The Wright Stuff/Sputnik

"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

"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.

The aircraft you fly on use GPS nav systems

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

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.
Additional weather flights and ground stations the third.
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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

"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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
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

That would be for Sputnik, right? Not those applications of space flight.
If you're chartiable you could call Echo the first communiocations sat
and it wasn't launched until 1960; Telstar in '62(?). Am I missing any
earlier com sats?
Were there any weather sats before ATS-1 at the tale end of '66?

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.

Nope, sure don't. I get in the car and go.
But perhaps you go farther than I do. I rarely travel more than 250 miles
each way in winter. BTW, first decent snow of the season today.
But let me ask you, if you didn't have GPS and sat weather pictures,
would you still go?

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

Not totally successfully in my opinion.

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.

Still can't deal with the whole sentence?
Fine have it your way, you win.

In article ,
"John Keeney" writes:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
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

That would be for Sputnik, right? Not those applications of space flight.
If you're chartiable you could call Echo the first communiocations sat
and it wasn't launched until 1960; Telstar in '62(?). Am I missing any
earlier com sats?

Yes. Luna, in 1947. (Naval Observatory-Pearl Harbor.
Luna was also the first U.S. Elint Satellite, used in the mid 1950s
to map the Soviet's network of Tall King search radars.
(Nobody said that the satellite had to be _artificial_, did they?)

Were there any weather sats before ATS-1 at the tale end of '66?

TIROS, in 1960, to start off.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Uzytkownik "Peter Stickney" napisal w wiadomosci
...
[snip...]

Yes. Luna, in 1947. (Naval Observatory-Pearl Harbor.
Luna was also the first U.S. Elint Satellite, used in the mid 1950s
to map the Soviet's network of Tall King search radars.
(Nobody said that the satellite had to be _artificial_, did they?)

[snip...]

Sorry for one ignorant question. Do you mean Luna=the Moon, Earth's natural
satellite?

If YES, then how it could help in mapping anybody's radar network? I assume
that US didn't have any sensors placed there these days. If they used
reflection of radio waves - how they differentiate between radars of
interest and others?

If NOT, then do you suggest, that in 1947 anybody (including US) had rockets
capable of lifting a satellite to orbit?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Regards
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

In article ,
"JasiekS" writes:

Uzytkownik "Peter Stickney" napisal w wiadomosci
...
[snip...]

Yes. Luna, in 1947. (Naval Observatory-Pearl Harbor.
Luna was also the first U.S. Elint Satellite, used in the mid 1950s
to map the Soviet's network of Tall King search radars.
(Nobody said that the satellite had to be _artificial_, did they?)

Sorry for one ignorant question. Do you mean Luna=the Moon, Earth's natural
satellite?

Yes, I do. The first signals bounced from the Moon and received on
Earth were in 1946, by an U.S. Army Signal Corps Lieutenant waiting to
be mustered out. He used a UHF Air Search Radar with a 3 KW
transmitter. The Navy, needing a reliable method of communicating
with remote bases, (Please remember that the Immediate Warning Message
to Pearl Harbor from the cryptanalysts in Washington D.C. couldn't be
broadcast (Normal Ionosphere skip) due to atmospherics, and had to be
sent via commercial cable.) Their solution was to use the Moon as a
passive reflector. By the early 1960s, Moonbounce was used by Navy
Command Ships at sea, as well as fixed bases.
These days, there's a fairly active segment of Amateur Radio Operators
who build and operate Moonbounce systems. By picking the proper
frequencies, and using CW or digital signals, rather than voice, you
can get by on surprisingly little power. A Google Search on
"Moonbounce" gives a lot of hits.


If YES, then how it could help in mapping anybody's radar network? I assume
that US didn't have any sensors placed there these days. If they used
reflection of radio waves - how they differentiate between radars of
interest and others?

Well, it wasn't easy, as I understand it. (A bit before my time), but
it wasn't impossible. Radars of the same type, especially if located
within line of sight of each other, do not operate on exactly the same
frequency. This is to avoid the problem of one radar picking up
another radar's signals and generating false targets.
The Soviets, not being fools, were very careful not to operate their
network when Western "Elint" - Electronic Intelligence or, more
commonly, Ferret, aircraft were offshore. So, we had to find some
other means of characterizing and locating their radars. The
frequencies that work best for Air Search Radars, and the high power
required for such a radar, made it possible to receive their signals
as the pulses continued into space and reflected from the Moon.
Locating the radars was an exercise in geometry, and precise
measurement, complicated by the fact that the Moon's not a perfectly
spherical reflector.

Electronic Intelligence gathering at that time was a fascinating game
played by master chess players. We were clever in some area, the
Soviets were clever in others. An example would be the Soviet
invention of the Resonant Cavity Microphone. It's simple, sensitive,
and requires no connection to external power, or signal transmission
lines. Just take a small tube, suitable to use as a section of
waveguide, and put a flexible diaphragm on the back, with a half-wave
antenna. It does nothing, until you beam the appropriate microwave
signal at it. At that point, it will resonate like a flute,
re-radiating through the small antenna. The flexible diaphragm will
modulate the signal, allowing the voice information to be extracted.
We were finding them for years without figuring out what they were.


If NOT, then do you suggest, that in 1947 anybody (including US) had rockets
capable of lifting a satellite to orbit?

In 1947, certainly not. In 1956, it was just barely possible. (The
rocket system that the U.S. used for its first Artifical Satellite,
Explorer 1, was the Jupiter C reentry vehicle test rocket built at the
Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, for testing the newly
developed ablative reentry vehicle for Ballistic Missiles. The only
difference between a reentry test Jupiter C, and the Explorer 1 shot
was the trajectory - it was set up for orbital insertion, rather than
the maximum aerodynamic heating, and the satellite/instrument package
atop the 4th stage. The Huntsville team had been warned off from
putting up a satellite in 1956 by the President's Office. By that
point, the Naval Research Lab Vanguard satellite, and its rocket
booster, had been selected as the main thrust of the U.S. satellite
effort. The success of Sputnik in late 1957, and the failure of the
first Vanguard shot in early 1958, got the Army effort de-mothballed,
as it were, and rushed into place to launch Explorer.
A 1956 launch wouldn't have accomplished much except that launching a
satellite could be done - neither the instrumentation, or the tracking
network needed to properly observe and monitor the satellite existed
before mid 1957.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote:
In article ,
"JasiekS" writes:

Uzytkownik "Peter Stickney" napisal w wiadomosci
...
[snip...]

Yes. Luna, in 1947. (Naval Observatory-Pearl Harbor.
Luna was also the first U.S. Elint Satellite, used in the mid 1950s
to map the Soviet's network of Tall King search radars.
(Nobody said that the satellite had to be _artificial_, did they?)

Sorry for one ignorant question. Do you mean Luna=the Moon, Earth's natural
satellite?

Yes, I do. The first signals bounced from the Moon and received on
Earth were in 1946, by an U.S. Army Signal Corps Lieutenant waiting to
be mustered out. He used a UHF Air Search Radar with a 3 KW
....snip...

Sounds like John DeWitt and Project Diana. I seem to recall that the
word "deliberate" should go in there somewhere, as some early-warning
coastal radars in the right weather conditions may have picked up the
rising Moon during World War 2 and caused great, if momentary, excitement.

The Navy thought enough of this possibility to have begun construction of
a 600-foot (diameter) fully steerable radio dish at Sugar Grove,
West Virginia (just up the road from the later site of the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory) in the 1950s. Technical issues delayed construction
of what would still have been by nearly a factor of 2 the world's largest
steerable dish. These included the discovery that the concrete track
would not support the weight of the dish... After Sputnik, it
became quickly apparent that there were much better ways to do ELINT.
Moonbouce did remain in use for some intelligence-gathering ships,
perhaps as late as the Liberty.


Bill Keel