# science fiction technology you see possible in the future and others not **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 19, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908 "2015-06-19T00:24:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ssgenius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@ssgenius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ssgenius)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/21 "2015-06-20T02:06:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Star Trek shuttles fly. The Space Shuttle is a glorified brick. It needs rockets to take off and it doesn’t actually fly back in so much as re-enter. I don’t believe the Space Shuttle is capable of even so much as regaining altitude if they make a mistake. I think they can only adjust speed and yaw on reentry. What I was getting at is conceptually that when I look at the space shuttle, it is similar in concept to the shuttlecraft When I first saw the space shuttle, my initial thought was that is sure looked like the shuttlecraft. Of course, there are differences and similarities Look at this Star Trek Shuttlecraft - passenger capacity - 7 Space Shuttle - 7 or 8 Cargo capacity - both can carry cargo but the shuttle seems to have a larger capacity And as other posters have mentioned, the Mars Craft would be even more similar to the Space Shuttle I know that it is not an exact comparison but there are similarities and that is what I am getting at ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/22 "2015-06-20T03:43:09Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > The problem with star trek and stargate TV shows and the likes of other scfi shows is use of SSTO (single-stage-to-orbit) a vehicle that reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware. > > In reality it takes about 90% to 95% of fuel to get that small 5% of mass into space. So 90% to 95% of rocket gone. > > The fuel is used up in minutes not hours,days or weeks. > > The problem with scfi shows is use of SSTO vehicles where 95% of the vehicle is mass and 5% of it is the engine. And fuel that is not used up in minutes but last weeks to months before you need to get more fuel. > > In reality a star trek shuttle craft could not land on a planet and have enough fuel to get it to take off into space!!! > > To go to the moon or mars you need big rocket like a Space Launch System or Saturn V rocket it is massive very massive fuel tank!!! > > No star trek or stargate SSTO with propulsion known to man today could do that. That could largely be avoided if we built a space elevator (like in the David Gerrold series). This way, stuff going into space could be hauled up in the elevator while balanced with weight coming down (just like current building elevators), thus requiring much less energy to get into space. Because the motors are at the end(s) of the cable, so you don’t have to carry your fuel along with you. And this seems like something that should be possible, without needing any great scientific breakthrough or ‘magic’. Just developing a cable material with the right strength-to-weight ratio. And researchers are working on this. I’ve seen statements that spiderwebs actually meet that ratio (if only we knew how to make them and upscale them a few thousand times). of course, actually doing the building of such a thing would be really difficult to get started. Given the amounts involved, it would have to be a government project. And can you see trying to get a government to budget for such a thing? We only got to the moon in the first place because JFK scared Congress that “the Commies will get there first!” (Most huge, expensive projects have to be sold as ‘defending us from our enemies’. We got the Interstate Highway System funded originally as needed for troop movements in case we are ever invaded.) And all the legal issues involved – what laws apply in space? Does stuff made in space and sent down on the space elevator have to pay import duties? etc. But technically, I think this may be feasible in a not too distant future. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/23 "2015-06-20T19:26:42Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > They are shown in futuristic movies and games and plus they just look new and different. > > It is no different than the new guns the big plastic or bullpup rifles that is giving to the illusions it is more powerful even fact the gun is the same size and it is not more powerful. > > It looks weird and futuristic. In a way, modern bullpup rifles are weird and futuristic when compared to say, an old time battle rifle like an M1 or M14: - Much lighter - More ammo - Small fast bullets actually are more powerful than slower large ones (E=1/2 mv^2 ) - Ergonomic design - Rails for optics and other accessories But sort of like the helicopter, it’s still based on incremental improvements on the same basic technology. In this case, propelling a projectile at high speed using chemical energy. Sure you can use materials to make them lighter, ergonomic shapes to make them easier to use, or special optics or electronics to make them more accurate. But at the end of the day, it’s still based on E=1/2 mv ^2 and the physical weight a soldier can carry. > [@sweat209](#): > > It probably some reason why this would not work. Has to be all jets or all blades not combo. > > And probably some reason why jets engines attached to helicopter will not work. It must have something to do with the aerodynamics of pushing a spinning helicopter blade through the air at jet speeds. Helicopters already use jet turbine engines to turn the blades (but not for forward propulsion). My WAG is that the airflow past the propeller blades might be traveling at a speed close to the radial velocity of the blades, the backward traveling blade would stall while the forward travelling blade receives a lot more lift. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/24 "2015-06-20T21:54:13Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Many SF stories concern themselves with this topic. However, given the vast distances between stars (and their planetary systems), communication via radio seems unlikely. Suppose we pick up an artificial signal? It could be millions of years old. If we reply to it, we wait…and waits…meanwhile, the aliens that sent it may have died out. > When and if manking builds interstellar spaceships, those who leave on them will never return. The travel time is just too long. The problem is lot more than just going from one star system to other. With out a warp drive you will need a generation space ship that could take tow or three generation to you get to a planet to start a colony. It would be a one way trip!! And this is traveling close to light speed!!! A big space ship like the enterprise-D would cost trillions of trillions dollars. Even if money was not a problem to build a enterprise-D and they had working warp drive such a spaceship could never land or take off on planet using chemical propulsion!! So what would you do if you got to such a planet? ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/25 "2015-06-20T23:25:58Z")
Caseless ammo > **[Caseless ammunition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition)** > > Caseless ammunition (CL), or rather caseless cartridge, is a configuration of weapon-cartridge that eliminates the cartridge case that typically holds the primer, propellant and projectile together as a unit. Instead, the propellant and primer are fitted to the projectile in another way so that a cartridge case is not needed, for example inside or outside the projectile depending on configuration. > Caseless ammunition is an attempt to reduce the weight and cost of ammunition by dispensing with th... [![](http://www.gamesasylum.com/wp-content/uploads/aliens-m41a-pulse-rifle-12.jpg) ](http://www.gamesasylum.com/wp-content/uploads/aliens-m41a-pulse-rifle-12.jpg) I would assume with today’s day and age of CSI tech, not having to “police your brass” is a big plus. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/26 "2015-06-21T00:17:50Z")
I’m fond of brass-catchers (“ejection port condoms.”) But I figure caseless ammo will have its own CSI complications: scrape a little residue off the wall, run it through a mass spectrometer, and identify the point of manufacture. Taggants would make this easier, but won’t be strictly necessary for very long. (Meanwhile, drop as little as one eyelash, and they’ve got you by the DNA. These are not the best of times for stealth-based crimes.) ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2015, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/27 "2015-06-21T22:31:51Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > In a way, modern bullpup rifles are weird and futuristic when compared to say, an old time battle rifle like an M1 or M14: > > - Much lighter > - More ammo > - Small fast bullets actually are more powerful than slower large ones (E=1/2 mv^2 ) > - Ergonomic design > - Rails for optics and other accessories > But sort of like the helicopter, it’s still based on incremental improvements on the same basic technology. In this case, propelling a projectile at high speed using chemical energy. Sure you can use materials to make them lighter, ergonomic shapes to make them easier to use, or special optics or electronics to make them more accurate. But at the end of the day, it’s still based on E=1/2 mv ^2 and the physical weight a soldier can carry. > > It must have something to do with the aerodynamics of pushing a spinning helicopter blade through the air at jet speeds. Helicopters already use jet turbine engines to turn the blades (but not for forward propulsion). > > My WAG is that the airflow past the propeller blades might be traveling at a speed close to the radial velocity of the blades, the backward traveling blade would stall while the forward travelling blade receives a lot more lift. Planes and helicopters have hardly changed compared to computers and electronics in how they look. It may have some to do with aerodynamics. A helicopter with jet engine may cause the helicopter rear rotor to spin out of control going too fast or too much air. A small drone shape like a helicopter may not work well aerodynamics wise where a helicopter with lot of ducted rotors or helos like those pictures posted above and in video games and scfi movies may not work well aerodynamics wise. There may be shape form factor on scale size for it to work well aerodynamics wise. May be why Planes and helicopters don’t look like that or why every 20 year or so Planes and helicopters don’t look different. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/28 "2015-06-22T19:58:05Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > -star trek replicator or molecular assembler… Computing power is too crude, so crude it would requires quantum computer, the technology to move atoms or molecules does not really exist,scanning tunneling microscope is too crude to move atoms or molecules around and too slow and probability take centuries of centuries to try to build any thing like golf ball. > > With quantum uncertainty principle is other problem. > -phaser guns, lasers guns,plasma guns or other energy handheld guns are not possible with today’s technology… > > -Jet-pack not practical with today’s technology it is too costly,not safe and in matter of minutes the fuel is used up. > > -artificial gravity and force field is even more scfi no one has a clue how to make it. The are 4 fundamental forces that have been identified they are gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear and no other force identified. > > For artificial gravity and force field would require a force to counter a other force. > > -teleportation of people not possible, it would require a MRI that can scan the person down to the subatomic level then dematerialization of all the atoms or molecules and covert the person to energy pattern than beam to the target and reconverted into matter and rematerialization. > > You will be killing the person and making a clone. > > A wormhole or Stargate/portal would be more possible because there is no dematerialization or rematerialization of the person. It would be safe for the person. > > A person going through a wormhole or Stargate/portal would be like going through a door in your house.You would not be traveling through a tunnel you would step in and step out. > > But a wormhole or Stargate/portal would require exotic matter to keep it open so it does not collapses in on it self and folding of space and time. > > -star trek tricorder a MRI,CT scan,ultrasound or x-ray is really big device and no one knows how to shrink it down the device!!! That alone to a small handheld device. > -hologram like in star wars or star trek is big problem that laser or light does not stop in mid air and how would you shape or mold the laser and light and get it to stop in mid air at xx feet in the air you want? > > All holograms we have today and there are different types of holograms are a allusion or in a closed device. > > Not what you see in star wars or star trek a laser or light that shines and stops in mid air. > > -star trek holodeck same thing why we don’t have holograms not only you need a holograms you need to be a mastery of hologram technology. > > other problem when you walk into a 10 feet by 10 feet holodeck room how do you make room appear to go on for ever? Blindfold yourself walk into your room and think you in a big forest!! In in less than a minute you walk into your wall and hit your heat on the wall. > > A moving floor or treadmill is not going to be any where close to walking on floor it would feel very strange. > -star wars landspeeder not possible, Jet or fans not want you want. > > It has nothing to do with Jets being more powerful, F-35 and Harrier can take of vertically but it moves so much air around that it would be dangerous to be close to it.It also makes a lot of noise. > > They need some thing other than Jet, fans or blades and it has nothing to do with it being 8 times more powerful. > > And in movies landspeeders don’t have Jets, fans or blades it operates more like magnetism, ati-gravity or some thing else. > So it seems most of these science fiction technology like in star wars or star trek is so beyond today’s technology not even ideas and theories on drawing board that alone a lab. > > The more I read science the more I get turn off star wars or star trek where future looks more like the movie interstellar than star wars or star trek minus the AI talking robot. > > So what science fiction technology do you see possible in the future and other science fiction technology not possible with today’s technology. > > What emerging science, technology and breakthroughs may be possible or not. > > Well they cannot really predict what the future will be like 50 or 100 years out, but they can predict emerging science, technology and breakthroughs being done in lab now with science and the know being down now in lab. > > Well star trek or star wars really off the mark. Molecular assemblers - you are badly misinformed on that point. They already exist on a large and practical scale. Go open a molecular biology textbook - everything we want to do with molecular assemblers is basically already happening in living cells. We just want more control of the process and products using other elements. Handheld energy weaponry - I agree. It’s a lot more than just a power source problem. One problem is that no matter what scheme you come up with for supplying the power, it is a lot lighter to use a chemical reaction to propel the projectile directly instead of indirectly via magnets, high voltage rails, or creating high intensity light. The reason for railguns/coilguns/laser is _range_ - hundreds of miles or more. This makes them by definition a weapon that will be mounted on a vehicle and not useful to infantry. Jet pack - you are badly misinformed. Practical jetpacks now exist - it’s a high bypass turbofan jet engine pointing downward. This gives you an hour or more of fuel life. By “practical” I mean it does the job, I guess in terms of actually needing it for something, it’s still just a toy. Antigravity - yeah, it’s probably not even possible. Wormholes - no known way to make them. Teleportation of people - yet another thing you are badly misinformed on. It absolutely is possible to teleport people, even practical. Step 1 : mush their brain into a digital data file. Step 2 : send the multi-petabyte data file via a high speed communications link. If you have trouble with the “cloning” problem, have your brain transferred over a tiny piece at a time with no loss of continuity. (admittedly this is many orders of magnitudes harder than doing a transfer when your brain is “dead”, but physics allow it) You wouldn’t be sending over the position of every atom in a person. Just the state variables in their brain - things like how strong a particular synapse is. In a real human brain, the strength of a synapse is determined by the collective action of millions of separate atoms - but your digital model would track just a single number about 64 bits long for that. This is why it would be practical - we can send large multi-petabyte files over optical links right now. With the fastest optical links available with today’s tech, you could send a person’s mind-state in a few minutes. Their body is a much smaller file - either a copy of a biological genetic code (about 6 gigs) or the blueprints for a robot they can control. Star Trek tricorder - you could build a diagnostic instrument that small or smaller. It would release trillions of nanoscale robots that would crawl over or inside the object, and the handheld device would simply communicate and power the robots via microwaves or EM induction. This would give you the kind of information the tricorder is capable of giving - each tiny robot would have nanoscale molecular sensors, etc, and would be able to detect an enormous number of things. Hologram - your post is not very good on accuracy. It **is** possible to have holograms that appear to be in mid air, with no glasses, and it works from any angle. The trick is that there would have to be a display panel that controls at each pixel the light emitted at each **angle** relative to the display panel. It’s a trick similar to what the nintendo 3ds does right now, except the 3ds only creates 2 images, and you’d create hundreds. No matter where you stand, as long as your eyes could see this display panel, you’d see an illusion of an object floating out in front of the display. Holodeck - you would need an actual implant installed in a person’s spine or probably at the top of their brain at the motor and sensory homunculi. You would use signals from the motor regions for controlling a person’s avatar, and you would deliver the tactile information to the sensory homunculi. There would have to be another implant similar to a modern day cochlear implant, that would deliver the signals associated with both sound and your inner ear’s sense of orientation and acceleration. Finally, you’d beam the visual input directly onto the retina. With all these implants, installed via surgery, you could generate truly convincing virtual reality. Not sure what you mean by “star wars landspeeder not possible”. You could absolutely build a VTOL aircraft about that size that would fly on jet exhaust. It wouldn’t be very practical - fuel consumption would limit it’s range and make it cost a fortune to operate. But it would fly. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/29 "2015-06-22T20:05:46Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > The problem is lot more than just going from one star system to other. The first problem to solve, even before worrying about how to get enough equipment into space to build a starship, is to solve the problem of human aging. Either figure out a series of genetic code changes so humans don’t age past young adulthood, or figure out a way to copy human brains to computers so they are basically immortal as long as one copy exists. Either way, your starship would arrive at the destination with the original crew who left on it. If aging isn’t a problem, you might have a way to put humans into a controlled coma so they don’t have to actually be bored for centuries. If you use computers, it’s trivial - just set the clock rate low enough that a few centuries long journey takes just a few minutes in perceptual time. The problem of aging - or uploading to computers - is orders of magnitude easier than the problem of building a starship. We’re probably centuries at the current rate of progress from being able to harness the antimatter you would need to fuel a starship engine with adequate performance. We’re probably mere decades from having AI or human uploading. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/30 "2015-06-22T20:10:58Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > In reality it takes about 90% to 95% of fuel to get that small 5% of mass into space. So 90% to 95% of rocket gone. There is a much simpler and practical method to fix this problem. You use a very large array of lasers and your rocket is the payload with a block of solid propellant on the bottom. Laser beams vaporize the propellant, you get thrust at several thousand ISP. Your payload ratio would be much, much higher - 60% or more of the mass you started with. You do have to have this massive pile of equipment on the ground to do this. If you were exploring a new planet like Earth, you’d do it differently. Or, you might send a probe down to the planet with enough equipment onboard to build a self replicating factory (using molecular assemblers of course), and have it eventually build a large enough industrial base to launch stuff back into orbit. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/31 "2015-06-23T03:41:30Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > The first problem to solve, even before worrying about how to get enough equipment into space to build a starship, is to solve the problem of human aging. Either figure out a series of genetic code changes so humans don’t age past young adulthood, or figure out a way to copy human brains to computers so they are basically immortal as long as one copy exists. Either way, your starship would arrive at the destination with the original crew who left on it. If aging isn’t a problem, you might have a way to put humans into a controlled coma so they don’t have to actually be bored for centuries. If you use computers, it’s trivial - just set the clock rate low enough that a few centuries long journey takes just a few minutes in perceptual time. > > The problem of aging - or uploading to computers - is orders of magnitude easier than the problem of building a starship. We’re probably centuries at the current rate of progress from being able to harness the antimatter you would need to fuel a starship engine with adequate performance. We’re probably mere decades from having AI or human uploading. What I was getting at is so many people get hung up on distance from one star system to an other star system and talk about may be putting the person in a hibernation state ,warp drive ,generation ship or some other exotic discovery but do not understand that going into space is prohibited expensive with today’s technology and know how. Not to say space radiation or damage by space debris. There are number of private commercial space companies researching to bring space cost down but nothing awesome that a average middle class or upper middle class can can afford. Only the very wealthy millionaires can go into space with today’s technology. Going to moon or mars would be even more costly. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/32 "2015-06-23T04:10:35Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Hologram - your post is not very good on accuracy. It **is** possible to have holograms that appear to be in mid air, with no glasses, and it works from any angle. The trick is that there would have to be a display panel that controls at each pixel the light emitted at each **angle** relative to the display panel. It’s a trick similar to what the nintendo 3ds does right now, except the 3ds only creates 2 images, and you’d create hundreds. No matter where you stand, as long as your eyes could see this display panel, you’d see an illusion of an object floating out in front of the display. > . You mean Hologram like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10bzatpuFc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10bzatpuFc) or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZhjEQuR\_fo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZhjEQuR_fo) or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03-lIUc3Ho](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03-lIUc3Ho) All these Holograms are in a inclosed device for it to work. Not like star trek or star wars where it does not have to be in a inclosed device. > [@Habeed](#): > > There is a much simpler and practical method to fix this problem. You use a very large array of lasers and your rocket is the payload with a block of solid propellant on the bottom. Laser beams vaporize the propellant, you get thrust at several thousand ISP. Your payload ratio would be much, much higher - 60% or more of the mass you started with. > > You do have to have this massive pile of equipment on the ground to do this. If you were exploring a new planet like Earth, you’d do it differently. Or, you might send a probe down to the planet with enough equipment onboard to build a self replicating factory (using molecular assemblers of course), and have it eventually build a large enough industrial base to launch stuff back into orbit. A laser propulsion rocket would require gigawatts of power. How could such a battery hold that much power. The lasers would have to be extremely powerful. A laser propulsion rocket like any type of nuclear propulsion system to get payload into space would cost more than chemical propulsion. Sure you could take up more payload into space but it would cost more. In space there is no air so good luck to get your rocket to work in space. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/33 "2015-06-23T04:29:24Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > . . . In space there is no air so good luck to get your rocket to work in space. ??? Joking? Rockets do fine without air. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/34 "2015-06-23T05:08:20Z")
Paper thin TV/monitor screens that can be put on anything from newspapers to milk cartons. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/35 "2015-06-23T05:28:15Z")
I’m mixed on people being in long term hibernation or suspended animation as a way to manage space voyages of many years. While I could see how a person could be fed intravenously and have waste taken away by catheters, wouldn’t there muscles atrophy without some sort of exercise? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/36 "2015-06-23T05:38:07Z")
There is research into micro-electric stimulation of muscle fibers to keep the muscles twitching, to give them the exercise they need. (Useful in the real world to maintain muscle tone in paralysis patients.) ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/37 "2015-06-23T11:38:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There is research into micro-electric stimulation of muscle fibers to keep the muscles twitching, to give them the exercise they need. (Useful in the real world to maintain muscle tone in paralysis patients.) Could a person really sleep for weeks or months at a time with that going on? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/38 "2015-06-23T13:31:44Z")
out there now: star trek tricorder: “Through its sensor, and in a matter of seconds, the Scanadu measures heart rate, temperature, blood pressure, oxygen level and provides a complete ECG reading.” > **[Scanadu: The medical Tricorder from Star Trek is here | CNN Business](https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/tech/mci-scanadu-tricorder/)** > > A handheld medical device that reads vital signs in seconds: the Tricorder is no longer science fiction. Possible: Cloning people. I think we can do it, we’re just choosing not to, so I’m putting this in the “possible” category. Note that I’m not talking about copying memories, but just creating a genetic duplicate which would have to grow naturally from infancy. Not: Fusion. We’ve been 10 years from this for too long for me to take it seriously. Flying cars. Way too high of a power requirement for way too little benefit, plus that business of having to take off & land at an airport negates most of the bonus. Man-portable laser weapons of the “punch a hole through somebody and kill him” variety. Fully believable androids or robots. We are nowhere near the ability to make something that can walk, talk and move like a human being. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/39 "2015-06-23T21:28:06Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Could a person really sleep for weeks or months at a time with that going on? Hibernation technology goes a long, long way beyond ordinary sleep. More like an induced coma…and that’s still only the beginning. Look at the Hibernacula in Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001. Breathing and heartbeat are slowed, digestion is all but halted, and cognitive awareness is annihilated. Do Hibernauts even dream? “All intelligent beings dream. Nobody knows why.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/40 "2015-06-23T22:07:35Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > You mean Hologram like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10bzatpuFc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10bzatpuFc) or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZhjEQuR\_fo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZhjEQuR_fo) or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03-lIUc3Ho](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03-lIUc3Ho) > > All these Holograms are in a inclosed device for it to work. Not like star trek or star wars where it does not have to be in a inclosed device. > > A laser propulsion rocket would require gigawatts of power. How could such a battery hold that much power. The lasers would have to be extremely powerful. > > A laser propulsion rocket like any type of nuclear propulsion system to get payload into space would cost more than chemical propulsion. Sure you could take up more payload into space but it would cost more. 1. No. I mean something like the nintendo 3DS except less ghosting and it would work no matter which way you hold the display or which angle you look at it. 2. With a laser propulsion rocket (google for “ablative laser propulsion”), the lasers stay on the ground. The gas turbines and solar panels powering them also stay on the ground. You would draw the gigawatts of power needed from the same electricity grid that powers entire nations, doing the launches at “off peak” periods when there is enough spare generation capacity. Depending on the country doing the launches, and the time of year, and where your substations were, you might need to purchase additional generators - you’d buy gas turbines. Yes, it would cost money per launch, but a lot less money - the cost of the fuel for existing rockets is 1% or less of the cost. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908.md?page=3)