Its 2014: Why don't we have jetpacks and flying cars?

[Gurgeh]

To expand further on the question: Its the year 2014, why don't we have jetpacks or flying cars or moon vacations, robots, underwater cities, or any other cool science fiction technologies lying around? Its supposed to be the future now but I don't see any cool gadgets like that. Back in the 1950s everyone thought the 21st century would be this technologically advanced utopia. But the only thing that has impressed me about the 21st century are: Flat screened TVs, Game devices, smartphones, computers, the internet, and that is about it. What happened?

[Esquire]

Because jetpacks and flying cars are terrible ideas. Thousands of people die every year in car crashes as it is, and those only move in two dimensions with only moderately-explosive fuel. Give people an extra dimension and aviation gas to play and a lot of people are going to die. We do have lots of other cool sci-fi technologies; you just listed a bunch of them.

[Borgholio]

You just answered your own question. How many TV shows in the 50's would have predicted an Iphone, the internet, or home gaming consoles that serve as the central focus of the modern living room?

In the 50's, they focused on the fantastic. In reality, we focused on the pragmatic. Who gives a rat's ass about a humanoid robot shouting "Danger Will Robinson" when we get better results with non-humanoid robots building cars with a level of speed and precision that would make Henry Ford pop a boner?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The short answer is because 1950s sci-fi writers and futurists were collectively full of shit. To expand on this ... take jetpacks and flying cars. Jetpacks and flying cars are monumentally, murderously, stupid. To get a driving license can require as little as "drive to the end of the block and back." To get a pilot's license requires ... much, much, more than that. A flying car for the masses is pretty much a highly-advanced robot with wings on it, since if we were to allow the average person to fly their own flying cars ... the countryside would be littered with the flaming wreckage of flying cars. Jetpacks are worse, since the only fuels energetic enough to fit into a backpack that would enable a man to fly in defiance of aerodynamics are ... well ... energetic enough to be hazardously explosive.

Considering your other examples: As it turns out, getting to the Moon requires strapping vast quantities of explosives to your ass (or near-magical materials technology,) plus fickle life support systems. And ... once you get there, there isn't a whole lot to do anyway. Underwater cities? Well, even in the 1950s, they understood the immense challenges of building something that could stand up to the hundreds of atmospheres of pressure found under the sea. 1950s sci fi writers simply assumed that we'd develop some manner of magical materials that would get around that. The fact that the city has to keep out all that water ... well, that makes it the terrorist's wet dream.

Basically, they didn't quite understand the challenges involved.

[Ahriman238]

He's right, what kind of boring future is this? I demand supersonic aeroplanes, automated coffee-makers and kitchen appliances, man-sized computers that can still solve complex arithmetic, handheld communications devices and labor saving machines like we were promised!

[Simon_Jester]

Amusingly the supersonic airliners fall under the heading of "no, seriously, we DID try to make it work." They've been repeatedly invented and considered but always feel down for a number of reasons, the main one being that nobody really cares about being able to make intercontinental flights in under 6-12 hours, or domestic flights in under 2-6 hours. It's just not important enough to justify the fuel expenses, maintenance costs, and so on of a supersonic aircraft.

[Lord Revan]

yeah there's the reason why the Concorde went from the safest plane to fly to one of the worst after just 1 crash, it was so expensive to fly that they didn't fly it so often.

[Channel72]

2014 is fucking amazing. I literally have access to petabytes of information in my pocket. A global computer network is well beyond the wildest dreams of most 1950s sci-fi writers. Seriously, the fact that my smartphone will literally give me exact directions to any point on Earth is pretty fucking amazing, not to mention the fact I can pull up satellite imagery of the entire fucking planet, considering that when I was a kid, we basically had to fumble around with maps and asking at gas stations.

Plus, to quote William Gibson, the future is here, it just isn't widely distributed yet. In other words, many of the wild ideas of 1950s sci-fi writers are actually possible, or implemented in unique situations (under water city? Ever been to Dubai?), but it's simply not economically or commercially feasible to implement all these things on a widely distributed scale yet.

[Zaune]

In short? They didn't work and/or cost too much money and we got the Internet instead.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah... the simplest answer is just "we went a different direction". Not so much the big status symbol, pie in the sky direction, as the more technological, electronic direction. A gradual prioritization, over time, of information over elaborate but impractical physical technology.

Flying cars could still happen, but they would require a.) a cheap fuel source-- maybe hydrogen fuel cells if those ever become a serious thing-- and b.) highly efficient and safe automatic piloting. There is no way that humans in general would be trusted to pilot those themselves. They might have a degree of control so they feel like they're driving, but ultimately it would be little different than a bumper-car ride on a very wide rail. Oh, and c.) become cheap enough that the average person can have one. This one isn't going to happen anytime soon. The other two will happen before this one. Ground transport is simply far cheaper, in large because you spend zero fuel keeping your vehicle above ground level.

[K. A. Pital]

You just answered your own question. How many TV shows in the 50's would have predicted an Iphone, the internet, or home gaming consoles that serve as the central focus of the modern living room?

In the 50's, they focused on the fantastic. In reality, we focused on the pragmatic. Who gives a rat's ass about a humanoid robot shouting "Danger Will Robinson" when we get better results with non-humanoid robots building cars with a level of speed and precision that would make Henry Ford pop a boner?

Uh... Star Trek had all that and space exploration. We have been good with computers, but we have been weak in leaving the cradle, so to say.

[Guardsman Bass]

The developments in Information Technology and Computers definitely changed the shape of many of these predictions. Arthur C. Clarke's proposal for a telecommunications satellite back in the 1950s(?) was a large, manned space station with workers available to fix the radios when they had problems. That and many other theoretically necessary uses for people in space disappeared as well with better unmanned satellites.

For the undersea and space cities in general, it came down to a lack of public and private desire to fund and occupy them. Undersea habitats in particular have struggled with funding over the years (far more so than manned spaceflight).

[ray245]

I wonder if the futurist during the 50s will consider the sheer amount we invested into the internet and telecommunication as a valid investment over other kind of technology.

What would they think when they heard that we have invested Trillions of dollars into building the modern Internet and computer infrastructure instead of building a space colony?

[Broomstick]

To expand further on the question: Its the year 2014, why don't we have jetpacks or flying cars or moon vacations, robots, underwater cities, or any other cool science fiction technologies lying around? Its supposed to be the future now but I don't see any cool gadgets like that. Back in the 1950s everyone thought the 21st century would be this technologically advanced utopia. But the only thing that has impressed me about the 21st century are: Flat screened TVs, Game devices, smartphones, computers, the internet, and that is about it. What happened?

As a native of the 20th Century who missed the 1950's by only a few years – holy shit, flat screen TVs, computers, computer games, hand-held computers, and the internet ARE science fiction! At least they were when I was a child. And we do have robots, they're all over the place, they just aren't humanoid robots. Probably because we have an oversupply of “humanoids” as it is, it's easier and cheaper to hire a human to do humanoid-requiring jobs (well, usually. For now).

Arguably, a modern nuclear submarine is an “underwater city” - turns out, making underwater environments is too costly when there is still available land for that purpose. Likewise, it appears only billionaires could afford a moon vacation and the market is too small to develop. Jetpacks have issues with fuel volumes and energy density. Arguably, general aviation/small planes are “flying cars”, but their use is declining, not increasing. Turns out you don't have dual-use car/planes for the same reason you don't have many dual-use car/boats – what makes for efficient travel in one medium doesn't translate well to another, so you wind up with a bastard vehicle that isn't particularly efficient in either.

Because jetpacks and flying cars are terrible ideas. Thousands of people die every year in car crashes as it is, and those only move in two dimensions with only moderately-explosive fuel. Give people an extra dimension and aviation gas to play and a lot of people are going to die. We do have lots of other cool sci-fi technologies; you just listed a bunch of them.

Aviation gasoline is not much different from automobile gasoline, and used to be nearly identical. It's not Magic Gas, it's just gasoline with slightly different additives (a lot of avgas still contains tetraethyl lead, but ethanol is not permitted. Mogas is not allowed to have lead additives, but ethanol is common in the US. Avgas octane is roughly equivalent to Premium grade autogas). Some small airplanes run just fine on the Premium grade autogas. Some even run on diesel fuel these days.

Jetpacks, though have problem with allowable fuel volumes vs. energy density. Those do have issues with needing either more energy dense fuels, with attendant hazards, or are stuck with ridiculously short flight times.

You do have a point, though, that aviation is far less forgiving of idiocy than driving on a road.

The short answer is because 1950s sci-fi writers and futurists were collectively full of shit. To expand on this ... take jetpacks and flying cars. Jetpacks and flying cars are monumentally, murderously, stupid. To get a driving license can require as little as "drive to the end of the block and back." To get a pilot's license requires ... much, much, more than that.

Not that much more – it's well within the capability of the average human being. The big problem is that, as I've said, aviation is far less forgiving than driving on a road. Laziness, complacency, and carelessness is much more likely to be lethal.

The other thing is that small-scale flight really doesn't gain you than much over a car, and maybe is even less useful. Road vehicles on that scale can handle far worse weather than small aircraft. Flight has higher energy requirement and therefore costs more per mile (until you get to large jets over long distances which is where aviation starts to pull ahead of ground transport, or you need a lot of speed).

Amusingly the supersonic airliners fall under the heading of "no, seriously, we DID try to make it work." They've been repeatedly invented and considered but always feel down for a number of reasons, the main one being that nobody really cares about being able to make intercontinental flights in under 6-12 hours, or domestic flights in under 2-6 hours. It's just not important enough to justify the fuel expenses, maintenance costs, and so on of a supersonic aircraft.

^ This.

2014 is fucking amazing. I literally have access to petabytes of information in my pocket. A global computer network is well beyond the wildest dreams of most 1950s sci-fi writers. Seriously, the fact that my smartphone will literally give me exact directions to any point on Earth is pretty fucking amazing, not to mention the fact I can pull up satellite imagery of the entire fucking planet, considering that when I was a kid, we basically had to fumble around with maps and asking at gas stations.

^ This.

I remember the first time we all saw the Earth from the Moon, imaging satellites didn't exist when I was a kid, or else they were military and the info locked up tight as Top Secret. So much literature was inaccessible that I can now download in seconds from Project Gutenberg, I can see things happening live halfway around the world (no, that was not routine when I was young) as they happen. Now I can call up directions to anywhere in the world on a device that I hold in my hands, a device that allows me to speak directly to anyone in the world (when I was young phone calls to other continents require operator assistance, if it was possible to connect those two locations at all), download literature, news, watch a movie, take photos... holy shit, that's amazing!

The developments in Information Technology and Computers definitely changed the shape of many of these predictions. Arthur C. Clarke's proposal for a telecommunications satellite back in the 1950s(?) was a large, manned space station with workers available to fix the radios when they had problems. That and many other theoretically necessary uses for people in space disappeared as well with better unmanned satellites.

Yeah, it's those damned robots taking jobs away from people!

[Borgholio]

You just answered your own question. How many TV shows in the 50's would have predicted an Iphone, the internet, or home gaming consoles that serve as the central focus of the modern living room?

In the 50's, they focused on the fantastic. In reality, we focused on the pragmatic. Who gives a rat's ass about a humanoid robot shouting "Danger Will Robinson" when we get better results with non-humanoid robots building cars with a level of speed and precision that would make Henry Ford pop a boner?

Uh... Star Trek had all that and space exploration. We have been good with computers, but we have been weak in leaving the cradle, so to say.

Ok, they had "some" parallels to what we have now. I think they're the closest ones though.

[Esquire]

Because jetpacks and flying cars are terrible ideas. Thousands of people die every year in car crashes as it is, and those only move in two dimensions with only moderately-explosive fuel. Give people an extra dimension and aviation gas to play and a lot of people are going to die. We do have lots of other cool sci-fi technologies; you just listed a bunch of them.

Aviation gasoline is not much different from automobile gasoline, and used to be nearly identical. It's not Magic Gas, it's just gasoline with slightly different additives (a lot of avgas still contains tetraethyl lead, but ethanol is not permitted. Mogas is not allowed to have lead additives, but ethanol is common in the US. Avgas octane is roughly equivalent to Premium grade autogas). Some small airplanes run just fine on the Premium grade autogas. Some even run on diesel fuel these days.

Jetpacks, though have problem with allowable fuel volumes vs. energy density. Those do have issues with needing either more energy dense fuels, with attendant hazards, or are stuck with ridiculously short flight times.

You do have a point, though, that aviation is far less forgiving of idiocy than driving on a road.

Mea culpa - I'd always assumed it was more volatile for some reason. Anyways, the main problem would be the fact that flying is much more complicated than driving, as you said.

[K. A. Pital]

The developments in Information Technology and Computers definitely changed the shape of many of these predictions. Arthur C. Clarke's proposal for a telecommunications satellite back in the 1950s(?) was a large, manned space station with workers available to fix the radios when they had problems. That and many other theoretically necessary uses for people in space disappeared as well with better unmanned satellites.

For the undersea and space cities in general, it came down to a lack of public and private desire to fund and occupy them. Undersea habitats in particular have struggled with funding over the years (far more so than manned spaceflight).

Undersea habitats are a problem, but sea habitats seem to be going forward. Aren't large ships basically floating cities? The idea is developing, or so it seems.

But the weakness is space exploration is inexcusable with our advanced computers and materials.

[Broomstick]

We've largely turned space exploration over to the non-humanoid robots.

[Eternal_Freedom]

We've largely turned space exploration over to the non-humanoid robots.

Oh dear. This will inevitably lead to Skynet. We'd better hurry up and build that bunker.

[Guardsman Bass]

RE: Stas Bush

I'm actually surprised that so few people have attempted any sort of "floating" or "platform" city out in international waters, since there are plenty of ships that are more or less permanently stationed out there to do stuff they can't do in the countries nearby (such as Women on Waves). You'd think someone would experiment with a low-cost hospital for medical tourists off the coast of the US, or elsewhere.

It's not an issue with space exploration, just manned space exploration. We could be on our way towards building space colonies tomorrow if you could get a group of people together to finance the missions for it, or convince one of the First World governments to do it. But there's no real support for taking funding beyond what it is now, or for seriously pushing the boundaries except on a slow time-table.

[K. A. Pital]

We've largely turned space exploration over to the non-humanoid robots.

True, but such robots can go a lot further. How about another Venus program? And building drones that can last for these extreme environments is the next challenge, not to mention creating a permanent robotic presence on Moon and Mars.

It's not an issue with space exploration, just manned space exploration.

Is it? Our interplanetary drone programs often seem a shadow of what was going on in the 1970s.

[Sea Skimmer]

Undersea habitats are a problem, but sea habitats seem to be going forward. Aren't large ships basically floating cities? The idea is developing, or so it seems.

Large cruise ships are floating hotels on top of power plants that have to pay 800 dollars a ton for bunker fuel. They are not comparable to real cities in any useful manner. Oh and if you loose power you can't flush a toilet and the toilets will overflow into the halls rapidly. Awesome!

Everything is against floating cities. They accomplish nothing useful I can see, greatly inflate costs of construction and operation, and increase risks such as fires, sinking, the discomfort of storms. Oh and also you'll also be more isolated from the world. Even if the floating city can move, its going to be slow, able to enter few if any ports, and have limited or no access to air travel, and only then at once more inflated costs. Territorial waters, visa's and other such legal restrictions will still apply.

The only place they have any appeal is that old nonsense utopian idea of living 'free of government' except we bloody well know that anything large, rich and developed enough to be a functional city will inevitably have government, and probably a government based on land or controlled entirely by a corporation. The people will be less, not more free, though perhaps not enough that they care. As long as humans are humans government will exist when we form large enough groups, and it isn't a very large group needed.

I'd seriously expect self sustaining space colonies before we have large floating cities on earth, because the later will most likely never happen.

Is it? Our interplanetary drone programs often seem a shadow of what was going on in the 1970s.

In miles traveled maybe, but the modern probes are vastly more effective and useful science platforms and include now several orbiters active around foreign bodies. That's why the 70s stuff worked, it was all on the rather simple and short lived side compared to what something like Curiosity can accomplish.

[K. A. Pital]

In miles traveled maybe, but the modern probes are vastly more effective and useful science platforms and include now several orbiters active around foreign bodies. That's why the 70s stuff worked, it was all on the rather simple and short lived side compared to what something like Curiosity can accomplish.

Curiosity is only Mars though. Are we no longer interested in Venus, Mercury, Ceres, asteroid belt, moons of Jupiter? Even the Moon currently has just one tiny Chinese robot, even though with a seconds-only communications lag it could already have a sizeable exploration robot group.

[Simon_Jester]

At what historical times was the solar system so saturated in probes that there were several returning useful data from the same planet at once for an extended period? These things do in fact take time to design, launch, and the data from them is often being crunched by scientists for years after the mission flies.

Plus, I think you're a little behind on the state of planetary science.

Mercury has a probe orbiting it right now, Juno is coasting to Jupiter to study the moons (it has a vault to store its memory core in that is protected against cosmic rays, Jupiter's radiation belts, and 7.62mm NATO). Venus is getting little attention mainly because of how forbidding it is- landers die in a matter of hours, a poor return on multimillion dollar investments. Orbiters and probes headed for other planets have repeatedly collected data from above its atmosphere.

[madd0ct0r]

Venus will be next, after Mars, but tbh I'd say we need the experience working with one to solve the other.