UK space doesn't have to return to 'Year Zero'
We were waiting and wondering, and now we know. The new UK government coalition "believes in space".
That was the message from the man with the brief - new science minister David Willetts - after he emerged from his first UK Space Leadership Council meeting on Thursday.
If you've never heard of this group, that's perhaps not surprising: it was only set up in the final days of the last administration.
It was a product of the Space Innovation and Growth Team exercise last year that sought to define a 20-year strategy to develop the UK space industry.
The council is a collection of the "leading lights", and its remit is to drive the Space-IGT strategy forwards and advise government on how best it can help achieve the team's goals.
Thursday's gathering was only the second such meeting, and as science minister, Mr Willetts gets to be co-chair. He gave me a call afterwards and you can read a summary of our conversation here. In short, he wants to maintain momentum.
Many who met the previous science minister will attest that when it came to space, Lord Drayson had something of the "little boy in the sweet shop" approach to the subject. He was a big fan of space. From those in the space sector, there has been a great deal of anxiety these past few months about what a change in government would mean.
This wasn't a party-political thing: it was about the fear of stop-start, of having to re-engage and re-start conversations. David Willetts signalled to the council that he had no intention of returning to "Year Zero":
"Although he's from a different party, I began by paying tribute to Lord Drayson, because I think he was really committed on space; and I emphasised to the business people there that they shouldn't assume we've got to start all over again - if the previous government had done good things, I wasn't going to tear them up just for the sake of it. I thought some of the key reports, especially the Space Innovation and Growth Strategy, were a very good guide to action."
This is not too surprising. The last time I saw Mr Willetts before the general election was at the Surrey Space Centre in Guildford. I was heading out of the door having spoken to the scientists and engineers there about its activities; he was heading into the building to do the same thing. His constituency borders the satellite-manufacturing plant of EADS Astrium at Portsmouth and he's been there, too.
Of course, it's all now about delivery. Money will be an issue, as ever; UK governments of every colour have not invested in space at the same levels as the other major European states and the state of the public finances means that this situation is unlikely to change dramatically.
Mr Willetts said he was up-front about this to the Council members, but that he was encouraged by how much of what those members then wanted to talk about didn't involve spending money. This is an important observation.
If you look at the 16 recommendations of the Space-IGT, only a handful are wholly dependent on big money from government. Many simply require government to frame the environment. Some examples are:
• changing the regulations that would allow Virgin's SpaceShipTwo to launch from the UK and make this country a hub for space tourism
• allocating sufficient spectrum to satellite operators so that they can grow their services
• pooling existing government spending and committing that cash to support a privately-operated, indigenous, Earth-observation programme, along the lines of the Skynet military telecommunications project
A|D|S, the UK's AeroSpace, Defence and Security trade organisation, made this point when it issued "a manifesto for the British space sector" on the eve of the general election:
"Industry recognises that much of the investment to launch it on its path to growth will come from industry rather than from government. Private venture capital, resulting from government setting the right climate for such private investment, will take advantage of opportunities offered in commercial markets to meet future government requirements for end-to-end services."
Some aspirations, of course, are reliant on cash from Whitehall. The way the European Space Agency operates its "juste retour" principle of giving out industrial contracts in proportion to the money invested by national governments is a case in point. If you don't put money into some Esa projects, your industry is locked out of the game, no matter how good it is.
And Andy Green, the chief executive of Logica who chaired the Space-IGT, makes the point:
"Where the government does decide to intervene financially and otherwise, the emphasis should be on growing sectors."
All this concerns industry; as my astronomy friends like to ask me: "What about 'space science', Jonathan?" Most of the space science in the UK is directed through the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) which has struggled to get to grips with its brief following its creation out of the merger between the old Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) with the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC).
Matters for them have not been helped by a fall in the value of the pound which has inflated subscriptions to organisations like Esa and put a squeeze on grants. Mr Willetts told me he has the STFC on his agenda and he will be getting round to all of the research councils in due time.
One issue which seems to be close to resolution is the UK funding of certain major international space missions. I blogged about this back in February.
Because of its financial position, the STFC was looking to make a "managed withdrawal" from its operational commitment to the Saturn probe Cassini. Other ventures affected similarly included the Sun-Earth system missions Cluster and Soho, Venus Express and the X-ray telescope XMM-Newton.
It now looks as though the European Space Agency is going to step in and pick up some of these costs. That's not confirmed yet, but it's looking that way.
Anyway, if you have thoughts on what the priorities should be for Mr Willetts, the UK space industry and UK space science - fill the void below.
I’m 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~07~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This is, of course, very good news on paper. From an industrial perspective, we have had so many false dawns that we are tired of watching the sunrise.
The UK has a great deal to offer the global space market. In all sectors: through academia, institution, system provider and small business; we have fought above our weight for many years, in spite of diminishing national support and it is a hope that this trend can be reversed.
Sadly, we have lost our indigenous industrial heavy-hitter, but the remaining UK SME's are enthusiastic, willing and able to meet many of the national 'visions' put forward by the SIG. But will they be invited?
Maybe its not too late. But how many times have we said that?
Complain about this comment
Wait a minute - to read this article, it sounds like one sensible guy who cares about space has just been replaced by another sensible guy who likes space. Can our politicians be on the verge of getting something right?!
I've got my fingers crossed that if Willetts really does intelligently build on the efforts of his predecessor, then UK Space can undergo a bit of a renaissance - however little money they have to play with.
Complain about this comment
It is important that a leading country such as the UK be actively involved, and contributing to space research and exploration. Advances in technology, and discoveries made in outer space could solve in the long term many of our problems.
Complain about this comment
Careful what you wish for UK!
New space agencies and space friendly ministers sound good in practice but if they lead to more state control over space activity then how do they enhace competitiviness and create high technology jobs? Historically, the UK space sector has done rather well on the meager resources channelled by central government. My childhood space books talk of space stations on the moon and mars and the complete exploration of the solar system by 2010—where have we gone wrong? The fault does not appear to lie in a lack of public will or in an absence of technological competance, but rather in the way large beurcratic agencies have sprung up to "manage" space endevours. If the state controlled the manufacture of computers or the development of IT technology then would I be writing this email?
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry: 'the last administration'? This is not the United States -- at least, not yet. We don't have an Administration. We have a Government.
We may be Airstrip One, but can we try to manage at least some semblance of self-respect?
Aside from that, yes, getting the UK back into the space game will be a good thing.
Complain about this comment
All this sounds good, but is a little vague. I would prefer a more specific sense of direction.
The two largest future growth areas which I can see are personal space exploration (space tourism) and space solar power. Both are critically dependent upon much reduced cost to orbit and much improved frequency and reliability of launches. Britain is a world leader in the race to develop truly reusable and affordable spaceplanes that can do that, and govt support for our spaceplane companies in getting their products to the global marketplace must be our number one priority. I don't see any mention of this above.
The cost of everything that we do in space is dominated by the currently anomalously high cost of getting there. Vehicle development is therefore critical to any future for us in space!
Stephen
Oxford
Complain about this comment
"I personally would love to see Virgin Galactic being launched from the UK," Mr Willetts said.
"There are a lot of challenges in making that happen, but I think it would be a great pity if we missed out and I want to try to make it happen."
What are the challenges Mr.Willets speaks of?
Do we need more legislation? If so, can he direct somebody to draft it?
Does a council have to be formed to coordinate this? Can this be done within existing structures set up as a result of the IGT report?
Virgin reportedly met with the MOD to discuss this. Does Mr.Willets have to coordinate this with Liam Fox who can direct the relevant RAF sites to instigate the process of allowing space tourism?
At the very least, the RAF could allow a test flight from one of their bases. They have stated an interest in mini-launchers in the past.
The USA has the USAF with a space division, NASA and DARPA which have all collaborated to produce the X37 (I think) "orbital test vehicle".
Britain has neither a space division of the RAF to my knowledge and does not have a DARPA equivalent although could make better use of Qinetiq, BAe arguably.
Also, the LibDems have pushed for value for money on Trident. Can they not make sure that the vast amounts of money already invested as well as the future investments are overseen for spin-offs? For example, the UK has full access to a launch technology in Trident - it seems unbelievable that this can't be exploited for wider economic and social gain.
It's good David Willets is interested, he's been commended for being very intelligent in the past and I hope he can commit his talents to coordinating progress on space given the vast potential the UK has in universities, aerospace industry and defence.
Complain about this comment
All well & good...
However we DID have a flegling space program, where we actually designed & built our OWN launch systems (rockets) AND put our own test satellites into Orbit. That all ended in the early 70's
(Look up Black Arrow on wikipedia)
Pathetically, to date, we are the ONLY developed nation in the world, to CANCEL it's own 'in-house' space program, after demonstrating the ability to have one.
Typical near sited politics!
Out of interest, as of 2006, after BAE Systems sold it's shares in Airbus, our once world leading civil aviation industry came to an end as well. We now no longer have ANY home grown (owned), CIVIL aircraft industry in this country. (Yes, we still build parts for Airbus, Bombardier etc, but we don't have any 'ownership' in it...)
Even the Farnborough F1 Kestrel, a modest 6 seat, but rather nice, single engined turboprop that was being designed here, has had to relocate off-shore due to lack of interest by UK based investors.
Makes you proud to be British ... NOT!
Complain about this comment
If I sound bitter here then it’s because I am. I wanted to work in the UK space industry but bloody Wilson and his low IQ Labour government had trashed it before I could get there!
If the 1960s Labour government had not killed of the UK's successful rocket groups (Blue Streak, Black Knight, Black Arrow etc.) such that we finally sold off the technology that powers today's French Ariane project for a song, we might perhaps also have saved our basic micro-electronics and computer industries that relied so heavily on those projects.
We were utter mugs to give up our lead over everyone except the US and Russia and Wilson’s consummate stupidity in abandoning high technology still impacts costly decisions like Trident today – we should have been selling such systems not buying them!
Our own projects during the period all vanished because Labour just did not understand the long-term issues and hated the well-educated scientists and engineers running them. Wilson et al ploughed cash into 'Sociology’ graduates instead to produce the social cohesion disaster we all suffer from today.
So, we started the 1970s with no real hope for an advanced engineering future and only the already dying embers of a socialist riddled downstream mass production sector for comfort. Hah!
Trying to pick up bits here and there now cannot recover the minimum critical mass we need to become a player again in the aerospace / defence / micro-electronics sectors that still drive US growth 40 years on. No iPad without a Launch Pad!
To restart a UK advanced science and engineering sector now will require massive and sustained long-term investment to get beyond niche boutique markets like space tourism.
I think its way too late but hope I am wrong.
Complain about this comment
I worked on rockets in he '70s and later on satellites. We had to take our satellites to Germany to get them environmentally tested because the UK didn't have the facilities. IABG in Germany was financed by the German Government to about 50% and the remaining 50% of their budget had to be found by outsourcing testing to cars, aircraft et al. (For example BMW cars were tested there). In the UK all the taxpayers money went into DRA, later DERA and subsequently Qinetic (now a public company) and DSTL. There was very little cross-fertilisation and hence cost-saving of these hughly expensive facilities. Pity, but then our government never really understood high tech development or manufacturing, nor the long term financial benefits which the French (with Ariane) and the Germans had grasped.
Complain about this comment
The news that the UK wanted to make a managed withdraw from certain projects sent - and is still sending - shockwaves through ESA, in part because pulling the plug on a UK-supported instrument can make several others that depend on it, inviable. ESA has been surprisingly supportive, in part because the UK has not been getting as much juste retour as its contributions merited. There is though, undoubtedly, also a sense that the UK is now getting serious about ESA and space in general.
Obviously I welcome the intention to do more in space, although some of my colleagues ask me what exactly the UK Space Agency has done and what it is for. Any thoughts (particularly on the first question, the second one has a more obvious answer)?
Complain about this comment
Useful article Jonathan. Gives one hope that the current Minister 'gets space.' (To paraphrase John Holdren.) Alas we must tread water in the current economic climate. Two essential technologies that we must retain and develop: Ion thrusters and PhotoVoltaic Cells. If Britain can maintain its leadership in the former and regain its pre-eminence in the latter then there is a nice little earner. TIE Freighter! A cheap reusable Cargo Tug will be of great utility if the next frontier will be NEO as Obama's budget indicates.
Naturally Reaction Engines need maximum support as if that pays off the effect will be revolutionary. Hopefully HMG will have learned from the Whittle debacle.
Meanwhile keep plugging away on the outreach! If I may be so bold I would suggest a piece on JAXA's IKAROS (fingers crossed) with a tie in to CubeSail.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/dod-space-junk-tipping-point-collision-could-set-catastrophic-chain-reaction
Refers. (And no mention of Kessler Syndrome... how quickly they forget!)
Complain about this comment
Jonathan Amos.
"Money will be an issue, as ever; UK governments of every colour have not invested in space at the same levels as the other major European states and the state of the public finances means that this situation is unlikely to change dramatically."
last year, the government couldn't (wouldn't?) find the measly £2.5m to continue financing CLOVER, this year they're 'investing' over £2m in a visitor center!
whether or not the "new UK government coalition "believes in space"" doesn't matter, it would seem they aren't any smarter than the previous government.
Complain about this comment
#13, When money is tight PR work is usually the first to go. NASA though goes the opposite way: when money is tight PR is even more important to ensure that you get your message across that you are worth a share of the decreasing pot.
One of the biggest complaints that you will hear about ESA is that it is not agressive enough at getting it message across. It does amazing things, but the public barely hears about them. Getting public money is not a right: you have to get your message across that you deserve it, something that seems distasteful to the average UK scientist.
Complain about this comment
So is the UK getting serious on space? from the looks of this definitely not. I hate to point it out but space is expensive, for a serious effort we need to see an investment of 10 to 20 billion anything less and we will still be Micky Mouse. To me that seems pretty cheap compared to the 30 billion a year spent on a pointless war or the money spent on Trident effectively a rocket capacity we pay for but will never use.
I actually have a radical solution to fix things. Space has always lost to funding for war, that is the only reason we didn't get all those dreams of the 50's and 60's. Just imagine half of that 700 billion America wasted destroying Iraq used in space. My solution isn't to end war (that would be impossible) but to undo the ban on military space research as this will allow a flood of money in for all space tech. This might sound evil but I believe it is the ban on military space applications that has actually put such a stranglehold on on all space funding.
Complain about this comment
I don't think America subscribes to a ban on militarisation of space. They have the prompt global strike and X37 in development.
The UK doesn't have long range airpower of any kind as far as I know now that the V-Force is long since retired although there were reports of long range drones being developed.
I agree though, Blue Streak etc came about through a perceived military need and generated great advances so it seems imperative for Liam Fox to encourage the MOD's interest and collaboration in spaceplanes, launchers, hypersonic propulsion etc. UKSA was designed to have some coordinating role with the MOD wasn't it?
Complain about this comment
@Andrew2070. From page 66 of the Sapce-IGT report: "The Outer Space Act needs to be reformed. The new Agency needs to end the insurance-based regime, which deters all UK launch service initiatives. One result of this is a possibility that we will deter Space tourism operators from developing UK launch locations because the outer Space Act requires operators to provide the UK Government with an unlimited indemnity
against damages resulting from an accident and provide £100 million insurance cover. This is a potentially important consideration as the technology used for Space tourism could provide the basis for launching small satellites into low Earth Orbit, a potentially lucrative niche market where launch capacity could become scarce. We recommend that the Government sets a clear timetable of no later than the end of 2010 to resolve the issues around launching from suitable UK locations based on the current discussions between BNSC and the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority)."
It's not the only issue, but it is a significant one.
@jr4412. The withdrawal from CLOVER was a major disappointment. Gravitational waves are the next great breakthrough, I'm sure of that.
@brobof & @Stephen: I can feel a Skylon update coming on. It's about a year since I did it in this blog; and we're about a year away from their big technology demo. The D1 redesign is progressing, also.
Complain about this comment
All I want is a moon somewhere,
Far away from the dirty air,
To fly my car somewhere,
Oh wouldn't it be lovely.
Complain about this comment
Space....
...the Tories
.....and the UK
The problem with two-brains is that there appears to be a massive space (void) between his ears. He apparently does not understand that all of these things cost MONEY and we haven't got any left - indeed we will spend the next generation paying back the excess debts that we accumulated during the last decade or so.
Furthermore there is the moral and ethical problem of pandering to the uber-wealthy at the expense of the poor. Every individual needs to be given a personal energy budget and when, on this basis, any space activity can be justified then and only then should it be attempted or allowed. But as the Tories are totally enthral to the uber-wealthy I expect that they will spend the tax pounds of the poor on this absurdly inefficient activity. Indeed even to mention this as an aim demonstrates just how unreformed the Tory party remains. The Tories need to live in the real World. The only way that the UK can be part of a space race, that even the USA cannot afford is by joining in global and European activities. Two brains is a plonker!
Complain about this comment
# 19, John_from_Hendon wrote:
".... The Tories need to live in the real World. The only way that the UK can be part of a space race, that even the USA cannot afford is by joining in global and European activities. Two brains is a plonker!"
Talk about 'plonkers', the UK is spending over 30 billion a year on a totally pointless war that could go on for decades, the US is spending over 100 billion a year. The whole of NASA costs less than 20 billion a year - so we could afford the whole of NASA for less than the money we're currently flushing down the Afghanistan toilet.
It has to be pointed out that unlike interminable internecine wars space research has a history of big payoffs. We wouldn't have home computers or the internet without space research, we wouldn't have much science or things like the environmental data that underpins modern climate research. More importantly what about curiosity or the desire for exploration or the simple furtherance of science and truth?
/rant
Maybe you are simply a robot with no soul, you certainly seem very obsessed with money. I hate the old Tories but can you say Nulabour or the 'Liberals' are any better? They all chose for Britain to live and die by the sword of capitalism. Like Michael Moore said 'capitalism is evil', the only way to win is to accept that we live by evil - no money is ever truly clean. Deal with it.
/end rant
Complain about this comment
Thanks Jonathan. Of course, if the state had some defence need then we know it would and could proceed immediately as it did in the 1950s-1970s.
Complain about this comment
Robert Lucien #20.
"Talk about 'plonkers', the UK is spending over 30 billion a year on a totally pointless war that could go on for decades, the US is spending over 100 billion a year."
in 2008 total global military expenditure was $1464bn; that's our governments spending $228 approx. per person per year on killing, maiming and controlling us. sickening.
Complain about this comment
#20 and #22
Guys get real - No-one will stop military spending or divert it into space. (unless there is a threat of an alien invasion from space, or an asteroid, of course.) You both write as though we can flip a switch and live in a different world. Sorry lads, we can't.
There is the whole infrastructure of the Military Industrial Complex that needs military spending so that it can corrupt the officials of other regimes, some exceptionally unsavoury, just to keep a few hundred people in work. I agree that it is sickening, but it is, if not unchangeable, then very very slow to change. It can't even stop itself buying the weapons to fight the war before last! It makes absolutely dire decisions, but it exists, and that are a huge number of bureaucrats whose whole life has been part of the system. And yes, it is all about money, and Two Brains hasn't got any! Both of you criticise me for concentrating on it yet you do so even more than I do!
Complain about this comment
My point is simply that no one who is spending 30 billion a year on a pointless war can then go and turn around and say they don't have a few billion a year left over for things like space. It isn't just space its all research, as other countries are increasing the amount they spend on science and engineering we are cutting back. Just watch the next generation of reactors and big projects here get built by French and German engineers.. we were once a world leader in nuclear and space tech.
I used to think it was a heap of conspiracies but it isn't- most British politicians don't have the imagination or intelligence to organize a conspiracy- or even a small shop. :) Like NASA upper management. ;)
Complain about this comment
Paul J Weighell wrote:
"Trying to pick up bits here and there now cannot recover the minimum critical mass we need to become a player again in the aerospace / defence / micro-electronics sectors that still drive US growth 40 years on. No iPad without a Launch Pad!"
Come again??
How did UK "micro-electronics sectors" "drive" Intel, Texas Instruments, Motorola, IBM, AMD, Apple, Dell, Gateway, Cisco, Sun, Oracle, etc, etc, etc, and all the other American companies to dominate high tech?
How did they "drive" the creation and the production of the most advanced spacecraft and aircraft in the world, that also happen to be American, and all the companies that make them possible?
Showing some British pride is all well and good but you are really stretching far for something to hold on to.
Complain about this comment
Robert Lucien wrote:
"I used to think it was a heap of conspiracies but it isn't- most British politicians don't have the imagination or intelligence to organize a conspiracy- or even a small shop. :) Like NASA upper management. ;)"
You mean the same "Nasa upper management" that has overseen the most successful and advanced space agency in the world?
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon wrote:
"The only way that the UK can be part of a space race, that even the USA cannot afford is by joining in global and European activities. Two brains is a plonker!"
Translated that means we want access to America's technology, expertise, control and glory because it is in fact we who can not do it alone, not the Americans. :)
I say America should do everything on its own when possible. Why should it support other country's space agency and ambitions?
Complain about this comment
AllenT2 I was referring to that NASA upper management that failed to have a replacement for the Shuttle ready despite the fact that they have known it had a limited lifespan for at least 15-25 years. The upper management I am specifically referring to was one George W Bush the man who cancelled that replacement in 2001.
Its not just Bush though, every new president gets to play space cowboy right back to JFK who was actually as bad as any.(men might have been on Mars before 1980 if it wasn't for JFK) Remember Obama? just cancelled Constellation? that threw away another 5 to 10 billion, I suppose thats nothing compared to the 700 billion spent in Iraq. :)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS