Slashdot Mirror
UK Reconsiders 1986 Decision To Ban Astronauts
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."
David Lister.
The real reason we Brits don't send people into space is because you simply cannot get a decent cup of tea there! Manufacturing Bowler Hats to fit over those helmets has proved rather tricky too.
Awful UID - but I have been here ages...
They have too many hands in the British government.
'Same speed C but faster'
Pathetic whimperings of a dying civilization.
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?
Democrat delenda est
How can Britain not have a astronaut program, when a country like Nigeria already has astronauts in space. I got an email from one of their astronauts describing the funds to get him back down were in an account that needed to be transferred out of Nigeria in order to gain access to it.
Ban or no ban, they ain't drinkin' in this pub!
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.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Maybe they're afraid that they won't be able to keep tabs on the astronauts in space? What's to prevent British astronauts from putting some duct tape over the cameras and engaging in terrorism?!
Ban something, and you may choose to regret not having the option later. The solution? Ban nothing. Or, ban banning.
aggressive wikipeida vandalism is the only way to beat them. "what do you mean Tutankhamen wasn't the star striker when we won the world cup?!"
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
I guess the UK got tired of the United States government's fancy spy stations spying on the rest of the world :)
(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.
Finding God in a Dog
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".
:-)
Why would they send a man back into space after what happened to Major Tom, and all?
- Eddie Izzard, Dress to Kill
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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 dollars from people to do it.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
Are you telling me Moonraker wasn't real???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonraker_(film)
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
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?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
That stereotype is unwarranted. The UK has some of the best restaurants in the world. The Fat Duck, 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.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Why not? They banded my little tabby here - and I got 'er back after she run off once, when the man who pours linseed oil into the duck's carcasses forgot to slam the lid shut on th eold coal-chute. That's another story there, that is. But it worked for my tabby, and I hear there gonna' band schoolchildren, too. That'll show 'em. Something to find the criminals in jeans, they're saying on Sky. An Astronaut ought to be easier to band than a tabby. And I bet they don't sit under the couch, trying to rub the thing off over their ears all night long, either!
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.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The reason bureaucrats hate space programs is because it's the one guaranteed area where you can dump as many billions as you want and you will get no measurable progress. All this probery doesn't count- yes it's scientifically invaluable, but it's just enough to keep American voters happy that their tax money is hiring very smart people to make progress in space. No matter how many soil samples we take, launching probes will never get us to Mars, or back to the moon.. and that's just the way it's going to stay because an elected official would have to bring an economy to its knees to do it, and they're not going to stay elected for long.
At this point human spaceflight is at best a propaganda exercise and at worst a complete waste of money. Why should the UK change their stance on the issue? Has human spaceflight become more interesting in the last 20 years? More strategically important? More affordable?
I realize human spaceflight is inspiring but that in itself isn't enough to justify the expenses.
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.
Oi, what was all the extra letters in "Ronoldo", anyways?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
... of the US just changed the citizenship requirement specification for astronaut candidates. Where is says "Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must be citizens of the United States" add "or of those countries which are allies in space exploration." and have a treaty drawn up that these ally countries can sign so their people can train and fly from here while retaining citizenship. NASA gets more candidates in its pool, UK (probably, eventually) gets some astronauts to brag about.
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.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Kaetemi
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.
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.
I think you parsed his argument wrongly. As I understand it, the argument is that the NHS allows the UK to provide comparable care to the USA at approx. one-half to one-third the cost per capita.
This graph supports that interpretation... http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif
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 bolster his claim. Other metrics might be longevity, time spent in hospitals, and so on. That is less the case with a space programme.
The NHS if horrifically inneficient, at every level. Just like a government agency in fact.
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.
Notmysig
I'm sorry, but you're really stretching it there. To assume that his one-sentence quip referred exclusively to the NHS budget and was not comparing it to the US model is absurd. There is not enough information in his one sentence to support your claim.
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 look smug. Your lack of generosity is revealing.