The PM sent out a request for feedback from the space community, and we sent our response, which did not reach the PM but was opened by BNSC (presumably along with the rest) and reinterpreted into the framework of their existing policy. The rest is history.

And here we are 10 years later – I am thankful I didn’t hold my breath! But this is a rare opportunity to match the space program with the wishes of the public, not just the astronomical elite. There are military, industrial, scientific and foreign relations components that make a more wholistic, better balanced and better integrated space program, and it’s refreshing to see the civil service make the necessary reforms.

“ESA announced on 10 April it is to select candidate astronauts and UK citizens can apply but they are unlikely to reach the final selection stages because their government does not contribute to the agency’s manned programmes. British citizens Nicholas Patrick, Michael Foale and Piers Sellers (see below) had to become US citizens and join NASA’s astronaut corps to go into space”…

Again, its down to the parsimonius British govt. to decide as to whether they will do anything. If they follow through and agree to fund an astronaut corps I will be very much in a state of shock. Somehow I don’t think I’m going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen…

It’s good to hear that Britain will have a space program again – there is an enormous amount of inventiveness and talent that can be brought to bear on launchers, spacesuits, on-orbit assembly and other areas that are fundamental to space exploration.

I once belonged to the BIS and they do some good work.

Trouble is that successive govts. since the 60s have not been willing to pay and have relied on “the shirt tails of others”. SST has been an exception and has been a real good business but govt. insistence on wanting to sell its share has led to the company going to Astrium.

The current batch of MPs in the UK are finally beginning to wake up and the realisation that the UK HAS been left behind by govts. of all parties who decided to pay the Europeans (ESA) a paltry sum every year. I can remember the whining before Helen Sharman went to orbit all those years ago, in the end the Russians decided to ‘bale us out’. The UK should have never been in that position in the first place…

The BIS has an enormous job of shifting institutionalised inertia (or lack thereof) as it will be claimed that the money would be better spent elsewhere…

Bristol University’s plans for a ISS HEM(s) will end up, in all probability, the same way… NASA is/was willing to launch these, Russia is willing to do it commercially as will ESA/Arianespace.

Jess

““I think the future of manned spaceflight will only brighten if it’s done by people prepared to cut costs and take risks in a fashion that’s seemingly unacceptable to the U.S. public in a NASA project,””

But if I look at current NASA human spaceflight there’s the Shuttles and the ISS, and if I compare them to the alternatives as they will likely be within the next decade NASAs approach seems both costlier and higher risk.

I think Rees is offering a false choice.

Jess Lomas: You may want to chick out the British Interplanetary Society’s campaign to change the government’s tune on this issue.

http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/sitesia.aspx/page/1714/l/en-us

— Donald

— Donald

Britain has been left behind, and will remain so – despite discussions within the UK govt. otherwise. A case of “Empty vessels make most noise”…

What it will cost the UK, the UK cannot afford and will never do so.

The world has been lucky so far (yes it has, could have lost more…) – 17 astronauts and 3 or so cosmonauts – and the mortality rate will climb despite efforts to make exploration/travel as safe as possible. Those who sailed the high seas during the formative years of exploration and those who crossed the world’s plains in search of new lands found that out.

Do we ‘stagnate’ here on Earth, or do we move forward? I believe THAT is what we have to be asking ourselves… We have a lot to learn – whether in Earth orbit; on the lunar surface, or extended journeys to the planets and asteroids.

I don’t see any of the private actors aiming at a higher death rate than existing launchers, in fact they’re all aiming at lower ones while still cutting costs.

As I see it opening space will have a high mortality rate even with much improved launch safety but that’s not what Rees seems to be saying and it’s not what you two seem to be agreeing with. Consider this a request for clarification.

I actually agree with this. One of the reasons costs are so high is that we insist on near-perfect safety, which is impractical on any frontier, and certainly on one as difficult as the solar System. If we are not prepared to lose a lot of people, we will get close to nowhere in exploring the Solar System.

— Donald