"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
Then perhaps you shouldnt have said

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

Quote the whole sentence, Kevin.
"Compared to the changes that followed from the Wrights' flights,
Sputnik was the lead in to a dead-in technology."

The name is Keith,

Sorry about that, Keith, truly unintentional.

now please explain what a 'dead-in' technology is

One with a limited future as a base for other actives.

and why satellites deserve that description,
even if only in relative terms.

Out side a spurt in the first decade or so of space flight there has
been precious little expansion of human activities dependent on it.
Most space activities are either of scientific curiosity in the main,
or a cheaper base for doing something that could be done within
the atmosphere.
Winged flight in the atmosphere fundamentally exceeds other means
of transport in terms of speed and is a necessary base for many
kinds of commerce, recreational activities/opportunities, war fighting,
cultural connections and logistical communication.
People, as a general group as opposed to an extremely select few,
even fifty years on do not fly in space and there is little indication
this will change in another fifty years. Fifty years after the Wright
brothers' flight air travel was quite accessible to the average
person in our societies and was in the process of becoming the
preferred form in many cases; a trend that will likely continue
well into the third fifty years.

Compared to flight through the air, flight through space is unimportant.
I concede this could change, just not in the foreseeable future.