A recent report by a committee of the British Parliament recommends that the nation increase the size and scope of its space activities, although not necessarily in conjunction with the European Space Agency.

The report, titled "U.K. Space Policy", was released earlier this month by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry of the British Parliament, after a several-month review of current and planned space activities in the U.K.

One of the key recommendations of the report was a suggestion that Britain's space agency, the British National Space Centre (BNSC), get its own annual budget. Currently, the BNSC is funded by contributions from a number of other government agencies, rather than a single budget decided by Parliament.

"BNSC was set up as an ad hoc arrangement in 1985," the report noted. "It is now time to review the role, status, and organization of BNSC."

The committee recommended a public review of the BNSC that could lead to a separate budget for the BNSC. "This review should also consider the possibility of giving BNSC or its successor body its own budget, in addition to the existing budgets of BNSC's partners, in order to ensure that the U.K. space program reflects the long term public policy interests of the U.K."

In any case, the committee stated in its report that British space efforts should receive more funding. They noted that current civilian space funding -- about 181 million pounds (US$275 million) in 1999-2000 -- is not only a smaller fraction of the nation's gross domestic product than many other nations, including France, Germany, Canada, Japan, and the U.S., but is less in inflation-adjusted amounts than the mid-1990s.

"Unless it is suggested that funding has achieved an abnormally low rate of return," the committee concluded, "it is evident to us that if the U.K. is to play a significant role in global space activities, there will need to be an increase in the U.K. Government's expenditure on civil space over the next planning period."

The committee recommended that additional funds be used not just to extend current programs, but to develop new programs. As an example, the report referred to Beagle 2, the British-developed lander for ESA's Mars Express mission. The government did provide some funding for Beagle 2 last year, but project officials are still working to raise private funding for the full cost of the mission.

"Beagle 2 is an example of an innovative approach to funding and of a project which seems to have won funding despite, rather than because of, the system," the committee noted. "It would be a sad comment on the seriousness of the U.K. contribution to space science if the necessary funding could not be found. The project is entitled to expect Government support in finding ways to fill the funding gap which we understand has yet to be filled."

The committee also noted the U.K.'s lack of participation in launch vehicle development, be it work on the Ariane 5 or technology development of future reusable launch vehicles. "The general perception among all those involved is that the Government and BNSC are following a policy of no involvement in launchers," the committee concluded. "It is our strong impression that in BNSC there is a less than open mind on the case for Government assistance to launcher development."

While the committee recommended that Britain do more in space, it did not necessarily conclude it should do more with ESA, even though the U.K. is not generally perceived as a major player within the multinational space agency.

"Any withdrawal from ESA programmes would have serious detrimental consequences for the UK space industry," the committee recommended. "However, if the UK space budget is increased by a significant amount, careful consideration should be given as to whether this increase should redress the current balance of national as against ESA spend."

The committee's differences with ESA stem from the space agency's policy of "juste retour", where the number of contracts a participating nation receives from an ESA program is in proportion to the amount of funding that nation provides. While Britain has done well under juste retour, British officials argue that it is not the most efficient way to do business.

"We think that these things should be settled on the basis of who is the best person to do the work, rather than trying endlessly to balance exactly the amount coming back in work versus how much you put in," the report quoted Lord Sainsbury, British science minister.

While the U.K. does have a space policy, the committee concluded the policy only supports the status quo, and that the nation needs to do more related to space. "The latest space strategy document is admirable in many respects but limited in ambition. We hope that its successor will be able to announce something beyond a modest continuation of existing programs, and that the civil space program will be funded on a less cautious basis."

Home Page