"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
In article , says...
SpaceShip 1 is an impressive project. Make no mistake about that.
But it's a very limited system, for a very limited purpose. While I'd
be more than happy to bet that they'll win the X-Prize, it's not going
to advance the State of the Art.

hmm... If "state of the art" includes concepts like "cost
effectiveness" then SS1 does advance the SOTA.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid


By my criteria, either SpaceShip 1 construction and testing has already
demonstrated an increase in the State of the Art or it hasn't. Test flights
don't advance the State of the Art. They can demonstrate whether or
not there has been an advance.

The design and construction of SpaceShip may have used some design
concepts and perhaps materials that advanced the state of the art.

Improved State of the Art requires improving materials, methods,
design processes and any other background things that are really
different from the previously available background.

Successfully flying something demonstrates that these more advanced
concepts work.

Flight failure may indicate that there was an attempt to design something
"Beyond the State of the Art" which means that it was impossible to achieve
the desired goal. On the other hand, it might indicate a simple error.

I will note that my remark is simply a comment about what I see as
bad semantics.

Mike Walsh