By Ross Ballot
There’s something inherently charming about past visions of the future. Visions from the last ~75 years of a high-tech world we might be living in now are, to me at least, utterly fascinating. Decades like the 1950s spawned brilliant concepts of how we might live, interact, and be influenced by space and interstellar flight. The proliferation of such is present in pop culture, most evident in books and movies. Science fiction based on what people thought space exploration might have brought to our world is among my absolute favorite. The just-out-of-reach plausibility makes it both enticing and exciting, because it’s entirely imagined and yet somewhat believable.
And then there’s this: Shigeru Komatsuzaki’s 1981 Space Train. If you had said it was from 1950, I would have believed you. But 1981? By then we knew something like this wouldn’t work. At least the typography makes it look like it says “HOONLINE.”
Last Call indicates the end of Hooniverse’s broadcast day. It’s meant to be an open forum for anyone and anything. Thread jacking is not only accepted, it’s encouraged.
Jeff Glucker
I remember there were some fantastic (as in derived from fantasy) books on the future in the library at my primary school, I’d like to see them again now. For starters I’m sure that most of the things predicted should have come into fruition by now.
I grew up thinking the future would look like as drawn by Syd Mead, that even your humble family car would be low and sleek because aerodynamics, and then we got crossovers, what a letdown. I’m nostalgic for a future that never came to pass.
https://assets.hemmings.com/blog/wp-content/uploads//2014/02/SydMead_05b_1800-700×351.jpg
Looks like a Harley Earl designed Aston Martin Lagonda with even more cocaine.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
That chauffeur might represent yet another future that never was…
https://medias.spotern.com/spots/w640/61565-1532336916.jpg
Honestly though, that sleek machine looks awesome. Easy to haul 2×4’s in, too.
Well, the big solid magnetically-levitated monorail structure isn’t likely to happen, of course, and that particular train doesn’t seem designed very well for vertical travel. But the concept is very similar to a space elevator, which is still showing a lot of potential as a cheap way to hoist things into orbit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/colossal-elevator-space-could-be-going-sooner-you-ever-imagined-ncna915421
Despite a vivid imagination, an interest in sci-fi novels, and a science education, space travel has never interested me in the slightest. Elon Musk’s extraterrestrial ventures don’t even register on my radar. I enjoy fiddling with all things mechanical, but my preference for automobiles over planes partly stems from a firm desire to stay grounded to mother Earth, a willing slave of gravity.
The best thing he ever did was Paypal, after that he’s been reaching outside what he’s good at. I mean fair enough, people like to stretch, but in the case of Tesla, he’s lacked intellectual humility about it. SpaceX has been decent though, even if you don’t want to go to space, cheap spaceflight benefits us all, but he needs to get working on a solution to clearing up the growing problem low orbit debris first or we’ll be earthbound for the next few thousand years. I mean all the national space agencies should be working on it to, but it’s Elons chance to show he’s really a clever boy. Or maybe it’s a job for… SPAAAACE FORRRRCCEE!!!!!!
Random automobile fact: I talked to a local snowplower outside of my office today. With his 3.5m front plow and a sideswiping “snowpusher” underneath his relatively modern MAN TG, his fuel consumption is 85-90 l/100km (2.8-2.6 US mpg). That’s pretty close to tank territory.
I thought tanks were gpm.
That sounds very American – just invent another kind of measurement. 🤪 Makes sense though. In Europe, the 1:1 ratio, one litre per kilometer seemed to be some sort of standard. I have never driven a tank though.
I remember fondly a blog about this type of thing. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ddc91a3dff49a3ac385471ae2f9a9656c85685c02a715a77c078bd427ec49eb8.jpg
SInce last call seems like the right place to ask this. After seeing a feature on the Buick M18 Hellcat, what is the correct arrangement of Venitports for an odd number of cylinders? As background, Buick puts 3 on each fender for 6 cylinder cars, 4 on each side for 8 cylinder and AFAIK never put ventiports on a 4 cylinder car. Since the Hellcat has a 9 cylinder engine (radial), do you put 4 ports on one side and 5 on the other or do you use 4.5 ventiports? While a tank destroyer is a bit of a corner case, a 5 cylinder car engine seems likely.
6, but 16-2/3% smaller.
The Buick Hellcat was in production before the ventiport was designed. Also, the number of ventiports isn’t necessarily tied to the number of cylinders; sometimes it was based on that vehicle’s position in the Buick hierarchy.
Given that Buick’s wartime production was for the war effort, it’s safe to consider the Hellcat as the top of the Buick food chain during WWII.
On one hand, making holes in a tank for design purposes isn’t very practical, but on the other hand, a Buick like a Hellcat is worthy of about 90 ventiports. And 90 is divisible by 9.