UK Reconsiders 1986 Decision To Ban Astronauts 279
An anonymous reader writes "The British space agency, BNSC, is reconsidering its 1986 decision to reject all human space missions. The decision has dominated British space policy ever since, leaving Britain out of many American and European space projects. The UK is the only nation in the G8 group of leading economies that does not have a human space flight program. But space enthusiast groups like the British Interplanetary Society are trying to persuade the British government to participate in both manned and unmanned space activities."
They already have a human in space (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Tea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tea (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tea (Score:4, Funny)
Cowboys?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tea (Score:5, Funny)
You may have heard about the recent recipient of the Military Cross, Fusilier Damien Hields [timesonline.co.uk]. He fought off 150 Taliban fighters with a grenade machinegun. Unsurprisingly, his vehicle got a bit shot up in the process.
Now, I'm not saying that tea is ingrained into the British psyche so to speak, but when struggling for a way to describe just how wrecked the vehicle was, his commanding officer had this to say:
So yes, they might be in the thick of battle, but tea is never far from the mind.
Re: (Score:2)
True, that's how Julius Caesar [wikipedia.org] first beat the Britons
Yeah, but the good news is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taken.
Re:Tea (Score:4, Funny)
Uhuh...Americans have no right whatsoever to criticise anyone's tea-drinking style.
Last time you bunch of hooligans were allowed to make the tea you ended up dumping it into Boston Harbour.
Uncultured heathens!
Almost made me spit my tea (earl-grey, milky, sugar before you ask). Indeed, sir!
Blame it on Torchwood (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pathetic.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If one takes the British position that 'man has no business in space' then there isn't a point to sending robots beyond geostationary orbit either. The whole point of sending robots is that they are cheaper and more expendable to send than humans, thus they are good for the early scouting missions. But if humans aren't eventually going, what is the freaking point?
Re:Pathetic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd read your previous comment comparing US education to "a supper massive black hole", considered suggesting that you leave advocacy of the British system to one of your fellow countrymen, and decided not to bother. You've left me no choice, though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science for science sake is a great idea, just like socialism. In practice, however, most implementations leave something to be desired...
Re: (Score:3)
Once the ego was satisfied we sat on our arses for 50 years. Great motivation, that was.
Re:Pathetic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Human spaceflight is risky, ponderous and expensive. But there is a very deep, very meaningful reason to push on. See, I've always held on to the frail hope that one day we will leave this rock. It's why I read science fiction. I mean, who does not? I can't imagine it another way. I find contemplating the inevitable extinction of the human race utterly depressing. It's our deepest instinct to survive, after all.
Square one is always going to be expensive. But it's certainly not a waste of money. The peripheral benefits are enormous. Advances in engineering, industry, science and enough to inspire so many. Can you imagine if a woman was the first to step on Mars? She'd inspire us all. I'd like to see that in my lifetime.
We got hundreds of pounds of Moon rocks back to Earth was via the manned missions. A lot of those samples were selected Harrison Schmitt a geologist, based on geological significance, once he got there. They were thereafter distributed to leading geologists around the world, many in the Soviet Union even. The samples have probably done more to advance our understanding of the Moon than any other thing. The last Apollo mission was the most scientifically significant. We were just getting started.
It did not crash the US federal budget. It caused no wars. It employed 400,000 people. It gave Boeing and Locked Martin something to build besides bombs. Apollo was almost invariably, a great thing. Without Vietnam, perhaps it would have continued on.
I don't have a problem racing to Mars. In fact, I think we should be there already. We've been sitting on our laurels since the 70's. The apatite for realizing the Arthur Clarke type human future in space will vanish in a few generations if we don't give those generations anything to look forward to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pathetic.... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is little chance of sending a man to astrological location is the most efficient way to gather scientific data, so why bother when wed be better of spending the money researching stuff like stem cells, evolution or black holes.
Re:Pathetic.... (Score:5, Informative)
No, their position is that government should play no role in sending men into space. Feel free to do it by private effort, if you want.
Re:Pathetic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, read the article. As a Libertarian sort I'd be down with that part about not stealong my money to blast somebody else into space. But yhey are spewing propaganda to British school children. To quote the article:
That is a sign of a civilization that has lost not only the will to live, it isn't even all that curious anymore. If you aren't ever planning on roving over the mountain eventually, why waste the money sending a robot to look around?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Libertarian
Your an anarcho-communist too?
But yhey are spewing propaganda to British school children.
Right because making the case for an item is propaganda.
1)There will probably be a who section space flight, so making a case for not poluting the atmosphere is probably worth it
2)They then give children the counter arguments.(So basically the lesson would cover, reasons not to go into space (danger, pollution, too many Americans there), then why we do it anyway (science & pride))
3)British teachers are fairly free to give their opinion AS opinion, and telling them that th
Re: (Score:2)
Why rove over it, if you can get all the information you need by safer, cheaper, less environmentally damaging, more scientific ways?
It's a lot safer, cheaper, and less environmentally damaging to stop worrying about whether there was ever life on Mars, or what kind of rocks the Moon is made out of. And maybe these aren't the most important questions for a humble island nation to worry about. There's not really a good argument I can give, other than, "Hey, let's go land on the planet Mars!" sounds like a pretty cool project, especially compared to, "Hey, let's try to invent a better safety razor!". Not much we do really matters anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thought of British authorities trying to use the horrible danger of human spaceflight to brainwash students to be frightened of the idea reminds me of Reefer Madness [wikipedia.org]
Re:Pathetic.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And it's funded by a British company.
Was "some program" made by "some guy I met in the pub"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> compared to robots.
We are decades (probably more) away from designing a robot that can even compete with a human when it comes to doing the sort of work needed to explore a new world, build a base, etc. Sending some cute little radio controlled cars to Mars is interesting and all, but a team of real scientists would produce more information in a month than all the probes sent to data and likely
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an either-or situation. Why not run with robotic spaceflight for a while, until technology advances to the point where it becomes valuable to send people? We've already got airtight sub-orbital airlines on the drawing board, and actual colonization is miles away. Why not just use robots for a while, until people become more feasible to send?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think that's why they prefer to send Americans and Russians instead.
yes okay, i'll leave quietly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Aren't we pretty much in the "early scouting missions" phase for at least the next 20 years? Why not let other countries learn the hard and expen
Re: (Score:2)
I think Brits will go, but it will be awhile.
To be honest the early exploration is best done by Robot.
Take it a step further, it would be a lot easier to Terra form
a moon base with just robots, prior to sending humans up there.
Flying all the food and other necessities into space to keep
humans alive could be used to get more Robots up there.
A Robot doesn't suffer from Bone Density issues in low gravity.
A Robot doesn't need food, water, or atmo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/obama-pits-huma.html [wired.com]
]{
Re: (Score:2)
You're doing well so far...
thus they are good for the early scouting missions. But if humans aren't eventually going, what is the freaking point?
The freaking point of exploring space is to learn about the universe, not to allow Captain Kirk to shag green-skinned aliens or let escapist nerds dream of a life of adventure.
Humans like you and me are never going to colonize space. If it ever happens, it will invol
Re:Pathetic.... (Score:5, Insightful)
As Sir George Mallory said, when asked why he wanted to climb Everest, "Because it is there."
Or even, as Robert Burns put it several hundred years earlier -- A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?
Re: (Score:2)
Well I've been proposing an election or reality TV show where you get to vote people off the planet (Earth).
Choices are 1-way, or return trip.
There should be no problem getting the USD20 million or so it takes to send someone to space - just have one of those SMS voting thingy. I wouldn't mind putting a fair amount of money on some candidates even if they politely decline their tickets. It'll be worth the interviews and questions
My colleague
Re:Pathetic.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it does. But space travel occupies a sort of "sweet spot" -- it's almost universally viewed as cooler and more worthy of funding and effort than the other things you mentioned (at least in the U.S.), and it's also within the realm of possibility at our current technological level, yet challenging.
It's envelope-pushing for the sake of
Re: (Score:2)
How backward! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How backward! (Score:4, Funny)
But I repeat myself...
CCTV (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or worse, Anti-Social Behavor [wikipedia.org]!!!!
Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
UK creating an ECHOLON in SPACE? (Score:2, Insightful)
British Cuisine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That stereotype is unwarranted. The UK has some of the best restaurants in the world. The Fat Duck [benking.co.uk], for instance, was named best restaurant in the world and was runner up three times. There's another restaurant in the same village that's in the top 20 as well, I believe.
Theakston's Old Peculiar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Wait a sec (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear England (Score:5, Funny)
(Holds up sack.)
England, do you know what these are? Perhaps not. It's been a while, hasn't it. Let me explain: these, dear friends, are your balls. You had them for a while once, back when you were a colonial power, you had big titanium steel ones while you fought the Nazis, and you had pretty good sized ones when you kicked the crap out of Argentina. But ever since you stopped sending humans into space, they've been sitting quietly in a burlap sack, growing old, gathering dust, completely unused while you drink beer and make funny movies and wonder what the hell happened to the England that was.
You know you want them back. You know you want to feel them again, along with the rush and thrill of going places where human beings just weren't designed to go. You know you want it, because that's where we've always gone as a species: where we're not supposed to.
Go on England. Explore space again. Get your balls back.
Until you do, I'll keep them in my lock box, along with the brains of the people who designed City of Heroes. They won't be needing those anytime soon, I assure you.
Love, MAX.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has never lived down Australia (Score:5, Funny)
See hundreds of years ago the equivalent to space exploration was sending a ship around the world. The UK was a leader in this effort. In 1770 a guy called Cook discovered a place called Australia and in 1788 a colonising fleet was sent from the UK to this new world. The new colony succeeded beyond the UK's wildest dreams. It's inhabitants evolved into bronzed, suntanned titans, with physical and mental capabilities beyond anything the UK was remotely capable of. Worst of all they repeatedly whopped the UK at all sports. The final straw was when the Australian colony sent back this thing called Neighbours and destroyed the Queen's English, the foundation of the UK's national identity, culture and pride.
The UK resolved "never again".
:-)
Re: (Score:2)
And here I thought it was David Bekham.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The UK has never lived down Australia (Score:5, Funny)
You don't live in Australia, do you?
Even we don't talk up our mental capabilities.
Hey I don't blame them (Score:5, Funny)
Scale it down a bit... (Score:5, Funny)
- Eddie Izzard, Dress to Kill
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And, from the same show, a bit about manned spaceflight...
He also made a speech about space. President Kennedy said, "By the end of this decade, I have decided to put a man on the surface of the Moon." At the same time, our Prime Minister in Britain, Sir Dingly Dang... You don't know anyway, do you? You have no idea! It was Sir Fritz Bunwalla. Engelbert Slaptyback, who was Prime Minister at the time, and he stood up and he said, "By the end of this decade, I have decided to put a man on the surface of the
But they do have manned astronauts! Moonraker! (Score:5, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonraker_(film) [wikipedia.org]
WHAT? But Roger Moore is British! It even says so in Wikipedia, so he's been up in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Moore [wikipedia.org]
It's on Wikipedia. It must be real!
What do you mean that's not real life? I don't understand! That can't be right. If it is how can I ever aspire to having sex in zero G with a gorgeous Russian spy?
But.... (Score:2)
The British got it right (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize human spaceflight is inspiring but that in itself isn't enough to justify the expenses.
Re:The British got it right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists in space? (Score:2)
It'd be simpler... (Score:3, Interesting)
They could build their own training facility and equipment and staff it, or send them to Baikonur for 5 megapounds each. The former will require they finish training at the site of their choice (or by selection), US or Russia, to be able to fly one one of their missions, the latter gets them fully trained, but to fly on Russian missions only. Doing it themselves would cost a great deal more, because they have to train the trainers; not having a program of their own yet, they don't have anyone qualified to teach it to others. Even if they did, to fly on US missions they'd still be required to train here after initial qualification. In light of this, it seems patently absurd to require they get basic qualification at home when they have to come here for mission training.
I suppose they could send their people to one of the more reasonable countries who have their own training and are willing to take Brits in. But NASA administration has become so politicized that those people probably wouldn't be selected for mission training. When NASA says "you can't" they tend to mean something like "you can't, unless you ask real nice, and you can't a whole lot more if it's with someone else."
And before those who work for or contract to NASA, hacking hardware (including the kind that makes fire at the bottom), software and people get riled and tell me the people who work there aren't like that, yes I know. I know people who work there, and the engineer and scientist types are worthy descendants of the steely eyed missile men with pocket protectors. But you can't deny the political games go on at the top -- I know some that work there, or at least have to work around and with them. A treaty-based program would give the politicreatures something to do, which keeps them happy, and after that training and flying can proceed.
This is all based on the assumption that they're not going to develop a hardware program also. Personally I'd like to see them and the rest of the European Space Agency buy capsules from Russia (so training there becomes a foregone conclusion) and fly them on their own boosters. Hell, they could hire the Russians to build a crew capsule in one of their new Automated Transfer Vehicles and send up a whole squad of their own.
One has to wonder, since so many other ESA countries have had their ESA trained astronauts fly on NASA missions, why UK as an ESA nation doesn't also? It's a fair cop, guv. I'm thinking it's not likely Belgium, with 2 astronauts accepted for NASA missions, has its own astronaut training program. If this is the case, UK doesn't need a program of their own, they need to get with their ESA pals and do the same things.
Or do it the hard way, by yourselves for yourselves. The hard way is good. We chose to go to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. That was our challenge, but we don't own the concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Stereotypes?.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So, who's going to make the crack about missing their vodka and finding orbit warmer than winters back home?
Have we shot any cheese-eating bistro crawlers into space yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia did, and so did NASA.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/chretien.html [nasa.gov]
Not to mention others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The true reason for this... (Score:5, Funny)
All that bragging and dragging their heavy kit about. Not to mention the naf hissing sound from the pressure suits - and the smell. Did you ever?
I think that the ban is good for Britain. Next, I think it's time to exclude those blokes who Google the answers to the pub quiz on their mobiles, under the tables.
Re:The true reason for this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now shut the fuck up, stick a damn firecracker up your ass and blast your goddamn way to the moon. If you want I can form a society to do it if you like, we may even get a few dol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is another entirely. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem is another entirely. (Score:4, Insightful)
It gets cheaper healthcare, sure, but there's nothing to crow about. It's just tight budgeting. It's not 'better'. The staff are demoralised, the patients are lucky to get 5 minutes with a doctor these days (they're on quotas and must get through as many as possible) and because of this the standard response has become 'take these antibiotics and go away' - leading to other problems - not only rampant misdiagnosis, but the growth of antibiotic resistant diseases.
Case in point - prescriptions. A consultant puts you on a long term drug, but he can't issue it. That has to be done by a GP. For this they require written notice (no email, web, or phone allowed and they don't open weekends of evenings so you have to take time off work to do it). Having received this request it takes them 3-4 days to sign a little piece of paper, which you then have to take more time off work to collect, and manually walk 20 feet to the chemist next door to have it dispensed (which typically takes over an hour). This has to be repeated every month. I know, I go through the whole charade repeatedly.
The amount of waste in just that simple process is horrendous. There's also the lost work time, which doesn't get counted in the cost of the NHS but is a cost nontheless.
It's not just at the patient level - I have friends in the NHS and they talk about the stupid rules where something 1 person could do very quickly but because of the beaurocracy takes days and has to go through multiple people.
We like to think the NHS is the best in the world, but that's just the propoganda. I'd rather be treated in a 3rd world country than some of the hospitals I've seen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This graph supports that interpretation... http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif [kff.org]
I will not state that the argument is correct or not, only that you misinterpreted it. In my opinion, he is correct in that it is "measurable" as far as an elected official is concerned - he can provide metrics to bol
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
His sentence could be interpreted in many ways. He did not claim "halves the budget" but "is half the cost", and is thus open to interpretation. The one I showed would have been a more valid debate point, but you have chosen to parse it in a way that makes you
Re:The problem is another entirely. (Score:5, Insightful)
You realise that NASA is a US government agency, don't you? Those 'worthless bureaucratic tax feeders' were responsible for just about every advancement into space that the US has ever made...
...with the exception of SpaceShipOne of course. Well done. Of course, SpaceShipTwo will be a joint venture with Virgin Galactic, a British company.
Ironically, you could say that British manned flight is more skewed towards private enterprise than it has ever been in the US.
Band Astronauts? (Score:5, Funny)
What? You said "ban"? What's that, then? Well, If they're Astronauts or not, I don't think we should let foreigners in, if they can't respect our ways, now. They're no better than the rest of us and that's the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:G8 (Score:4, Informative)
Actually G7 is when the Finance Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and the United States of America meet to discuss economic policy.
G8 is when the heads of government of those countries plus Russia meet to talk about a wide variety of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It has the 9th largest GDP in the world by volume, it's growth rate is 8.1% and the percentage of the population below the poverty line is 7%, less than in the United States.
So please forgive us for not understanding your joke since it made absolutely no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
And he's also. . . (Score:2)
To the back of the double-decker bus with him!
Also. . . I just have to point out that anybody who complains about racism while exercising relig