SpaceShip One

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Jim Fisher" wrote...

Tell us...why is it not historically significant?

It's not historically significant because the feat has been accomplished
before. That it was previously done by the government is irrelevant.

Spoken like one who has given no thought to the difference between currently
inflated millions and 35 year old billions.

You'll notice some historical significance, I think, if a "private" group should
set off a nuclear device -- even though government entities have already done so.



Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
. ..

Spoken like one who has given no thought to the difference
between currently inflated millions and 35 year old billions.


Why does that matter?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

It's not historically significant because the feat has been accomplished
before.

Using that logic, our invasion of Iraq is not historically significant. It's also
been done before.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Using that logic, our invasion of Iraq is not historically significant.
It's also been done before.


Bad analogy.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
It's not historically significant because the feat has been accomplished
before. That it was previously done by the government is irrelevant.

The actual flying/rocketing/technology part is nothing new. What is
historic is the people/process in which it was done. Similar to the
assembly line- everyone was making guns before Eli Whitney came along,
and plenty of people were cranking out cars before Henry Ford. They
changed the world, but the technical aspects of what they did could be
considered quite minimal.

-lance smith

(lance smith) wrote in
om:

The actual flying/rocketing/technology part is nothing new. What is
historic is the people/process in which it was done. Similar to the
assembly line- everyone was making guns before Eli Whitney came along,
and plenty of people were cranking out cars before Henry Ford. They
changed the world, but the technical aspects of what they did could be
considered quite minimal.

Another good analogy... The Atlantic had been crossed by many times before
Lindberg, but his flight - by an individual, in a private aircraft built on
a relative shoe string - is the one (probably the only one that folks
outside aviation circles) that is remembered.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
news:K5pzc.4424

Tell us, McNiacal, why is it not historically significant?

Why don't you just spit out what you're getting at?

I'll take a stab: "Attention."

-c

It is amazing that someone who claims to be interested in aviation would not
see this as a historic event just because it has been, in some form,
accomplished before. The private funding source, small development team,
materials, aircraft design, unique rocket design, public involvement, and
goal of the project are all groundbreaking factors. Not to mention the
simple fact that it is being led by the most famous aviation designer alive
today.

I wish I could be there.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
...

As much as I hate feeding this troll....
Yes, Mr. McNicoll, history. History in the fact that this, if
successful, will be the first flight into the realms of NASA defined
'outer
space' by a civilian organization not subsidized by any government
funding.


Swell, but why does that make it historically significant?

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:0l1Ac.115638$Ly.79222@attbi_s01...
It is amazing that someone who claims to be interested in aviation would
not
see this as a historic event just because it has been, in some form,
accomplished before.

. . . But then, you're not an idiot.


--
Jim Fisher