Human spaceflight is an essential part of both the US and Russian space programs. Many of you at this site apparently lament this. I have encountered numerous arguments along the lines of "If only all that money NASA wastes on human spaceflight could be directed to science." Redirecting that money to science would yield a lot of scientific research. Or would it? There is a lesson to be learned from the United Kingdom. Less than one percent (0.58%) of the US federal budget goes to NASA. Russia spends about the same percentage (0.64%) on its space agency. The UK is the sole member of the European Space Agency that explicitly bans governmental participation in human space flight activities. While the UK does satisfy the scientists demands to spend nothing on human spaceflight, the UK also spends next to nothing on robotic space activities. With no human spaceflight activities to buoy the science side of the space budget, funding for space activities (military and civil) in the UK is a miniscule 0.035% of Her Majesty's Treasury. The British National Space Centre recently released the report "http://www.dius.gov.uk/publications/UK_Civil_Space_Strategy.pdf" [Broken]". Per this report, the UK is reconsidering its ban on involvement in human spaceflight: In 1986, the UK chose not to participate in human space missions. The publication of the Global Exploration Strategy provides a suitable point in time to review this decision.