And for each of those many ideas that are currently infeasible, there are probably other solutions that will turn out to be more practical. Technology doesn't progress by someone saying "Here's a way we can probably do this thing in the future, we just need to fill in the details." It works by fulfilling incremental goals toward improving existing technology. Any speculation about currently-impossible means to the end of overarching goals is just adding burdensome details. ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/jk/burdensome_details/ )
So if someone predicts that in the next few decades, we may have small drones that can handle gusts of wind, that's not a bad prediction. When they predict that wind gusts will be handled by a nature-inspired wing-flapping-with-feedback system the which does not remotely exist, you should stop listening. Those extra details sound like they give the hypothesis more credibility, but in fact they are constraining its predictions to a laughably tiny space.
Last year we witnessed an amazingly complex landing of the Mars rover. There were about a million things that could have gone wrong, and I would bet money that there were skeptics (probably even within the technical leadership). Were they wrong to be skeptical? Of course not -- they had sound reasons to be skeptical, and a strong chance of being right. However, the mission was a success, and those skeptics (smart as they were) were proved wrong.
I'm surprised you pounced on my statement rather than the absurdly dismissive comment I was referring to. I'll write it off to caffeine :-) .
http://robohub.org/video-throwing-and-catching-an-inverted-p...
It's fine if you don't find this amazing. I do, and I think many others do too.