In 1903, the NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop

So where did he go wrong?

First, he discusses airships. Balloons at low pressures, which maximize lift, are prone to collapse from wind gusts, he says. He dismisses rigid airships as too heavy. Writing that in 1903 is embarrassing. Count von Zeppelin had flown a prototype three years previous (it crashed), and by 1906 had a Zeppelin that worked. Within 20 years, the US Navy was a major operator of rigid airships.

For heavier than air craft, he writes: The step from the largest flying creature evolved by nature to the smallest flying machine that will meet the wants of man is, therefore, a very long one. To span that step man has, to help him, only a few mechanical contrivances and the superior strength of steel. Almost every other condition is set against him.

The first all metal airplane, the Junkers J-1 (1915), was all steel. It did fly, but was too heavy to perform well. By 1918, duralumin, an aluminum alloy, had been perfected. Nobody did an all-steel aircraft again until the 1950s, with jet engines.

So he missed that substantial weight reduction was possible. He was familiar with steam-powered ship systems, where everything is big and heavy.

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25105260.pdf

"PROF. BELL'S FLYING MACHINE.; Expects to Have It in Successful Operation Before Summer Passes" - https://www.nytimes.com/1903/08/12/archives/prof-bells-flyin...

and

"ANOTHER AIRSHIP MADE; Emile Berliner of Washington Says He Has Invented One. Asserts It Has Been Flown with Success -- An Aeroplane Built on the Buzzard Plan." - https://www.nytimes.com/1903/08/30/archives/another-airship-...

During the Supercollider vs Hubble debate, where the US government would only pay for one, I remember reading how unimportant Hubble would be.

As for the race to the moon, I’m not sure where that stands as an investment. I’m certainly glad we did it because we still wouldn’t have done it. However, spending that large sum over a decade (2% of government spending a year?) is usually impossible to justify.

We can’t say, for example, “Before this decade is out we will… [insert bold goal]”

But hey, even if that goal was to cure cancer(s), it wouldn’t be inspiring enough and most would say it’s impossible. In the end, we’d have to settle for simply cutting the numbers of deaths dramatically

There is always some impossible chasm that we can't cross when it comes to new technology. For EVs for a long time it was that they were too slow, that batteries couldn't get enough range, that they were way too expensive. Now it's that we're running out of lithium and the electrical grid can't take it.

I think the lesson is that there are always people arguing new technology is impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean the tech will work out, just that there will be people saying that it won't.