"To the sacred banks of the Nile..."
Well, I wouldn't rush to gauge scientific progress by old cartoons, any more than I would use the Flintstones to judge archaeology.
In the meantime, I've moved these posts from the JWST thread to keep it on topic.
The prophets of tech came close with this one. The Soviets flew the Tupolev Tu-95LAL around 40 times between 1961 and 65. Sometimes, the reactor was switched on but at no point was it actually used to propel the craft. The test flights were mainly to check the effectiveness of the reactor shielding.There never were atomic aircraft or atomic rockets.
This was covered in post #5.'No significant technological breakthroughs in the last 50 years' - sorry I had to groan at this statement from above, because I could write a textbook in response to this. So I'll stick to a few points.
1) The internet was invented 1st January 1983 (give or take a year or two) - which is c. 38 years ago - and look where that has got us (this forum among other things).
Or one can argue that an overall decline in progress has rather pulled the rug from popular science magazines and SF books. Notice how nobody today is talking about a colonised solar system in 2060?2) One of the issues why many people think there are a lack of technological breakthroughs is the lack of popular science magazine communications that catch the people's imaginations. The science fiction publishing industry seems to have given up this function some time ago (not sure there's a UK SF publishing industry any more - but that's another issue).
Quantum computers seem rather specialised - there are plenty of calculations a normal binary code computer can do just as well. They are enormously expensive to build and it appears very difficult to maintain the conditions necessary for them to function reliably. Time will tell whether they are the computing equivalent of a gold-plated Concord.3) Quantum computers are already producing results - just they're not to problems that we've been trying on our more conventional computers because the technology deals with fundamentally different problem types. The trouble is it's the commercial people doing it, so you won't get much in the way of publicity about what's going on.
I can't comment on this. Just looking at practical applications that already exist.4) As for the laws of physics - we need to extend Maxwell's standard electromagnetic equations to include magnetic monopoles, which are required to exist because discrete electrostatic charges exist (derived through quantum physics), but we don't because there is little in the way of potential applications at the moment.
No! Carry on!5) I'd better stop here...
The Nimitz class carriers were designed in the 1960s and construction began in 1968, with the first carrier commissioned in 1975. So I would suggest it fits within the timeframe of nothing dramatic since 1970.However, there were several US Navy aircraft carriers that were (and are) powered by reactors, including the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and her replacement (CVN-80). There was a cargo/passenger ship, too, the Savannah, and the Soviet ice-breaker, Lenin.
That was just an addenda to Foxbat's post on nuclear-powered aircraft: I don't agree with the original supposition.The Nimitz class carriers were designed in the 1960s and construction began in 1968, with the first carrier commissioned in 1975. So I would suggest it fits within the timeframe of nothing dramatic since 1970.
There have been significant advances in military tech since 1970, sure. Notice however that a longer period of time passes before the next advance, and each new advance costs more than the previous one, with the F-35 being the supreme example. Best fighter in the world but at a development cost of US$1 trillion.
Thanks for splitting the thread. I was getting uncomfortable with the extent to which the topic was getting derailed.
The Jetsons just illustrates that the future imagined in the 1950's has fallen well short of expectations. Everyone in the 50's and 60's expected things to get much further by 2000 than they have. I think this is an indication of how fast progress was moving in the middle of the 20th century, with the presumption that progress would continue just as fast in the decades ahead.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|How could I handle a technologically and culturally diverse world such as this one?||Writing Discussion||13|
|D||Woman preserved in ice brought back to life, turns out from an ancient yet technologically advanced race...read early-mid 70s, novel, paperback||Book Search||2|
|Does technological progress have natural limits?||Science & Nature||83|
|Computer Question For The Technologically Literate||Technology||19|
|S||A good SF story must have a scientific or technological element.||Writing Discussion||22|