Where is my jetpack?
Discussion
So it's nearly 2005.
For some of us who have been around for a few years, the year 2005 seems impossibly, well, futuristic. Even during the 80's the idea of being well into the 21st century seemed an amazingly distant thing.
Talking to some retired people over Christmas, they remember back to the 1960's, when anything and everything seemed possible. Man was walking on the moon, travelling the world on airliners, finding amazing medical advances, and everything was full of possibilities.
These retired folk told me how, to them, it was as if mankind would have solved all the worlds ills by the end of the century. By the time 2000 and beyond had arrived, then surely we would have put war behind us, cured illness and poverty , and be looking to the stars.
The 1960's produced pop art images of spaceships travelling the stars, people populating far away planets, and futuristic homes and technology with flying cars and devices that hovered down the street. And this stuff was produced with the idea that by the next century arrived it would become real
So I want to know what happened. Other than in the world of computing ( in itself an amazing but double edged, contradictory wonder ) not a vast amount has changed since the 1960's and 70's.
When you look back to the amazing optimism that defined the years after WW2, you have to wonder where all that goodwill and sense of wonder went. Optimism and anticipation has given way to fear and regulation. Creativity and risk-taking seems to be frowned on.
So where is the flying car? Where is that ticket to holiday on Mars?
Where is my jetpack?
For some of us who have been around for a few years, the year 2005 seems impossibly, well, futuristic. Even during the 80's the idea of being well into the 21st century seemed an amazingly distant thing.
Talking to some retired people over Christmas, they remember back to the 1960's, when anything and everything seemed possible. Man was walking on the moon, travelling the world on airliners, finding amazing medical advances, and everything was full of possibilities.
These retired folk told me how, to them, it was as if mankind would have solved all the worlds ills by the end of the century. By the time 2000 and beyond had arrived, then surely we would have put war behind us, cured illness and poverty , and be looking to the stars.
The 1960's produced pop art images of spaceships travelling the stars, people populating far away planets, and futuristic homes and technology with flying cars and devices that hovered down the street. And this stuff was produced with the idea that by the next century arrived it would become real
So I want to know what happened. Other than in the world of computing ( in itself an amazing but double edged, contradictory wonder ) not a vast amount has changed since the 1960's and 70's.
When you look back to the amazing optimism that defined the years after WW2, you have to wonder where all that goodwill and sense of wonder went. Optimism and anticipation has given way to fear and regulation. Creativity and risk-taking seems to be frowned on.
So where is the flying car? Where is that ticket to holiday on Mars?
Where is my jetpack?
It all sounds impresive and I know what you mean, but can you honestly begin to imagine what hell a flying traffic jam would be? Every time an accident occurred, debris would rain down on passers-by. And we've seen people stall in traffic queues. Well, imagine them falling out of the sky if they did that.
Flying cars? No thanks...
Flying cars? No thanks...
Well said that man!
What would astronauts, have done confronted with briefcase wielding H&S nuts on the launch platform at Canaval'
"we don't appear, to have recieved copies, of you space ship licence Mr Aldryn,
and although they may well be in-the-post, we have no alternative, but to ground this rocket, untill they have been recieved, good day sir!"
"Now which way to Mr Gates's workshops, he appears to be meddling with electronic devices again, for which he has not undertaken sufficent training Pah"
What would astronauts, have done confronted with briefcase wielding H&S nuts on the launch platform at Canaval'
"we don't appear, to have recieved copies, of you space ship licence Mr Aldryn,
and although they may well be in-the-post, we have no alternative, but to ground this rocket, untill they have been recieved, good day sir!"
"Now which way to Mr Gates's workshops, he appears to be meddling with electronic devices again, for which he has not undertaken sufficent training Pah"
v8thunder said:
Flying cars? No thanks...
Fair enough, but at the very least I would have expected to have a car that hovers by now. Its 2005 for gawds sake, and the average car is not that much different than one built in 1960.
I remain, on reflection, pretty disappointed that my car does'nt hover like a landspeeder from Star Wars. And its a poor show that I don't have a personal flying device by now, that I can merely stand on or strap to my back.
I was born in the 60's. I EXPECTED it by now...
Don't be fooled. Although the fundamentals of cars have not changed for decades, amazing advances have been made in many areas of automotive design. If you think cars are still much the same as they were in 1960, try driving a 1960 Ford Prefect and compare that to its modern equivalent - a Ford Focus.
Great advances were made in many technologies between (say) 1900 and 1960 - much of it spurred on by massive military expenditure in that period. Once these breakthroughs were made and the early rapid advances achieved - the technology settled down a more sedate rate of progress.
Predicting that we would all be flying around with jety back packs was never really predicted by any serious "futurists". This type of speculation was mainly the preserve of senstionalist press or undereducated media. Great advances really HAVE been made in jet technology since the 1950s. In 1950, a really powerful jet engine was pushing out around 10,000 lbs of thrust. The latest generation of big turbofans are now delivering 80,000 lbs of thrust and will shortly be certified for thrusts up to 100,000 lbs. The advances have been made - just not in the areas where some people speculated.
As for travel to the moon and planets - well the Apollo project was a one off spectacular which didn't lead to a progressive series of missions capitalising on the technology developed. However, unmanned space missions have continued apace and some of the discoveries made by these probes have been way in excess of what manned missions could have achieved. So again, the advances have and are being made. It's just that they are not being made in the areas and in the manner that some people predicted.
Great advances were made in many technologies between (say) 1900 and 1960 - much of it spurred on by massive military expenditure in that period. Once these breakthroughs were made and the early rapid advances achieved - the technology settled down a more sedate rate of progress.
Predicting that we would all be flying around with jety back packs was never really predicted by any serious "futurists". This type of speculation was mainly the preserve of senstionalist press or undereducated media. Great advances really HAVE been made in jet technology since the 1950s. In 1950, a really powerful jet engine was pushing out around 10,000 lbs of thrust. The latest generation of big turbofans are now delivering 80,000 lbs of thrust and will shortly be certified for thrusts up to 100,000 lbs. The advances have been made - just not in the areas where some people speculated.
As for travel to the moon and planets - well the Apollo project was a one off spectacular which didn't lead to a progressive series of missions capitalising on the technology developed. However, unmanned space missions have continued apace and some of the discoveries made by these probes have been way in excess of what manned missions could have achieved. So again, the advances have and are being made. It's just that they are not being made in the areas and in the manner that some people predicted.
Eric Mc said:
lots of sensible stuff
OK, but I am not so sure.
The Boing 707 in the 60's was basically doing the same job as a Boeing 777 does now. Travel times are also longer now because of all the congestion.
And while modern cars are safer and more reliable and fuel efficient, they have not improved their fundamental purpose. The process of travelling in a car from one city to another in a car ( say a 60's Chevvy or a Jaguar Mk2 is no more comfortable or faster now than it was in 1965. In fact, its probably less pleasant now than it would have been 40 years ago...
And I still don't have a jetpack.
And my car cannot fly.
And we don't have world peace and a end to hunger.
It was'nt meant to be like this...
And what happened to magnetic levitating trains? A couple were made in Japan in the 60's, but I don't see any on the Great Western line into Paddington. Its not good enough - levitating trains were invented years ago, but when has anyone ever travellled on one?
And what happened to "Tomorrows world" on the telly?
What happened was the accountants took over the world (no offence to accountants I am married to one) They are the ones who give the go ahead to research, if they aren't convinced it gets no cash. This is why many good ideas in this country have gone abroad to get production ,becasue we have become a nation of caution. We are protected from any danger even financial now , risk taking is considered anti scocial and selfish. It is only when the risk taker is sucessful that people want to become invovled, that is why the progress was made in the 50s and 60s as the attitude after the war was live for now and build a better Britain.
Hey, lay off the accountants. It's actually a bit more subtle than that. Many enterprises are now largely funded out of shareholders' equity. The folk who look after these funds (the financial institutions such as banks, pension funds etc) are very risk averse. The days when a chief executive could gamble the entire company on a single project are largely gone - read the story of Bill Allen and the Boeing 747 for an example of how things used to be done.
By the way, Bill Allen was an accountant!
By the way, Bill Allen was an accountant!
The moon landing was a product of the cold war. And once it became 'routine', the moralists thoght: 'Why are we still doing this? What's the point? Let's give the money to the poor people.' Political will evaporated.
And so we are still on Earth, man has not reached Mars - and the poor are still poor.
That's morals for you. Morals screw evolution, because you stop going forwards and stop to pick up the waifs and strays.
And so we are still on Earth, man has not reached Mars - and the poor are still poor.
That's morals for you. Morals screw evolution, because you stop going forwards and stop to pick up the waifs and strays.
Yes. I would love to have seen a permanent moonbase by now and maybe a man on Mars. However, some of the unmanned probes that have visted the planets since 1965 have discovered the most fascinating things. At this very moment, a probe is on its way towards the moon Titan and will enter the atmosphere in three weeks time.
Great things are still happening - just not so much in the public eye.
Great things are still happening - just not so much in the public eye.
IMHO it's the fact that people can't deal with human loss, or the idea of sacrifice, that has prevented great strides in technology. How many Americans died during the space race as a result of experiments gone wrong? And how would animal rights groups act today if we started killing dogs and monkeys again in the interest of science? Look at all the regulation we have in science, regulation that is the result of people who believe it is correct to smother everyone with their personal morals. That's why we don't have flying cars and moon bases.
simpo two said:
The moon landing was a product of the cold war. And once it became 'routine', the moralists thoght: 'Why are we still doing this? What's the point? Let's give the money to the poor people.' Political will evaporated.
And so we are still on Earth, man has not reached Mars - and the poor are still poor.
That's morals for you. Morals screw evolution, because you stop going forwards and stop to pick up the waifs and strays.
I suppose the oil crisis and various other economic crises of the 70s and 80s had nothing to do with it? I am not sure what history books you have been reading, but I can't remember the governments of the world suddenly diverting their money into 3rd world countries.
The lack of progress has nothing to do with morals, it's all to do with the global economy and the perceived benefits of such journeys, to accountants and people who control funding for such projects. Moralists don't control spending, or make major governmental decisions, if they did, we wouldn't be waging a pointless war, at the moment.
I guess "waifs and strays" mean the poor people, and again, you like to use demeaning and rather insulting language to describe them. Funny thing is, you have a valid gripe, about the lack of progress in technology, but you seem to be incapable of blaming the people who actually are at fault, ie the government and greedy big businessmen who feel these projects are a waste of money, rather wage pointless wars and piss all our money away on that.... at least it'll secure another term.....
In other words, 968, you are saying that maybe if $50 billion was'nt wasted on Iraq ( let alone the hundreds of billions wasted on star wars defence shields and stuff ) then maybe the money could have been spent on making me a jetpack?
I'd buy that. And I'd vote for the people who put money into technology that changes lives rather than ending them, and maybe getting us to go to the stars rather than blow ourselves to pieces on this little rock of ours.
It makes sense because, truth is, we don't seem to have advanced much over the past few decades...
Yours, in an idealistic mood, TS.
I'd buy that. And I'd vote for the people who put money into technology that changes lives rather than ending them, and maybe getting us to go to the stars rather than blow ourselves to pieces on this little rock of ours.
It makes sense because, truth is, we don't seem to have advanced much over the past few decades...
Yours, in an idealistic mood, TS.
toppstuff said:
In other words, 968, you are saying that maybe if $50 billion was'nt wasted on Iraq ( let alone the hundreds of billions wasted on star wars defence shields and stuff ) then maybe the money could have been spent on making me a jetpack?
I'd buy that. And I'd vote for the people who put money into technology that changes lives rather than ending them, and maybe getting us to go to the stars rather than blow ourselves to pieces on this little rock of ours.
It makes sense because, truth is, we don't seem to have advanced much over the past few decades...
Yours, in an idealistic mood, TS.
I'm totally with you on that....
One other thing is that the introduction of the space shuttle effectively killed any deeper space exploration, and made space a commercial entity, for the launch of satellites, and little else. The huge rockets needed to send a mission off to Mars haven't been built yet, as NASA have been farting around with the Shuttle for the last 25 years.
Agree that the Shuttle has been a technological cul-de-sac driven by a desire to get satellites into space capable of seeing what we eat for breakfast in the morning. Shame the idea of going back to the moon and beyond has been shelved for 20 years..
On the flipside, it has been military demand which has driven a lot of technological change.
Right now the Americans and the Russians are engaged in a new mini-coldwar thing in racing to develop Scramjet technology. By all accounts these new jets can go a gazillion miles an hour and cross the atlantic in the time it takes to tie your shoe-laces. They are building them because they will have nuclear missiles that cannot be shot down.....which is nice.
Side effect of this is that in theory it is possible to build airliners which could go London - Sydney in roughly the amount of time it takes to read Autocar magazine from cover to cover. Which sounds good as in my case thats about 10 minutes.
Sadly however ( and back to my original post ) they were all telling us that our cars would fly by now. I believed them then. I don't now.
On the flipside, it has been military demand which has driven a lot of technological change.
Right now the Americans and the Russians are engaged in a new mini-coldwar thing in racing to develop Scramjet technology. By all accounts these new jets can go a gazillion miles an hour and cross the atlantic in the time it takes to tie your shoe-laces. They are building them because they will have nuclear missiles that cannot be shot down.....which is nice.
Side effect of this is that in theory it is possible to build airliners which could go London - Sydney in roughly the amount of time it takes to read Autocar magazine from cover to cover. Which sounds good as in my case thats about 10 minutes.
Sadly however ( and back to my original post ) they were all telling us that our cars would fly by now. I believed them then. I don't now.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff