UK increasing Space spending 60 million pounds - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [B]Chancellor George Osborne has increased spending on space technology by £60m per year over the next two years.[/B] The investment is part of a plan to increase the UK's contribution to the European Space Agency. The government hopes this will attract more hi-tech [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20250533#"]jobs[/URL] and contracts to Britain. Overall spending in civil research has, however, declined by 5% in real terms since 2010 - a reduction which is set to continue. Mr Osborne made the announcement in a speech to the Royal Society, calling for a national debate on where the UK can lead the world in scientific excellence. The European Space Agency (Esa) investment will lift UK's contribution to the Paris-based organisation by an average of 30% at a time when many other nations are struggling to meet their contributions or even reducing them. By increasing its contribution, the expectation is that the UK will get more research contracts in return and this will increase the competitiveness of British space companies, enabling them to [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20250533#"]win[/URL]future orders in what is a growing global market for products and services. Recent data have shown that the UK space industry recorded a total turnover of over £9.1bn in 2010/11, representing an average annual growth rate of 7.5% since 2008/09. While other sectors have shrunk during the recession, these figures gave Science Minister David Willetts powerful ammunition to persuade the Treasury to back space as a key sector for further growth. "We have underestimated the strength of our space industry," he told BBC News. "In fact, we are a global player in satellite and[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20250533#"]telecommunications technology[/URL]. This additional investment is a signal to Esa and commercial companies that we are going to continue to support space science and technology."Sir Martin Sweeting, the executive chairman of Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, which specialises in manufacturing small spacecraft, welcomed the chancellor's announcement, saying: "The UK space industry is a world leader and has been one of the fastest-growing parts of the economy over the past decade. "Today's announcement will help to maintain the UK's lead in this rapidly growing market." The commitment to Esa will see the agency base its satellite telecommunications headquarters in the UK, expanding its recently opened technical centre in Harwell, Oxfordshire. In his speech, Mr Osborne set out seven further areas where the government thinks Britain is a world leader and can and must go further: computing, synthetic biology, regenerative medicine, agricultural science, energy storage, robotics and advanced materials including nanotechnology. [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64044000/jpg/_64044844_64044843.jpg[/IMG] George Osborne: "It is right that, even at times of fiscal restraint, we find the resources to enable new scientific breakthroughs" The chancellor said he believes science is important in helping to rebalance the UK economy. Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (Case), said he was pleased to see that Mr Osborne was taking such a close personal interest in science. "The commitment to new spending on scientific infrastructure is important, as part of the UK's push to be a modern, high-tech economy," he said. "We hope that George Osborne carries on and turns this commitment into a sustainable, long-term one, along with addressing the cut that inflation has made in the 'flat cash' settlement. Using the £4bn revenue from the forthcoming 4G spectrum auction provides the perfect opportunity to do this, as we and Nesta have called for in our [URL="http://its4growth.co.uk/"]4Growth report[/URL]." Funding for civil research has however been frozen since the chancellor's autumn statement in 2010. In real terms, the science budget is being cut by 2.5% each year and in two years' time will have been reduced by 10% relative to 2010. The chancellor also slashed capital spending by research funders by 41% - the money for maintenance and upkeep of the UK's labs and equipment. The cut of £1.6bn has been slightly clawed back by Mr Willetts, who has persuaded the chancellor to set up new research institutes, such as a graphene centre and a computer hub announced last year. [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64026000/jpg/_64026352_e773bfb6-f698-49ae-8876-6cddfc53fed4.jpg[/IMG]Investing in space technology is seen as one path to re-balance the British economy Scientific bodies want to encourage Mr Osborne to continue to spend more on science and so are publicly supportive. But privately, many are concerned that an ever-shrinking pool of funding has to be spread ever thinner on research areas that catch the eye of the chancellor and science minister at the expense of fields that are less politically appealing but nonetheless important for the UK's science base. Some are wondering whether this tactic will see a shift away from the time-honoured tradition of allowing scientific experts to decide how research funding should be spent, the so-called Haldane Principle, and back toward an ill-fated attempt by the Labour Party in the 1970s to "pick winners". Commenting on George Osborne's speech, Shadow Minister for Science and Innovation Chi Onwurah MP said: "In 2010, the Tory-led government pledged to protect science spending, given its importance to future growth and rebalancing the economy, but they have broken their promises. "Departmental science spending fell by 7.6% in the first year of this Parliament alone and total spending on science last year is down by 6.4%. If the reduction continues at this rate, science spending will be down by a quarter over the life of the Parliament." Liberal Democrat peer and member of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Lord Willis said: "To listen to a well-informed and pro-active speech from the Chancellor is warmly welcomed. "The challenge now is to back his eight technology transfer priorities with significant new resources - otherwise we will fail to meet the challenges he has rightly identified." That was a view echoed by the President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse who jokingly said it was now time for Mr Osborne to "put his money where his mouth is" after the Chancellor had finished his speech.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20250533[/URL]

[IMG]http://puu.sh/1beGd[/IMG] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]

It's by 60 million pounds, not euros you wazzock. Good shit, maybe when we start living on Mars the UK won't be the last fucker to get there.

I'm sorry the signs are so confusing! [IMG]http://www.policywala.com/images/smilies/EmoticonCrying.gif[/IMG] £ €

Sweet.

Good. Now let's fill NASA's coffers. I think defunding the TSA to pay for space rockets is a good choice indeed.

60 Million! That's enough for 1000 tiles of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon%E2%80%93carbon]reinforced carbon carbon[/url]!

AUSTERITY

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38393777]60 Million! That's enough for 1000 tiles of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon%E2%80%93carbon]reinforced carbon carbon[/url]![/QUOTE] Nothing gets the blood pumping and the mind working like a tile of good old, reinforced Carbon-Carbon, no siree there's nothing quite like it.

Millions? C'mon, I wanted billions. When are we finding the aliens or the abandoned civilizations yet?

This is pretty great.

but they're decreasing scientific research funding as a whole

Really we should be spending billions. Space should become a key sector in our economy, because the problem with our economy is it is so incredibly centred around the service sector, we need to have other industries and the high tech ones are where we can have a massive advantage, especially with NASA's reduced funding. Maybe set up an UKSA with several billion as well as funding the ESA?

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;38394144]Really we should be spending billions. Space should become a key sector in our economy, because the problem with our economy is it is so incredibly centred around the service sector, we need to have other industries and the high tech ones are where we can have a massive advantage, especially with NASA's reduced funding. Maybe set up an UKSA with several billion as well as funding the ESA?[/QUOTE] I do believe multiple countries fun the ESA. Quite frankly the UK on it's own doesn't have enough money to spend billions on a space agency.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38394322]I do believe multiple countries fun the ESA. Quite frankly the UK on it's own doesn't have enough money to spend billions on a space agency.[/QUOTE] Not really, we developed a rocket in the 60s. Also, NASA has a budget of $17bn, which the UK could afford.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;38394358]Not really, we developed a rocket in the 60s. Also, NASA has a budget of £17bn, which the UK could afford.[/QUOTE] Nasa's budget should have a couple of zeroes on the end of that number IMO. We spend so much money on stupid bullshit and so little on things that actually benefit society it's sickening.

[QUOTE=TestECull;38394393]Nasa's budget should have a couple of zeroes on the end of that number IMO. We spend so much money on stupid bullshit and so little on things that actually benefit society it's sickening.[/QUOTE] The best part is that you get something like 10 times that amount of NASA in terms of the applications of their inventions and discoveries as well as raw cash and they do that with fuck all money. They need more cash just so we can see what sort of shit they would pull off with all the funding.

[QUOTE=TestECull;38394393]Nasa's budget should have a couple of zeroes on the end of that number IMO. We spend so much money on stupid bullshit and so little on things that actually benefit society it's sickening.[/QUOTE] Of course the US should be spending $170bn not $17bn but the point is the UK could afford a NASA sized space agency if we didn't let companies take a politician out to dinner and get off billions of pounds in taxes.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;38394358]Not really, we developed a rocket in the 60s. Also, NASA has a budget of £17bn, which the UK could afford.[/QUOTE] No, we really can't, we need money being put into our healthcare, benefits system, education and police force, far more than we need to being spent on useless space crap that can be done by private companies.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38394998]No, we really can't, we need money being put into our healthcare, benefits system, education and police force, far more than we need to being spent on useless space crap that can be done by private companies.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]useless space crap[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]NASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005... This means that each dollar of NASA spending creates $10 of benefit in the economy.[/QUOTE] Also, as I said above, if the Uk collected all of its tax without letting companies take politicians out to dinner in exchange for being let off taxes we could afford it.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;38395114]Also, as I said above, if the Uk collected all of its tax without letting companies take politicians out to dinner in exchange for being let off taxes we could afford it.[/QUOTE] We could, but it's better off going elsewhere.

Private business, when regulated by the government, will always do a far better job than any government-funded lab will. Not to say NASA and such can't do a great job, but you get a lot more for your money when you're dealing with the private sector.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38395138]We could, but it's better off going elsewhere.[/QUOTE] We pay for the space agency then use the funds we gain from that to pay for other things. If we put in £5bn, get out £50bn, tax that at 30% we get £15bn, £5bn to pay for the space agency and £10bn to the NHS/education.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;38395275]Private business, when regulated by the government, will always do a far better job than any government-funded lab will. Not to say NASA and such can't do a great job, but you get a lot more for your money when you're dealing with the private sector.[/QUOTE] Yea, Space X can go to space for a hell of a lot cheaper then NASA. Mostly since the rockets are re usable.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;38395275]Private business, when regulated by the government, will always do a far better job than any government-funded lab will. Not to say NASA and such can't do a great job, but you get a lot more for your money when you're dealing with the private sector.[/QUOTE] Research should be done regardless of private industry, waste should be dealt with not the idea. NASA contracts out you know, from rockets, to engines, to parts, and so forth. It's not just NASA [editline]10th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;38395477]Yea, Space X can go to space for a hell of a lot cheaper then NASA. Mostly since the rockets are re usable.[/QUOTE] NASA reuses rockets too.. That's part of it but that certainly isn't the reason why.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38394998]No, we really can't, we need money being put into our healthcare, benefits system, education and police force, far more than we need to being spent on useless space crap that can be done by private companies.[/QUOTE] The discoveries space exploration and space travel brings forth pay for themselves practically overnight. Having an active space program that's constantly flooding news broadcasts with wild, cool-as-hell discoveries and new manned launches to worlds unknown inspires schoolkids, gets them interested in science and learning instead of stabbing people in Asda parking lots. The technological advances required to do this stuff directly improves our daily life. Not only that, but there's a direct effect on the economy, an active space program creates jobs and pumps a lot of the money back into the private sector. These space programs contract out most of the building to private corporations...if I remember right Lockheed Martin does a lot of the rocket manufacture for NASA, and Boeing supplies an awful lot of stuff too. They've got contracts with most of the big electronics names for that sort of stuff, mirrors for space telescopes are made by private companies, shipping this shit around the world is done with contracts to private companies....the economical boost from a highly active, well funded space program is significant to say the least. There is no logical reason to oppose funding space programs. It's been proven time and again the deluge of benefits society gets from having an active space program is far far faaaaar more valuable than the raw money said space program requires to operate. Even if you personally don't care if Earth puts boots onto the moon the benefits you personally receive from that mission are nearly immeasurable. [QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;38395275]Private business, when regulated by the government, will always do a far better job than any government-funded lab will. Not to say NASA and such can't do a great job, but you get a lot more for your money when you're dealing with the private sector.[/QUOTE] When SpaceX is putting space tourists on the Moon I'll concede this point.

I dislike the conservatives for personal reasons for things they've done recently, but this is a step in the right direction. It's not a lot compared to them, but I'm happy that this has gone through. Nice one.

The Space Race was one of the best things to happen to modern technology, everyone worked together. Computers were improved, software was improved, engineering was improved, most industries did in fact benefit from the space race. Here's a great video that a lot of you will have seen, but really shows why space is so important! [video=youtube;mOkWh4PARQQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOkWh4PARQQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]