the guy ahead of you with the air-fowling VW minibus

      I guess that means he was chicken.

      [Score -1, those who cannot spell words are doomed to repeat second grade]

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
  18. Here's hoping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that this stuff never sees the light of day!

  19. I still want my flying car! by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was born in 1952, and I remember many of these images when they were new.

    A couple of weeks ago I waited for a late plane, then got jammed into one of those just-too-small Airbus middle seats for six hours. I couldn't help thinking that what I really wanted, right then, was one of the self-piloting flying cars we were all going to have by the year 2000.

    Computers and the Internet are okay, but not much of the really good stuff futurists promised we'd have by the beginning of the next century is in common use yet.

    I guess I might as well give up on that Moon vacation. Not going to happen in my lifetime at this rate. :(

    1. Re:I still want my flying car! by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      The upside is that we're not all going around dressed in Spandex jumpsuits. Spandex remains a privilege, not a right!

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    2. Re:I still want my flying car! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the Internet than a flying car (unless maybe the flying car was fast enough to take a day trip halfway around the world).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:I still want my flying car! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then call me Mr. Privileged! Oh baby I'm spandexed up right now! mmm... Touch my SPANDELICIOUS SPANGLY SPANDEX PANTS!

    4. Re:I still want my flying car! by Saeger · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The main reasons why the flying car was a bad prediction:
      1. Costs too much in comparison to a car that moves in 2-dimensions (in terms of $ and energy).
      2. Not as safe - there STILL isn't enough AI computing power to control the traffic and fly the masses safely through the 3D "skyways". Maybe the idiots in the 50s really did think that anyone who could drive could surely be a pilot too?
      3. Noise.
      4. Parking space.
      5. (Why move your body physically, when in many cases it's more efficient to do it virtually?)

      What gets me mad, though, is how people like to trot this wheres-my-flying-car(!) example out every time they're waxing pessimistic about present day futurism.

      I guess I might as well give up on that Moon vacation. Not going to happen in my lifetime at this rate. :(

      Cheer up. As long as you've got at least another decade of life left in you, you'll make it to the crossover point where it can be extended indefinitely, because the rate of technological progress is actually exponential.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:I still want my flying car! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The upside is that we're not all going around dressed in Spandex jumpsuits. Spandex remains a privilege, not a right!

      Hush... or someone will post the Tron costume images again.

    6. Re:I still want my flying car! by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2.Not as safe - there STILL isn't enough AI computing power to control the traffic and fly the masses safely through the 3D "skyways".

      It's not a computing power problem - it's a reliability problem. The computer on your desk has enough number-crunching ability to direct a city's traffic in 2D or 3D in real-time, especially if a simpler sub-optimal-but-good-enough algorithm is used.

      The real problem with automatically controlled cars is that the system won't be perfect, and the consequences of failure either on the ground or in the air aren't acceptable. On the ground, your automated vehicle kills a pedestrian (because of vehicle control failure or because they did something foolish). In the air, a malfunction turns your vehicle into a few thousand pounds of flying metal (plus fuel!) looking for something fragile to crash down on.

      The 2D case gives you prohibitive liability problems for the manufacturer, and the 3D case gives you accidents that are far less survivable and produce far more collateral damage than the 2D kind. All of these problems are solvable, and I firmly believe we'll end up with computer-controlled ground cars in the not too distant future, but it won't be a cakewalk.

      Maybe the idiots in the 50s really did think that anyone who could drivecould surely be a pilot too?

      That was the general idea, if I understand correctly. After all, how much harder can it be? (/irony)

    7. Re:I still want my flying car! by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I firmly believe we'll end up with computer-controlled ground cars in the not too distant future, but it won't be a cakewalk.

      Nope, it won't be a cakewalk, but robotics is improving at a quickening pace. Got the new DARPA challenge in a few months... I and I expect one of the teams to at least cross the finish line this time. :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  20. 1950s future vehicles look like 1950s vehicles by WomensHealth · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Isn't it strange how, when we look at designs for future vehicles realized by past designers, the pictures look old-fashioned to us? Why does the 1950s vison of a futuristic hovercar look like nothing more than a 1950s automobile without wheels? Surely, to the contemporary viewer, these vehicles looked futuristic, but to us, they just look old-fashioned. Why does it seem that the 1950s futurists were unable to come up with an image of something resembling, say, a 2004 BMW 3-series, or even a 1990s Dodge Intrepid?

    The corollary to this is that, our current interpretations of what future vehicles might look like (imagine the Audi in I, Robot or the Lexus in Minority Report), will probably look hopelessly dated when 2030 rolls around.

    The problem, I suspect, lies largely in our inability to predict what styling cues future consumers will find appealing. Is it impossible for us, as non-clairvoyants, to imagine what manufactured goods might look like in the future? Can anyone cite any examples of past designers who were able to successfully envision the future of industrial design?

    1. Re:1950s future vehicles look like 1950s vehicles by Jodka · · Score: 1

      "Isn't it strange how, when we look at designs for future vehicles realized by past designers, the pictures look old-fashioned to us? Why does the 1950s vison of a futuristic hovercar look like nothing more than a 1950s automobile without wheels? Surely, to the contemporary viewer, these vehicles looked futuristic, but to us, they just look old-fashioned..."

      Futuristic design is intrinsically self-negating prophesy. To predict a design of the future is impossible, for a design exists at the moment of prediction; By the act of predicting a design of the future you have created a design in the present. By the act of prediction the present is changed, and so to the future to which it leads. Were these styles not dated to the past, they would be available to become styles dated to the present.

      The styles of yesterday's future were adopted into yesterday's present. Thus, those design styles ceased to be futuristic and became immediate within that era. To us, they look dated from that era because they do indeed date from that era, not from our own.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    2. Re:1950s future vehicles look like 1950s vehicles by daniil · · Score: 1
      The styles of yesterday's future were adopted into yesterday's present.

      And vice-versa: the ideas and styles of yesterday's present were adopted into yesterday's future. For instance, Sci-Fi books and films from the 1960's and 70's quite often picture big mainframe computers and other technology (or other fads like cybernetics) from that era.

      One could say that it's because we think in and operate with terms and objects that are already there. We can think of what the future might be like, but most of the time, we still get stuck in the present and come up with things like those airplane-like cars from the 1950's (weren't jet planes the big thing at that time?) that were novel at that time, but completely unlike what we are used to seeing today. It takes a genius to come up with something completely new and unseen (for instance, take a look at the work of Franco Scaglione or Luigi Colani), but even this will look old someday.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
  21. Give me back my future! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    I was cheated. Cheated I say! At some point I fell through a rift in the spacetime continuum and ended up in this timeline where the future turns out to be as lame as can be with little sign of improvement. Where are the hovercars? Where are the big round space stations? Where are the bases on the moon? Where are the sonic showers? Where are the talking robots? Where's my shiny silver suit? Cheated! Give me back my real timeline!

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  22. So They're A Little Ahead Of Their Time! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    The oil hasn't run out - yet.

    But it will.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  23. some visions survive by nusratt · · Score: 1

    In that family of predictions, one stalwart is the vision of "hands-off" driving. Although the schedule has always been wildly unrealistic, this particular vision keeps popping back up -- unlike a lot of the gee-whiz ideas which are rarely discussed today (such as ubiquitous personal aircraft).

    Also, bullet-trains and the Chunnel might be considered to be fulfilled predictions, albeit much less spectacular than others.

    1. Re:some visions survive by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
      I particularly like the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) stuff.

      (This little bit irritated me though:

      Pilot applications of a full-scale version of this driverless taxi system are soon to begin in the Soutwest of England. According to a May 6, 2004 press release by the SWRDA, "Prototype tests of ULTra have already been completed on a 1km track in Cardiff.
      Cardff is in Wales, not England!)

      I don't know what the latest is on that but Cardiff Council got into a lot of bother for gambling with taxpayers' money on such a futuristic system. I say good luck to them, it's worth a try.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:some visions survive by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      A tunnel under the sea hauling passengers and trucks on high speed trains? Buying a ticket in London for a train ride to Paris or Brussels? That sounds pretty spectacular to me.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  24. The other obvious joke by Ghostgate · · Score: 1

    "Why didn't anyone tell me my ass was so big?"

  25. personal aircraft by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone ever heard of the plane Deadalus?
    It was powered entirely by a person and flew across the English Channel. That'd be the perfect vehicle for me. Of course, to be light and strong enough, it had to be made of some lithium alloy so it was rather expensive.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:personal aircraft by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it wasn't the Gossamer Albatross? That plane actually made it across the English Channel, back in 1979.

      http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gossame r- Albatross

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  26. Airbus' Monolithic Proposal by SeaDour · · Score: 1

    I laughed when I saw the 730-passenger Airbus concept. I laughed even harder when I saw that it was made in March of 2004.

    1. Re:Airbus' Monolithic Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they're only up to 555
      http://www.airbus.com/media/a380_family.asp

  27. Where some futurists really screwed up... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    was where they thought that it'd be good if there were loads of wide-open roads through a city that looked more like some buildings scattered throughout a park rather than the traditional street built for people. Problem is, they ended up convincing the planners to adopt aspects of that philosophy and we ended up with such monstrosities as Los Angeles.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  28. It all could have happened by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of the items really could have existed by now. It would have been possible with the hard work and ingenuity of our engineers over the last 50 years. However, the visionaries did not account for one thing:

    Affordable computers.

    Compare the advances in vehicles and transportation infrastructure to the advances in computing technology. Virtually all of our work has been focused on rapidly advancing semiconductor technology and computer programming ability. Imagine if that energy was instead focused on mechanical innovations like flying cars and high-speed rail. We'd have them by now.

    Am I suggesting this was the wrong way to do things? Absolutely not! That vast complex mechanical infrastructure would be the result of billions of man-hours in design, and would require significant human intervention to operate. What we are doing now is getting our processing and data management development out of the way first. The ability to store vast amounts of data, communicate instantly, run complex algorithms, and develop intellegent control systems will make all other technological development much more efficient.

    The Silicon Revolution has been a time of building new tools. Building the machines that will help us build better machines. No longer does this mean tying a rock to a stick in order to make a better hammer; we now work with our minds and computers are the tools we use to expand the influence of our thoughts. Computers were once an end unto themselves; now they have grown to a high level of usefulness and are already being applied to further develop other fields.

    This was a little sidetrack that 1950 could never have seen, but it was a highly necessary and important one.

  29. Where Indeed? by dcollins · · Score: 2, Funny

    But where are the Segways and SUVs?

    Oh, you're looking for the Horror section. One aisle over from the Sci-Fi.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  30. Vew by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    View Design for Dreaming on line, from the Internet Archive.

  31. Some of the maritime stuff... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  32. the future by KB1GHC · · Score: 1



    hahahahahhahaha the future WAS cool!

  33. The Concorde. by jabberjaw · · Score: 1

    Considerthe Concorde? So it was envisioned in the early 1960's, however, it does look quite stunning, no?

    1. Re:The Concorde. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Interesting one that.

      Presumably supersonic planes pretty much have to be a specific shape; Delta wings and a sharp pointed nose, which was a design principle already established in the 1960's.

  34. Maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should read up on the abiogenic theory of oil creation. More and more scientists are accepting now that petroleum may be created by natural chemical processes in the mantle, and not from the decomposition of dead biological material. There's much evidence to support this, whereas the traditional "fossil fuel" theory is mostly surmise.

    In other words, we probably are *not* going to run out of oil. That's why wells that were expected to dry up in the nineties are still going strong.

    1. Re:Maybe not by lovecult · · Score: 1

      Whatever the origens of oil are, it seems that there is less of it becoming available. Check out the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.
      In any case, oil will never "run out".
      It will just become too expensive to scavenge what is left of it.

    2. Re:Maybe not by d474 · · Score: 1

      The sun has run out - already.

      Humans decided decades ago that scavenging the suns energy was too expensive to harness, so according to that Association's logic, the sun has already "run out".

      What a bummer, cause it's still going to burn for several billion more years....

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    3. Re:Maybe not by lovecult · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should actually read and consider the contents of the aspo site before making assumptions about their logic.

      Or perhaps you have more experience in the oil and related energy industries than the members of aspo?

    4. Re:Maybe not by d474 · · Score: 1

      I was making an attempt (obviously I failed) to comment on the human laws of economics and how those can seem to influence our ability to contend with the natural laws of physics.

      The point being, that although we humans are perfectly capable, technologically speaking, of using nothing but solar power and it's numerous related alternative energy sources, we don't. Why? Because of economics. However, if the oil did suddenly just stop flowing, would it become economically viable to start using alternative sources? Probably so. So when the oil dies, the sun will be un-run out.

      This discussion is actually On Topic, because from the article, one of the reasons the future never turned out the way it was invisioned was because they couldn't forcast what the economics of the future would allow.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    5. Re:Maybe not by lovecult · · Score: 1

      I think I am beginning to see your point, but I'm afraid it still seems somewhat unclear.

      Personally, I don't entirely think that humanity's refusal to switch to "alternative sources" is entirely based on economics.
      I would, however, cocede that economics is a huge factor in making that choice.

      I Think that maybe that the reason that we have not switched is because of the constraints placed upon us by "common sense", where common sense is a kind of awareness in a state of inertia.

      To put it more plainly -
      Perhaps our intelligence tells us that an energy crises is eminant.
      And yet, we find this difficult to accept, because we have been enculturated into a society that is heavily reliant on spending a geologies petrochemical legacy.

      We should be preparing for the plausable worst-case scenario , but we our "inertia of awareness" factor doesn't want to accept that the lifestyle we possess can change radically and swiftly.

      Thus, our collective world-view, enshrined as common-sense is at least as much of a preventitive factor as is the economical element, when it comes to our choices of energy sources.

  35. The future of travel.. by NoMercy · · Score: 1

    Well it's the past of travel as well, well time is irelevant *steps into his police box*.

  36. something possible with current technology? by whitespacedout · · Score: 1

    Forget flying cars and monorails. Considering the prevalence of obesity, it is about time that the beliwheel from Judge Dredd was made available.

    1. Re:something possible with current technology? by airship · · Score: 1

      Anyone who actually builds and markets this would make a fortune selling it to slashdot fans. I know I'd buy one.

      --
      Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  37. The cream of the crop by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    There are loads and loads of pictures - all worth looking at, but I thought I'd give my favourites (with best at top). If you like, go from the last pic (no. 12) to the first for a buildup:

    1: Tomorrow's railroads in the sky -
    My favourite - this one's just bizarre. A flying bullet rollercoaster. 'nuff said.

    2: The traffic light parade -
    The funniest. A perfect candidate for the old "False or True" TV show.

    3: The TransDrive system - So that's what cars were designed for... A great way to travel I'm sure you'll agree!

    4: Flying saucer bus -
    Great artwork and design this - look at the transparent rim! I would love to travel on this thing.

    5: The Interregional Highway System -
    Archaically massive, and dream-like. Think 'metal slug' (the Neo-Geo game).

    6: Interior design for Lake Meritt BART -
    I just like the unusual architecture of the surroundings in this one more than anything else - the way it's multi-tiered and stuff.

    7: The Freedomship -
    One day, we'll all live on massive ships like this!

    8: A horseless sulky -
    Haha. Something right out of the wacky races. I like the way it can go at 116mph :)

    9: Here's your helicopter coupe -
    There's something you don't see everyday.

    10: Louis Brennan's mono-rail car -
    Pure Metal Slug again. Elaborate, clunky and above all - some big machinery.

    11: Here comes the flying bus -
    Nice chopper.

    12: Automotive engineers forsee radical changes -
    Okay, this one comes straight from the wacky races. Dick Dastardly's car no less.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:The cream of the crop by 10001010 · · Score: 1

      Arthur Radebaugh did a lot in that style back in the day, for instance your #11 appears to be one of his. Radebaugh: The Future We Were Promised at http://www.losthighways.org/radebaugh.html. As they say, you don't know the artist, but you've seen his work.

  38. Magma Tunnel Transport by serutan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The "Planetron" New York to Los Angeles subway system shown on the site reminded me of an old science fiction story that featured an even more fanciful long-distance subway system. In the story the tunnels were straight lines through the Earth's molten magma layer, held open by force fields. The cars needed no power, they used gravity to accelerate downhill to the halfway point and decelerate up to the destination. I wish I could remember more about this story. Does it ring any bells?

  39. No Airships? by airship · · Score: 1

    I was extremely disappointed that there were no airship at all in this exihibition. None. And especially no ATOMIC airships. :(

    -Airship
    http://www.atomicairship.com

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  40. It just goes to show how accurate... by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

    I think it just shows us how predictions rarely come true.
    Flying buses?
    Flying cars?
    It's all a bunch of balloney. Yet people ask for predictions.

    How about the Segway? The only big news on the Segway was the rush for local governments to restrict their use. Pedestrians don't want them on the sidewalks, and motorists don't want them on the streets.
    Sure, a Segway would be cool to drive, but they're expensive. Put it this way: they're more expensive than the TOTAL cost of my first 3 automobiles, and they're not nearly as functional.

    Next time you want to ask visionaries about the future, I think you should also take a 1/2 dozen science fiction writers, give them several cases of beer, lock them in a room, and ask them to predict the future! I bet the science fiction writers are more accurate than the visionaries, and I'll tell you why:
    Most visionaries are ideallists and ideallists have a tough time living in the real world. They don't grasp reality, they always think in terms of what should be, and not what's practical. Sure, it'd be cool to drive a flying car, but look at the logistics. Who would control them? Where could you fly? How would you handle some moron flying drunk, and crashing into your home? Or, the moron who flies drunk, passes out, and wakes up over the Gulf of Mexico? The idea is great, but there are so many problems with it.

    We'd definitely need more ambulance chasers... I mean lawyers.

    --
    -- No sig for you!
  41. Oooh... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    "Don't worry, it's still me!"

    If it hasn't been done yet (and if it has, please, sombody give me a title), you have just described one hell of a scifi plot, as well as a great title!

    Bravo.

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    1. Re:Oooh... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      please, sombody give me a title

      Certainly: "Think Like A Dinosaur".

      There is other SF with similar plot features, but this one discusses it in detail. (Also, recall Star Trek: Dr. McCoy evidenced a suppressed transporter-phobia)

  42. Our Wonderful Atomic Future by Animats · · Score: 1
    They missed some good ones.
    • The nuclear-powered car. The Ford Nucleon concept car made it to the concept stage.
    • The nuclear-powered locomotive. The Baldwin Locomotive Company did some design sketches, but never got very far.
    • The nuclear-powered railroad switch lamp. The New York Central actually built some prototypes.
    • The nuclear-powered airplane. This got quite far along. A working nuclear reactor was actually flown in an B-36 aircraft, although it wasn't powering the aircraft. Huge nuclear aircraft engines were designed and prototyped by Pratt and Whitney. Although that project was cancelled, the fan for the Boeing 747 engine was borrowed from the nuclear aircraft project. Nothing else was big enough.
    • The nuclear rocket. Early Apollo plans called for a nuclear upper stage. The NERVA project produced a working nuclear rocket engine. But it was deemed too dangerous to fly.
    • And, of course, Orion.
    1. Re:Our Wonderful Atomic Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ford Nucleon concept car made it to the concept stage.

      To hell with winding up your turbo and popping the clutch, just crank that baby up to "meltdown" mode!

    2. Re:Our Wonderful Atomic Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of nuclear powered moving objects:

      Boom!

      Not exactly on topic, but a nuclear powered cruise missile that could "drop off" 16 one megaton warheads along the way is kinda freaky.

    3. Re:Our Wonderful Atomic Future by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1
      The nuclear-powered railroad switch lamp. The New York Central actually built some prototypes.

      Ummm ... why? How could this ever be seen as a practical solution to any real world problem? Was it just naive atomic boosterism (anything will be better if you make it atomic-powered - after all, it's futuristic)? The mind boggles!

      A very interesting read on such things (though I don't recall the switch lamp!) is Paul S. Boyer, By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age (New York: Pantheon, 1985).

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
    4. Re:Our Wonderful Atomic Future by Animats · · Score: 1
      Here it is, the the nuclear powered switchlamp. It's the picture of the guy sitting behind a big red lamp, with a periodic table in the background. At the time, there were still large numbers of oil-burning switch lamps; somebody had to go light them every night, refill them, trim the wick, and so forth.. With nuclear power, they could get ten years between lamp replacements!

      From "The Big Train", a documentary about the New York Central Railroad marred by whining from the CEO about highway subsidies.

  43. Nucleon car by Animaether · · Score: 1

    You mean like the Nucleon ?
    http://www.google.com/search?q=Ford+Nucleon

  44. I almost hate to say it, but... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Has anyone noticed that much of what people considered as revolutionary in "futuristic cars" almost 75-100 years ago, is still considered as revolutionary today? Especially when you consider that some of these things are still in development to this date.

    Sorry Detroit, but y'all have been chasing your tail for nigh on a century, yet only delivered on 1/100th of your concepts and promises. How about researching proven technologies for just a year, instead of wasting money and passing the expense onto consumers?

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  45. I'm sure by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1


    http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Daedalus/

    I was confused with the Albatros, though, in that Daedeuls didn't fly across the English Channel. That was the record it beat.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  46. Future of Transport by digitaltraveller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Flying Personal Transport Device's (PTD's) makes sense to me, especially when I see all those poor souls wasting their lives sitting in gridlock. I say PTD because the car is a hopelessly outmoded design, one that needs to die soon.

    The PTD would need multiple safety redundancies (backup power, turbines, parachute, whatever) but the major stumbling block for consumer acceptance would be one thing: The interface.

    The PTD should basically take just a set of GPS coordinates and that's it. The vehicle should be able to fly itself using a simplistic genetic algorithm, with the entire traffic system looking like a type of swarm intelligence. This would also help on the regulatory front. How could the FAA force you to have a pilot when the only control on the device is a GPS entry console?

    The PTD obviously shouldn't ever have a locus of central control. Besides traffic net system failure, it would an obvious target for terrorists. A good PTD design would probably be so light that any terrorists using them to attack targets would probably do little damage and do us a favour killing themselves. Sure they could pack the cabin full of explosives but they could already do that using an RC plane.

    The rise of such vehicles would probably drive a transition to buildings made of nanocomposites so tremendously strong that a little PTD bouncing off them probably wouldn't even leave a mark. This kind of infrastructure would be built automatically. Anyone who's been to Japan and witnessed the post WWII economic miracle knows it was the Japanese automotive exports that drove that economic expansion.

    I just googled the Skycar and noticed they IPO'd on 21 November 2001. Poor bastards.

  47. Re:"Cardff is in Wales, not England" by nusratt · · Score: 1

    well, strictly speaking **prima facie**, they subtly distinguished between a *past* "prototype" in Cardiff, and a *future* "pilot" in SWE.

  48. What's needed is packet based transport. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

    Pretty much what we have with the car, but it needs to be automated, like an automated taxi cab. Trains are too large and inflexible, conventional roads too complex without sophisticate artificial intelligence.

    The concept is called Personal Rapid Transit.

    Something like:
    http://www.advancedpassengervehicles.com/au strans. htm

    or

    http://www.atsltd.co.uk/

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:What's needed is packet based transport. by serutan · · Score: 1

      I agree that this is the future, but not a rail system. When self-driving cars become reality, I believe it will lead to the end of personal car ownership. At first many families will go to single-car ownership. Why pay to leave a car parked at work when it can return home by itself and drive other family members around? I think we will see various forms of timesharing for cars, just like condos, but the dominant mode will be automated taxi services. Without the need to pay drivers, cab companies should be able to provide rides for less than the cost of personal car ownership, insurance, etc.

    2. Re:What's needed is packet based transport. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

      The problem with self driving cars is that because the road environment is extremely complex, they are going to need massively sophisticated artificial intelligence systems in order to navigate safely. Remember, as well as the automated cars there will be human driven vehicles on the same road, the automated cars will also be stuck in traffic just like normally operated vehicles. It's going to be years (decades) before these are generally feasible.

      A much cheaper and simpler system is the ATS ULTra system which uses 2m wide elevated platforms with 4 person electric drive pods or cars. It's already been tested successfully in the UK. They're (much) cheaper to install than standard roads, much cheaper than rail, light rail or even trams, cheaper to run than cars, busses, rail and have a higher average carrying capacity than all of the above as well to boot. It's a really nice solution, very much like the automated cabs which you mentioned.

      Heathrow Airport is considering the system for getting passengers from the attached carparks to the terminals because the busses which do it at the moment are getting stuck in the highly congested road system round the airport.

      --
      Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  49. Re: Chunnel spectacular by nusratt · · Score: 1

    Yes, I agree, which is why I said *less* spectacular.
    I think that, even 50 years ago, it would have been regarded as less so and less gee-whiz-futuristic than things like *ubiquitous* personal aircraft.
    After all, the Chunnel is primarily an achievement of engineering and dogged determination, in the same sense as the Egyptian pyramids.
    In fact, there was a chunnel attempted in the 19th century -- by the same family (Brunel) who did the Brooklyn Bridge, I believe.

  50. SUVs by dcs · · Score: 1

    That's not evolution, it's a step back. Kinda like a meteor falling on Earth and killing all but single cell life.

    --
    (8-DCS)