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."

10 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. How backward! by backslashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  2. Re:Pathetic.... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Theres this thing, im not sure you have much of it over the pond, its called science. There is know need/point in wasting money in some ego race to see who can touch mars first, but by exploring the universe we can expand our scientific knowledge.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  3. Re:The true reason for this... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  4. Re:Pathetic.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, their position is that government should play no role in sending men into space.


    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:

    2. Make the case for ending human space flight. Outline the advantages of using satellites and the disadvantages and dangers of manned missions. Include an explanation as to why manned missions have continued despite the cost and loss of life.


    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?
    --
    Democrat delenda est
  5. Dear England by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Funny
    I know you're worried about the risks of sending people into outer space and all that, but please do consider the following.

    (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.

  6. The UK has never lived down Australia by femto · · 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".

    :-)

    1. Re:The UK has never lived down Australia by jimmux · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and mental capabilities beyond anything the UK was remotely capable of.

      You don't live in Australia, do you?

      Even we don't talk up our mental capabilities.

  7. Hey I don't blame them by Orleron · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would they send a man back into space after what happened to Major Tom, and all?

  8. Band Astronauts? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

    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..."
  9. Re:The British got it right by dbolger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Meanwhile, in 1491 Madrid...

    Ardillasunen wrote:

    At this point human transatlantic exploration is at best a propaganda exercise and at worst a complete waste of money. Why should King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella change their stance on the issue? Have transatlantic voyages become more interesting in the last 20 years? More strategically important? More affordable?

    I realize transatlantic exploration is inspiring but that in itself isn't enough to justify the expenses.