2001 Space Odyssey-failed prophesy?

[Flopper]

I'm amazed at how often science fiction writers get it right. However, there are always exception, such as Orwell's 1984.

In written form, I'd be interested in knowing one or two prominent examples?

I've been reading SF since 1955 and really can't think of any. Maybe I was reading the wrong authors, or my memory doesn't serve me well.

The best candidate is good ol' Jules Verne, whose 1865 novel, From the Earth to the Moon, and the 1870 follow-up, Around the Moon, nailed a lot of the minutiae of a moon visit, including weightlessness, the basic size of the space capsule, the size of the crew (three men), and even the concept of splashdown into the ocean on return to Earth. In one of those fun coincidences, the fictional splashdown in Around the Moon was just a few miles from where the actual Apollo 8 capsule splashed down (and, interestingly enough, the fictional launch pad was just a few miles from Cape Canaveral). Several others in the following link.

10 Things Science Fiction Got Right

 

[percysunshine]

I'm amazed at how often science fiction writers get it right. However, there are always exception, such as Orwell's 1984.

I can tell that the definition of the word 'science' eludes you.

 

[whitehall]

I'm not criticizing Arthur C. Clark. 2001 was a block buster but ask yourself, why do they call it "science fiction"? Because maybe it's fiction? Frankly I'm surprised at how often the si-fi writers got it wrong. I have a real American Weekly magazine insert you get in the newspapers dated 1/22/56 which was titled "This is your future" a whole issue devoted to the fascinating FACTS about the way you will soon be living. The media thought it was fact when it was fiction. "You will still be young at 90, air conditioned clothes, family helicopters, jet propelled cars, conveyor belts to work, rocket to Europe in an hour, electronic maids,etc. Most of it was crap but they got the communications right.

 

[percysunshine]

The words 'fiction' and 'prophesy' are not synonyms.

When did our educational system fail?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm amazed at how often science fiction writers get it right. However, there are always exception, such as Orwell's 1984.

He's been pretty accurate too as regards the corruption of language andthe concept of thought police. Animal Farm is even better. He pretty acurately predicted the state of western countries fairly well.

Well now, if you find our nation and it's allies so objectionable, Walleyes, why don't you go to Somolia?

 

[westwall]

I'm amazed at how often science fiction writers get it right. However, there are always exception, such as Orwell's 1984.

He's been pretty accurate too as regards the corruption of language andthe concept of thought police. Animal Farm is even better. He pretty acurately predicted the state of western countries fairly well.

Well now, if you find our nation and it's allies so objectionable, Walleyes, why don't you go to Somolia?

I've never heard of Somolia. Where exactly is that?

 

[Flopper]

I'm not criticizing Arthur C. Clark. 2001 was a block buster but ask yourself, why do they call it "science fiction"? Because maybe it's fiction? Frankly I'm surprised at how often the si-fi writers got it wrong. I have a real American Weekly magazine insert you get in the newspapers dated 1/22/56 which was titled "This is your future" a whole issue devoted to the fascinating FACTS about the way you will soon be living. The media thought it was fact when it was fiction. "You will still be young at 90, air conditioned clothes, family helicopters, jet propelled cars, conveyor belts to work, rocket to Europe in an hour, electronic maids,etc. Most of it was crap but they got the communications right.

Keep in mind all scientific fiction authors are not trying to predict the future. They weave together ideas and plots hoping to create an enjoyable read that will sell.

If you are really interested in how well science fiction predicts the future, get hold of and old movie made in 1936, titled "Things to Come". It tries to predict the next hundred years. It hits the mark on the beginning of WWII but not the end. It forecast space travel but misses on a number of other issues. These works of fiction are interesting not because of the accuracy of prediction but because they tell us what people believed about their future.

 

[whitehall]

I'm not criticizing Arthur C. Clark. 2001 was a block buster but ask yourself, why do they call it "science fiction"? Because maybe it's fiction? Frankly I'm surprised at how often the si-fi writers got it wrong. I have a real American Weekly magazine insert you get in the newspapers dated 1/22/56 which was titled "This is your future" a whole issue devoted to the fascinating FACTS about the way you will soon be living. The media thought it was fact when it was fiction. "You will still be young at 90, air conditioned clothes, family helicopters, jet propelled cars, conveyor belts to work, rocket to Europe in an hour, electronic maids,etc. Most of it was crap but they got the communications right.

Keep in mind all scientific fiction authors are not trying to predict the future. They weave together ideas and plots hoping to create an enjoyable read that will sell.

If you are really interested in how well science fiction predicts the future, get hold of and old movie made in 1936, titled "Things to Come". It tries to predict the next hundred years. It hits the mark on the beginning of WWII but not the end. It forecast space travel but misses on a number of other issues. These works of fiction are interesting not because of the accuracy of prediction but because they tell us what people believed about their future.

I did see that movie. A guy from the 30's gets transported to the future where they take pills instead of food and the poor guy gets drunk on an alcohol pill. It's entertaining stuff. They finally blast off to Mars from a backyard rocket ship or something. Look, nobody needs to defend si-fi writers. Most of the time they were hung up on atomic energy or flying cars and most of the time they were wrong. It didn't take much imagination to foresee military conflict back then when the Civil War and the Spanish American War and WW1 were within not too distant memory. Everyone tries to turn Orwell into a prophet but "1984" never happened and 2001 ain't gonna happen.

 

[theHawk]

It's one of my favourite movies. But as a predictor of the future it has indeed failed somewhat. I think, however, that it was natural to be too optimitic about space travel in the 60's. Now it's too easy to be pessimistic about it. We'll have to see where the next breakthrough will come.

Well back in the 50s and 60s it was the dawn of the nuclear era. Some thought by the year 2000 we'd be living like the Jetsons.

I doubt we'll see anything like real colonies and commercial space travel prices for average people for several hundreds of years.

 

[whitehall]

We aren't gonna get off this planet without a huge expenditure that we can't afford. Atomic energy was seen as the solution but if you look at it rationally, nuclear fission is just the source of steam power. Instead of shoveling coal we have a Nuclear rod generating heat and we ain't gonna go into space under steam power.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I watched a re-run of the 1968 film the other day and it was still entertaining but how did the the 34 year old Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick prophesy hold up? Not too good. I think they had the Space Shuttle technology right but who would guess that it would be scrapped in 2010? They did the anti-gravity stuff pretty well but the magnetic shoes didn't quite work on the commercial shuttle and the fake gravity on the gigantic Space Station was never explained. The sad fact is that it is too expensive to ever consider a commercial Space Station much less business trips to the Moon.

and here I thought it was just a movie, based on a fiction novel, using what was then scientific and theoretical advances to come. who knew Clarke and co., were pretending to be seers?

 

[whitehall]

I watched a re-run of the 1968 film the other day and it was still entertaining but how did the the 34 year old Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick prophesy hold up? Not too good. I think they had the Space Shuttle technology right but who would guess that it would be scrapped in 2010? They did the anti-gravity stuff pretty well but the magnetic shoes didn't quite work on the commercial shuttle and the fake gravity on the gigantic Space Station was never explained. The sad fact is that it is too expensive to ever consider a commercial Space Station much less business trips to the Moon.

and here I thought it was just a movie, based on a fiction novel, using what was then scientific and theoretical advances to come. who knew Clarke and co., were pretending to be seers?

Just a movie.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not criticizing Arthur C. Clark. 2001 was a block buster but ask yourself, why do they call it "science fiction"? Because maybe it's fiction? Frankly I'm surprised at how often the si-fi writers got it wrong. I have a real American Weekly magazine insert you get in the newspapers dated 1/22/56 which was titled "This is your future" a whole issue devoted to the fascinating FACTS about the way you will soon be living. The media thought it was fact when it was fiction. "You will still be young at 90, air conditioned clothes, family helicopters, jet propelled cars, conveyor belts to work, rocket to Europe in an hour, electronic maids,etc. Most of it was crap but they got the communications right.

Keep in mind all scientific fiction authors are not trying to predict the future. They weave together ideas and plots hoping to create an enjoyable read that will sell.

If you are really interested in how well science fiction predicts the future, get hold of and old movie made in 1936, titled "Things to Come". It tries to predict the next hundred years. It hits the mark on the beginning of WWII but not the end. It forecast space travel but misses on a number of other issues. These works of fiction are interesting not because of the accuracy of prediction but because they tell us what people believed about their future.

I did see that movie. A guy from the 30's gets transported to the future where they take pills instead of food and the poor guy gets drunk on an alcohol pill. It's entertaining stuff. They finally blast off to Mars from a backyard rocket ship or something. Look, nobody needs to defend si-fi writers. Most of the time they were hung up on atomic energy or flying cars and most of the time they were wrong. It didn't take much imagination to foresee military conflict back then when the Civil War and the Spanish American War and WW1 were within not too distant memory. Everyone tries to turn Orwell into a prophet but "1984" never happened and 2001 ain't gonna happen.

No, the one I am referring to is:
Things to Come - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't say this is really a good movie even thou the screenplay was written by H.G. Wells, but Sci-Fi buffs should find it interesting.

I think Orwell is really a great writer, not much at predicting the future, but who is?

 

[westwall]

We aren't gonna get off this planet without a huge expenditure that we can't afford. Atomic energy was seen as the solution but if you look at it rationally, nuclear fission is just the source of steam power. Instead of shoveling coal we have a Nuclear rod generating heat and we ain't gonna go into space under steam power.

This is not correct. If we were to really ramp up the space program it would create so much wealth (without having to destroy anything) that we actually could spend our way out of debt. The problem is then, the ruling elite, would no longer have all the power they crave.

A aggressive space program is the only thing that can ensure mankinds continued survival. We absolutely MUST get off of this singular rock before a little rock hits us and either kills us all, or knocks us back to the Stone Age.

 

[Mr. H.]

"My God, it's full of stars..."

 

[FA_Q2]

I watched a re-run of the 1968 film the other day and it was still entertaining but how did the the 34 year old Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick prophesy hold up? Not too good. I think they had the Space Shuttle technology right but who would guess that it would be scrapped in 2010? They did the anti-gravity stuff pretty well but the magnetic shoes didn't quite work on the commercial shuttle and the fake gravity on the gigantic Space Station was never explained. The sad fact is that it is too expensive to ever consider a commercial Space Station much less business trips to the Moon.

Actually you're wrong on most accounts. All of the technology they showcased either has worked or would work if given the chance. It is all pretty basic stuff using centrifugal force for the artificial gravity for instance. Very simple in concept.

The magnetic shoes would work if you were using iron for your space ship but they are using lightweight materials like aluminium and carbon fiber now to get more payload.

As soon as there is a permanent base on the Moon you can bet your ass there will be business trips to it. You just need to wake up and smell the roses. Man is destined to get off this rock. Unfortunately there are too many small minded people in positions of power who prevent it.

The OP is a case in point here, lol.

 

[editec]

I watched a re-run of the 1968 film the other day and it was still entertaining but how did the the 34 year old Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick prophesy hold up? Not too good. I think they had the Space Shuttle technology right but who would guess that it would be scrapped in 2010? They did the anti-gravity stuff pretty well but the magnetic shoes didn't quite work on the commercial shuttle and the fake gravity on the gigantic Space Station was never explained. The sad fact is that it is too expensive to ever consider a commercial Space Station much less business trips to the Moon.

The "fake Gravity" on the spinning space station is called CENTRIFICAL FORCE.

Clarke probably made the mistake of thinking most people understood basic physics.

Apparently in your case he was mistaken.

 

[whitehall]

I watched a re-run of the 1968 film the other day and it was still entertaining but how did the the 34 year old Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick prophesy hold up? Not too good. I think they had the Space Shuttle technology right but who would guess that it would be scrapped in 2010? They did the anti-gravity stuff pretty well but the magnetic shoes didn't quite work on the commercial shuttle and the fake gravity on the gigantic Space Station was never explained. The sad fact is that it is too expensive to ever consider a commercial Space Station much less business trips to the Moon.

The "fake Gravity" on the spinning space station is called CENTRIFICAL FORCE.

Clarke probably made the mistake of thinking most people understood basic physics.

Apparently in your case he was mistaken.

Here's the deal etitek, you don't get to cry out "basic physics" unless you know it works..

 

[westwall]

I watched a re-run of the 1968 film the other day and it was still entertaining but how did the the 34 year old Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick prophesy hold up? Not too good. I think they had the Space Shuttle technology right but who would guess that it would be scrapped in 2010? They did the anti-gravity stuff pretty well but the magnetic shoes didn't quite work on the commercial shuttle and the fake gravity on the gigantic Space Station was never explained. The sad fact is that it is too expensive to ever consider a commercial Space Station much less business trips to the Moon.

The "fake Gravity" on the spinning space station is called CENTRIFICAL FORCE.

Clarke probably made the mistake of thinking most people understood basic physics.

Apparently in your case he was mistaken.

Here's the deal etitek, you don't get to cry out "basic physics" unless you know it works..

You got a top? You know those little things that kids play with? Give one a spin. Let us know if it works.

 

[American Horse]

The "fake Gravity" on the spinning space station is called CENTRIFICAL FORCE.

Clarke probably made the mistake of thinking most people understood basic physics.

Apparently in your case he was mistaken.

Here's the deal etitek, you don't get to cry out "basic physics" unless you know it works..

You got a top? You know those little things that kids play with? Give one a spin. Let us know if it works.

A 40' diameter wheel would produce .69 gravity at 10 rpm.
That is a speed at the inverted floor of 14.3 mph.
Ten revs might make visuals of the star field outside the space craft difficult to apprehend or on which to get a good fix while navigating if the entire craft rotated.
Note the image has both the wheel in rotation and a habitat that doesn't rotate.
That would necessitate a sealed slip connection/coupling that would be problematic even criticality one in a space craft on a voyage.
There is also the inner-ear problem from coriolis effect from the spin which causes discomfort in the form of dizziness and nausea when the head is moved contrary to the direction of the wheel.
The rotating grav section is seen primarily as an area for the crew to exercise to prevent deterioration of physical conditioning and bone.

Artificial gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nautilus-X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia