An anonymous reader writes "According to the BBC a British scientific panel has recommended that the British Government should end its ban on human space flight. The Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) Commission pursued a 9-month investigation into 'The Scientific Case for Human Space Flight'. Professor Frank Close, Chair of the Commission, said, 'We commenced this study without preconceived views and with no formal connection to planetary exploration. Our personal backgrounds made us lean towards an initial skepticism on the scientific value of human involvement in such research.' The commission concluded that 'profound scientific questions relating to the history of the solar system and the existence of life beyond Earth can best - perhaps only - be achieved by human exploration on the Moon or Mars, supported by appropriate automated systems.'"Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='space,politics';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; Commission Suggests UK Should End Astronaut Ban Log in/Create an Account | Top | 221 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 221 comments 0: 216 comments 1: 175 comments 2: 125 comments 3: 47 comments 4: 27 comments 5: 17 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. ehhh.... (Score:5, Interesting) by SkankinMonkey (528381) on Wednesday October 19, @04:30AM (#13824787) Isn't the real question - Why was it banned in the first place? [ Reply to This Re:ehhh.... (Score:5, Informative) by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday October 19, @04:39AM (#13824815) (http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/tcpsafe/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 27, @11:14AM) Because it was considered by just about every scientist alive at the time of Apollo that there was absolutely no scientific value in sending a man to the Moon. Not just British scientists but Americian scientists too held this opinion. Many still hold this opinion today. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:ehhh.... by TheRealSync (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:44AM Money (Score:5, Interesting) by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday October 19, @04:57AM (#13824867) (Last Journal: Friday June 24, @02:33PM) There is a limited supply of it. The question is, do you focus on the automated robotics or on the human missions? A good example is that GWB is gearing NASA to spend heavily on the moon shot. So they just fired 300 top engineers at JPL. JPL has done a fair number of the automated systems. I would expect that the private enterprise will pick these ppl up. Most have a great deal of talent and interest. The moon shot will costs more than a 100 billion dollars to get us back there. Hopefully this time, we do not dismantle such an expensive set-up. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Money by DigiShaman (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:44AM Re:Money (Score:5, Interesting) by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday October 19, @06:09AM (#13825056) (Last Journal: Friday June 24, @02:33PM) Unless I see the accounting figures broken down on paper, I cannot fathom such a missing costing 100 billion. It's not like we need to start from scratch all over again. The research and development has been done. The only major costs associated nowdays should be mainly hardware and administration.Ok, lets look at what those 4 steps entail.First off, we will be creating 2 rockets from the current shuttle stack.That means that the solid BOOSTER will now be turned into a man capable rocket. In order to get a human rating (vs. just freight), requires a great deal more tests. You have heard about all the issues of the Airbus A-380, right? Well, this is far more rigorous. In addition to creating the rocket, we will have to create a CEV; A crew exploration vehicle.Just determining which company to give it to, will cost NASA some 1-2 billion. The ship itself will probably be 10 billion or better (I am betting closer to 15). The above will get us with a crew of 6 up to the ISS. The good news, is that the launch cost is a fraction of what it costs today. In addition, we will be able to take the ISS back up to 7-12 ppl. From there, we then need the HVL vehicle. That is nothing more than moving the 3 engines from the shuttle to 5 on the bottom of the fuel tank. In addition, we will change the boosters to have 5 segments rather than 4. We currently are able to put some odd 28 tonnes into space via the shuttle (at a cost of 1 billion). When the new HVL is done, we will put 128 Tonnes in one shot (at a cost of 1.5-2 billion). This craft will also have to be human rated, which means undergoing rigourous testing. Then we need a whole new system that lands on the moon, and takes off again. That entire system is quite a bit more nebulus, but it will probably look like our old apollo stuff, but much bigger.The above illustrates parts of the costs for getting into space and to the moon, and back safely. You mentioned Burt Rutan's works as an example for NASA to follow. Well, First off, Burt did not go high. He went 60 miles. Well, now he needs to go to 300 miles. My understanding is that it gets exponentially harder as you go higher. There are no off-the-shelf stuff for this. In fact, the tspace group is looking to develop a great deal. The capsule that burt did, has a minimal life support system. It is nothing compared to what NASA does to get ppl to the ISS let alone to the moon. remember, once you are on your way to the moon, there really is no rescue group for you (hence tspace's idea of multiple groups going; not a bad idea). So these systems are designed and built to work. period. But it does not come cheap. Yet. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Money by IAN (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:46AMRe:Money by Peter La Casse (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @08:04AMMistakes and poor logic by purfledspruce (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @09:19AMRe:Money by bigpat (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:05PMRe:Money by enzo_romeo (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:37PMRe:Money by iamlucky13 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:48PMRe:Money by IAmTheDave (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:26PMYou shouldn't count the mass of shuttle as payload by Manhigh (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @11:04AMRe:Money by AaronLawrence (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:28PMRe:Money by ravenspear (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:20PM$98billion is on managers and corporate meetings.. by cheekyboy (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:11AM Re:Money (Score:4, Interesting) by GileadGreene (539584) on Wednesday October 19, @10:54AM (#13826632) (http://www.google.com/search?q=gilead+greene) So they just fired 300 top engineers at JPL. I don't particularly lke GWB, but the lay-offs have little to do with his "vision for space", and more to do with poor budget management at NASA. AFAIK the primary reason they just laid off at JPL was that they ramped up staffing tremendously during the crunch to get the Spirit and Opportunity rovers finished on time (MER was completed on an incredibly short timescale for a planetary exploration mission - 3 years from start to finish). Unfortunately, the work on MER not only caused a staffing spike, it also went pretty heavily over budget, so several missions were pushed back to free up near-term money to finance MER. Now that MER has wound down there's nothing for a lot of the engineers that were hired during the staffing spike to do: NASA's near-term Mars budget was committed to paying for MER (already done), and the next big projects won't really ramp up for a few years yet. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:ehhh.... (Score:5, Insightful) by identity0 (77976) on Wednesday October 19, @05:58AM (#13825025) (Last Journal: Monday March 31, @02:23AM) I don't think that's what the original poster was asking. The question wasn't 'why not send a man to space', but 'why ban sending a man to space'. The point being, why was it nessecery to ban it, as opposed to just deciding not to do it?Japan, Europe and Israel, for example, have very good space programs with no manned flights, but none of them saw the need to ban it.Is it like the old joke -"In America, everything which is not banned is legal.In Germany, everything which is not allowed is illegal.In Soviet Russia, everything which is not banned is mandatory.""In Britain, everything which is not worth doing is banned."?Does this ban extend to private spaceflight as well? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:ehhh.... by VJ42 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @06:27AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:ehhh.... by RoboPimp_3000 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:57AMRe:ehhh.... by Drakin (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @09:16AMRe:ehhh.... by caluml (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @10:31AMRe:ehhh.... by EntropyEngine (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:18AMRe:ehhh.... by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:56AMRe:ehhh.... by EntropyEngine (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @08:52AMRe:ehhh.... by QuantumG (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @09:00AMRe:ehhh.... by dylan_- (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:14AMRe:ehhh.... by EntropyEngine (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @09:51AMRe:ehhh.... by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:14PMRe:ehhh.... by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:07PM Sad statement (Score:5, Insightful) by amightywind (691887) on Wednesday October 19, @09:10AM (#13825752) Because it was considered by just about every scientist alive at the time of Apollo that there was absolutely no scientific value in sending a man to the Moon. Not just British scientists but Americian scientists too held this opinion. Many still hold this opinion today. This is such a sad statement, and inaccurate. The Apollo missions were incredibly productive. The first geological exploration another world? 6 missions exploring amazingly diverse sites. Apollo contibuted greatly geomorphology, volcanology, geochemistry, isotope studies, remnote sensing, mapping... The Apollo mission reports are still available [amazon.com]. Read them. I doubt you will feel the same way. As a former planetary geologist I can assure you that that opinion is not widespread in that community.If you say this about Apollo, what do you think about the pointless research on the even more expensive space station? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Sad statement by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:33AMRe:Sad statement by amightywind (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @10:58AMRe:Sad statement by Digitalia (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:48AMRe:Sad statement by deanoaz (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:00AMRe:Sad statement by Grishnakh (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:13PMRe:Sad statement by Grishnakh (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:01PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Sad statement by Rolken (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @05:12PMRe:Sad statement by Weirsbaski (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:45PM No jam for me! (Score:4, Insightful) by Kamiza Ikioi (893310) on Wednesday October 19, @10:47AM (#13826569) (http://www.cyberarmy.net/~ikioi) Because it was considered by just about every scientist alive at the time of Apollo that there was absolutely no scientific value in sending a man to the Moon. Not just British scientists but Americian scientists too held this opinion. Many still hold this opinion today.I agree. I mean, why send people into space. After all, don't those satellites fix themselves. Hubble almost certainly has required no human interaction. Even if it did, it was of no scientific value. Obviously sending and/or building on our only natural satellite could only end up just as fruitless. And, sex only for the purpose of procreation. Otherwise it has no value. Jam on toast? I'll take the dry white toast any day! Computers for the common peasant, but what would they need with a computer?Yes, that's sarcasm. If it wasn't, someone shoot me.An unimaginative scientist that can't find the scientific value in the exploration of the unknown... I think that disqualifies them for the title "scientist". One can argue the cost all day, but to argue the scientific value of exploration... unscientific exploration is the very definition of oxymoron. It is, I looked it up and everything. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:No jam for me! by Retric (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @01:32PMRe:No jam for me! by Retric (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:22PM1 reply beneath your current threshold."no scientific value" by pbhj (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:28PMRe:"no scientific value" by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:41PMRe:ehhh.... by WindBourne (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:19AMRe:ehhh.... by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @10:28PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:ehhh.... by WindBourne (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @04:45AM Re:ehhh.... (Score:5, Interesting) by baadger (764884) on Wednesday October 19, @04:50AM (#13824847) No, I believe the 'real question' is why did we give up on our space program in the first place, really just a few years before people started seeing and reaping the commercial benefits of satellite technology.It is feasibly that if we had continued our efforts, unclamped by the government, we may have put a man in space ourselves.There was recently a brilliantly put together but saddening documentary on the highlights of the British space program on the BBC. Unfortunately there isn't a torrent in sight (if anyone finds one PLEASE me know) and there aren't many central sources for general information on the era to be found with Google (unless you know specific project names).Britain's first space pioneers [bbc.co.uk] - A nice summary of British space efforts, courtesy of the BBC. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:ehhh.... by thelonestranger (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @05:46AMRe:ehhh.... by DrXym (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:03AM Re:ehhh.... (Score:5, Interesting) by meringuoid (568297) on Wednesday October 19, @06:31AM (#13825111) After all, perhaps one reason they haven't before now is because the UK or another member country has had these kind of objections.Quite a lot of the reason, actually. ESA had a project in the 1980s to build a small spaceplane called Hermes. It was going quite nicely, then the Americans accidentally blew up one of their shuttles and that caused a bit of a flap over here too. Subsequent redesigns sent the thing way over budget. The Germans got cross at being asked to pay far too much for the thing, especially with the British refusing to pay anything at all for a manned spacecraft. End result: what was very nearly an independent European spacecraft ended up as a pile of extremely expensive paperwork.Since then European cosmonauts have mostly flown as passengers on Soyuz and sometimes on the Shuttle. This is a bit annoying, but then... Soyuz just works. What's to stop ESA contracting the Russians to provide capsules and rockets and conducting a space programme that way? [ Reply to This | ParentESA has contracted the Russians by andersh (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:51AMRe:ehhh.... by Synn (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:12PMRe:ehhh.... by lordholm (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:21PMRe:ehhh.... by chihowa (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:11AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites (Score:5, Funny) by evilandi (2800) on Wednesday October 19, @05:59AM (#13825029) (http://www.andrew.oakley.net/) The answer to both of those questions is: The UK doesn't have any good launch sites. We're in Northern Europe, in case you hadn't noticed, and you can't launch rockets from there (at least, not without considerably higher costs/risks than doing it closer to the equator).It comes down to empire. The French still exhert ownership over a couple of countries that have good launch sites. The UK does not.The idea of us ringing up the Australians and saying "What ho! We're going to build a rocket base in your outback. Look, I know you chaps think you're independent now, but Queen Liz says to tell you to bally well stuff off" is just not going to fly, I'm afraid.True, we're part of the European Space Agency.But it seems rather pointless to have a space programme when you have to ask other people to launch it for you.Especially if those other people are the French.I do hope I don't have to explain quite how horrifying the idea of a British citizen patriotically launching into space to the sound of "Cinq... quatre... trios... deux... un!" sounds to the average Brit. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by term8or (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @06:25AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by meringuoid (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:11AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by Nept (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:14AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by evilandi (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:59AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by lisaparratt (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @08:09AMI doubt it... by Goonie (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:54AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by jweatherley (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @10:56AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by SimonInOz (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:21AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by constantnormal (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:39AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by evilandi (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @10:33AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by some guy I know (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:15PMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by ph1ll (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:08AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by Dracophile (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @08:33AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by Waffle Iron (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @09:09AMSea Launch by HermanAB (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:52AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by brouski (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:07AMSea launch by doktoromni (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:36AMRe:Simple: UK has no suitable launch sites by El Cabri (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:18PMRe:European ONION by mike2R (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:40AMRe:European ONION by mike2R (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:16PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:ehhh.... by RocketGeek (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @06:39AMRe:ehhh.... by leandrod (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:45AM Re:ehhh.... (Score:4, Funny) by madaxe42 (690151) on Wednesday October 19, @04:51AM (#13824848) Because in Britain most things that might be marginally dangerous and/or interesting are banned. Such as cycling on the motorway. Those bastards. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:ehhh.... by LiquidCoooled (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:02AMNot dangerous, slow by TeXMaster (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:32AMRe:ehhh.... by FireFury03 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:04AMRe:ehhh.... by eraserewind (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:27AMRe:ehhh.... by Nurgled (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:55PMRe:ehhh.... by FireFury03 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:21PMRe:ehhh.... by Xarius (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @09:27AMRe:ehhh.... by xtieburn (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @05:33AMJules Verne by Ruvim (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @09:05AMCancelled not banned. by Martin Spamer (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:25AMRe:ehhh.... by Hognoxious (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:08AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. WTF? (Score:2, Interesting) by mboverload (657893) on Wednesday October 19, @04:30AM (#13824788) (Last Journal: Tuesday July 13, @02:54PM) I mean, seriously. That's all I can say. What the fuck?I mean shit, I know it's a waste of money but to BAN it? Someone needs to get beat with a billy club. [ Reply to ThisIt wasn't BANNED.... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:43AM Re:It wasn't BANNED.... (Score:5, Informative) by RocketGeek (566822) on Wednesday October 19, @06:05AM (#13825046) (http://www.ukrocketman.com/) Actually, it was as more than a case of any projects/research not being funded, it was as good as banned.Sorry, your comments are wrong.There was, and still is, for instance, an active policy "against" space launch technology in the UK, which has been in place since the days of Blue Streak. Partly due to having 650 or so mainly arts graduates sitting in a large debating chamber and not understanding why we are consistently throwing away technological opportunities, partly due to pressure in the past from our supposed partner the other side of the pond leaning on us to drop launch technology and use theirs (shades of other programmes such as TSR2 and Skybolt), and partly due to an active dislike of space within Whitehall, and a major and irrational dislike against launch technology and manned space.I have been in space meetings in the UK where government representatives have said do not under any circumstances mention anything to do with manned space. To which my response is to give them the finger. To say they have wasted a generation's talents which could have been used on space technology in the UK would be an understatement. They've wasted at least 2 generations.The whole HOTOL, and later SKYLON lack of support from the UK government, and lack of participation in FESTIP is yet another example of this myopic, and moronic attitude by some faceless bureaucrats in Whitehall. An attitude that they have passed on down the years.So yes, banned is an appropriate word for manned involvement in space and the UK government. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative) by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday October 19, @04:45AM (#13824830) (http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/tcpsafe/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 27, @11:14AM) What's hard to understand? There was a ban placed on the use of public funds to do manned space exploration because it was considered a waste of money by the scientific community. When you consider how much money is wasted on the ISS every year you gotta appreciate they may have a point. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:WTF? by WindBourne (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @05:09AMHmmmm..... by Savage-Rabbit (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @06:11AMRe:WTF? by Dahlgil (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:12AMRe:WTF? by Blakey Rat (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:43PMRe:WTF? by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:47PMRe:WTF? by Hatta (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:50PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting) by geo_2677 (593590) on Wednesday October 19, @04:32AM (#13824792) that the report comes out couple of days after the Chinese astronauts return to Planet Earth. [ Reply to This Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting) by meringuoid (568297) on Wednesday October 19, @06:47AM (#13825148) More importantly, it comes out not long after ESA reached an agreement with the Russians concerning the development of the Kliper [wikipedia.org] spacecraft. Looks like the successor to Soyuz will be largely paid for by ESA and flown from French Guyana.But for ESA to do this will take money, and money is short as long as the second-richest country in Europe refuses to spend a single penny on manned spacecraft. British money might make the difference between this thing flying someday and this thing becoming another might-have-been. Not to mention that we'll probably get a good few lucrative contracts related to the development, and the incalculable value to British technology of actually inspiring the next generation. We have way too few new physical science or engineering students in this country right now, and we have sod all to be proud of since we retired the Concorde. America might have betrayed their dream when they cancelled Apollo to pay for Vietnam, but at least they had one. What are we trying for? [ Reply to This | Parent2 replies beneath your current threshold. Didn't know we had one (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, @04:33AM (#13824797) "Come in Swindon. I'm at the top of the ladder now. Ohhh, it's very high, I can see my house from up here! I'm still a long way away..I think we'll need more ladders."Eddie Izzard sums out the British philosophy to space exploration. [ Reply to This Re:Didn't know we had one (Score:4, Funny) by identity0 (77976) on Wednesday October 19, @06:23AM (#13825091) (Last Journal: Monday March 31, @02:23AM) The real reason it was banned, of course, was the tragic loss of an astronaut in the early 70's.Many still remember the haunting last words:"Though I'm passed one hundred thousand miles, I'm feeling very stillAnd I think my spaceship knows which way to go,tell my wife I love her very much she knows""Ground control to Major Tom:Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong.Can you hear me Major Tom?Can you hear me Major Tom?Can you hear me Major Tom? Can you ..."Ashes to ashes. RIP Major Tom.The British space program never recovered from that tragedy, as well as from the breakup of The Beatles. Thankfully the Rocket Man, Sir Elton John is still standing. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Maybe.... (Score:4, Funny) by Kelz (611260) on Wednesday October 19, @04:33AM (#13824798) (http://www.cvctaktix.com/) Because you can't have tea in space? [ Reply to ThisRe:Maybe.... by statistically dead (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @05:43AMRe:Maybe.... by clickety6 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:29AMIncorrect by NereusRen (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @10:37AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. What are they thinking?! (Score:3, Funny) by jettoki (894493) on Wednesday October 19, @04:35AM (#13824806) Didn't they see James Bond: Moonraker?!If you send humans into space, evil madmen will form space station communes and plot global genocide! [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Maybe the ban was on "Astronauts"... (Score:1) by Mingco (883841) on Wednesday October 19, @04:37AM (#13824811) Perhaps the British wanted their own special cultural name for "Astronaut" like Cosmonaut or Taikonaut. The ban was to give them enough time to come up with a term as stupid as the cosmos is infinite."Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein [ Reply to This Re:Maybe the ban was on "Astronauts"... (Score:4, Funny) by Guppy06 (410832) <diwancio&earthlink,net> on Wednesday October 19, @04:49AM (#13824842) (Last Journal: Wednesday October 19, @05:24AM) Considering the whole "aluminum" vs. "aluminium" flamewar we've had in a recent story [slashdot.org] (it's like vi vs. emacs, only there's no ed), it seems all they'd need to be "culturally different" is to throw in a few extra letters. "Astrounaughtte?" [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Maybe the ban was on "Astronauts"... by mattjb0010 (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @05:37AM Re:Maybe the ban was on "Astronauts"... (Score:4, Insightful) by The Wooden Badger (540258) on Wednesday October 19, @07:47AM (#13825290) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 16, @09:33AM) Kind of like when I was in the British Isles and people found out I was from America and they would ask if I knew so-and-so from usually Boston or New York. Ignore the fact I lived in Arizona at the time and hadn't been to either city, there are about 300 million people in America. Can't really say that all of the British are like that, I have had that experience more than I care to remember. Bottom line: there are stupid people everywhere. The cream of the crop are a little harder to find. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Maybe the ban was on "Astronauts"... (Score:5, Funny) by aussie_a (778472) on Wednesday October 19, @06:17AM (#13825074) (http://gutterflycomix.com/thequeensland | Last Journal: Friday February 11, @05:09AM) it seems all they'd need to be "culturally different" is to throw in a few extra letters. Well done at rewriting history. Brits don't had in extra letters, Americans remove letters willy nilly. Everyone knows it's truly Astronaught, which was one of the reasons the Brittish banned manned space flight. Unfortunately this article doesn't mention that problem at all. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Maybe the ban was on "Astronauts"... by Guppy06 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.What are people in space called? by some guy I know (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:37PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Clarification (Score:3, Informative) by arethuza (737069) on Wednesday October 19, @04:47AM (#13824836)