Comments on: UK tweaks its space strategy

By: CO2 Levels Hit New Peak as Greenland Ice Sheet Melts » Celsias

CO2 Levels Hit New Peak as Greenland Ice Sheet Melts » Celsias — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:02:06 +0000

[…] The British National Space Centre released today a new vision to â€œstay at the forefront of space sectorâ€. The policy largely calls for measures to improve existing strengths in areas like satellite communications, remote sensing, and space science. Included in the policy is the creation of an â€œinternational space facilityâ€ in the UK devoted to climate change and robotic space exploration as well as â€œcloser involvementâ€ in international space exploration programs. — Space Politics […]

By: Jerry in Baltimore

Jerry in Baltimore — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:48:27 +0000

It seems to me that current British policy will diminish innovation and manufacturing. It seems to leave the 3rd world to innovate and manufacture new products based on their and other countries investment in human space flight based R&D. They are turning into a consumer nation with out the manufacturing base to support the employment required for people to afford it.

Britain joined us in the war; wouldn’t it be better for them to join us in human spaceflight? If both countries took what they spent on the war for just 1year and invested that in their space programs a lot of jobs would be created.

The UK builds and sells some of the most advanced weapon systems in the world. Imagine what they would have by now if they had invested in a manned space program.

If you want a “Terminator” type of world with autonomous robots connected to the web and maybe causing havoc. Then their current policy will help that out (Weapons R&D + Robotics).

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:12:47 +0000

Interesting ideas, Ray. Also of interest, there has been an ongoing debate within Spaceflight between a group of Reaction Engines engineers (including Alon Bond) on one side, which argues that because of their innovative studies and designs — Hotol, Skylon, et al, and even Virgin Galactic — that Britain is in a potentially unique position to advance spaceplane technology to the next level. On the other side are a group of engineers who argue that Britain could send a series of astronauts to the Space Station on Soyuz, advancing a key British skill — medical technology — while using existing infrastructure and staying within modest increases to Britain’s current space spending.

Of course, neither of these is likely to happen under current British policies, but it is worth noting that, historically, Britain has been one of the most innovative nations in aerspace technology. “Vertical Empire,” a book about the birth and early death of British space ambitions is worth a read, especially for those interested in looking for any indications of an impending withdrawal from human spaceflight by ourselves.

— Donald

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:53:46 +0000

I agree with Rees that they shouldn’t get involved with human missions if they’re to be done NASA-style. However, there’s no reason they need to be. The UK could work with a space station company like Bigelow, for example. They could also contribute to the astronaut training activities of other countries by trading time bought by the UK government on Virgin Galactic (to use a UK commercial supplier) for suborbital astronaut training for astronaut or experiment time on the ISS. They could also contribute to NASA’s human lunar effort with small robotics efforts, if they want to emphasize that part of their program. Maybe NASA could trade something for data from such an effort. If they want to emphasize “satellite communications, remote sensing, and space science” – which I personally think is a smart plan that has commercial, military, environmental, and industry advantages – they can still get in on the exciting and inspirational NewSpace crewed suborbital spaceflight activity by funding integration of science instruments into these suborbital flights. There are plenty of opportunties in human spaceflight that don’t go the “giant, expensive, slow, risky but spectacular” NASA route, but that instead are more mammalian, and possibly more rewarding.

By: Z-Bob

Z-Bob — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:19:48 +0000

Be bold Britannia, and join us!
New worlds await!

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:49:11 +0000

There is a proposal in last month’s Spaceflight for Britain to add two modules to the Space Station. Worth a read, whatever side you are on.

As for the Astronomer Royal, we should consider this institution’s past track record — “spaceflight is utter bunk” just before Sputnik! — before taking seriously what they have to say today.

— Donald

By: www.actionforspace.com

www.actionforspace.com — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:13:43 +0000

From the second article:

“There’s no commitment at all from this strategy. We’re the only developed nation that doesn’t have an astronaut, despite the fact that we’re the fifth largest economy,”

It’s really a shame. Argentina, Costa Rica, and Peru all have astronauts.

Of course Micahel Foale flew on the Shuttle, Mir, and the ISS. and Piers Sellers flew on STS-112, and they were both Brittish… So …