UK injects £88m into Euro bid to build Hubble-thrashing 'scope The UK will bung £88m towards the European Southern Observatory's £1bn project to build the world's largest telescope. The cash injection is on top of Blighty's annual £18m contribution to the ESO. Construction of the ground-based European Extremely Large Telescope is underway and is expected to take ten years to complete. We' …
Stuff like this creates jobs - that's why, not only for the construction of the site but each of the many tens of thousands of components it needs to operate and be maintained.
I agree. Europe, if it can be considered a single entity, needs more investment in science and research. This sort of funding goes some way towards that. Projects like the ESA missions, LHC at CERN do generate business (and I'm not talking about creating the www), and keep skilled Europeans employed.
Considering a whole generation of southern Europeans are losing out on skilled employment, this sort of project could help to improve that.
I'd rather see the money spent on this than on Tech City brats.
But why do we need skilled Europeans?
If we need anything high tech we can always buy it from China.
Britain should concentrate on valuable exports; Mr Bean, JK Rowling and X-pop-idol-factor.
Do you know that the ministry of silly walks receives less funding than the department of health, defence, agriculture etc...
I watched Ross Kemp in Afganistan last night. They were walking through a village, throwing granades into all the windows / doorways without knowing who was hiding inside first, meanwhile complaining that the locals were shooting at them. And I just had to wonder again; why are we there, doing that?
I am all for having a defence force, but I think of that for defence. Think of the money we'd have for productive purposes if we weren't using it for distructive ones.
> Stuff like this creates jobs
Actually it does *not*, because it will be paid by money hoovered up from the economy where said money would be used to buy TV sets, diapers, holidays in Spain, houses, swimming pools, hookers and coke. In other words, jobs may actually be *destroyed*.
You can argue that you funnel money into "more worthwhile developments" but unfortunately this is being done by the guns and badges of the state (in order that taxes may be collected) or even the printing press (hidden taxation by inflation), so a strong argument for amorality can be made.
But I don't care. FUND IT! BUILD IT!!
Ah, the weasely politician words: "defence spending", which is almost exclusively used to attack others.
George Orwell was right:
Ministry of Plenty = responsible for famine
Ministry of Truth = responsible for lies
Ministry of Love = responsible for hate
Ministry of Peace = responsible for war
Oh no... must not... can't... resist...
For the advancement of the human race as a whole, that's why. Worried about waste of money? £88m seems like good value for the potential benefits, compared to an Olympics at £15bn (lucky lucky London), HS2 for £30bn (to cut a journey time by 20 minutes), or data snooping for the rozzers at £3bn.
If a company makes people redundant it's often because the people are rubbish or the company as a whole is not making enough money. If a private company is not making enough money then its not the gov's fault or responsibility to subsidise the company (which it seems you are suggesting they do). The government should do its best to look after people who have no jobs, to keep the population healthy and well-educated (with projects like this). All of which it does to varying (although gradually decreasing) degrees.
I hate politicians and public sector inefficiency as much as anyone but £88m is nothing compared to the amounts that are normally thrown to the wind.
Price of telescope: 88m
Price of building the site using cheap local labour - 1m
Price of building the telescope high tech components - mirror, cameras, actuators, software, control etc (nearly all of it in Europe) - 87m.
Which part of this f*** equation do you fail to understand?
"Which part of this f*** equation do you fail to understand?"
This apparently immutable law applies just as directly to military spending, and therefore does nothing to justify frittering yet more millions that we don't have. By your logic, speeding fat Brummie councillors to meetings with DCLG in London at a cost (before overspends) of £18bn will be even better, because it "creates jobs", and invoilves high tech manufacturing of a few high speed trains and related infrastructure?
Unfortunately the cumulative UK public spending budget deficits for the past decade and a half have been a similar Keynesian approach to managing the economy, in the belief that you can improve things by creating jobs through stimulus. The banking sector and its customers tried a similar approach of spending what they jointly didn't have in pursuit of economic growth. In neither public nor private case has the outcome been succesful or led to growth, and the most indebted economies are those that now have the worst recessions/weakest growth. Conversely, the richest and most stable countries in Europe are those that didn't try and live beyond their means (Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway) and didn't fall for this Keynesian claptrap.
£88m is approx £1.39 per person in the UK. I'm quite happy to have £1.39 spent in my name on something that advances human knowledge thanks. Especially compared to the £10.28 we each lost when the Govt temporarily nationalised Northern Rock.
I always wonder what people who moan about money being spent on things think the money should be used for. Should we give each unemployed lay-about a few more notes so they can buy fags and booze? Or perhaps we should build nice big houses for single mums with kids from several absentee fathers?
Me? I'd spend the money on "science and stuff" because our species will benefit from it - it won't benefit from people who live their entire lives on benefits.
source of population at 63.2m: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/uk-population-estimate-revealed/uk-population-estimate-revealed-.html
source of the £650m loss in Northern Rock: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15769886
This post has been deleted by its author
Id much rather a telescopr built that stuff like the gov making train lines people dont want or spending tons on blocking torrent sites cos they dont understand how the internet works.
If you think about it the next logical step is to move to another planet, so we need to understand space pretty well. This planets been harvested, pillaged and raped of everything it has, not long now till the end.
Its a shame that kids arnt growing up with a interest in space and the ability to see impressive things to inspire them. However celebs and being thick for money seems to be much more interesting
You don't really have any notion of quite how vast a planet is, do you? Or how resilient and adaptive a species humankind actually is? Let alone an ecosystem that has survived cataclysms vastly more devastating than anything humans have ever managed. Even if the global warming pessimists are right and even if we hit peak oil and even if we have another brace of horrendously virulent pandemics, humans will still be here. The planet will still be here. There will even be a biosphere, though perhaps one a little different to that we can see today. Might not be much oil, mind you.
Not long til the end indeed. Bloody stupid sensationalist millenarian nonsense.
But when the next whacking great meteor slams into us, we're toast. Gone in the blink of an eye, a dusty little foot-note in the chapter of galactic history entitled "They could've been contenders".
But if we, as a species, manage to spread out even just a little - then there will be no stopping us.
Humans have been on this planet for a very very short time in relation to the planets existence and even the existence of life. (c.100k years vs 500m years for other developed animals)
While I agree with you, there are very few events that would result in the total loss of life on earth, the continued existence of any particular species is much less of a sure thing. There have been a number of mass extinctions (some scientists are of the opinion "we are overdue another one"). For such a self destructive species, I would not take our survival for granted.
So far we are less than blink of an eye in the face of existence on this plant, my guess is we'll remain so.
A little something that Intelligence and GCHQ are not going to shout about above the rooftops or into the underground, because it is so easily invisibly exported to whoever would think that it be needed to deliver them ....... well, absolute superiority in every field one is engaged in, is not an exaggeration whenever a definite factoid /guaranteed proposition........ http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/02/06/aquilla_urges_mckinnon_pardon_us/#c_1719323
No site, based n earth, can take better definition pictures than Hubble.
The big difference? Airborne pollution. And, as you might expect, it's getting worse and affecting all parts of the world.
Still, spending a pittance on this is better than making bombs and bullets to kill people, many of whom are innocent.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
