Goodbye Constellation, Hello...Nothing

This week, US President Barack Obama announced that he was cancelling NASA's Constellation project. Publicised under the George Bush Jr. administration, the Constellation project included the Orion programme, which was intended to replace the Space Shuttle. The reasons given for the cancellation were the significant investment yet lack of innovation. On the one hand, one can appreciate the frustration of the Obama administration; billions of dollars have been spent only for plans which echo 1960s technology and concepts. However, on the other hand, there is the argument that the technology and concepts employed in the 1960s were successful; they landed man on the moon after all.

After the lunar landings and the cancellation of the Apollo programme by the Reagan administration in the 1970s, further lunar exploration or settlement appeared to have been removed from the political agenda. Instead, the idea of recyclable spacecraft became popular, albeit spacecraft that could only travel within a certain distance of the earth. The Space Shuttle was never designed to travel to the Moon, let alone Mars. The Obama administration may complain that the Constellation programme was based on 1960s technology but nevertheless that technology was designed to travel to celestial bodies (specifically the Moon) and return safely, which is surely a more appropriate foundation for future programmes than recyclable spacecraft which are restricted to the Lower Earth Orbit (LEO). The concept of the Space Shuttle was ideal for the political ambitions of the time; the Moon had been 'conquered', insofar as it had been visited by man, ending the 'Space Race' and thus leaving no particular goals to be accomplished. Suggestions for Moon settlements proved too expensive to be worthwhile, hence there was little need for a spacecraft designed to facilitate travel to celestial bodies. From this, the Space Shuttle was born, allowing recyclable travel to LEO and back for the flexible deployment of orbital satellites.

With the cancellation of the Constellation programme, the Obama administration has confused matters slightly. On the one hand, it has increased NASA's budget by $6 billion per year, an increase which has been sorely needed ever since George Bush Jr. announced his desire for a manned mission to Mars, while on the other, one questions the message transmitted by the cancellation of a programme in which billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours have been invested. Orion may well have not been the most original programme ever but it was based on a functioning formula.

It is understandable that ventures to the Moon and Mars may not appear cost-effective to the Obama administration, though there is an argument that national pride and the spirit of scientific exploration are sufficient to justify such missions. Certainly these arguments appear to have been put forward by critics in the US Senate. The absence of a mission to the Moon aside, there is a significant issue with the cancellation of the Constellation programme in that nothing has been proposed to replace the Space Shuttle. Those behind proposed budget appear to hope that commercial interests in space exploration will be enough to help the development of future manned spacecraft. That is all very well but currently, the most advanced commercial spacecraft are those belonging to Virgin Galactic and are based on a similar concept to the Space Shuttle; short hops into orbit and back. Unless there is a significant incentive offered for commercial investors to work on developing future spacecraft, it seems doubtful that manned US spacecraft designed to travel past Higher Earth Orbit (HEO) will be seen any time soon. Celestial bodies are exempt from national appropriation under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, meaning that the commercial exploitation of those bodies is also debatable, therefore restricting the prospect of significant financial return for investors.

While the reasons for the cancellation of the Constellation programme may be understandable, NASA has been left in limbo. It has an increased budget but the Space Shuttle remains due to be replaced by the end of 2010, leaving NASA and the US without a spacecraft on the horizon, forcing them to rely on other countries for missions to the International Space Station for years to come, a dependence which some critics will undoubtedly perceive to be a national humiliation.

Hugo Chavez presents a worrying prospect for the future

Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, announced last Friday that Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, otherwise known as Carlos the Jackal and currently incarcerated in France having been found responsible for numerous murders and bombings, is a "revolutionary fighter" and has been "unfairly convicted". One really has to wonder about the intentions of Mr Chavez, especially since he allegedly also praised Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin, calling the latter a "patriot" and arguing that both had wrongly been portrayed as the "bad guys". For those unfamiliar with African history or current affairs, such praise is on a similar level to suggesting that Adolf Hitler was a great visionary for peace and reconciliation. 300,000 died during Amin's reign in Uganda, while Mugabe's policies and prejudices have led to economic catastrophe and famine in Zimbabwe, not to mention allegations of war crimes.

Many British and American newspapers have chosen to focus on Chavez's praise for Sanchez, though surely the more worrying prospect is that of a national leader prepared to suggest Amin and Mugabe are not 'bad'. Usually, labels such as 'good' and 'bad' are far too ambiguous to be used to describe the careers and policies of politicians, however I think it is fair to say that mass murder, famine, rape and economic failure on an unfathomable scale merit such generalisation. Chavez, it seems, has tried to defend the indefensible.

On the other hand, perhaps this is just a glimpse of the future. Josef Stalin is now revered by many despite the atrocities committed during his rule of the Soviet Union. If a man responsible for the deaths of millions can have his crimes blissfully forgotten by so many only 50 years after his death, who knows what will happen in a half century from now. Perhaps idealist university students and nationalists will be happily showing off grandiose posters of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe, portraying them to be heroes. The mere thought of those leaders being perceived in that manner is sickening but seeing as Stalin's crimes have been forgotten so easily by so many, there is an uncomfortable possibility that the thought may one day become reality. Chavez's speech, and others like it, only serve to help erase memories of the horrors of the past.

Van Rompuy's election goes to show that bigger isn't always better

Putting to one side the controversy surrounding the mere existence of a EU president, the election of Belgian Prime Minister Mr Van Rompuy is undoubtedly an intriguing one. Critics argue that Mr Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton, elected to the position of High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security, lack ambition. Even if they are not particularly ambitious, it can be argued that they will have ambition thrust upon them by their new responsibilities. Despite the various criticisms raised against Mr Van Rompuy, his election may well prevent potentially dangerous power struggles within the EU that may have resulted from the appointment of a strong political figure, supported by some but not all.

An interesting point raised by the BBC's Gavin Hewitt in his blog was that Angela Merkel believed Mr Van Rompuy to offer "consensus". Perhaps this was the main reason for his appointment. Critics may bemoan a lack of an established, strong leadership figure but it is questionable whether that was really what was required The furore around Tony Blair's candidature suggested that an established, 'strong' figure may be no more than a divisive hindrance to the EU. Mr Van Rompuy's relative anonymity within the minds and opinions of many observers could be one of the main reasons for his election, alongside his linguistic and mediation skills. It must also be remembered that Mr Van Rompuy has been the Belgian Prime Minister for nine months, which is an acceptable length of time considering the continuous political turmoil that has blighted the country over the past two years. He is by no means the novice some critics might portray him to be.

One could even go so far as to hope that this trend is continued with future EU Presidents. Though commentators such as Martin Kettle wish for a stronger political persona to eventually replace Mr Van Rompuy, it is possible that the political power and backgrounds of such figures may prove just as divisive as Tony Blair's candidature for this election. Consensus is the name of the game and as Chancellor Merkel pointed out, Mr Van Rompuy seems to have that covered.

Four eyes may be better than two but decision-making is still crucial

Today's UEFA Europa Cup football match between Fulham and AS Roma has raised an intriguing issue regarding the current trial of extra officials. The trial system itself involves an extra two refereeing officials being introduced, one standing next to each goal. The idea itself appears positive; another pair of eyes, possibly closer to the goalmouth action than the referee, and perhaps more importantly, another angle from which to analyse the situation. It is also hoped that these extra officials would have a close view of the goal line and thus would be able to provide a decision over whether a ball crossed the line or not. Essentially, the officials would be able to allow or reject debatable goals, like the 'hand of god' Maradona incident or Geoff Hurst's World Cup Final strike against Germany.

Unfortunately, an incident this evening has suggested that this novel approach may provide more problems than solutions. A penalty was awarded by Paul Allaerts of Belgium for a foul on AS Roma player John Arne Riise. The referee then proceeded to show a red card to Fulham's Brede Hangeland, claiming that the goal-line official had named him the culprit for the foul. However, replays showed that actually it was Stephen Kelly who had allegedly brought down Riise. Although the referee eventually changed his mind and sent off the right player, after, it seems, Kelly admitted to having been the offending party, the situation highlights a potential flaw in the concept of extra officials.

An extra pair of eyes is a brilliant idea. After all, the more points of view available, the more information ready to make an informed decision. It seems though that there is an issue over responsibility and accountability. It is all well the goal-line official seeing an offence but ultimately, the decision rests with the referee. If they have not seen the incident in question, how can they be completely sure that the decision they are making is the correct one? Trust is vital, though the incident today could be taken as a reason to doubt the relationship between the goal-line official and the referee. As Roy Hodgson commented post-match; Kelly was not last man (Hangeland was 'sent off' despite being in front of Riise when he fell) so surely the goal-line official's job is to inform the referee that it was not a sending off offence.

With decision-making like this, it is difficult to see how the extra officials are helping the game. Rather, they seem to be complicating it further and if anything, creating new targets for blame when poor decisions are made. The new officials were supposed to reduce controversy. Instead, on tonight's evidence, they are only serving to increase it.

Airport Security in the UK:

Hello, welcome to this blog. Now, I'm sorry to begin on a rather depressive and pessimistic note, but airport security is something that has been annoying me for months now.

The welcoming message for all flights into BAA airports should sound like this: Welcome to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you are entering the United Kingdom, please pass through Passport Control and Customs, where, if you are not illegally entering the country or carrying illicit items, you will be allowed to proceed. However, if you are travelling to another airport outside of the United Kingdom, prepare to be shouted at, groped and generally abused, all the name of 'security'.

I have travelled, in the last 12 months, through Heathrow on flights outside of the European continent. Numerous times on these trips, in the queue towards the x-ray scanners, I have been shouted at by people demanding me to remove all metal from my pockets and place any liquids either in bins or transparent plastic bags. The security measures themselves are not the issue. The shouting is. After a 12 hour flight, the last thing I wish to hear as an English speaker is someone incessantly bellowing in my ear about precautions I already know. I can only imagine the fear and distress such shouting might have on a non-English speaker.

I have seen a German woman, who obviously did not understand a word of English, shouted at multiple times by Heathrow BAA personnel demanding she take her necklace off. In the end, a member of BAA effectively grabbed hold of the offensive necklace, at which point the traveller understood that it had to go through the scanner. Is this really the image that the United Kingdom wishes to portray of itself? Security is extremely important, however some decorum is also important. An instruction can be shouted once, to ensure that all hear and understand it. However, after people in a queue have heard the same instruction fifteen times, they may begin to become restless. In many airports around the world, Las Vegas being an example, security instructions are displayed on TV screens. This seems a far less intrusive measure. Praise where praise is due, Manchester Airport for one has embraced such measures; its new Terminal 3 security area has TV screens displaying to travellers which items need to be placed in transparent bags and which need to be binned. Why have those running Heathrow, ostensibly the shining beacon of UK air travel, chosen to stick with the shouting of instructions that makes one feel like a prisoner rather than a paying customer?

The abusive, almost Neanderthal, approach undertaken by BAA staff at Heathrow borders on the unacceptable. Yes, security is important, however security does not necessitate loud voices and incessantly repeated instructions. In any other environment, such cattle-herding would be rejected by those being herded. I completely understand the need for x-ray machines and other security measures and airports. What I can not accept is the abusive behaviour of those in charge of the security measures. People, no matter what language, race, colour or creed, have feelings, sentiments and rights. Surely those rights should extend to not being shouted at for having paid to transfer through the United Kingdom?