I consider one of the saddest examples of inaccuracy to be "2001: A Space Odyssey".
No manned mission to Jupiter.
No HAL-9000. (But maybe that's a blessing?)
No manned base on the moon of any sort, let alone of the scale in the movie.
No pure-space vehicles like the lunar shuttle.
No commercial, civilian, accessible space station.
No common-use picture-phones.
No Pan Am shuttle to the space station.
No Pan Am.
by Murray Leinster, March 1946. If you're going to talk about how our literature predicts the future, it's worth taking a look at how past literature predicted us. "A Logic Named Joe" did a pretty good job of nailing the internet, nomenclature aside, and it did it almost 70 years ago.
One of them watched the old "Total Recall" with Arnie. Even though the movie was rated R they didn't take advantage of the obvious opportunity with their "walking screening device".
They look at this article, as well as various responses to it. The overall tone is even and reasonable. There is a bit of sensationalism to TFA, and some of its claims appear to be taking worst-case situations and generalizing them to the entire population of wells, etc.
You had me with you up until you said "grown wiser". Yes, we learned that lesson, but I fear that rather than truly growing wiser, man has just found different and new expressions for folly.
Read "Cycle of Fire" by Hal Clement, and weep for America.
I'll take a moment to answer several responses to this.
To call Creationism a theory is to miss the correct definition of the word theory. Many people seem to think of theory as a neat idea to explain nature, but that falls far short.
In this case, the key differentiator is that a theory is testable, typically by experimentation. When you claim to have a theory, you'd also better define some sort of experiment or other set of measurements that can prove, disprove, or modify that theory.
From what I've read, Creationism is at the (stoner voice) "Wow Man!" (/stoner voice) stage.
Of course the downside is that there may be no such thing as "string theory", because there seems to be no way to prove or disprove it. To be fair, from what I can see, those who call themselves string theorists are quite upset about that, and would love nothing more than a real experiment.
Link to Original Source
LEAF is capable of generating more than 154 decibels, the sound equivalent to standing next to several jets taking off. It is used to blast satellites and spacecraft with sound. Large horns are housed in a sound-proofed room that is 16.4metres tall. One wall of horns stands 11 m wide by 9 m deep and 16.4 m high. The nitrogen that's shot through the horns can produce a range of noise up to more than 154 decibels.
LEAF requires all the doors to be closed, operating in steel-reinforced concrete walls to contain the noise. The walls are coated with an epoxy resin to reflect noise, producing a uniform sound field within the chamber. The article doesn't say whether the knobs go past 11."
Link to Original Source
..."loud enough to hear in space" - that's silly, with near-vacuum.
The setup is for simulating the "sound" of liftoff and early atmospheric flight. There was serious concern about the sound level of the engines shaking the rocket apart at liftoff, which is part of why there's the flood of water. Even though the water is loud, it helps dampen the sound of the rocket exhaust. Then there's the "sound" of flying through the air, to the point that they have to throttle the engines back for a portion of the flight - because of "dynamic pressure." The Challenger disaster happened right after this inteval - the last normall communication was, "go for throttle-up", meaning that they were high enough for the dynamic pressure to have dropped enough that they could put the pedal to the metal, again.
Oh wow! Shades of:
Also proof that a program that does absolutely nothing can indeed have bugs. Look up the history some time. (It's on Wikipedia.)
I don't think you can really know where to start start before the Kalens of July.