johnm wrote:We never seem to be able to capitalise on our skills and ingenuity these days though. I guess it's the politics and the management that don't work well.
With regards to bloodhound having no commercial value, I'll stand corrected, but this venture wasn't about commercial exploration - any more than Hillary climbing Everest or Robin Knox Johnston single handedly circumnavigating the globe. It was about human spirit, pushing boundaries and inspiring the next generation by showing them what's possible when you put a dollop of innovation with bucket of
hard work and determination. People on this forum bang on about lack of STEM.... This was arguably the greatest platform created for STEM education in recent memory.
In terms of why we don't capitalise on our skills, I think it's a cultural thing. There is a large proportion of the British public that like to self flagellate just a little bit less than demeaning the efforts of others, especially if those efforts are extraordinary in any way. Failure isn't embraced for what it is.... The principle method of learning. Whilst we are busy hollowing out all perception of value in a project, people with a more optimistic disposition (historically Americans) see the value in the project and pick it up for a song (largely as a consequence of the value erosion exercise, and the demoralised state of people running the project)
matthew_w100 wrote:Is this thing actually innovative in any useful way?
Define "useful". Is attempting to inspire a generation "useful"? Innovation in this context is doing something no one has ever achieved before - the aim was "to break the 1000mph barrier", not "to create new engineering that is innovative in a useful way".
Arguably, the 25-50m required for the project is utter peanuts, especially in consideration of the potential benefits. Barely a rounding error when one considers the sums wasted on corporate inefficiency and hare brained education policies