Slashdot Mirror


Scotland Could Become Home To Britain's First Spaceport

An anonymous reader writes Scotland could take a giant leap for mankind by becoming the home of Britain's first spaceport. UK Government ministers will announce on Tuesday eight potential sites for a base for sending rockets and tourists into orbit. RAF bases at Kinloss and Leuchars are believed to be among contenders for the spaceport, which would open in 2018 and be Britain's answer to Cape Canaveral. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said: "I am delighted that the government is pushing forward with its ambitious plans to open a spaceport in the UK by 2018. Spaceports will be key to us opening up the final frontier of commercial space travel. Scotland has a proud association with space exploration. We celebrated Neil Armstrong's Scottish ancestry when he became the first man on the Moon and only last week an amazing Scottish company was responsible for building the UK Space Agency's first satellite. The UK space industry is one of our great success stories and I am sure there will be a role for Scotland to play in the future."

151 comments

  1. Rather far north. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't they try putting launching sites further south.
    1. They are warmer and you don't need to de-ice your craft.
    2. Uses less fuel as the earth is spinning faster

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Rather far north. by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Informative

      It will be mostly for suborbital flights and non-equatorial orbits though, so the earth's spin is of limited use.

    2. Re:Rather far north. by Rashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but these are politicians performing a carrot and stick maneuver on Scotland.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    3. Re:Rather far north. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's of a lot of use if you're aiming to leave earth orbit though, for interplanetary probes. A site this far north is really good for polar orbits and that's about it. Even the ISS isn't that heavily inclined - you could get there from Scotland, but it'd use more fuel than a launch from further south. That's why the ISS is supplied from Guiana Space Center: It's in Europe*, so politically suitable, while still being close to the equator.

      *It's in Europe the same way Hawaii is in the USA. It may be geographically remote, but legally and politically it's still France.

    4. Re:Rather far north. by Bearhouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed - and having stayed there, I can confirm the weather around Kinloss is usually awful.

      Sounds like a "make work" effort at this very remote location. At least if something blows up on the pad or shortly after launch there's not much around to damage.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

    5. Re:Rather far north. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Does the UK have the same 'economic interest wrapped in the flag' rituals surrounding potential military base closings that the US does? (I'd assume so; but I don't know.) If so, the base's post-cold-war use patterns certainly look like those of a base in search of a mission... On the plus side, if any of the rumblings about radium and mustard gas having been improperly landfilled in the area are true, they'll barely notice an extra dash of hydrazine in the local water supply.

    6. Re:Rather far north. by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Because Florida has more distance to travel and Canada less.

    7. Re:Rather far north. by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It gets better, in 2 months Scotland votes to decide if it wants to leave the UK. does anyone think that a site will be chosen that might suddenly no longer be part of the UK?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Well, if that were true, then why doesn't Florida just go on without the rest of the US?

      Ugh, please do.

      And pray tell, how the hell does Canada keep up with the rest of the continent?

      Depends, are we speaking metaphorically?

    9. Re:Rather far north. by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      It's Britain, you can only go so much further south and still be building in your own country. ;)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    10. Re:Rather far north. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes but there's an important election looming.

    11. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we Americans really considered that ignorant about science?

      (Posting AC to avoid burning mod points) It's not ignorance. A substantial subset of Americans have been conditioned to believe the opposite of anything based on science.

    12. Re:Rather far north. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Its worth noting that the politician that announced it comes from a Scottish constituency...

    13. Re:Rather far north. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder if such an obvious bribe will have bring people over to the "no" side, or if it will just make them even more disgusted the Westminster government and vote "yes".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Rather far north. by Dins · · Score: 1

      But that subset, by and large, does not post here.

    15. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure - why not. The English can 'give' a spaceport with little to no real use and then after Scotland becomes independent say "see - you're losing money everywhere. Your government can't even make your spaceport profitable. It'd all have been different with us, you know".

    16. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      poe's law much? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

    17. Re:Rather far north. by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Well, you do suffer from a disproportionate part of your population wnting the Bible to be a science book. Sorry. It's kinda hard to remember that a lot of you guys are perfeectly reasonable when your national idiots make so much damn noise.

    18. Re: Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU is not Europe. Ask anyone from Switzerland or Western Russia.

    19. Re:Rather far north. by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 1

      was a yes voter before, still a yes voter after hearing this, all this has done has increased my cynicism. PS Danny Alexander is a space-cadet.

    20. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or your joke simply failed at being funny.

    21. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jersey Island would be much better choice:
      1. Little to no taxes.
      2. No need to follow UK regulations. And did I mention about taxes?
      3. It's almost in France! And surrounded with water.
      The tourists could then visit the spaceport as part of their yearly carat buying rituals.

    22. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is always Diego Garcia or St. Helena if the UK want a launch site nearer the equator.

    23. Re:Rather far north. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Because both Leuchars and Kinloss are such cold spots that you regularly need to do deicing. Living just a couple of miles/kilometres from Leuchars I can tell you now deicing would be less of a problem than at Cape Canaveral.

    24. Re:Rather far north. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's even more worth noting that there's a plebicite on Scottish independence coming up very soon.

    25. Re: Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your parent never mentioned the EU

    26. Re: Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did, however, compare to the USA.

      I believe the point was that while Guiana is a part of France, which is a part of the EU (the countries), that does not make it a part of Europe (the continent).

      Switzerland and Western Russia, on the other hand, are a part of Europe (the continent), but not the EU (the countries).

    27. Re:Rather far north. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      That's just good science!

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    28. Re:Rather far north. by magarity · · Score: 2

      I always thought the British should launch from St Helena to be closer to the equator.

    29. Re: Rather far north. by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For that matter, Scotland might not be Britain by the time it's built.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    30. Re:Rather far north. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      But that subset, by and large, does not post here.

      Try posting something about Climate Change and get back to us on that.

    31. Re:Rather far north. by Albanach · · Score: 1

      While Kinloss is certainly quite far north, you have to account for the warming effect of the ocean and particularly the gulf stream. Scotland is more wet than cold as a result, with the average low being above freezing year round.

      I don't know how big an issue cloud cover and rain would be, but the temperature associated with latitude is probably less of an issue. The latitude itself isn't far off that of the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska.

    32. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes they do. Just look at any story about climate change. Slashdot's audience isn't the same it was in 2000. More self proclaimed geniuses, less doers of anything.

    33. Re:Rather far north. by fuzzywig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah mate, Ascension is closer to the equator and already has ESA facilities.

    34. Re:Rather far north. by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      Ascension is a better choice, it's closer to the equator than St Helena, and we've basically give Diego Garcia to the yanks (and the British government of course doesn't give a flying fuck about the native people who were displaced from there).

    35. Re:Rather far north. by fuzzywig · · Score: 1
      On point 3, any failed boosters would end up falling on France, or possibly Germany.

      Ideal spot for a launch site!

    36. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You conservatard moron, Climate Change is REAL!
      Fuck you and your refusal to believe the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!

      And furthermore,
      You libertard moron, Climate Change is BULLSHIT!
      Fuck you and your refusal to believe the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!

    37. Re: Rather far north. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For that matter, Scotland might not be Britain by the time it's built.

      1. If Scotland votes to leave the UK, then the spaceport will NOT be built. The whole point of this proposal is to encourage the Scots to stay, so they get all the spaceport jobs and prestige.

      2. If Scotland votes to stay in the UK, then the spaceport will likely still not be built. Once the referendum is over, there will no longer be any political reason to continue, and technically, Scotland is about the dumbest place in the world to build a spaceport. It is way too far north, and is due west of major population areas in northern Europe.

    38. Re: Rather far north. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Colonies are part of the parent nation now?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    39. Re:Rather far north. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Design the rockets/flights right and you could drop all your first stages right on Paris. Double plus good!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:Rather far north. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this seem like something from Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister. A "spaceport" in Scotland...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    41. Re: Rather far north. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      that is how France sees it

    42. Re: Rather far north. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      It's nice to see that somebody has a grip on British politics.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    43. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On point 3, any failed boosters would end up falling on France, or possibly Germany.

      Ideal spot for a launch site!

      Trust me, the Jerseyites would absolutely love that.

    44. Re:Rather far north. by TWX · · Score: 1

      I guess that who you get to post is now simply a toss of the Dice...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    45. Re:Rather far north. by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Without getting into whether Scotland is an appropriate site for a spaceport... Orbits can be broadly divided into two categories - equatorial and polar.

      Equatorial orbits are aligned close to the equator. The most useful one are geosynchronous (slight inclination so its ground track is a small figure-8 called an amalemma) or geostationary (zero inclination so they stay above the same spot on the equator). The satellites stay above the same general spot on earth, so are always "visible" to ground stations and satellite dishes. These orbits have to be about 36,000 km above the earth's surface to match the earth's daily rotation (23h 56m). Lower altitude equatorial orbits aren't as useful because their ground track is limited to a swath of latitudes centered around the equator. The primary reason they're used is because of your point (2) - they take less energy to achieve if you launch from close to the equator. If you just want to be in space and don't particularly care about where in space (e.g. the ISS), an equatorial low earth orbit is your cheapest option.

      Polar orbits are aligned to pass over the poles (or close to it). These are the second-most useful orbits because they allow a satellite to observe 100% or nearly 100% of the earth's surface. Scientific data-gathering and spy satellites are put into polar orbits. (Do note that because the poles tend to be rather cold and uninhabited, and because a satellite's altitude lets it peer beyond its max orbital latitude, you can get near-100% coverage of the populated regions of the earth with a highly inclined equatorial orbit. But the more you incline the orbit, the less benefit there is from launching near the equator. For a polar orbit which passes directly over the poles, you actually have to spend energy and fuel to get rid of any sideways velocity imparted by the earth's rotation at the launch site.)

    46. Re:Rather far north. by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      As is both sides aren't pulling tricks like this. It's the same in every political decision.

    47. Re: Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in case of 2 it will be built the nation will put more Scots in space than any other people (all of 'em) it just wont bring any back.

      That will teach them to upset their political masters with threats of redundancy.

    48. Re:Rather far north. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Pre-2000. Slashdot, had a lot less to do with anything political. It had more to do about Linux.
      Then what happened was the Bush Administration came in. and the Liberal Biased Slashdot user got vocal, because their political ideals are not being met, because someone was in power who had different political ideals. So they went off Linux and more and more on political rants.

      When this started we had a bunch of users dropping Slashdot and going to Digg. But Digg went downhill much faster then Slashdot, but Slashdot incorporated a lot of Diggs design elements. So a lot of stories now are political biased, because there is less editing and more posting what wins the thumbs up war. Which political polarizing stuff wins, because people have strong opinions on it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    49. Re: Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're trying to stretch a point here. What you're saying is totally true but also totally irrelevant. Ultimately European nations' space programmes are dominated by ESA, and ESA will currently use Guiana for its launches, which are part of France's contributions. One would imagine that a Scottish launch site would become part of either the UK's or Scotland's contributions, as well as being used for internal and private launches in the same manner.

      If you're interested, take a look at the nations that are part of ESA because while far the most significant overlap is with the EU, one can be a member of ESA without being in the EU or even Europe -- Canada, for instance, is an "associate member" and contributes more than Luxembourg, Greece or the Czech Republic, and the likes of Brazil are rumoured to be in talks to also begin contributing to choice projects.

    50. Re: Rather far north. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I bet not. They might see Frances colonies as part of France, but I'm willing to bet it goes no further.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    51. Re: Rather far north. by laie_techie · · Score: 2

      Colonies are part of the parent nation now?

      Hawaii became a territory of the US in 1889, then a state in 1959. Guiana is an Oversees department of France, and not a colony.

    52. Re: Rather far north. by smithmc · · Score: 2

      French Guiana is not a colony of France. It is a departement d'outre-mer, with the same legal status and participation in French government as any of the continental departements. It is analogous to the relationship Hawaii has to the United States, with full statehood and participation in US government.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    53. Re: Rather far north. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just like Algeria was.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    54. Re:Rather far north. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, I'd say that ratio is the same as it always was here, it's just you agree with fewer of the geniuses' than you did then

    55. Re: Rather far north. by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      People of Algeria never got french citizen rights, this is why it was a colony. On the other hand, people of French Guiana are french citizen, with the same rights as french citizen from other France's territories.

    56. Re:Rather far north. by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2

      Nah mate, Ascension is closer to the equator and already has ESA facilities.

      ...and pretty much the coolest name ever for a place being used for space operations.

    57. Re:Rather far north. by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      I went to boarding school in St Andrews and used to watch planes take off from Leuchars and wonder how they managed to cope with the wind!

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  2. Please don't leave the UK! by zacherynuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We'll give you SPACESHIPS if you stay! (promise)

    1. Re:Please don't leave the UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps this is what they mean when they say independence will destroy the already-long-since-destroyed shipbuilding industry.

  3. Hardly viable... by Wdi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the commercial launches want equatorial orbits, and for that you want to launch as near to the equator as possible. As far as polar orbits for research satellites are concerned there is already the Kiruna site, which is fully equipped and at a better location for monitoring polar orbits. Polar orbits for secret missions? Countries involved in this will want to launch from their own turf. And space tourism? Does not exist yet.

  4. Cynically I expect by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cynically I expect that this won't happen by 2018, and nobody expects it to. I think it is something that the government thinks will help get a "no" vote to Scottish independence.

    1. Re:Cynically I expect by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That said, if Scotland does stay in the UK then it would be the logical choice. Scotland and Northern Ireland are the only parts of the UK where a launch path would not go over another country for a considerable distance.

    2. Re:Cynically I expect by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      But it's being pushed by Scottish politicians. I still think it's politics, but for the other side: It's a way for Scotland to demonstrate the have high-tech capabilities too, and are more than just an outpost of England.

    3. Re:Cynically I expect by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      But it's being pushed by Scottish politicians. I still think it's politics, but for the other side: It's a way for Scotland to demonstrate the have high-tech capabilities too, and are more than just an outpost of England.

      It doesn't sound like it, from TFA:

      Ministers want to establish the UK spaceport by 2018 - the first of its kind outside of the US.

      Eight aerodromes have been shortlisted and Scotland has six of the potential locations.

    4. Re:Cynically I expect by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      Scotland is closer to the dark side of the moon, so the Space-Nazis will bomb Edinburgh first?

    5. Re:Cynically I expect by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Meh, if the UK would just stop holding out on the Schengen agreement they could easily repatriate any inadvertent launch debris with almost no border control hassles!

    6. Re:Cynically I expect by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Cynically, I think it has more to do with distracting from the £1Bn in private military spending the government's going to announce at the same conference.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Cynically I expect by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      Space-port must always be passed to the left, just the same as Earth-port

    8. Re:Cynically I expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And be forced to accept a lot of economic migrants from outside the EU. With a very vocal part of the electorate already complaining about economic migrants for the new EU countries that will go down about as well as a plutonium brick.

    9. Re:Cynically I expect by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Given that neither Leuchars or Kinloss are in the Hebrides I am not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. They are also both pre-exisiting military bases with runways that are now disused.

    10. Re:Cynically I expect by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      If it's in Scotland wouldn't it be space whiskey ?

      --
      Nullius in verba
    11. Re:Cynically I expect by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      No, the distilled malt barley drink is called "whisky" if it is made in Scotland, or "whiskey" if it is made elsewhere in the world.

    12. Re:Cynically I expect by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Still no. It's "whiskey" if it's from the USA and its colonies or Ireland. It's "whisky" in the rest of the world.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  5. Must vote remain underlings by bazmail · · Score: 0

    They'll get their "wee spacey house" If they would only be good little subjects and vote to remain part of Britain so England can still pretend to be an imperial power?

    Braveheart would not approve.

    1. Re:Must vote remain underlings by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they would only be good little subjects and vote to remain part of Britain so England can still pretend to be an imperial power?

      No, they are free to, you know, pay for it themselves if they vote no rather than yes. No one will attempt to stop and independent Scotland building a spaceport with it's newly minted Caledonian Dollars or whatever currency they end up on.

      In the mean time, do you expect Parliament to simply act as if scotland is already not part of the UK? I suspect you'd be whiny about that too if it happened.

      Or do you expect the UK as a whole to basically put large infrastructure on hold because a small fraction of the population eant to seceed?

      So far, the best reason for a yes vote is because the "West Lothian Question" is blatantly unfair and undemocratic, but since it goes in Scotland's favour, I've not heard a peep out of that crowd about it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Must vote remain underlings by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 0, Troll

      So far, the best reason for a yes vote is because the "West Lothian Question" is blatantly unfair and undemocratic, but since it goes in Scotland's favour, I've not heard a peep out of that crowd about it.

      Bleh. If that's all you know about it I'd keep quiet and stick to your areas of competence.

    3. Re:Must vote remain underlings by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Bleh. If that's all you know about it I'd keep quiet and stick to your areas of competence.

      Care to point out any times where Alex Salmond (or anyone else from that party) have publicly declared that their behaviour in executing such undemocratic power is reprehensible and it willbe for the greater good when that power is given up?

      Or are you claiming that that's the only thing I know about the entire issue of independence? If the latter, then don't be a fool. Just because I have highlighted the best issue in favour of "yes" doesn't mean I know nothing about the rest of them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Must vote remain underlings by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the mean time, do you expect Parliament to simply act as if scotland is already not part of the UK?

      Well, they could wait two months to find out if it will remain part of the UK before making grandiose announcements. You know, so it doesn't look like a bribe and has some credibility.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Must vote remain underlings by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Well, they could wait two months to find out if it will remain part of the UK before making grandiose announcements. You know, so it doesn't look like a bribe and has some credibility.

      Where do you draw the line? One month? Two? Four? Eight? Sixteen?

      Precisely how long should the remaining 91% of the population delay the running of the country to satisfy something like 4.5%?

      And are you sure it's a bribe? It's more of a maybe than a promise. Should the UK Pariliament pretend that Scotland never receives the benefit of large projects (e.g. the two aircraft carriers, the proposed endpoint of HS2, a bunch of milirary bases and so on) in order to artificially benifit the YES camp? Would that be fair or equally biased?

      I'm going to say I am in favour of unity. I've looked at both sides (not aht I have a choice in the matter) and the Salmond's camp seems to be relying of wishlists, optimism and bombast with a side order of whining.

      Still if you guys vote yes and joing the EU you'll have to put up with hoardes of students from the remaining UK heading over there for free education in a nearby, English speaking country. That would be a richly deserved justice since it was the Scottish MPs who without regard to basic etihcs foisted fees on England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Must vote remain underlings by Pax681 · · Score: 2

      Bleh. If that's all you know about it I'd keep quiet and stick to your areas of competence.

      Care to point out any times where Alex Salmond (or anyone else from that party) have publicly declared that their behaviour in executing such undemocratic power is reprehensible and it willbe for the greater good when that power is given up?

      Or are you claiming that that's the only thing I know about the entire issue of independence? If the latter, then don't be a fool. Just because I have highlighted the best issue in favour of "yes" doesn't mean I know nothing about the rest of them.

      I CAN!.. the Scottish National Party DO NOT VOTE ON ANY MATTERS NOT PERTAINING TO SCOTLAND IN WESTMINSTER!
      This is a long standing policy and their response to the West Lothian as posed by Tam Dalyell. .... So.. care to actually state something that isn't patently and provably false?

    7. Re:Must vote remain underlings by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I CAN!.. the Scottish National Party DO NOT VOTE ON ANY MATTERS NOT PERTAINING TO SCOTLAND IN WESTMINSTER!

      Oh you are correct. Apparently I was mistaken about this one. It was Labour not the SNP guilty of that particular farce. Consider my previous post retracted.

      I still think the best reason for a YES vote is to answer the West Lothian Question, however. While the SNP may have a backbone in this regard, Labour certainly do not (the other parties have a small enough representation for it not to matter as much).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Must vote remain underlings by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So far, the best reason for a yes vote is because the "West Lothian Question" is blatantly unfair and undemocratic, but since it goes in Scotland's favour, I've not heard a peep out of that crowd about it.

      Well, I have now. The SNP list this as a reson for independence. I still think it's the best reason, though I think there are better alternatives.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Must vote remain underlings by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Precisely how long should the remaining 91% of the population delay the running of the country to satisfy something like 4.5%?

      Well, since the delay would have only been two months, I'd say at least two months. Considering it's a long term project and a short delay loses us almost nothing, and would actually have saved us time and money spent looking at Scottish sites which may not be available in the near future I'd say that's a reasonable thing to do.

      Should the UK Pariliament pretend that Scotland never receives the benefit of large projects (e.g. the two aircraft carriers, the proposed endpoint of HS2, a bunch of milirary bases and so on) in order to artificially benifit the YES camp? Would that be fair or equally biased?

      Interesting you should mention those things. The SNP has said they would still work with the rest of the UK on HS2. The UK government has threatened to take away all ship building, which is an odd threat after they closed the Portsmouth yards in favour of Scottish ones (another bribe). Maybe they will reverse that decision in the event of a yes vote. They also threatened to grab the land where Trident is based so they don't have to move it.

      Basically the UK government have acted like complete dicks at every opportunity, fear-mongering and offering blatant bribes as often as possible.

      Still if you guys vote yes and joing the EU you'll have to put up with hoardes of students from the remaining UK heading over there for free education in a nearby, English speaking country.

      I'm not Scottish. Also, foreign students in Scotland have to pay tuition fees and get a loan from their home government. Even students from the rest of the UK do. It's only Scottish students that get a free education.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Must vote remain underlings by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Well, since the delay would have only been two months, I'd say at least two months. Considering it's a long term project and a short delay loses us almost nothing, and would actually have saved us time and money spent looking at Scottish sites which may not be available in the near future I'd say that's a reasonable thing to do.

      Perhaps, that seems somewhatarbitrary though. The disruption will be so huge, people seem to be continuing business as usual on the assumption that the vote will be NO.

      Interesting you should mention those things. The SNP has said they would still work with the rest of the UK on HS2. The UK government has threatened to take away all ship building, which is an odd threat after they closed the Portsmouth yards in favour of Scottish ones (another bribe).

      A bribe for what? Where should the shipbuilding have gone? The UK parliament likes to keep the military shipbuilding within the UK. Personally I cynically feel that it was an attempty to buy Labour votes in Scotland, not to keep Scotland in the UK.

      But if Scotland splits, then it makes sense to take the shipbuilding away. As for HS2, whether or not the UK government decides it wants to work with Scotland is as yet undecided.

      Maybe they will reverse that decision in the event of a yes vote. They also threatened to grab the land where Trident is based so they don't have to move it.

      Who knows. The whole thing is a dumbass idea anyway.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:Must vote remain underlings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but why the fuck would the rest of us want to fund HS2 over the border to an independent Scotland, They would have to build and fund their part.

      Their would be no political will to do so either as without Scotland it would be ending in Englands 'middle of nowhere' a region the politicial clas of the SE have already said is only fit for fracking as it is 'desolate'.

    12. Re:Must vote remain underlings by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Students from Scotland get free tuition. Students from other EU countries get free tuition. Students from other parts of the UK and from outside the EU have to pay for tuition.

  6. World Cup 2018 by sdack · · Score: 0

    A quick check of today's date and it's not April 1st. It would have helped explain a lot ...

    I cannot believe this is seriously being considered. Not only for efficiency reasons, but for the fact that each rocket launch into high atmosphere always punches a huge hole into the ozone layer, consuming massive amounts of energy and resources, and is an all-round hazard for life on Earth. Why some people keep holding onto the idea of creating this kind of "fair ride", which in the end is exactly what it is, is beyond me.

    How about getting the England football team beyond the first round for the next world cup? This I see as a much better plan for 2018.

    1. Re:World Cup 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How about getting the England football team beyond the first round for the next world cup? This I see as a much better plan for 2018.

      We prefer realistic goals.

    2. Re:World Cup 2018 by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

      How about getting the England football team beyond the first round for the next world cup? This I see as a much better plan for 2018.

      We prefer realistic goals.

      David Cameron is currently undertaking a feasibility study on the possibility of holding a piss-up in a brewery.

    3. Re:World Cup 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not create an UK team ? You would have more chances of success.

    4. Re:World Cup 2018 by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Why not create an UK team ? You would have more chances of success.

      double zero is still zero!

    5. Re:World Cup 2018 by sdack · · Score: 0

      How about getting the England football team beyond the first round for the next world cup? This I see as a much better plan for 2018.

      We prefer realistic goals.

      You mean such as building a space port in Scotland?

    6. Re:World Cup 2018 by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I understand he's currently stuck on picking Evian or Dasani for the beverage.

    7. Re:World Cup 2018 by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      They have separate teams because Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England all have their own FA. In order to have a single team from the UK then there would have to be a single FA for all of the UK. I doubt there is the will to create the one FA. Though it would be amazing to see Gareth Bale in the next World Cup.

    8. Re:World Cup 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd do better to woo Scotland with a promise that England will suck and fail to qualify for the next WC.

    9. Re:World Cup 2018 by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Dasani is not available here because it doesn't comply with EU drinking water standards, so it would be Evian.

  7. Re:Hardly viable... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Secret missions possibly. The UK government might want a domestic launch site, rather than have to entrust France with all their secret missions.

    Or it might be, as many speculate, pure politics: This isn't coming from down London, this is being pushed by Scottish politicians. A big, expensive, high-tech project like that could do much to showcase Scotland as an economic success, stressing both to their own citizens and the rest of the world that they don't need the rest of the UK. There's a strong emphesis on the article on spaceplanes, a form of commercial aeronautics still in the development stage - having one of the first useable facilities would be a great prestige.

  8. Not a real spaceport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is for suborbital tourism, with speeds up to mach 4. There are a glut of spaceports to LEO as is.

    1. Re:Not a real spaceport by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      While the article talks about spaceplanes a lot more, it also states that the facility will be capable of satellite launches. If it ever actually gets built, which seems dubious with Scotland's current political situation.

  9. Re:Hardly viable... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    You could ask for a Commonwealth like site near the equator.
    or a Commonwealth site with open land to pick up the parts after a test/error.
    e.g. Woomera Test Range in Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
    As for spy equipment the UK has been happy to use Ariane/Titan /Delta from locations like Kourou in French Guiana. Skynet (satellite) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Re:Hardly viable... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it is political theatre, 'spaceplanes' are doubly convenient: not only are they the new-and-cutting-edge-hotness, they also have ground requirements much closer to 'airport with atypically long runway' rather than the sort of expensive and specialized apparatus that very large vertically launched systems often do (the KSC's Crawler-Transporter vehicles are undeniably endearing; but not something I'd want to cost-justify...)

    If the PR renders are anything to go by, you can pretty much take an existing airfield, knock down any ugly buildings that the media might see, and replace them with cool, ultramodern equivalents, and you've got a spaceport.

  11. Re:Hardly viable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's obviously for the escape to the secret Mars colony when SHTF.

  12. Re:Hardly viable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Scotland Has Total Freedom ??

  13. This is Stage 2 by albacrankie · · Score: 1

    Scotland started its space exploration work in the 19th century.The first rocket (see link) encountered some technical difficulties, but we expect to get those sorted out soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

  14. Re:Hardly viable... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In that case the normal move is to place it in Australia. Lots of space, stable government and strong social, economic and political ties. As for secrecy already a part of 5 Eyes, so not a problem there, likely when it comes to 5 Eyes they likely could shift a large percentage of that cost to that alliance, so Australia, Canada, New Zealand UK and US would all chip in to fund it. Reason why Scotland, straight up carrot and stick for the independence vote. How will the Scots receive it, likely pretty badly as a straight up carrot and stick scam.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  15. That's so EU, Mr Cameron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kind of promise "we give you something" to "buy" a vote, it looks really like EU maneuvers for Ireland (or less recently UK and others.) Glad to see that you approve the Union, now.

  16. Political background by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Relax, everyone. This is a non-story; it isn't going to happen, and no-one seriously expects it to.

    We're having a referendum in September on whether to separate from the UK and become an independent nation. The UK government has woken up - very late - to the realisation that it's quite likely to lose, and consequently will also lose its only nuclear submarine base, 90% of its oil revenue, and probably its permanent seat on the UN security council. Consequently they're panicking and offering us all sorts of unlikely bribes. The spaceport won't happen because

    1. If we vote 'yes', it's not going to be an urgent priority of the Scottish government;
    2. if we vote 'no', this and all the other promised bribes will be quietly forgotten.

    So relax. The fact that there's no money and no commercial use for it, and that we're too far from the equator, doesn't matter; no-one seriously intends to build it. It's a media stunt, pure and simple. It isn't going to happen.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    1. Re:Political background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nuclear submarine base

      Indeed, now what are you going to do with an empty submarine base?

      90% of its oil revenue

      The UK is a net importer of oil these days - there is no oil revenue. You may be able to make a small profit on the last trickles, though.

      permanent seat on the UN security council

      Unlikely, but I know for sure who won't be on it...

    2. Re:Political background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wee eck disagrees with you about it's suitibility

      http://news.stv.tv/north/282534-first-minister-dismisses-fears-over-scottish-spaceport-plans/

      and it's not really a new plan

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9694766.stm

      and for something like virgin galactic it's a fairly good fit, though I'm not sure how much revenue that kind of space commercialisation is going to bring in.

    3. Re:Political background by gsslay · · Score: 2

      that it's quite likely to lose

      You appear to know something that the opinion polls don't. What is it?

      probably its permanent seat on the UN security council

      Where did you pull this nonsense from?

    4. Re:Political background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a media stunt, pure and simple. It isn't going to happen.

      Same as Scottish independence.

    5. Re:Political background by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Indeed, now what are you going to do with an empty submarine base?

      Not pour billions of pounds down the drain into it?

    6. Re:Political background by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      Scottish Independence a media stunt? or isn't going to happen???

    7. Re:Political background by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      "Quite likely to lose"? In what uninverse? Latest polls show "Yes" trailing by over ten points.

    8. Re:Political background by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      nuclear submarine base

      Indeed, now what are you going to do with an empty submarine base?

      90% of its oil revenue

      The UK is a net importer of oil these days - there is no oil revenue. You may be able to make a small profit on the last trickles, though.

      permanent seat on the UN security council

      Unlikely, but I know for sure who won't be on it...

      That doesn't take into account the oil/gas off the West coast of Scotland nor does it take into account the Scottish stake of the Rockall claim.
      BTW i'd hardly call 1.5 trillion barrels a trickle... and that's just the north Sea.
      who gives a fuck about a seat on the security council to be quite frank???
      As for what to do with an empty submarine base??? now that's EASY.. refit it as a support base much like the port at Nig off the north east which makes astonishing money servicing oil rigs, support vessels and exploratory rigs... combine that with a wee touch of the support role Aberdeen port plays and you have a winner... simple enough for you?

    9. Re:Political background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that, it's only the hardcore Scots who want independence and all public opinion polls show that most in Scotland want to stay. Maybe we should kick all the "yes" voters to the outer Hebrides when they miserably fail. Typical anti-unionist:

      IF I SHOUT LOUD ENOUGH IT WILL GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT ALL SCOTTISH WANT FREEEDDDOOOOOMMMM!

    10. Re:Political background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      actually if you google for it, it's the pro-union forces that brought up this first ;)

    11. Re:Political background by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Scottish Independence a media stunt? or isn't going to happen???

      As a Scot, I really hope it won't happen!

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    12. Re:Political background by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      What are your main reasons for this?

    13. Re:Political background by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Whether you like it or not, the tide of history is moving from smaller to larger groups.
      Once it was small groups of humans led a hunter gatherer life. Then the groups got bigger, people settled and the villages turned into towns and so on.
      We have seen that progress. Most city states are now subsumed into nation states and the trend over the last 50 years has been for voluntary association of nations into larger units. The UK is in several of these units including NATO and the EU. There will always have been people harping back to the "good old days" and we certainly have some of those. Scotland has escaped too much attention from UKIP and other xenophobes because they are often seen as specifically southern English. When we want ignorant statements about people on the other side of a line on a map,or speak differently, we have our own.

      I really could not care about how the UK was not created well. It can work well nowadays. 1745 was a long time ago. It is good for tourism and film makers but I do not work in either of those industries. Like many people, I benefit from being in the EU. It means that, as part of the United Kingdom, I am part of an economic grouping that is bigger than North America. Despite what the SNP tells us, if Scotland leaves the UK, it leaves every alliance the it is in. It will be able to apply for entry but this is not a fast process and meantime, we are outside.

      The UK is not perfect but neither is my car. I won't make my car work better by sawing bits off. We need to fix things, not land the entire population of England perpetually under Conservative government because we have taken our MPs out of parliament.

      Lets move the capital of the UK to somewhere near the middle of this island and away from the cleared swamp that is a drain on the whole country. How about York?

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    14. Re:Political background by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      "Whether you like it or not, the tide of history is moving from smaller to larger groups."

      Things tend to happen whether anyone likes it or not. That is not really specific to me.
      You are right about the tide of history of smaller groups moving to larger ones. Possibly the eventual world will be one giant entity with some form of feedback loop for governance that allows for greater say by the populace on how that governance is manifest. Checks and Balances and Divided government and Voting will certainly be parts of the equation if such a government could exist.
      In the interim however, I think there is a counter movement toward smaller units gaining more say in their own affairs as larger entities are formed. Even in my own community which is a small town, we seem to be gaining more autonomy over certain aspects of our governance even in the face of larger overarching governance. The state provides the overarching rules, but within those rules it is the local government that determines how such rules will actually be implemented.

      "I really could not care about how the UK was not created well. It can work well nowadays. 1745 was a long time ago."

      Certainly the past is the past. The UK was formed in the way most large nation states formed back then conquest. That is fine.
      I think more pertinent to today is the question 'can a group have more autonomy if they feel their needs would be better met by smaller governance'. It seems to me that the argument has to do more with the idea that many of the Scots would like more say in their own affairs today. But like everyone else they also seem to want to be part of something bigger in retaining membership in the EU. Belonging to a bigger geopolitical marketplace won't be such a problem for the Scots if they choose to have greater local control over their own affairs in my opinion.

      "The UK is not perfect but neither is my car. I won't make my car work better by sawing bits off."
      This is analogy seems a bit off point to me.
      Separating the 2 countries is not like lopping a baby in 2. It is more like separating a liver. Both parts can function and grow separately of one another because both are fully functioning even though both will have diminished size from what the whole was. Both can grow to have economies that are larger and function well also.

      "Despite what the SNP tells us, if Scotland leaves the UK, it leaves every alliance the it is in."
      Not really. Scotland will get to pick its own alliances and reframe how those alliances are formed is all. That means greater liberty to follow ones own course in my book and is a net positive. Every alliance formed for the UK will be revisited by all of the parties for similar terms with the Scots. Who knows, I can see scenarios where the Scots will have opportunities to form even broader alliances with parties the UK won't form alliances with.

      "It will be able to apply for entry but this is not a fast process and meantime, we are outside."
      I think it will be more like a rubber stamp or somewhere in between that and new EU member applications. Scotland is already in the EU as part of the UK.
      Some specifics will need to be worked out, but the process will not be very lengthy or even likely inconvenient. I could see the EU giving the Scots a tentative waiver for many functional things so the transition won't be too disruptive. The EU is hoping for a greater level of stability. It is not in their economic interest to keep the Scots at arms length. They are a know quantity. The EU will avoid throwing even more chaos into their western borders in my estimation. It is in the EU's interest to move to lock down stability with Scotland rather than create greater problems.

  17. I see endless possibilities here by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    The potential for a whole new genre of Scotsman jokes is giving comedians everywhere goose bumps.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  18. Taysiders in SPACE! by ThaumaTechnician · · Score: 1
  19. Should have been Ascension Island by Baldrson · · Score: 2

    While I was VP for Public Affairs at E'Prime Aerospace, we evaluated various sites for establishing a space port to launch our MX-derived rockets. It turned out that the presence of a military air strip at Ascension Island allowed a military jet transport large enough to deliver entire launch vehicles. Of course, the MX system was solid fueled so we didn't have to transport cryogenics long distances, but it would be feasible to set up a LOX facility on the island. There is a particular coastal cliff that is ideal for a launch pad.

  20. What's with the spaceports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are all the low cost, efficient, low emissions, low fuel consuming propulsion systems needed for the man on the street to give a s*$t..

  21. Stay in the UK & we'll maybe give you a spacep by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    hahahahaha.
    What a funny ploy.
    What if Scotland actually votes for independence?

  22. Umm by azav · · Score: 0

    We launch from the equator for a reason. Since when is Scotland near the equator?

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll move there when they secede from the UK.

    2. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We launch from the equator for a reason.

      Except for those cases where we want a high inclination or even retrograde orbit, in which case it is more economical to launch from a high (or low) latitude facility and not have to arrest that initial velocity.

    3. Re:Umm by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It would be typically Scottish to want to orbit the opposite direction as everybody else.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Kilts in space? by PPH · · Score: 0

    Not a good idea, IMO.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. A proper kilt... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    A proper kilt...will keep the ice off the space craft.

    No "true Scotsman" rocket would launch without one!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:A proper kilt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A proper kilt...will keep the ice off the space craft.

      No "true Scotsman" rocket would launch without one!

      Icing is more of an issue as it rises than on the ground, but you bring up an interesting point? Why not throw a blanket/skirt over spacecraft before launch? You could pipe hot dry air into it which would lower icing risks by removing moisture from the craft since the US launches are/were from sweaty coastal region (TX/Fla). Shape it like a teepee, vented at the top and it should be easily removes few a few tension lines minutes before launch.

  25. Obvious advantages of Prestwick by Sockatume · · Score: 0

    Prestwick International Airport is modestly famous as the only place in Britain to ever have been visited by Elvis.* If the aliens are ever going to return him, this seems like the obvious place to go.

    *He was transferring through on his way home from the war.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Obvious advantages of Prestwick by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      Is that what the lyrics of "Jerusalem" are about ?

      --
      Nullius in verba
  26. .. also by aliquis · · Score: 1

    With the risk of this being "Scotlands" space port ..

    Lots of mentioning of scotland in the text.

    I'm not well aware of the positiong issue you mention, though I do understand that part =P
    Was is the advantage of the opposite such as the Esrange (Kiruna) base here in Sweden?
    http://www.sscspace.com/esrang...
    The amount of space available?
    They mention " investigation of the aurora borealis" here so maybe that's it? http://digilander.libero.it/lo...

  27. I see a Rab C. Nesbitt episode coming from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could build it in Govan.

  28. Hey smart guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you bothered to even open the link you would have seen that it's Virgin Galactic payloads and people, not ground based rocketry. A White Knight will carry the second stage aloft and they could easily fly south, avoid weather and get LEO insertion to access a large body of clients. So, very possibly the site with the longest runway, but one might be lengthened to get better weather elsewhere. Numbnuts!

    1. Re:Hey smart guys by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Does Virgin Galactic even have plans for a vehicle capable of LEO insertion? All that SpaceShipOne/Two nonsense barely even qualifies as reaching space, and achieves about a 50th the energy necessary for actual orbit.

  29. I predict rocket engined powered by... by Type44Q · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...liquid oxygen and used fry oil.

    1. Re:I predict rocket engined powered by... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      They'll probably deep fry the rocket first.

  30. Scotland Could Become Home To SCOTLAN's First Spac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't be part of Britain for much longer.

  31. US ITAR will block this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole idea is thoroughly stillborn.

    Both of the current sub-orbital space-plane systems (Virgin Galactic Spaceship 2 and XCOR Lynx) that could use this UK site are being built in the US and all their rocket technology is therefore solidly covered by US ITAR laws that prevent their export.

    The US sees valuable economic activity in this sector and it wants this sub-orbital market to remain on US shores, so there is no motive to even relax ITAR in this area. In fact, while some ITAR laws are currently being loosened, the political elements are actively trying to tighten them where they have any bearing on human spaceflight -- specifically in response to efforts like this.

    Regardless of whether the UK base for this is in Scotland, Wales, England or anywhere else, these bases will only ever be used if a new company develops a brand new space-plane outside of the US in competition. The same goes for all other spaceports in Europe and Saudi Arabia too, which hope to attract at least Virgin Galactic. Right now, they have zero chance.

    As a further aside, there is also no way Scotland can be used for launching orbital missions. They can't launch East safely because Denmark, Norway and Sweden (and others) are all in the danger-zone under the flight-path and the Flight Path would come suspiciously close to Moscow too, and orbital rockets look awfully similar to ICBM's. And they won't risk launching North fro Scotland, over the North Sea oil rigs either -- they simply won't risk another Piper Alpha or Deep Water Horizons scale accident there.

  32. one word.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    midges.

  33. Re:Hardly viable... by frisket · · Score: 1

    ... they also have ground requirements much closer to 'airport with atypically long runway' ...

    If that's what they need then the Irish government should look at creating a spaceport near Shannon, which has a gigantic runway,suitable both for the frequent US military stopovers to and from the Middle East, and (I was told) for the Shuttle, should an emergency ever have arisen requiring a landing in Europe if Edwards or elsewhere was unavailable. But that may just be local pride :-)

  34. Re: Hardly viable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shuttle Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) sites included Lajes Air Base in Terceira island, Azores, Portugal; Zaragoza Air Base,Spain; MorÃn Air Base, Spain; Istres Air Base, France; Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory; Cologne Bonn Airport, Germany; Ben Guerir Air Base, Morocco; Casablanca, Morocco; Banjul International Airport, The Gambia; Dakar, Senegal; Rota, Spain; Kano, Nigeria; and RAF Fairford, UK.

    Shannon airport was never on the Shuttle TAL list.