From the past.

Some of them held up pretty well, and some of them didn't really happen until the twenty-first century, and some haven't panned out at all (like using electric currents to encourage plant growth, and the quiet cities). Slightly subsonic electric ships don't seem likely to happen any time soon, and pneumatics came and went, being used only for niche applications. Still an interesting set of prognostications for the time.

[Update a few minutes later]

D'oh!

As Paul Dietz points out in comments, they're only calling for ships that go a mile a minute. I was somehow thinking ten miles a minute (close to sonic velocity). Don't ask why I was thinking that--I don't know. Yes, sixty miles an hour is theoretically possible, but it's high power consumption.

The electric ships were described as going 'a mile a minute', or 60 mph. Wasn't there a recent proposal for high speed hydroplaning cargo ships that could go about that fast? And electric drive ships are coming along as well (the electricity from turbogenerators, possibly with superconducting motors and generators.)

As for 'rays of colored light' to make plants grow faster: red plastic mulch is used to make tomato plants grow faster, and there's been much work on optimizing the spectrum of artificial light for greenhouses (LEDs for use in space, for example). Still, the prediction missed what actually helped increase crop yields (fertilizers, pesticides, and selective breeding.)

Ah, here it is. 40 knots, not 60 mph, but close:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Jan/Fast_Cargo.htm

An analysis would be interesting. For instance, I'd be curious what would have been an equivalent cost for a horse back then. They did pretty well, all things considered. While "grow lights" aren't used for outdoors farming, they are used pretty heavily. I'm sure that isn't quite what they were aiming for, but they had a partial hit on that. Most of their ideas were in the ballpark, of course many things developed that they couldn't account for.

When I was a kid, I went with my parents to the Ford Rotunda in Dearborn. (is it still there?) I remember being enthralled by several "world of the future" displays, all pointing to a world where technology serves everyone.

That, plus the von Braun Martian exploration shows on Disney TV, were decisive for me. I'm sure they played the same role for others. Too bad it's human failures that get in the way of fulfilling those promises.

They did their best when they didn't try to think about how things would work, only that they would.

I'm still waiting for the underwater cities and lunar colonies from GM's "Futurama" at the '64 World's Fair.
And oh yes, the high speed monorails!

Some of the US Navy's nuclear carriers are reputed to do over 50 knots, and can maneuver at that speed, which is even scarier.

When you really look at it, they didn't do all that badly. All the references to TV, cellular/wireless phones, and picture transmittal are pretty interesting...

"Pneumatic tubes, instead of store wagons, will deliver packages and bundles."

We do have the technology, at least on the small scale of drive-up bank windows. Applying it to interstate highways or space elevators, however...

I remember 15 years or so back seeing the old Boeing hydrofoils racing up the Puget Sound to Vancouver Island, BC. I was driving parallel to them at 60-65 mph, so they had to be doing at least 40-50. I worked on a project where we looked at putting a cavitating hydrofoil on a reduced signature special forces seaplane. I'm surprised there isn't more going on with that technology, but I suppose it's like everything else.

This will put the whole "we need to throw more money at space" thing into perspective:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050601/ap_on_sc/nasa_moon_2
Courtesy of Matt Drudge this morning.

"You will find that NASA received as much in the last 16 years of its existence as in the first 16," he said. "In my judgment, we can go to the moon. We can go to Mars. We can't do them quite as quickly as we did during Apollo, but we can do it."

It's obvious the problem isn't money. I can tell you from first hand experience it isn't a lack of intelligence or will too. NASA and their contractors are full of brilliant, well motivated people.

The problem with NASA is lack of focus and white elephants. Simple as that.

These less obvious ones seem to hold at least on a small scale:

"Rays of colored light will hasten the growth of many plants."
http://www.metaefficient.com/metaefficient/archives/hydroponics/red-leds-to-grow-lettuce.html

I have seen the pneumatic tubes before mentioned used in a small scale at some offices, banks, even large supermarkets. I think they are being less and less used, because electronic transactions can replace the stuff they were mostly used for (fast movement of chunks of paper, be it money, mail or whatever).

They may still be useful in a factory floor for small robust parts, etc. I have also seen them being used sucessfully in hospitals and labs.

Google for "pneumatic air tube systems".

> I think they are being less and less used, because electronic transactions can replace the stuff they were mostly used for (fast movement of chunks of paper, be it money, mail or whatever).

And in some applications, they may be replaced by even more futuristic technology.

Their problem has been their focus - on the one big white elephant, shuttle. It's kinda ironic they are giving up on aircraft funding as so many private space companies shift their focus to air breathing first stages. Especially given their original mission was aircraft back in the NACA days. Perhaps once they figure out you have to go through air to get to space and through air to get back... Nah, it'll never happen.

I wonder what ever happened to the predictions of air travel for all? Remember how we were all supposed to be flying around in VTOL vehicles by now? Flying over a green Earth unmarred by all those paved roads.

It's all well and good to talk about the symptoms of NASA's dysfunction -- concentration on the shuttle, and ISS, say -- but it's important to trace back further to root causes.

NASA does the things it does because it's a political organization. It's not a business. Political expediency trumps economic rationality. And it's hard to see how NASA can ever overcome this and remain NASA.

I agree with your premise. The thing that bothers me is that it seems like NASA's problems could be easily fixed and therefore should. Essentially it just comes down to re-establishing checks and balances. The "projectization" of NASA has eliminated those. Everyone working for the project means everyone works to make the project look good instead of looking out for the best interests of NASA and ultimately the taxpayer. There also used to exist a check and balance system for innovation vs. "low tech" too. The functional organizations promoted innovation and the projects would try to put the brakes on what they saw as "science projects". There is no balance any more, it would be an easy thing to fix (just go back to what worked), and space is highly significant to the strategic interests of the US. It seems worth the try.

There is probably one more thing needed to fix NASA. They need to quit paying profit for paper. They should only pay profit on either working software, hardware, or a combination of both. No more profit for development. No more profit for bogus studies, requirements documents, and all the rest of the bs these contractors have "invented" over the years. This would put an end to their stringing out development for decades. No development program should take more than 5 years, I don't care what it is.

All that paper is a symptom. Its purpose is butt-covering. Bureaucrats are punished for not following rules and procedures, even if doing so makes the organization less likely to achieve its ostensible goals. And every time there's a problem, more rules and procedures are added.

If you've ever seem the 'Capability Maturity Model' of software development, you'll recognize this. Apparently there's a belief that software problems can be smothered if you dump enough paper on them.

I have seen it! You're definitely correct. I can't believe how they've managed to screw up software development with all the make-work garbage they've piled onto it. It is mind numbing.

How about a hypersonic first stage?

From Aerospace Daily:

While the Air Force pursues hypersonic (faster than Mach 5) technology primarily for global strike through programs such as FALCON, NASA's hypersonics experts are focused on future orbital launch systems. According to Chuck McClinton, NASA's X-43A technology manager, systems studies have shown that a single-stage-to-orbit "Cadillac" hypersonic vehicle that initially takes off from a runway under turbine power would have a projected loss of vehicle of one in 160,000, versus the space shuttle's current track record of one in 50.

Because NASA won't be investing the tens of billions required for such a vehicle any time soon, McClinton's colleagues at Langley Research Center in Virginia are concentrating on more affordable concepts that should require only $1-2 billion to realize, he said. A launch vehicle with a Mach 7 hypersonic stage and a rocket-powered upper stage would have a loss-of-vehicle ratio of one in 4,000, "which is still a significant benefit over where we're at now," he said.

The lower energy density of hypersonic engines gives them their safety advantage compared with today's rockets, according to Randy Voland, Langley's hypersonics technology manager.

It seems their numbers are wildly optimistic, as usual. I guess Langley has finally seen the future, and wants to be part of it. The future where NASA actually continues to exist, that is. It irritated me for years when working on HSCT program that we never once considered a Mach 2 launch stage as a technology demonstrator for that program. It was just research for the sake of keeping a job. The whole reason for the Mach 2.4 cruise speed was so the materials dudes could justify their high temperature composites funding. What a waste!

A hypersonic airbreathing first stage makes very little sense. The first stage is dropped at relatively low velocity, so you don't gain much benefit from increasing the specific impulse of its engines. Hypersonic engines have low thrust, do not work from zero speed (so you need another propulsion system), are difficult to test, have serious vehicle integration problems, present the vehicle with serious thermal issues, and will likely increase the size and cost of propellant tanks as well as the cost of the propellant itself (since you're trading cheap LOX for expensive LH2).

The '1 in 160,000' figure is manifest bullshit, absent experience of hundreds of thousands of actual launches.

Wait a minute, isn't 1 in 160,000 the same failure rate they predicted for the shuttle? Maybe it is some kind of code like the numbers: 4,8,15,16,23,42 (any "Lost" fans?). Perhaps they are trying to secretly communicate with extra-terrestrials, because surely they don't think we're stupid enough to believe that bs a second time.