British bloke goes into space... why all the fuss?

[subaqua]

I always wanted to be shot into space , if me dad had been quicker I might have been !!

what does annoy me , and i havent read the thread fully so apologies, is the fact they are calling him britains first astronaut.

WRONG

Helen Sharman was - she had to self fund , but she was the first

Michael Foale doesnt count as he had to become a septic to join NASA.

what makes HS trip more important is that at this point in time the govt and Meeja are banging on about STEM , and getting more women into STEM , yet they try and airbrush a perfect role model out of the picture .

 

[subaqua]

I would if you matched your speed to the 17,141mph of the ISS

You never been in a taxi in Leicester then ?

 

[Julia9054]

My nephew decided at a very young age he wanted to be an astronaut. At age 11, he wrote to NASA and they put him in touch with St Andrews University who helped him choose the subjects to specialise in at school. They told him to study geology as future manned missions will need geologists. Coincidentally, his uncle used to be the chief geologist at a company used by the big oil companies so he gave him a lot of advice. He has just started university (the first in my immediate family to do so) starting geology and remains as focused and determined as ever. I'm immensely proud of him and I'm sure he'll achieve his dream.

My son at 17 has also not grown out of wanting to be an astronaut. Currently in his last year at school and applying to universities to study physics.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Originally ISS was designed as a project to keep Russian rocket scientists from making mischief, and to give the space shuttle somewhere to go. The shuttle/ISS combo is perhaps the worst use of space-dollars you could ever conceive.
The science done by rovers on Mars, comet landings and flypasts of distant moons yields far more than a 6 month stay on ISS. The only science that needs ISS is to measure how quickly the human body degrades under conditions of near orbit. Every other science experiment could be done for a fraction of the price in un-manned, remotely controlled experimental modules.
Given the cost of ISS to date has been over $150 billion, you could do an awful lot of science with that.

Cox was on radio yesterday about this, and he argued that there had been an inependent study that showed that in overall terms, the space flights made a profit due to the various discoveries and tests.

 

[MichaelW2]

Cox was on radio yesterday about this, and he argued that there had been an inependent study that showed that in overall terms, the space flights made a profit due to the various discoveries and tests.

You could make that argument for the UK spend on space, which is primarily un-manned, developing instrumentation and funding research projects. Space-exploration, in general, is a worthwhile activity. It is just that ISS is a huge money pit with little significant outcome, compared to alternatives. Mars and comet missions have been just as inspiring to a generation of children. Becoming an astronaut is not on the cards for most of the inspired children, but becoming a scientist or engineer on an exploration mission is quite achievable.

Looking at the Principia science blog, it is hard to see how human intervention is so neccessary in the activity.