Glenn has a piece at his MSNBC site wrapping up last week's arguments over safety and the coincidental passage of the new launch regulation legislation by the House. It's a good roundup, but when he writes:

That's how we took aviation from an expensive and risky activity, mostly the province of governments, to a safe and reliable means of transport.

He's mistaken. Actually (and fortunately), aviation has never been mostly the province of governments, starting from the beginning with the Wrights. Had it been, we'd probably still be arguing about whether to build National Air Transportation System II (after the necessary technology had been proven out), or whether to just increase the fleet size of the current, dangerous "Air Shuttle" from three to five...

He also says that the legislation passed on Friday afternoon. Actually, it didn't happen until Saturday.

Actually, dirigibles very much were the "air shuttles" and "national air transportation systems".

> Actually (and fortunately), aviation has never been mostly the province of governments, starting from
> the beginning with the Wrights.

You forget Samley Langley, who was so important to the development of aviation that NASA has a center named after him -- an honor not accorded to crass commercial-ists like the Wright Brothers.

> Had it been, we'd probably still be arguing about whether to build National Air Transportation System
> II (after the necessary technology had been proven out), or whether to just increase the fleet size of
> the current, dangerous "Air Shuttle" from three to five...

That's unfair, Rand. There's a third possibility: We could go back to launching aeronauts out of cannons, which was done several times with nearly perfect safety (except when the aeronauts died) prior to the invention of the Langley air shuttle. The failure of the Langley aerodrome shows that reusable "airplanes" are an inherently dangerous and impractical idea.

The Langley Research Center also reports encouraging results with the Steamjet engine, which recently propelled a model aircraft at the speed of 70 miles an hour (after being accelerated to 70 miles an hour by a rocket). Your grandchildren may some day fly steamjets to visit you in the next state. There's even the possibility of using a steamjet as a first stage for a cannon system.

While NASA may not have named any important facilities after the Wrights, another government agency has: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.

While I agree that the Wright brothers and others were civilians, aviation advanced because of government interest. From air mail routes leading to passenger routes and from large military transports leading to today's passenger airlines, the government helped to develop the technology with a level of expertise and funds that any one civil aviation giant simply didn't have.

I grant that the beauty was that the civilian side of aviation was always available and rarely blocked by the government. The potential passage of the "space safety regulations" would have blocked civilian advances by requiring resources that only large institutions like NASA can provide. Civilians rarely have access to test equipment that can validate safety margins with non-destructive means nor can they afford to build many crafts for destructive purposes.

Early designers could make a few planes safe, and even then they were prone to problems, early aviators just knew the planes well enough to control the damage. Many still died, and far more died than 14 aviators in just 20 years. If the government required the Wright brothers to build a 99.9% safe Wright Flyer, then I agree with you Rand, we'd still be waiting for the chance when anybody could afford to fly.

I think Leland is right. I was thinking of (1) the enormous purchases in World War I, and (2) the Air Mail subsidies.

While I agree that the Wright brothers and others were civilians, aviation advanced because of government interest. From air mail routes leading to passenger routes and from large military transports leading to today's passenger airlines, the government helped to develop the technology with a level of expertise and funds that any one civil aviation giant simply didn't have.

That's kind of a strawman, because it's not necessary for "any one civil aviation giant" to have the expertise and funds. It was sufficient for the industry to do so.

And thanks for dropping in, Glenn.