GOVERNMENT SUPPORT & REGULATION
328. We have heard several arguments that the Government
should be supporting this fledging industry by providing seed-corn
funding for the development of new spacecraft, by providing support
for the establishment of space ports and by creating a favourable
regulatory environment. Dr Patrick Collins from Space Future Consulting
argued that the DTI should have provided seed-corn funding for
developments in this area. He emphasised that "Suborbital
flight is a very straight forward low cost investment" and
said that "If the DTI is sincere in saying they wish to encourage
the maximum commercial development of space, which is what it
is, they should invest in this".[629]
Virgin Galactic told us that "The UK should encourage private
sector investment in space activities through commercial incentives,
possibly through monetary and fiscal policy".[630]
It also suggested that the Government "invest in Public-Private-Partnership
type arrangements for basic infrastructures, such as space ports,
that can be shared with the private sector for commercial activities".[631]
The state of New Mexico provided assistance for the development
of a space port in the Mojave desert and Will Whitehorn suggested
that there was potential for creating space ports in the UK at
Lossiemouth or St Mawgan if there was a suitable financial and
regulatory climate.[632]
329. The development of a robust regulatory framework
is essential for the space tourism industry. Gates and Partners
said that "a number of technological, operational and legal
hurdles need to be addressed to support this nascent industry."[633]
Will Whitehorn, President of Virgin Galactic, told us that "The
role for government in our project is quite simple. We need to
have a legislative background in the UK which would allow this
type of commercial flight to take place here or we will lose a
massive opportunity."[634]
He explained further that Virgin Galactic would like to operate
in the UK but there is no regulation governing this area or a
responsible regulatory body. He further told us that "we
need to look at some enabling legislation through Parliament to
make sure that we can do what we do, otherwise we will have to
do it under military licence through the MoD in some way".[635]
Dr Collins from Space Future Consulting agreed that we need new
legislation.[636]
330. The Outer Space Act 1986 does not define the
start of outer space and does not distinguish between orbital
and sub-orbital space. There has recently been legislation in
the United States to enable Virgin Galactic to operate in the
Mojave desert. On 23 December 2004, the Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act (CSLAA) 2004 was passed. The Act facilitates the
'development of the emerging commercial human
space flight industry' by expressly authorising the licensing
of manual re-usable launch vehicles, extending the liability indemnification
regime for commercial human space flight and establishing a new
system for experimental re-usable suborbital rockets.[637]
The Act created an Office of Commercial Space Transportation
under the auspices of the US Federal Aviation Administration that
is responsible for regulating the industry. Even though the US
is leading the world in this area, it is unclear whether its new
legislation will be sufficient. Gates and Partners told us that
"Neither the international nor UK domestic existing legislation
provides an adequate framework for dealing with space tourism
and, even in the US, where legislation has been enacted in response
to the developing industry many issues are not yet fully developed
or resolved."[638]
331. It is worth noting that the beneficial regulatory
regime is not the only reason that Virgin Galactic is concentrating
upon operating in the US. The technology used in SpaceShipTwo
is US-based and therefore governed by export control regulations,
specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. In
order to provide a favourable environment for Virgin Galactic
to operate in the UK, the Government would also need to work with
the US to ensure a workable export control regime. Virgin Galactic
asserts that "export control regulations must not present
an unnecessary and/or insurmountable barrier to commercial progress
in the space sector."[639]
332. The DTI pursued a policy of non-financial support
for the space tourism industry. It stated that:
Commercial led new markets are emerging in which
the role of the DTI is to facilitate through legislation and standards,
rather than intervene directly. Space Tourism is potentially a
highly visible example and the UK is well placed to become a major
player. BNSC, through DTI will need to contribute with other interested
bodies, to the development of an appropriate regulatory framework.[640]
333. The DTI's consultation on regulation was expected
to cover the space tourism sector (paragraph 171). The BNSC has
aided the creation of networks in this area by supporting a conference
on space tourism in 2006 and a symposium in 2005. Despite the
BNSC's enthusiasm at such events, we note that there is no explicit
mention of space tourism in the consultation on the forthcoming
space strategy. This omission was reflected in the then Minister's
view. He told us that "I think our role, in terms of BNSC
and as Government, is not to encourage or discourage, it is to
help facilitate in terms of advice and the regulatory framework."[641]
He said that in terms of space "of all the things I am excited
about space tourism is not at the top of my list."[642]
334. We are excited by the potential afforded
by sub-orbital travel and the rise of the space tourism industry.
We do not believe that it is the responsibility of Government
to fund this work but developments in this area should be encouraged
through appropriate regulation. The BNSC should use its consultation
on regulation to discuss the establishment of a regulatory framework
and responsible body with the relevant authorities. We recommend
that the Government continues its policy of non-financial support
to the space tourism industry and that it outline the developing
nature of that support in the forthcoming space strategy.
Launchers
335. A launcher is a vehicle used to carry satellite,
space probes and/or elements of space stations into space. Launchers
also protect payloads during lift off and during the critical
stage of leaving the Earth's atmosphere. In the 1950s, the UK
was involved in developing several launchers such as the Blue
Streak and Black Knight, initially for military purposes. Black
Knight delivered a satellite to low orbit and Blue Streak became
the first stage of the European ELDO launcher. With a French second
stage and a German third stage the project never achieved real
political stability. Although the UK first stage always worked,
the ELDO launcher itself was never successful in delivering payload
to orbit and was eventually cancelled. The European focus then
moved to the Ariane programme and, after this disappointing period
of rocket development, the UK took a decision not to participate,
leaving the initial development to others and waiting for a launcher
market to develop. More recently, in the late 1980s, new technologies
were proposed for lower cost launcher systems but the UK Government
again decided not to fund launchers to a significant degree.
336. The Trade and Industry Committee considered
the Government's approach to launchers in its report on civil
space policy in 2000. It concluded that "The general perception
among all those involved is that the Government and BNSC are following
a policy of no involvement in launchers. It is our strong impression
that in BNSC there is a less than open mind on the case for Government
assistance to launcher development."[643]
The Government response stated that "Ministers continue to
have an open mind on this issue [
] For the moment, however,
it is the Government's view that current proposals for the development
of new launchers are heavily dependent on public money and could
not be contained within realistic resources in the UK."[644]
337. The Government currently maintains a small subscription
to the ESA's launcher programme, Ariane, which has been running
since 1974. The DTI was responsible for the "token"
subscription to the Ariane programme that benefited UK industry
due to juste retour. [645]
The Director General of ESA, Jean-Jacques Dordain told us that
"In my view, on Ariane 5 you are getting more than you are
investing. This is one of the examples where you are over-returned
on Ariane because we need some pieces from the UK which do not
exist anywhere else in Europe".[646]
338. There is still keen interest in launchers in
the UK. We have been told that the UK should have built upon its
strengths in developing launchers and maintained its industrial
capability in this area. Dr David Tsiklauri from the University
of Salford argued that "The absence of space vehicle launching
capability and necessary technology in UK's space programme significantly
reduced our country's competitiveness in the global market."[647]
There is also an argument that access to space is going to become
increasingly important and the UK will be dependent upon other
nations as usage in this area expands. Andrew Weston from the
University of Warwick predicted that "Re-establishing a national
launch capacity in some form is [
] likely to provide economic
gain and to provide a legacy of capabilities in an area that is
only set to increase in usage in the future."[648]
339. It seems unlikely that the Government will change
its position on launchers. The consultation on the forthcoming
space strategy states that the "UK believes there is an adequate
market capable of ensuring access to space for the UK and hence
support for launchers is minimal."[649]
Views have not been specifically sought on this statement in the
consultation and Dr David Williams, Director General of BNSC,
told us that "It is difficult at this stage to say that there
will be a dramatic change and that we will go back into launches".[650]
The then Minister Malcolm Wicks MP said that "If the situation
changed then there may be a public policy case, there might be
a commercial market, for developing launcher facilities but we
do not see that as priority at the moment."[651]
340. The Government's current position relies upon
a healthy market for launchers and we explored this idea further
in oral evidence. Dr David Williams told us that:
I think the market for launches has opened up
enormously since the UK decided not to go major into launches
[
] we now have the Russian market opening up, the Chinese
launchers, the Japanese, Indian launchers and the American launchers
as well as the European, so the launcher market has a large market
available. At the present time, I would say we can buy off the
market rather than go back into development.[652]
Professor Mason agreed, saying that "In the
very near future we will find a very healthy market for our needs".[653]
The then Minister also supported these views, saying that "we
have found no problems in Britain in actually launching satellites
into space; either through the Americans or the Europeans or using
Russian launchers; there seems to be quite a healthy market, as
I understand it, in launchers."[654]
Jean-Jacques Dordain, Director General of ESA, however, advised
caution, saying that "I am not too sure that we can find
a launcher anywhere any time on the market."[655]
He said that US, Japanese and Chinese launchers were not currently
on the market and that US export controls could cause problems
because many satellites and launchers relied on US components.
Dr Williams acknowledged that "there is a short-term problem
[
] a certain sea launcher has failed, as a result future
orders have switched to other launchers and, as a result, the
launcher market is sold out [
] the market is currently saturated."[656]
341. The MoD indicated that it is willing to explore
the idea of an indigenous UK launch capability, and this highlights
the difference between civil and military drivers for investment
in space. The MoD appears concerned that the UK should have guaranteed
access to a launcher, particularly if it is likely to be reliant
upon small satellites in the future. It "would welcome the
opportunity to contribute to debates on the need for an indigenous
UK space launch capability".[657]
Air Vice-Marshal Chris Moran, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff,
explained that "we do not have a firm plan to be involved
in a launcher but we would very much like to explore a dialogue
with industry, and others, to see how we could develop a low-cost
launcher system
We do see the benefits of a potential, low-cost
launcher to help support a low-cost small satellite."[658]
Dr Stuart Eves, an industry expert, believed that it is necessary
for the UK to consider the issue of access to space because "if
the UK is to participate effectively in the "Responsive Space"
future which the US envisages, an indigenous launch capability
would make a huge difference."[659]
342. We share the BNSC's belief that in the development
of launchers the "market" will provide. But there should
be no "in principle" block on funding the development
of launchers in the future. We recommend that the MoD and DIUS
discuss whether a seed-corn funding exercise or prize might be
developed in the future to provide an incentive for the development
of a low cost small satellite launcher.
515 Q 571 Back
516
Q 179 Back
517
BNSC, UK Space Strategy 2003-2006 and beyond, p 20. Back
518
Science and Technology Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2003--04,
Government support for Beagle 2, HC 711, p 59-62 Back
519
"UK joins next stage of European preparatory space exploration
programme- Aurora", PPARC Press Release,30 September 2004 Back
520
"The UK supports major advances in space", DTI Press
Release, 6 December 2005 Back
521
Q 652 Back
522
'Transparency: the promise of a man who tried for absolute zero',
Research Fortnight, 12 October 2005 Back
523
BNSC, Qi3, Abotts Knowledge Transfer from Space Exploration: Prospects
and Challenges for the UK, April 2005 Back
524
As above, p 3 Back
525
"President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration",
White House Press Release, 14 January 2004, www.whitehouse.gov
Back
526
"NASA unveils Global Exploration Strategy and Lunar Architecture",
NASA Press Relesase, 4 December 2006 Back
527
NASA & BNSC, Joint Statement of Intent, www.bnsc.gov.uk Back
528
Ev 404 Back
529
Ev 406 Back
530
As above. Back
531
As above. Back
532
Ev 272 Back
533
ASI (Italy), BNSC (UK), CNES (France), CNSA (People's Republic
of China), CSA (Canada), CSIRO (Australia), DLR (Germany), ESA
(European Space Agency), ISRO (India), JAXA (Japan), KARI (Republic
of Korea), NASA (United States), NSAU (Ukraine), Roscosmos (Russia).
Back
534
The Global Exploration Strategy: The Framework for Coordination,
May 2007 Back
535
Ev 358 Back
536
Q 602 Back
537
Ev 373; Q 119 Back
538
Q 649 Back
539
Ev 373; Qq 654-655 Back
540
EC, European Space Policy, SEC(2007)504, p 14 Back
541
BNSC, A Consultation on the UK Civil Space Strategy 2007-2010,
p 13 Back
542
Q 567 Back
543
BNSC, A Consultation on the UK Civil Space Strategy 2007-2010,
p 9 Back
544
Q 649 Back
545
Ev 257 Back
546
Ev 127 Back
547
Ev 242 Back
548
Q 649 Back
549
Ev 198 Back
550
Q 250 Back
551
Q 253 Back
552
Ev 150 Back
553
Ev 225 Back
554
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators
2006, February 2006, overview Back
555
National Academy of Sciences, Rising above the Gathering Storm,
February 2006, pp 3-24 Back
556
Ev 137 Back
557
Qi3 & BNSC, Abotts Knowledge Transfer from Space Exploration:
Prospects and Challenges for the UK, April 2005, p 38 Back
558
House of Representatives Committee on Science, Hearing on 'Perspectives
on the President's Vision for Space Exploration, 10 March 2004,
p 219 Back
559
Qq 54, 56-57 Back
560
Q 54 Back
561
Royal Astronomical Society, Report of the Commission on the Scientific
Case for Human Space Exploration, October 2005, p 17 Back
562
As above, p 23 Back
563
Ev 137 Back
564
Q 183 Back
565
Q 437 Back
566
Ev 150 Back
567
As above. Back
568
Q 442 Back
569
Q 251 Back
570
Q 436 Back
571
Ev 242 Back
572
"Human Space Exploration", Royal Astronomical Society,
9 February 2007, ras.org.uk Back
573
Q 184 Back
574
Ev 248 Back
575
Ev 358 Back
576
Q 567 Back
577
Ev 236 Back
578
Q 151 Back
579
Q 120 Back
580
Q 183 Back
581
Q 649 Back
582
HC [ 2005-06] 808-i, 18 January
2006, Q 14 Back
583
Memoranda 3,11,13,17,19,23,24,26,27,28,37,40,47,51,54,55,59,60,61,64,72,and
74. Back
584
Ev 165 Back
585
Q 463 Back
586
Ev 183 Back
587
Ev 139 Back
588
Ev 210, 253 Back
589
Ev 192 Back
590
As above. Back
591
Ev 180 Back
592
Ev 180-181 Back
593
Ev 235 Back
594
Q 463 Back
595
Q 479 Back
596
Ev 192 Back
597
As above. Back
598
As above. Back
599
Q 463 Back
600
Ev 192 Back
601
Q 472 Back
602
BNSC, Review of UK Life and Physical Science Research using Space
Facilities: An information report to the Microgravity Review Panel,
October 2002, p 13 Back
603
Ev 234 Back
604
Ev 258, 253 Back
605
Ev 180 Back
606
Q 479 Back
607
Q 484 Back
608
Q 478 Back
609
Ev 395 Back
610
Ev 146 Back
611
Ev 183 Back
612
Q 499 Back
613
Q 502 Back
614
Ev 307 Back
615
Q 505; Ev 387 Back
616
Ev 148 Back
617
Ev 128 Back
618
Ev 152 Back
619
Ev 267 Back
620
Ev 307 Back
621
"Virgin moves its empire into space", The Guardian,
28 September 2004 Back
622
"Joy ride", The Guardian, 11 November 2006 Back
623
Q 497 Back
624
Q 502 Back
625
Ev 391 Back
626
Q 503 Back
627
Q 520 Back
628
Q 662 Back
629
Qq 508, 518 Back
630
Ev 307 Back
631
As above. Back
632
Q 516 Back
633
Ev 398 Back
634
Q 516 Back
635
Q 519 Back
636
Q 518 Back
637
Ev 401 Back
638
Ev 402 Back
639
Ev 309 Back
640
Ev 115 Back
641
Q 662 Back
642
Q 663 Back
643
Trade and Industry Committee, Tenth Report of Session 1999-2000,
UK Space Policy, HC 335, para 67 Back
644
Trade and Industry Committee, Twelfth Special Report of Session
1999-2000, Government observations on the tenth Report from the
trade & Industry Committee (Session 1999-2000) on UK Space
Policy, HC 908, para q Back
645
Ev 121 Back
646
Q 568 Back
647
Ev 299 Back
648
Ev 274 Back
649
BNSC, A Consultation on the UK Civil Space Strategy 2007-2010,
January 2007, p 9 Back
650
Q 118 Back
651
Q 660 Back
652
Q 121 Back
653
Q 185 Back
654
Q 656 Back
655
Q 569 Back
656
Q 657 Back
657
Ev 295 Back
658
Qq 187, 191 Back
659
Ev 297 Back