Jim Kingdon wrote:

The Fox News one may be the best of the bunch, going into the bits
about incremental testing and such. Although the Tech Central Station
musings about whether the Wrights or Langley were more scientific is
also good.

However all three hammer the 'four legs good two legs bad' dogma that
Rand, and many others here, peddle uncritically. They *love* to
trumpet Big Government and Big Science failures while slinking away
from discussing their successes and the distinct lack of
accomplishment by the 'mammals'.[1] Langley's problem wasn't his
science per se, but his ego. There is no intrinsic reason other than
that why he, or any other government sponsored individual/organization
will automagically have failed while the Wrights succeeded.

[1]For instance; SS1's current demonstrated performance barely matches
the X-1 (nearly fifty years ago), and in it's final form will barely
match the X-15 (over forty years ago). Simple bald facts, but
embarrassing to the 'four legs/two legs' mindset.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.