ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

It didn't take long for him to revert to his blue (rinse) roots did it? One hint of an election and he goes into panic mode. Forget all the green stuff and go for the nasty policies.
Even Thatcher didn't consider privatising the Benefits system and ditching the welfare state.
I also note how much publicity he gave to Warsi, but he failed to mention her recent comments in support of the BNP.
Typical Tories, the Nasty Party is back.

Let other countries focus on the technology involved in carrying people into space. There is much to be learned about and gained from remote / robotic space flight / exploration. As I understand it, some UK industries are remarkable in developing sophisticated instrumentation and satellite packages. What is required is more committed British involvement in ESA; more infrastructural encouragement from the UK government (the UK does not even have a Space Agency, merely a Space Centre); and greater collaboration between industry and UK universities.

Here we go again. Yet another unelectable would be Conservative Prime Minister.
The man is typical of the public school type of prat.
Let him live in the real world, the man who said, 'Hug a hoodie'. If he tried that in real life he would probably be head butted.
Who are his most ardent supporters? None other than failed Conservative leaders and would be leaders.
Forget it Cameron, you're a no hoper.

DC Speechday

For me this was less the 'Agincourt frenzy' more a long bladder bursting 'Fancy a cup of tea and a slice of Batenburg' speech.

I had to learn Charge of the Light Brigade by heart at school. I reckon he could have recited that and got a standing ovation.

He could have done a take on the Winston 'fight them on the beaches' speech e.g 'We will fight them on school standards, we will fight them on hospital closures, we will fight them on increased taxes we will fight them where ever we find them. We will NEVER surrender our Tory values yada yada'

A leaders speech recipe

A tin of band of brothers, a touch of Harry in the night, a dollop of close up the wall with our english dead and a pinch of native wit, all served in a good pentameter.

I don't see today's events in Blackpool as ' make or break' for David Cameron or the Conservative Party. Ideally for them, the election would be later rather than sooner but the decision is for Gordon Brown to make. He will choose the most advantageous date in the national interest, which Labour sees as them staying in power.

If it is to be 01 November, the electors will decide and the more Iain Duncan-Smith and Ed Balls shout abuse at one another on television, the more votes the Liberals will get. Grow up, lads, please?

Susan Watts writes well about the need to inspire the next generation of potential space scientists and engineers. Well do I remember the original Horizon, and series such as Nigel Calder's Violent Universe -- real science, inspiring indeed. Today the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ can't make a science documentary without the dead hand of dumbness: ensure the presenter is a professional clown who understands little and overemphasises 'big' words like 'billions', and punctuate every scene with jerky zooms and synthy whooshes, not forgetting to play out the old FX explosion tape whenever the words Big and Bang are mentioned in the same breath. Where's the room for inspiration amid such appallingly condescending presentation?

Why all the talk of Marriage, Dave, yet none of Civil Partnership? Have you ditched equality along with green policies?
Nasty Party? More like Nazi Party!

Susan Watts writes well about the need to inspire the next generation of potential space scientists and engineers. Well do I remember the original Horizon, and series such as Nigel Calder's Violent Universe -- real science, inspiring indeed. Today the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ can't make a science documentary without the dead hand of dumbness: ensure the presenter is a professional clown who understands little and overemphasises 'big' words like 'billions', and punctuate every scene with jerky zooms and synthy whooshes, not forgetting to play out the old FX explosion tape whenever the words Big and Bang are mentioned in the same breath. Where's the room for inspiration amid such appallingly condescending presentation?

No we should not put our own person on the moon, but PERSONS. If you are a Tory then it would be a few Labour politicians or Leader and after today's "What a clever man am I" speech by Cameron with a wonderful education, definitely him and his acolytes, who a few years ago (or was it months/weeks?) were trying to stab him in the back.

If they are sent to the moon then all the political commentators and interviewers who are relying on a few weeks extra work and over exposure in telling us all how it really is, may as well go to the moon as well and leave us all in peace.

Some hope! We can't afford the rocket and just think of its carbon footprint, if we all do REALLY care.

So Jeremy, if you can escape such rocketry, you can look forward to making politicians really squirm, all telling us how much better off we will be. As I wrote before it's a Monastry or Hermitage for me.

If you thought that a seal balancing a beach ball on its nose was impressive, wait till you see Seelonite the Great. He performs as part of his act the magnanimous feat of simultaneously balancing a beach ball on his nose whilst juggling with a dozen flaming torches, balancing on an unicycle, and the piece de resistance, avoiding the batallion of knife throwers threatening life, limb and beach ball.

If we're going into space (and personally I think the unexplored depths of the oceans sound far more fun) lets go with the Japanese. Two island nations from opposite sides of the globe going hand in hand to the moon... and back. And their rockets don't blow up...

As a space scientist myself I am all in favour of putting money into the space programme - but I find it pretty much a waste of money to put it into human exploration. I see the argument about inspiring the youth, but for a fraction of the cost let's put together robotic space missions like the Huygens probe which went to Titan or robotic Mars missions, those inspire often just as much. We scientists constantly have to struggle to get funding from the government for basic research with robotic missions. Double or triple the budget for those, save loads of money doing it, and launch a programme of original robotic missions involving lots of UK industry, that will have many of the benefits of human space exploration at a fraction of the cost!

Of course we should be part of manned space exploration.
This country is dying for the lack of inspiration of its youth-
The PC-obsessed "we can carry the world's burdens" brigade will preside over the demise and decay of all that Britain once held proud and dear. We deperately need pride in British technology, British courage and British vision to inspire.
So many of our problems cannot be "fixed" but they be "surpassed".
We can certainly afford the money-
if any of our politicians are able to look beyond their next election contest and their happy retirement on a European sinecure-
they will see that cannot afford to
see this opertunity wither away.

Should the UK go to the moon?
Ask yourself the question, is the British Antarctic Territory any use to us (now or in the future)?

So should the UK put our own person on the moon?

No. I am a space physicist and I sincerely hope that the UK is not going to blow its science budget in a project endorsed by politicians who watched too much Star wars.
Manned missions produce very little science and cost colossal amounts of money; remote missions on the other hand cost little and bring us back useful data which lead to us understanding the space around us.
Lord Martin Rees put the case against manned missions beautifully in a Guardian article about the same debate:
β€˜β€¦."I particularly think it would be a great mistake for Europe to get involved in the long-range US programme to return to the moon," said Sir Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society.
He cited the failure of the International Space Station. Despite costing Β£49bn, it is still not complete and has delivered little useful science.
"I'm glad that the UK never put any money into the space station. The Germans and the Italians did and they both regret it," he said.
Sir Martin said Europe could compete with the US by focusing funds on space science, miniaturisation and robotic missions.

Personally, I think this idea of landing on the moon is pathetic. We've got so many problems to sort out out on our own planet that we should take those billions that would be spent sending a few people into space and give them to the masses of starving and poor people in the world. We won't learn anything new by landing on the moon. This is all about the different nations comparing the size of their penis, no one is even trying to hide this. I find this idea that an American landing on the moon is any different from a Briton landing on the moon utterly repulsive. We're all the same. We speak with a different accent or in a different language... so what? We all come from the same root, we all share the same knowledge, this nationalist competition only serves to separate the human race more and more, and I find it horrifying that we want to propagate such a separation. Hitler would be proud! We spend money on nuclear weapons and spacecraft whilst people die of lack of food and medicine - that illustrates perfectly how petty we still are after all this time. Any intelligent visitor to our planet would surely be awestruck by our blindness.
I suspect some people will think my comments over the top, but this is really how I feel on the issue.

What is it with the British, we used to build the greatest ships, bridges, planes etc. No one even cared when Blue Streak was cancelled or probably knows what it was. Concorde has gone and Rolls Royce cars are German. Whenever England plays a World cup football match everyone gets patriotic, even though we aren’t very good at football. But find something we excel at, like Rocket technology and the English don’t care whether we put someone on the moon or not. One day the English will have the conviction of the French or the Americans, who when they want something they just do it and don’t winge about the cost. Come on Labour stomp up the money and put Britain on the map for the right reasons

I watched your piece about Brits on the moon with great interest - but you appeared to have quite forgotten about Wallace and Gromit.

Where has our asylum debate got to! The Government has in recent years been genuine in their goal of ending the genocide in Darfur, the personal commitment from both Blair and Brown I do believe is there. At the same time, we inflict appalling destitution on the survivors, and not in Darfur but in our own towns and cities.

Hundreds of Darfuris have been forced to sleep rough on our streets in the UK. They are threatened with deportation, likely torture and possible death by a ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Office actively trying to return them to Khartoum.

In reality, if you are African and from Darfur and find yourself seeking sanctuary on our shores, then it should be granted until Darfuris can safely return back to Darfur, its that simple. Everyone acknowledged at the time of the Kosovo War that returning Kosovan Albanians to Belgrade would be absolutely wrong. Handing over Darfuris to the Sudanese intelligence services in Khartoum airport is handing them over to some of the chief architects of the genocide, as the ICC will one day demonstrate, and as such must stop immediately.

Susan Watts is right to advocate spending more than the pitiful amount this country spends on space. Space science and the satellite industry which generates billions for the economy were essentially built on the British space programme.

It is only through space age technology that solutions to all kinds of problems are catalysed or directly generated - inclduing carbon "footprints".

On the subject of carbon footprints, it was Britain which instigated but then abandoned a re-usable launcher called HOTOL. This was set to be more economical and have greater paylad capacity than the NASA shuttle.

It would indeed be a sad note in history that a country that once seemed certain to explore the final frontier as a natural progression of its past, chose to give up and look inward for evermore.

The UK space budget should be more like Β£1 billion rather than Β£200 million. If we are serious about going to the moon then it should be to establish a permanent base there, not just a few flights and forget about it for another 40 years. The technologies and materials that would need to be created in order to establish a base on the moon would benefit the British economy enormously, but to benefit we actually have to decide to do it and unfortunately, when you look at the current crop of MPs it doesn't exactly inspire one with confidence. First any base on the moon would have to be built underground to protect the personnel the technology used for the Channel tunnel would be useful for this job. There would also be the need to create a network of satellites around the moon so communications made with any other groups working elsewhere on the moon. All this will be worth billions if not trillions of pounds. It is just a case does this country want to be at the frontier of exploration and science or do we withdraw and let more energetic nations get on with it.

The Tories have finally become an opposition party, and the country is better for it. Whether they put manners on Mr Brown and curtail the lazy arrogance he represents, or manage the less likely feat of deposing Labour will remain to be seen. Labour used to represent the PAYE sector. Today they seem to represent and promote the interests of the public sector and financial services sector only.

Though Jeremy equated Cameron's performance to that of a performing seal, much of what he said will have resonated with the very groups that switched to Blair in 1997. In fact, Mr Blair could have written his speech for him. Blair changed Labour. Brown refuses to change Britain, or Labour, or much else. I predict a huge bounce for Tories, and a corresponding drop for Labour, and this will deter Gordon Brown from calling an election this year.

Of course we have to be involved in the human exploration of space. The benefits are enormous verging on the infinite. There is a whole galaxy out there to be explored,
and beyond our own Milky Way, a myriad other galaxies waiting, and that is just in our Universe. Try to imagine what the Omniverse contains!

The only hope for the survival of our species is to learn how to colonise space and to benefit from the increaed scientific and spiritual
awareness accrued by so-doing.

What is it with the British, we used to build the greatest ships, bridges, planes etc. No one even cared when Blue Streak was cancelled or probably knows what it was. Concorde has gone and Rolls Royce cars are German. Whenever England plays a World cup football match everyone gets patriotic, even though we aren’t very good at football. But find something we excel at, like Rocket technology and the English don’t care whether we put someone on the moon or not. One day the English will have the conviction of the French or the Americans, who when they want something they just do it and don’t winge about the cost. Come on Labour stomp up the money and put Britain on the map for the right reasons

Of course we have to be involved in the human exploration of space. The benefits are enormous verging on the infinite. There is a whole galaxy out there to be explored,
and beyond our own Milky Way, a myriad other galaxies waiting, and that is just in our Universe. Try to imagine what the Omniverse contains!

The only hope for the survival of our species is to learn how to colonise space and to benefit from the increaed scientific and spiritual
awareness accrued by so-doing.

Of course we should be involved in renewed quests to explore space and other planets.

In the same way as the technology of Formula 1 motor racing eventually benefits road cars, so too space exploration will ultimately bring potential benefits to our everyday lives.

And for our own security, we must also stake our claim on the chemicals (Helium-3) found abundantly on the moon but not on Earth that could make super-efficient nuclear fusion power generation a real possibility.

This has the capacity to provide an emission-free solution to the world's growing energy crisis. No surprise so many countries are now showing an interest in going to the moon! We cannot afford to be left out.

Neither is finding the money a real problem - even enough for our own independent missions, nevermind just providing a few bits of technology and an astronaut to others.

Take the Β£73.5bn (gross) that the government has promised to pay the EU between now and 2013. Yes - seventy three *billion* pounds! For what? Given plenty of countries (eg. Mexico) have free access to the single market without making massive budget contributions.

And as auditors haven't been unable to explain the "majority" of EU spending for 12 years running, throwing such vast sums at the EU is completely unjustified.

It's an obvious candidate for a huge saving with no downside.

We shouldn't let the wasteful EU hold us back from pursuing such inspirational projects that could be so important to our future.

Yes we should join the space race. We have falling numbers in the sciences, and we need something to inspire young people back to them. I love science, and that love came from the wonder of space travel, the adventure, the possibilities, the dreams when I was a child. But where it led was to a knowledge of how the world works that's always served me well. I am horrified how little the average person understands how accurately science predicts how the world works. Many people take for granted the many modern devices they use, all a direct application of those predictions, and yet at the same time think that science is just a belief system to be thrown away when it's predictions ask them to question what they thought to be true.
Anything that inspires children with a wonder about the world, how it works and how to test one's beliefs about the world has got to be a good thing.
More is at stake than just spin-off technologies and economic returns.

The Tories have finally become an opposition party, and the country is better for it. Whether they put manners on Mr Brown and curtail the lazy arrogance he represents, or manage the less likely feat of deposing Labour will remain to be seen. Labour used to represent the PAYE sector. Today they seem to represent and promote the interests of the public sector and financial services sector only.

Though Jeremy equated Cameron's performance to that of a performing seal, much of what he said will have resonated with the very groups that switched to Blair in 1997. In fact, Mr Blair could have written his speech for him. Blair changed Labour. Brown refuses to change Britain, or Labour, or much else. I predict a huge bounce for Tories, and a corresponding drop for Labour, and this will deter Gordon Brown from calling an election this year.

The UK government has no interest in human space exploration because it is not a vote winner and with the majority of the UK population at best apathetic about the prospect of a Briton setting foot on the Moon or the UK's involvement in many other ESA projects, that’s unlikely to change. I'd be happy to be proved wrong though!

I think we need to put more money in to space exploration and less in to defense after all, Space is our future, defense budget could do with billion or two less after all our escaped in Iraq brought us nothing good or of any benefit, space in other hand will enrich our knowledge, sprue the interest in science subjects in schools and improve our society as a whole.

I am very disappointed with Government's lack of interest in space issues, if China can send man in to space, I see no reason for UK not to be able to do the same.

UK needs proper space strategy, Moon and Mars are next frontiers, we must have our presence there.

Dear Newsnight,

More money was spent on popcorn in the USA during the 1960s than was spent on the entire Apollo programme.

The short-term benefit of space exploration is not monetary, it's about achieving something for humanity, expanding our visions and building our dreams. Through the power of space exploration it can be shown what a humble human enterprise can achieve. The pioneers of space exploration inspired a whole generation into the fields of science and engineering, something that is lacking in this current generation. According to the BNSC brief the first wave of new astronaut candidates will be selected to inspire through outreach programmes.

"It's hard to see the harm in the UK doubling the Β£200 million a year we currently spend on space.", Susan Watts addresses an apt point. Considering the return from investment into spin-off technologies coming from the space sector, this is not a significant amount that the government needs to spend on space technology, and the figure could also be matched from investments through the private sector. Benefits that return to the UK from its investments into space research will be augmented by the training of British astronauts vital to the continued development of these experiments, and all in exchange for components necessary to the success of space flight which only British industry can provide.

These spin-off technologies can be found in everyday use in areas including:

* Household Safety
* Health and Medicine
* Communications
* Computer Technology
* Environmental Management

Examples of some of these can be found on the following site, amongst others.

Kevlar(bullet proof vests/sports equipment), Dried foods for health food and cereals, harnesses for seatbelts, special light alloys for aviation and cars, all of these have had a influential effect on modern society. But it has been the USA which has benefited from such innovations.

As a ranking technological nation, shouldn't we be reaping the benefits of technology that is well within our capabilities to invent? And can we afford to lose out on a unique opportunity that may not come again in this lifetime?

Dear Ian Pearson M.P,
You have an amazing opportunity to put forward the case for British involvement in the new space race.
Listen to your heart, not the governments wallet. Besides, its our money after all, and i'd much rather spend it advancing humanity, than reducing our humanity (as the Blair/Brown government has done thus far).
Make a stand Pearson, and you will be remembered for all the right reasons.
What would you like on your epitaph?

"Here lies Ian Patterson. He was a team player.",
or,
"Here lies Ian Patterson. A truly great man who literally helped save mankind."?

Listen to the Royal Society. End our low-level involvement with ESA and start our own space agency.
It could well be the greatest thing you ever do.

Actually, having just read Ian Pearsons voting record, i can safely say that Ian Pearson is all about toeing the party line, and is as right-wing as they come.
Under this "man", Britains attempts to go into space seem guaranteed to blow-up on the launch pad.
What kind of human being votes against investigation of a war?
The same type that wants to introduce ID cards and the same type who votes against parlimentary transparency.

If its a question of finance that prevents Britain from joining the space race, here are a couple of suggestions as to where the funds may be aquired from:
1) Scrap ID cards (Β£5.8 billion saved)
2) Scrap Trident replacement (Β£16.8m PER MISSILE!!! saved).

Yes, i know Pearson voted strongly in favour of those issues, but it takes a real man to admit he was wrong, and a real man to lead Britain in the space race.

Unfortunatly, Pearson isn't that man.

If Japan can launch spacecraft with a $1.8 billion budget with an economy not substantially bigger than ours then the UK can achieve it's own astrological endeavours. The BNSC doesn't even have proper infrastructure let alone a serious budget. If putting twice as much investment into what has Been for Britain a lucrative Billion dollar industrial sector, despite our spending half as much of our GDP as japan or italy, will go all the way to putting a Briton on the moon, Then It's an incredible and potentially very profitable opportunity.

The UK had a successful independent space programme until 1981 that was cancelled, mistakenly, in hindsight. It could launch commercial sattellites economically similar to arianne. It is Possible and it has been profitable, Britain can cooperate with india or the US and achieve things that make sense for the future.

The UK only spends $240 million on space science which is 0.029% of GDP Italy and and japan spend twice as much of their GDP each while the USA spends $33bn which is 0.18 of their GDP 18 times more than Japan but 138 times more than the UK. ESA is uneconomical for the Uk's investment, the solution is not expensive and would be extremely advantageous. We even have mothballed rocket technology should it be necessary.

I think anyone who fears the UK will endeavor to send men to the moon either on its own or as a joint venture with the EU Space Agency has little to fear, it isn't going to happen. First of all, the UK (and EU) do not have the technological resources for a successful manned lunar program. It is no easier to get to the moon today than it was in 1969. The technologies involved are many and the obstacles formidable. The UK will not commit the financial resources necessary. It would cost many tens of billions of pounds sustained over the better part of a decade or more. It will not make that commitment. The UK does not have the tenacity to succeed. The US mission encountered many disasters along the way, these are invetable. For example, an explosion and fire on the launch pad killed three astronauts in 1967 and set the program back over a year. You cannot go on the cheap. The UK was going to show NASA "how to do it" at one eighth the price when it sent its Beagle II to Mars. The mission failed. So did a couple of American missions to Mars around 2000. But the Americans persisted and later sent two rovers successfully to Mars while the UK never tried again. The UK does not even have a program which can successfully put a man into near earth orbit today. Why waste so much money on a redundant program when the US and Russia are already almost 50 years ahead in manned space exploration?

A bit puzzled how some make that regular leap when anyone wishing to reform the welfare state, it somehow makes them a Nazi, thats like calling a socialist a...er.. a socialist (remember Stalin) ..yep, selective memory kicks in when throwing stones.

Its thirsty work talking to a room full of people. Was Cameron nervous? no! anyone who stands up and speaks for more than 20 minutes, will have liquid refreshment nearby, just ask Charles kennedy. Whilst i struggle with the Torys these days, as a stand alone speech, it was delivered well and when compared to Browns recent speech; well you can make your own minds up. Cameron got his message across, albeit to the converted and we the TV audience at least heard his parties vision; though for some, it was just a rerun of the Nuremberg rallies.

Barbara Woodhouse was a nazi, she was cruel to dogs, even i have on occasions, made that leap.

must speak 2 roger
one of these Days

the great A
dont get me started

Space and the Brits...
I remember growing up with knowledge of the HOTOL project, i was following it, it seemed like cutting edge technology and i could imagine the UK streaks ahead of the US and everyone else using 'Air breathing' Engines to get into space. The as i understood it Maggie Thatcher scrapped the project as it was getting too expensive. If its cash then im sure millions of people in the UK would pay 5 quid a year subscription in some form to assist. Even if this was an extra fiver to the TV licence fee which would be diverted to the project. It would be nice for the government to take this on, but they seem more interested in being in bed with the US on other fronts. The HOTOL would have been a technological marvel, but politicians cant seem to get a greater vision. Benefits are major from this type of thing, and alot of the new technology made for space would eventually end up assisting the military.

Just my 2 cents worth .. but i would pay a fiver !

Nice piece about the new space race Susan. Its a shame you didn't find the time in your look back to mention Black Arrow - The UK satellite launch rocket built on a shoestring budget that flew on its first proper attempt, a month after the government axed the program in 1971. The satellite it launched into orbit - Prospero is still up there apparently and will be for another 30 years.
The footage is available - it was shown on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ2 space night 2 years ago.
As to the UK gov doubling the space budget - they wont even spend the money to combat Global Warming so I doubt it.

I hadnt realised that Charlie Drake had walked on the moon. 'All right my darlings' would have been comparable to Armstrong's first word's...

Susan Watt's piece about human space exploration failed to mention the scepticism of the vast majority of UK space scientists towards diversion of Britain's space science resources into an astronaut program. Space missions have made great contributions to astronomy and solar system scinece, but most of the scientific advances have come from robotic missions. Although there could be some science programs which could benefit from involvement of astronauts (and in the past we have the example of the Hubble Space Telescope repair missions), decisions about scientific space missions should be made on ground of scientific excellence. When politicians select missions we get turkeys like the International Space Station.

Michael Rowan-Robinson
(President, Royal Astronomical Society)

I did thoroughly enjoy last nights Newsnight, however, can I ask why certain implications were made in the initial report on the Tory conference?

First of all, the opening montage to the strains of that odd "acceptable in the 80s" song. All very fun, but you glossed over the fact that 1990 to 1997 (including one general election, won AFTER a leadership change - actually a contest, unlike the recent Labour debacle - surely a success that Brown hopes to emulate) was a period of the Tories in power as well.

Secondly, there was an air of condescension about the reporting of the speech itself. The reporter made note of the fact that Mr Cameron had two glasses of water during the speech and asked whether it was a sign of nervousness - he spoke for an hour! On a stage, under hot lights wearing a full suit. I'm surprised two is all he had.

That second point does seem to illustrate how some editorialising is going on. It was a cheap shot, and one that shouldn't have even made it into the programme in the first place. I shall be watching future broadcasts with interest, to compare tone on reporting of Labour and Conservative activity.

It was good to see Clarke and Paxman sparring - watching two masters go at it, and allowing time for full answers from the interviewee is always a pleasure.

I did thoroughly enjoy last nights Newsnight, however, can I ask why certain implications were made in the initial report on the Tory conference?

First of all, the opening montage to the strains of that odd "acceptable in the 80s" song. All very fun, but you glossed over the fact that 1990 to 1997 (including one general election, won AFTER a leadership change - actually a contest, unlike the recent Labour debacle - surely a success that Brown hopes to emulate) was a period of the Tories in power as well.

Secondly, there was an air of condescension about the reporting of the speech itself. The reporter made note of the fact that Mr Cameron had two glasses of water during the speech and asked whether it was a sign of nervousness - he spoke for an hour! On a stage, under hot lights wearing a full suit. I'm surprised two is all he had.

That second point does seem to illustrate how some editorialising is going on. It was a cheap shot, and one that shouldn't have even made it into the programme in the first place. I shall be watching future broadcasts with interest, to compare tone on reporting of Labour and Conservative activity.

It was good to see Clarke and Paxman sparring - watching two masters go at it, and allowing time for full answers from the interviewee is always a pleasure.

3 cheers for Susan Watts telling the Sci Museum to label its sputnik properly. The Sci Mus is one of the worst museums around, fabulous exhibits and a third rate staff. Last time I went they had a case of old saucepans to illustrate spitfires, they put mars bars in a Skinner box (presumably thinking they were Tate Modern or a playpen rather than an educational resource. Their demo exhibits aren't educational and rarely work.

The benefits to industry and to some extent education make human spaceflight a challenging but necessary part of any developed country's activities.

I couldn't fail to notice George Osborne referring rather abruptly to 'Cameron' in his interview. It looked very bad, particularly when contrasted with the bonhomie of Kenneth Clarke. It came across as sour grapes - maybe he'd just been told to putsch off. He's always seemed to me like a man who'd benefit greatly from a little light pummelling.

Of course we should invest in the human exploration of space. Britain was once the world leader in innovation and exploration, now we are the only G8 nation not to participate in human spaceflight. China has also launched astronauts, and India is set to join them in the foreseeable future. What can they all see that our politicians can't understand? Why can we not share that dream?

Space budgets are already dwarfed by medical and development aid spending - no purpose would be served by diverting them there.

And, to be blunt, objections from space scientists preferring unmanned missions are little more than special pleading, designed to protect funding for their personal interests.

It is particularly disappointing to see the President of The Royal Astronomical Society commenting in the way he has (above), when the RAS's own official position is:

"The RAS recognizes that there may be some scientific goals that can only be achieved within a human spaceflight programme. However these goals are likely to be feasible only within a greatly expanded scientific space programme.

The RAS also recognizes that the space programme is a powerful attractor of school-children and students towards STEM subjects, and that the space industry is an important sector of the UK economy. Educational, economic and technological arguments might support a UK involvement in human spaceflight."

Human spaceflight paints on a larger canvas than merely scientific discovery. It drives engineering prowess, technological development and understanding of human biology; inspires youth and raises national prestige. It can bring excitement into a tawdry national life.

Browning said it best: "a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” Well, let's reach for space: it's as close to heaven as we'll get this side of eternity!

On the day the leader of the Tories makes an appeal, beyond, we must assume, the party faithful to the wider electorate in anticipation of a general election in a matter of weeks, this forum (for one of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's flagship current affairs programmes) is dominated by... discussion as to the future of Britain's involvement in space exploration..?!

Not to do a disservice to Susan Watts at all - I enjoyed the report - I just wonder what we might conclude from the strange silence that has ensued. (Barring a couple of posts - including the tedious, inevitable, and frankly rather silly 'spoil party games' repeat from Mr Singleton and what appears to be a post written by an even drunker than usual D Allan).

Still, I'm sure things will heat up as the election approaches.

Jackie Long said the ONLY aim for refugees in coming to the uk was safety which cannot be right. No doubt AN aim was safety but it could not have been the only one otherwise why cross all the safe countries between here and sudan? So what were the other aims?

Space

We should send Emily. I saw this week she has the Space 1999 moon base style outfits already!

Britain needs a space program. We are standing on the cosmic shore while China, India and America are getting ready to set of on the next great adventure without us. The country badly needs something aspire to. If we miss this we will be no more than a bit player in the 21st century and will have lost the opportunity to inspire generations of children. It would indeed be sad if the only visible signs of our space achievements are those bland exhibits that lie in the gloomy and uninspired Space Gallery of the National Science Museum.

I think Ms Watts met "Charlie Duke", lunar module pilot of Apollo 16, rather than "Charlie Drake", unappealing comic actor from the 60s and 70s, when she was at the "Shadow of the Moon" premiere. Well, I hope so anyway, especially as I'm going to the London premiere in a couple of weeks.

Great Speech delivered in a workmanlike manner, aka....no spin ...unlike the 'Clunking Fist' that represents the NASTY/Stasi Labour party....& spins more than his predecessor...must be very giddy.
GB & his sycophantic crowd as demonstrated by his attack dog Balls Ed or is it Ed Balls! would do well to stop the photo opportunities & keep their heads down.
Any more New Hospitals to 're-open 'Gordon Brown....& your new Wanless, Lord Stazi.. to be titled "Champion of Innovation" !!! it's like what the Americans term..."the Funnies"!

RESPONSE TO SUSAN WATT'S COMMENT (49):

Thank you for your report on Newsnight and for your response to my comment yesterday - I would like to say that I am thoroughly in favour of putting NEW money into a space programme, but the reality is never as easy - in the end money spent on any new human exploration programme will eat into the science budget. It has happened on many other projects sold to us scientists as "new money" (the Aurora programme, to name one!) and is happening in the U.S. as we speak, where many of our colleagues are feeling the price of the new initiatives of going to the Moon: severe cuts in the science budgets! This is the sad reality, and from the number of entries I see here of colleagues it appears that I am not the only one feeling like this.

In a nutshell, my message would be: yes, please put more money into the space programme - it would deliver a lot of very good spin-off for science and for industry. But don't waste it on human exploration, invest into world class robotic exploration!

I simply despair at Gino's response to Susan Watts. Susan specifically said that she was not suggesting touching the money available to space science research, but advocating additional funding specifically for human exploration. Gino responds by arguing that any such money should be placed in the space science pot - that is to fund the investigations and interests only of the space science community to which he or she belongs.

I will repeat what I said earlier - human space exploration has a much wider role than pure scientific discovery. It is shortsightedness of the highest order to argue that humanity's only legitimate interest in the universe outside Earth's atmosphere is as an arena for investigations in astronomy and planetary science. This is equivalent to arguing that the Beagle should only have called at the Galapagos, or that Cook's voyages should have limited their output to botany. In fact, the great scientific results from those voyages were a serendipitous output of a wider remit - a remit which wrought huge changes in human society.

One day, admittedly not in our generation nor probably the next, there will be a significant human presence throughout our solar system, bringing great economic,
social, scientific and technical benefits. Some of these can be foreseen now, many of them undoubtedly can't. As long as men and women still have the hope
and spirit to dream, and to look beyond the here and now, that development will not be stopped by parochial attitudes and limited vision in one country or one scientific community. It will happen. The question that Britain needs to face is whether it will partake in this venture, or be left on the sidelines as every other major nation on Earth pursues it without us.

By all means, Gino and Michael Rowan-Robinson, have the funding to pursue your interests and your passions - I share them wholeheartedly. But I, and many others, have another vision and another passion as well. Not for science alone, but for humanity's future. Please don't use your positions to impede the realisation of that vision in the pursuit of your own special interests.

I simply despair at Gino's response to Susan Watts. Susan specifically said that she was not suggesting touching the money available to space science research, but advocating additional funding specifically for human exploration. Gino responds wishes to claim such money for the space science pot - that is to fund the investigations and interests only of the space science community to which he or she belongs.

I will repeat what I said earlier - human space exploration has a much wider role than pure scientific discovery. It is shortsightedness of the highest order to argue that humanity's only legitimate interest in the universe outside Earth's atmosphere is as an arena for investigations in astronomy and planetary science. This is equivalent to arguing that the Beagle should only have called at the Galapagos, or that Cook's voyages should have limited their output to botany. In fact, the great scientific results from those voyages were a serendipitous output of a wider remit - a remit which itself wrought huge changes in human society.

One day, admittedly not in our generation nor perhaps the next, there will be a significant human presence throughout our solar system, bringing great economic, social, scientific and technical benefits. Some of these can be foreseen now, many of them undoubtedly can't. As long as men and women still have the hope and spirit to dream, and to look beyond the here and now, that development will not be stopped by parochial attitudes and limited vision in one country or one scientific community. It will happen. The question that Britain needs to face is whether it will partake in this venture, or be left on the sidelines as every other major nation on Earth pursues it without us.

By all means, Gino and Michael Rowan-Robinson, have the funding to pursue your interests and your passions - I share them wholeheartedly. But I, and many others, have another vision and another passion as well. Not for science alone, but for humanity's future. Please don't use your positions to impede the realisation of that vision in the pursuit of your own special interests.

Is the Michael Crick piece on Chester available online and available to download.

If so please post the link.

Thank You

A a "precursor" to contributing future UK astronauts for lunar exploration , there is an early low-cost approach which the the government could and should adopt. The British Interplanetary Society (BIS), supported by the recent SEWG advisory group to the BNSC, is proposing a modest corps of 3 trained scientist-astronauts. On separate flights via Soyuz spacecraft, 2 could access the International Space Station and carry out good science and education outreach work. This could be done on a budget of only Β£50m over 5 years, beginning in 2009 - it would be a way of taking a step-by-step approach to UK manned spaceflight and certainly would`nt harm future robotic science missions.

As a "precursor" to contributing future UK astronauts for lunar exploration , there is an early low-cost approach which the the government could and should adopt. The British Interplanetary Society (BIS), supported by the recent SEWG advisory group to the BNSC, is proposing a modest corps of 3 trained scientist-astronauts. On separate flights via Soyuz spacecraft, 2 could access the International Space Station and carry out good science and education outreach work. This could be done on a budget of only Β£50m over 5 years, beginning in 2009 - it would be a way of taking a step-by-step approach to UK manned spaceflight and certainly would`nt harm future robotic science missions.

As a "precursor" to contributing future UK astronauts for lunar exploration , there is an early low-cost approach which the the government could and should adopt. The British Interplanetary Society (BIS), supported by the recent SEWG advisory group to the BNSC, is proposing a modest corps of 3 trained scientist-astronauts. On separate flights via Soyuz spacecraft, 2 could access the International Space Station and carry out good science and education outreach work. This could be done on a budget of only Β£50m over 5 years, beginning in 2009 - it would be a way of taking a step-by-step approach to UK manned spaceflight and certainly would`nt harm future robotic science missions.

Re: Climate change chat with Friends of the Earth guy

The urge for argument over content has prevailed at last, sigh. Do you really think kids in school have ever been told the truth? Or the general population for that matter. Al Gore's film at least inspired some to do a little in the battle against climate change. Let's not belittle it in front of the masses.

Paxman, please save your rancour for those who deserve it. Journalistic principles need to bow to the greater good sometimes, and don't give us any of that purest crap, slippery slopes etc., it doesn't wash.

Maybe politicians should now spend time on tackling voter appathy and securing a good turn for any election, rather than who stole whose ideas for an election that never was.