"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...


Given the dependence modern society has on satellites
in fields ranging from telecommunications through recon
and on to navigation (GPS) this seems a remarkable claim.

There's scarcely a single aspect of our lives that hasnt been
changed by this 'dead-in' (whatever that means) technology.

But, Keith, what does that have to do with public perception?

I believe the public perceive the reality, hence the use of terms
like 'satelllite navigation' , 'weather satellite', 'satellite phone',
'satellite TV' etc etc.

Baa, the general public perceives "GPS", "weather forecast", "cell phone"
and "TV". While they likely were at some point aware of a connection
between these things and satellites they are not things they associate
with "Sputnik".

A google search for the term 'satellite tv' suggests otherwise
and since Sputnik was the first satellite they undoubtedly
do understand the association.


The general public on the other hand associates the "Wright Brothers"
(and perhaps the "Wright Flyer") with *FLYING* and getting on "the
big silver bird to go to ____".

But let me be clear: I do not consider space use as "dead-in".

Then perhaps you shouldnt have said

Sputnik was the lead in to a dead-in technology.

That
was a comparative phrase between the advancement in and change
caused by the two lines of progress (manned flight vs space flight)
and their respective beginnings.


It was also demonstrably wrong.

Keith