The Wright Stuff/Sputnik

"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".
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". 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.

"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

"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."

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.

I disagree.

"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, now please explain what a 'dead-in'
technology is and why satellites deserve that description,
even if only in relative terms.

Keith

"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.

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...


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.


OK In British English that would be dead-end

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

The aircraft you fly on use GPS nav systems


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.

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.

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

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.

Keith