"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
now please explain what a 'dead-in' technology is

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


OK In British English that would be dead-end

American English as well, some times I don't proof read so well.

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.

You have to be kidding.

If you turn on the TV news the pictures from abroad came via satellite

If you make an international call the chances are that goes via
satellite

When you listen to the weather report that are based in large part
on satellite data

All having their origins in the 60s.


1957 actually


The aircraft you fly on use GPS nav systems

Which replaced ground based locating systems. Granted it
covers more area more cheaply.


More accurately over greater ranges and is much easier to use.

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.

Try doing any of the above using aircraft.

Submarine cables could cover the first two and have been
around longer than even airplanes.

TV required more bandwidth than was available on
undersea cables. The first transtlantic tv link was via
the Telstar satellite in 1962

Additional weather flights and ground stations the third.

Ground stations dont cover the 2/3 of the world that
is ocean

And if you can cover the earth with cell phone towers, you
can add location beacons to'em. OK, GPS is about the only
innovative use for space in decades.


See the 2/3 Ocean rule

I am old enough to recall the time you had to
book transatlantic calls hours in advance and
when Hurricanes could strike major cities with
only a couple of hours notice and when news
footage from across the ocean relied on film
being flown across them.

Fixable terrestrially with more expenditures. Yes,
space systems are a cheaper platform for doing some things.


And MUCH better

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.

Most passenger journeys are made by ground transportation
which now heavily depends on satellite technology for
the information travellers need from the weather forecast through
GPS in car nav systems and of course the radio news

Oh come on now, you aren't claiming that anyone is dependent
on GPS and satellite weather to drive some where? Most terrestrial
passenger journeys being of a rather local nature.

Dont you check the weather before travelling in winter ?
I certainly do.

Of those journeys not local in nature, call it over a day's ride via
surface transport or transoceanic, the aircraft is the preferred method.

That doesnt make satellites a dead-end technology any more than
it makes cars, trains or ships a dead-end technology

The only time space flight is the preferred method of travel is when
the destination is different stellar body; gee, when was the last time
anybody made that trip, 30+ years ago?
You would be better off arguing the easy of navigation for private
boats to prove the transformational worth of GPS.


I have argued it for ALL navigational uses including and
most especially for AIRCRAFT

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.


Which has zip to do with the vital role satellite technology
plays in our every day life.

Agreed, but it does have a lot to do with which is more likely to
be celebrated on its anniversary. And even more to do with my
original statement.


Which was that sputnik was the lead-in to a dead-end technology.
Yet that technology affects our life every single day. People
who have never boarded an aircraft are affected by satellites
every time they turn on the tv or radio.

Keith