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."

105 of 151 comments (clear)

  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 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?
    9. Re:Rather far north. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes but there's an important election looming.

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

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

    11. 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
    12. Re:Rather far north. by Dins · · Score: 1

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

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

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

      That's just good science!

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

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

    20. 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});
    21. 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.

    22. 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.

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

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

    24. 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).

    25. 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!

    26. 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.

    27. 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'
    28. 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'
    29. 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.
    30. Re: Rather far north. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      that is how France sees it

    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. 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.)

    34. 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.

    35. 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.
    36. 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'
    37. 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.

    38. 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!
    39. 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'
    40. 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.

    41. 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.

    42. 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)

  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. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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"
  8. 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: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.

  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: 1

    Scotland Has Total Freedom ??

  12. 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...

  13. 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.
  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. 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 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?

    2. 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?

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

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

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

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

    5. 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?

    6. 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 ;)

    7. 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.
    8. Re:Political background by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      What are your main reasons for this?

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. Re:World Cup 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  18. Taysiders in SPACE! by ThaumaTechnician · · Score: 1
  19. 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!

  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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?

  24. 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.
  25. 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?

  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. .. 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...

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

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

  31. 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
  32. 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.

  33. 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.
  34. Re:Obvious advantages of Prestwick by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Nullius in verba
  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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'
  40. 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 :-)