London - Sydney in Four Hours: What the Media Missed

At the beginning of November, the papers were reporting that a plane capable to reaching Sydney, Australia from London, UK in just four hours. This was too exciting not to look into. So here's what happened.

The UK government recently promised £60million to Reaction Engines in order to build the Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine, also known as SABRE, a plane that can theoretically travel from London to Sydney in four hours. The hybrid engine will be able to function in both in space and within the Earth's atmosphere and can reach just under 4,000mph. Reaction Engines have been designing this for twenty years, so why is this big news? And what does it mean for the rest of us?

According to the media, a full ground based test is planned for 2020. This is good news. We'll probably have to add another decade onto that before we see them in public use. Even 15 years will fly by. This has great potential for global tourism and commerce, making those long gruelling 24-hour flights to Australia a thing of the past. Maybe.

Passenger Flights

When it comes to passenger flights, I suspect one of two things will happen:

Prices will be astronomically high, standard flight prices will be roughly the same.

This will be true if these new planes are only sold to a select few airliners. Reaction Engines is a British company, so it is possible that the UK will have a monopoly over this product and service, which would explain why the £60mil investment has been granted in a 'debt-ridden' country. 

Prices will be reasonably high, but will push standard flight prices down.

If Reaction Engines open their business to other countries, we should hopefully see competition and government policy keep prices reasonable. With such short journeys to anywhere in the world, every government of a developed country will want a piece of the action. Trade and tourism are major financiers of large cities, which are a huge proportion of the economy. 

Space Flight

Looking a bit further forward, here is a great opportunity for public space flight.

The hybrid engine brings commercial space flight that little bit closer. Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic has encountered a few pitfalls in its plan to get the public to space, with the original deadline passing 8 years ago. With governments paying attention and investing in this technology, I may theoretically be able to see the Earth from the Moon in my lifetime, though I doubt I'd be able to pay for it in my lifetime. 

Skepticism

Sounding too good to be true, I couldn't resist digging a little deeper to find that... actually, no-one beyond the media has mentioned space flight. In fact not much of the intention of this investment has been released at all. We all seem to be assuming that this will be used primarily as a tourism and therefore economical boost, but it seems the 'London to Sydney in four hours' statement it merely just a comparison showing how fast the place will be able to fly. So all of this excitement about boarding a UK flight in the morning and stepping off the plane in Australia in the afternoon may be for nothing. Reaction Engines are open about what they can achieve with this project, and on one news item on their site tells us that the UK are investing in order to 'investigate it's application for space access vehicles', so there is a shred of hope for public space flight. However, the same news item also shows us a red flag, something we should really be talking about rather than fantasizing about short flights down under.

BAE Systems invests over £20million in Reaction Engines

That's right, back in November, the giant Defence company BAE Systems invested £20.6million and agreed to a working collaboration in order to speed up development. Oh and they also now have a 20% stake in Reaction Engines. Take one look at the BAE Systems 'What We Do' page and tell me what this new technology will be used for. Services include: Design, manufacture, upgrade and support combat aircraft, land combat vehicles, ships, military electronics, oh and of course HR and IT. Looking at their website, it's hard to find any service that doesn't contain the word 'military'. Though under the 'Future Technologies' tab, we see the statement:

"Partnering with academic and industrial leaders we develop new technologies to support our future product strategies."

Future product strategies eh? Unless BAE Systems is planning on entering the commercial travel industry, I think we can put our 4-hour dream flights to Australia on the back burner.

History has taught us, unfortunately, that technological advances aren't always used for the good of everyone. I have yet to see a constructive use for nuclear weapons (though this article gives a few ideas). The military-industrial complex will inevitably have big plans for this technology. 

We can only hope for (and work towards) a day where military and security companies do not hold such influence over the technologies that come to pass.

To Bomb or not to Bomb

Two days ago the UK government carried out airstrikes on Daesh targets in Syria, sparking mass debate across Europe. With phrases like 'terrorist sympathiser', 'Iraq all over again' and 'Western hypocrisy' being banded around, this is an issue that has divided a nation. A survey conducted by Survation showed that 48% of people backed the decision, which is only a slight minority. So what are people saying?

Tory politicians and certain sections of the working class are both calling for action, arguing that inaction is a threat to security. We'll cover that later. People that lean against the airstrikes argue that thousands of innocent people will die as a result of the decision made in parliament. While Western governments claim that modern laser-guided missiles reduce civilian casualties, they aren't entirely sure how many targets have been killed, as they aren't any ground troops counting the dead. US estimates vary by source, so in actual fact, they do not know who they are killing, but yet they claim to be killing them more accurately. Innocents will die and while no-one is denying that, pro-war advocates unempathetically state it is necessary, caring not for the lives of the innocent. Either that or they have the grave prejudice that all Syrians are terrorists. Let's look at that.

Daesh is a Sunni Muslim extremist organisation, and 70% of the Syrian population is made up of Sunni Muslims, though not necessarily Daesh supporters. In fact latest estimates put the strength of Daesh at 200,000 soldiers. When compared with the 20 million citizens in Syria, that tells us that 1% of Syria is a Daesh militant. According to this statistic, it follows that for every thousand Daesh extremists killed, 99 thousand innocent lives will be lost. In reality this figure would of course be subject to many variables, but simplistically, a lot more innocents will die. A poll from the Pew Research Centre has shown that there is an overwhelmingly negative view of Daesh within their countries of operation. Considering that Daesh has support from a minority of people, a relentless attack on Syria by the western alliance is nothing short of genocide.

The less politically-aware pro-war supporters seem to be under the impression that Daesh has come out of no-where, a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud, but it's no secret that the US has been funding Daesh for years to destabilise middle eastern governments. Tony Blair even admitted that he believes that the Iraq war contributed to the rise of Daesh, in an interview recently. This is where the Western hypocrisy element comes in, for the same nations fighting extremism are the same ones that have fanned the flames that led to this inferno.

Far from watching events unfold from a distance, Western governments are an active contributor to the terror attacks.

Politicians congratulated each other and declared the UK a safer place now thanks to the decision, which is a declaration of ignorance more than anything. After the collateral damage that the bombs will inevitably cause, Daesh recruitment will sore as mentioned in my previous blog post (The Fake Passport: Theories and Ideas Surrounding the Recent Co-ordinated Terror Attacks), by giving the Daesh struggle legitimacy. The moderates won't be so moderate once their families are massacred by Tornado jets. When we consider the influx of Syrian refugees, it isn't hard to imagine that bombing Syria will make the UK a far more dangerous place. Ask yourself this, if the UK is now safer because the government bombed Syria, why is the current UK threat level 'severe'? The Survation survey mentioned earlier also showed that 59% of people believe that sending planes to Syria would increase the risk of a terrorist attack in the UK

Another question of note, where is all the money coming from? When the UK's debt is used as an excuse for the stifled NHS, why is this not a factor when considering acts of war? War is an expensive business, and while profit can be made it takes a big investment. It seems the UK government can magic up some funds when it comes to killing foreigners, but not to house it's own citizens and cover healthcare.

When it comes down to it, despite resistance from the public, including a Stop the War Coalition protest outside the debate at the House of Commons, the UK government have proved again that they will go to war as and when they please with or without consent of the public. In 2003 it was Labour with Iraq, now it is Conservative with Syria. Members of both parties voted for both wars, showing just how out of touch with each other these politicians are, let alone the public. That and the media's treatment of Jeremy Corbyn shows just how low this Demockery has stooped. With the mainstream media spreading fear on a daily basis, legitimising the decision for war, it's no wonder there are many people backing the decision. If Iraq is anything to go by however, public backing will only decline as the death and misery ensues. My thoughts are with the victims in Syria in their dark times.

Stop the War Coalition are holding a national demonstration. Click here for more details.