Memorandum 97
Supplementary evidence from the British
National Space Centre (BNSC)
QUESTIONS TO DR DAVID WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF BNSC
1. Dr Williams mentioned that he would like
to "get more private venture into funding space" [Q104].
What plans does the BNSC have for achieving this objective? What
is the minimum level of private venture funding that the BNSC
estimates is required?
The BNSC is working with industry on three fronts.
One is to get private finance to take a greater share of the costs
in building satellite systems that are for public use—which
is essentially to move to a service delivery model or PPP. A second
is to get industrial co-funding into what we hope will become
a strengthened UK national programme activity. A third is to work
with industry in promoting the benefit of the UK space capability
to the world at large, with a short term focus running to the
IAF meeting hosted by Glasgow in October 2008. With respect to
funding there is no "minimum" level because our assumption
is that we will work on a project by project basis and any funding
would reflect the ambition and roles in each project.
2. Dr Williams said in oral evidence that
"what I want to do is work more with what I call the departments
which are not fully funding space, but where we believe they have
an interest" [Q108]. Which Departments was Dr Williams referring
to? What action has BNSC taken in order to engage these Departments?
See answer to Q.3
3. Dr Williams told us that "we are trying
to bring that [the disaster management constellation] into the
thinking of DFID so that they can bring it into their mainstream.
There has been, I have to say, not a lot of direct discussion,
but that will start in the next two or three months because it
is an initiative in an area which is recognised as important"
[Q113]. What steps is the BNSC planning to take to engage DFID
in the DMC programme? Are there any plans to invite DFID to join
the BNSC partnership?
BNSC has since the 10 January 2007 held initial
discussions with DFID about their involvement in the International
Charter "Space and Major Disasters" (the Charter).
The Charter aims to provide a unified system of data acquisition
and delivery from Earth observation satellites in organisations
in eight member countries, in support of efforts related to natural
or man-made disasters. DFID are one of two UK agencies authorised
to activate the Charter. UK participation in the Charter is through
the Disaster Management Constellation programme (DMC) owned and
operated by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (SSTL). Following
the meeting, DFID are looking at how they may be able to use the
Charter to support its international efforts following future
major disasters. In addition, BNSC are discussing the holding
of a seminar at DFID to provide information on current and potential
space applications (eg DMC) in support of disaster and humanitarian
aid efforts. DFID is a member of the UK Global Monitoring for
Environment and Security (GMES) steering group, and is involved
in cross-Government work on GMES. DFID is not currently planning
to join the BNSC partnership.
The FCO is a partner in BNSC and set out the
scope of its space related activity in its written response to
the inquiry. The FCO focuses on international cooperation: ensuring
that the UK's international obligations on space are maintained,
promoting UK excellence in space science and technology, and ensuring
European space programmes meet UK objectives. In many cases this
means that the FCO is supporting other BNSC partners, including
Defra, MoD, DfT, DTI and research councils, to achieve their EU
and international objectives.
The FCO Consular Crisis Group has recently recognised
a potential interest in space applications and is meeting with
BNSC HQ colleagues in February 2007 to discuss this further.
DfES is a BNSC partner and participates in the
Space Advisory Council, BNSC's senior advisory body. At a working
level BNSC partner staff have good working relations with their
DfES counterparts. Through this and through interactions at the
Space Advisory Council, DfES provide valuable strategic advice
on our educational activities. One key initiative in space related
education is the establishment of the UK's European Space Education
Resource Office (Space Connections) by Yorkshire Forward (YF).
Space Connections is intended to bring co-ordination and strategic
focus at a national level to the rich and diverse array of space
related education activities in UK. BNSC partners working together
(including DfES) will ensure that this initiative is properly
linked to the wider national science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) initiatives by DfES and DTI.
4. Please provide information about the progress
of the Government Information from the Space Sector (GIFTSS) initiatives.
GIFTSS (Government Information from the Space
Sector) is a BNSC DTI partner programme activity to encourage
greater usage by the public sector of space data products and
services. It is aligned with two of the BNSC strategy goals—"Stimulating
increased productivity by promoting the use of space in government,
science and commerce" and "Developing innovative space
systems to deliver sustainable improvement in quality of life".
The overall programme activity is small, with
typically two projects running at any one time (at around £60k
each, co-funded by BNSC and the user department or organisation),
and with a number of additional leads being identified and pursued,
some of which are then expected to mature to projects. The BNSC
experts also work with the end user once a project is completed,
to assist them in assimilating the knowledge gained and identifying
what further steps to take.
The pace of the programme is driven primarily
by the level of engagement of a particular user department or
organisation. Initiatives can typically take from a number of
months to a couple of years to get to the launch of a project.
Users that have participated in projects, particularly within
the Defra family, value the programme highly. GIFTSS is represented
in the Defra EO Forum that meets several times each year.
The newest project (salt marsh habitats in Morecambe
Bay) kicked off in December 2006. This is the second GIFTSS project
with Lancaster City Council as the partner. The project is looking
at the use of satellite imagery to identify and monitor areas
of salt marsh, which are important for understanding of flood
dynamics and as conservation areas.
Further projects are in the pipeline.
5. Dr Williams referred to problems at Defra
in relation to the GMES programme [Q114-115]. What are the main
problems that Defra is facing? How could these problems be solved?
What action has the BNSC taken to help Defra deal with the problems
posed by GMES?
Defra is committed to evidence-based policy
and believes that many of the environmental challenges that we
face require European or European solutions. In the future there
will be an ongoing need for evidence and information and if GMES
develops in the right way then it should meet some of these needs.
As a potential user of operational GMES environmental
services and information, Defra is interested in the outputs of
the programme, whether that be data or products. Defra currently
undertakes a significant amount of environmental monitoring, much
of which is driven by European level legislation. If GMES is going
to add-value to the activities of the Department, then they need
access to the right data and information, at the right time. At
present, Defra is concerned that the proposals on the table, particularly
in relation to the ESA GMES Space Component Programme, will not
guarantee the delivery of an operational system that guarantees
data continuity. Without this continuity guarantee Defra will
not be persuaded to change its systems.
Defra are supported by BNSC in the EC GMES Advisory
Council, and this is the forum that discusses the Programme structure
in the EC context. BNSC also represent the Defra view in the discussions
in the ESA Programme Board responsible for GMES. Persuading our
European colleagues to agree that GMES should have better data
continuity guarantees is proving to be difficult. For BNSC, this
seems to be largely due to the fact that many countries are driven
by the short term objectives of their industries, whilst ESA themselves
see continuity in the context of work flow in establishments and
industry and not in the output data sets.
To clarify the position, BNSC has worked with
Defra officials to produce a UK GMES strategy document that can
form the basis for increased UK support if the programme structure
is adapted. This sees GMES as a major contributor to climate change
and improved climate forecasts: a stated need in the recent Stern
report.
Defra, with the support of the BNSC partnership
and other relevant stakeholders, will continue to work with the
European Commission, the European Space Agency and other member
states to ensure, as far as possible, that GMES develops into
a robust and resilient system that delivers to user needs.
6. Dr Williams said in oral evidence that
"I have had no direct interaction with DFES. It is a weakness
that we recognise and acknowledge and it is an area that we want
to address going forward" [Q116]
(a) What action has the BNSC taken on the
National Space Education Initiative since October 2005?
(b) How is the BNSC following up the recommendations
made in the BNSC-commissioned report, Bring Space into School
Science?
(c) How is the BNSC responding to the recommendations
made in The Education and Skills Case for Space report?
(d) What involvement has the BNSC had in
the establishment of ESERO in Bradford? What impact will this
office have upon space education provision in the UK?
(e) The summary notes from the Space Advisory
Council meetings on the 24 May 2006 and 6 September 2006 mention
the creation of an education steering or working group. What is
the membership of this group? What is the group's purpose and
what action has it taken?
On questions (a-d) the key message in the three
reports mentioned is the requirement to improve co-ordination
and cohesion for the extensive space related-education activities
taking place in UK. In particular these reports proposed the facilitation
of a single advisory group structure, a one stop shop website
and better linkages and support to teachers and the science curriculum.
As stated in answer to Q.3, BNSC is working with Yorkshire Forward
(YF) and ESA in establishing a European Space Resource Office
on a nationwide basis in the UK (UK ESERO). BNSC chairs the UK
ESERO's Advisory Group, which is composed of BNSC, ESA, Yorkshire
Forward as well as representative bodies in England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland involved in using or providing space
education. Yorkshire Forward has made available substantial resources
in setting up the UK ESERO. As part of the pilot phase of establishing
the ESERO, they are carrying out a consultation exercise with
users (including teaching organisations) and service providers.
A key future aim is to link the work of the
UK ESERO with the wider DTI/DfES initiatives to promote STEM subjects.
By working through the UK ESERO, and other key players in space
education such as the National Space Centre in Leicester, we plan
to address much of the recommendations in these recent reports.
(e): At this stage BNSC has not yet established
an education steering or working group. Before moving to this
the aim will be to monitor the progress of the UK ESERO and improve
the linkages to the wider DfES programmes. This latter step is
crucial if the group is to be securely embedded in the UK structures.
In the meantime, education is an agenda item on most meetings
of the Space Advisory Council and this will provide the ability
to review the activities of the UK ESERO.
7. Dr Williams said in oral evidence that
"I do not see us at this stage going into manned space because
of the costs involved" [Q118]. What estimates has the BNSC
made of the costs involved in manned spaceflight?
Estimating the costs of a UK manned space activity
is not a precise science, and varies depending upon whether the
costs of the associated activities are included. There are three
possible routes open to UK if it wished to fund a UK astronaut:
(i) through ESA's human space flight programme; (ii) with NASA's
Shuttle programme and (iii) by direct purchase of seats aboard
Soyuz "taxi" flights to the International Space Station.
The principles of ESA's selection of astronauts
are stated in the "European Astronaut Policy",
chapter 4.1, include:
"— Recruitment (is) open to candidates
from all Member States, taking due account of their participation
in the ESA human spaceflight programmes.
— Selection and recruitment initiated
and controlled by ESA.
— Initiation of new recruitments will
be based on matching the corps characteristics to future European
human spaceflight programmes' requirements."
On this basis a proportionate share of the cost
for the UK in ESA would be some £60 million per year, and
on that basis UK people would be eligible to apply to become a
European astronaut—but with no guarantee that any would
be selected. There would also be national costs associated with
the science and these are additional and uncosted.
The cost to "fly" on a NASA Space
Shuttle, including the training is approx $50 million per mission
per astronaut. It is unlikely that the UK could "buy"
a position and the more likely route would be for the UK to provide—at
UK cost—a specific set of experiments or some other aspect
of space activity that would benefit the UK. This could only be
costed on a case by case basis but would in the traditional "no
exchange of funds" need to provide NASA with a benefit of
at least $50 per flight.
In the third approach, a simple purchase of
a Soyuz flight as a "tourist" to the International Space
Station costs about $20 million. However this would bring no scientific
benefit to the UK unless considerable additional resources were
provided for the experimentation.
The Royal Astronomical Society have estimated
that a sensible UK programme in manned space would be achievable
at a level of £150 million per annum over a 20-25 year period.
This figures are not inconsistent with the above if the additional
national experimentation costs are included.
8. Dr Williams said in oral evidence that
"I do see us being part of the global endeavours to do exploration
and exploration in the widest sense" [Q118]. Please provide
details of the action that the BNSC has taken in relation to the
global exploration and exploitation programme. Is the UK acting
independently or through ESA in relation to this programme?
The UK, along with other countries, was invited
by NASA to participate in a workshop in Washington in April 2006
at which NASA outlined the status and planning of its exploration
programme. A small delegation of UK officials and scientists attended.
Participants were invited to contribute objectives and ideas focused
on a human return to the Moon, but including robotic precursor
activities.
Subsequently, fourteen agencies, including ESA,
BNSC and the space agencies of France, Germany and Italy have
jointly worked to elaborate a common set of themes and objectives
covering both robotic and human exploration of Solar System destinations
including the Moon, Mars and the asteroids. This is known as the
"Global Exploration Strategy". Several international
meetings have been held and the UK is fully engaged, in order
to understand the developing international context. The goal is
to increase the coordination between future international exploration
activities rather than to create a single programme.
At the European level, the UK is engaged in
discussions through its membership of the ESA Aurora programme.
This includes a preparatory component which is developing plans
for future European exploration activities. Within this work,
a UK scientist is leading the development of a science-driven
scenario for exploration.
Nationally, BNSC through PPARC initiated a small
study with a group of lunar scientists and Surrey Satellite Technology
Ltd. to assess whether UK small satellite technology could contribute
to the developing international scene by undertaking early lunar
science while also preparing technology for the longer term. The
team reported in late 2006, proposing two small missions, dubbed
"MoonLITE" and "MoonRaker". There is no commitment
to undertake these missions on a purely national basis.
Finally, in order to provide advice to Government
on the long term potential for space exploration and exploitation,
BNSC is setting up an Exploration Strategy Working Group to review
the plans in the US and elsewhere and assess the opportunities
for the UK. The group comprises both officials and representatives
of academia and industry. It is hoped that this group will report
in the summer of 2007.
9. Dr Williams told us in relation to ESA
that "when I came in, it was clear that we were down on industrial
returns" [Q153]. In written evidence, the BNSC stated that
"our overall returns have dropped marginally below the level
of our subscriptions. BNSC is monitoring the placement of ESA
contracts and working hard to reverse this trend" (SPO2,
para 3.5). Please provide statistical information detailing the
level of subscription to ESA and level of overall return to the
UK since 2000. What action has the BNSC taken to reverse the trend
of falling returns?
UK Subscription to ESA (Source: UK Space
Activities 2006)
|
| £ million | |
| | |
|
|
| 2000-01 | 2001-02
| 2002-03 | 2003-04
| 2004-05 | 2005-06
|
| 98.0 | 97.13
| 89.68 | 133.95
| 128.99 | 139.63
|
|
UK Level of Overall Geographical Return at 31 December
|
| 2000 | 2001
| 2002 | 2003
| 2004 | 2005
|
|
| 1.16 | 1.21
| 1.12 | 0.90
| 0.92 | 0.94
|
|
(Note: For 2006 the latest figures available are for 30 September:
0.92. Also note that the Geographical Return statistics are maintained
cumulatively since 1 January 2000. They are not therefore reflections
of an annual return.)
BNSC is working with ESA to get a balance in geo-return.
This has involved direct interaction between the DG of ESA and
the UK Minister as well as the DG of BNSC. The DG of ESA has confirmed
that he will ensure the UK return is improved and we await information
from him on the specific steps he will ask his staff to take.
To date additional funding of €4.7 million has been promised
to the UK and this is earmarked to give the UK the major role
in a new programme to test and evaluate satellite formation flying.
ESA have promised to take steps to ensure that the UK is
over-returned in a number of future specific missions, but these
have not yet been released for tender. However, although urgent
action has been demanded, restoring the UK return to an acceptable
level will take time, partly because in relation to other ESA
Member States the UK participates in fewer programmes and thus
the scope for identifying missions in which corrective action
can be taken is similarly limited.
10. How does the BNSC prepare for ESA Ministerial Council
meetings? How could this preparation process be improved?
In the context of the anticipated 2008 ESA Ministerial, discussions
at both a national and ESA level have already started, and will
become more intensive.
In ESA, BNSC plays a role in all the relevant ESA committees
ranging from project groups to meetings of the main ESA Council.
By doing so, it keeps abreast of likely issues and proposals well
ahead of the formal preparatory process for the ESA Ministerial
Council. Thus at present in advance of the commencement of the
preparatory process for the 2008 Ministerial Council, BNSC is
seeking to understand the issues and possible proposals that ESA
will bring to the table at the 2008 "Ministerial".
About 12 months before the Ministerial Meeting, ESA establishes
a Council Working Group (CWG) composed of representatives from
Member States. The DG BNSC leads for the UK on this group, which
develops the proposals both for policy/strategy changes as well
as specific project. Relationships with ESA staff and other member
states is good and UK influence is usually strong and our views
are respected.
Preliminary discussions are already taking place in the UK
Space Board on the UK position on issues that it is anticipated
will arise in 2008. From this discussion the relevant partner(s)
will be tasked to study relevant aspects in detail, and prepare
the case for financial support from the relevant partner. This
will as appropriate involve working groups being established.
Once BNSC has agreed the UK position at official level, the
Minister writes to Ministerial colleagues to inform them of the
proposed UK negotiating position and levels of subscription to
ESA programmes.
For 2008 these arrangements are an improvement on previous
meetings because the internal debate within the UK is starting
much earlier. In this way we hope to reach a consensus on the
UK position before the main ESA agenda is finalised. A specific
issue is aligning the ESA funding requests at the Ministerial
with the UK government funding cycle. Thus for 2008 the UK funds
need to be part of the CSR 2007 process, whilst the consequent
commitments go beyond the CSR2007 cycle. A UK mechanism that formally
recognises the different timescales of international funding mechanisms
would help.
11. Dr Williams said in oral evidence that "there
are some problems with the structure of the way Galileo has been
developed" [Q162]. He stated further that there are "some
very significant challenges come up" [Q163]. What are these
problems and challenges? What action has the BNSC taken in order
to solve them?
The current development phase of the Galileo programme is
a joint EC Commission and ESA project. The deployment and operation
phases are planned to be an EC Public Private Partnership (PPP).
The UK is actively involved in Galileo fora of both organisations,
the ESA Programme Board for Navigation, and the administrative
board of the GNSS Supervisory Authority. The Department for Transport
has the political lead in the EC, supported by other Government
Departments and by BNSC.
The UK priorities are for a robust PPP and to ensure Galileo
remains a civil programme under civil control. A robust PPP will
be challenging to achieve because the costs and risks of the project
are inherently uncertain. The governance of the programme has
not always been certain. There have been delays, some caused by
political influences, and the merged consortium lacks a developed
commercial approach. On the civil programme side, discussions
on the policy for access to the Government-only PRS service are
just getting under way in the EC. The UK is fully committed to
playing an active role to influence strategic decisions and to
safeguard UK objectives.
Within ESA, BNSC is represented by DTI and DfT who work together
to ensure that UK priorities and interests are fully taken into
account within the programme. BNSC seeks to ensure that ESA manages
the development programme effectively and efficiently, including
the industrial consortia developing the system. There have been
delays, specification changes and cost increases on which BNSC
has pressed hard, and will continue to do so, to ensure that these
are necessary and minimised.
12. What process does the BNSC use in order to determine
which partner will lead on ESA programmes, especially when programmes
do not clearly fall to one partner? How could this process be
improved?
Since I arrived, I have used the Space Board as the mechanism
for agreeing upon which partner will lead on ESA Programmes. To
date, agreeing on which partner has the primary user interest
and hence should lead in defining requirements has not been an
issue. Where more than one partner has an interest the issue is
around how the cost of the ESA programme is shared taking into
account the use each partner will make of the programme and the
level of technical innovation and uncertainty in the development.
I believe the existing process is good at developing the position
in a way that tensions the role of space against alternative methods.
But this does not mean that the funds are made available against
competing priorities within departments.
13. What has prompted the consultation on the Outer Space
Act? Do you expect this consultation to lead to proposals for
new legislation?
The planned consultation was prompted by an independent review
on the management of the licensing regime under the Outer Space
Act. We were seeking to find out if and how our regulation under
the Act needed updating. The review highlighted the treatment
of liabilities for UK space activity and licence fees, that could
disadvantage UK companies. We are in the process of examining
this.
It is too early to say whether the planned consultation will
lead to new legislation. We would prefer to change the processes
in the licensing system within the current legal framework.
14. Evidence submitted by UK space states that "in
December 2005 UK Government reduced investment in ARTES from £20
million to £8 million" (SP06, para 13). Please provide
details of the UK's annual subscription to the ARTES programme
from 2000-06.
ARTES funding 2000-06 (€ million)
|
| 2000
| 2001 | 2002
| 2003 | 2004
| 2005 | 2006
| Total |
|
| ARTES 1 | 0.97
| 0.68 | 2.05
| 1.83 | 1.18
| 3.59 | 2.11
| 12.41 |
| ARTES 3 | 15.86
| 7.24 | 17.60
| 14.46 | 3.48
| 16.06 | 14.90
| 89.60 |
| ARTES 4 | 5.30
| 3.13 | 13.29
| 8.33 | 7.59
| 9.16 | 11.64
| 58.44 |
| ARTES 8 | | |
| | |
| 1.89 | 1.89
|
| Total | 22.13
| 11.05 | 32.93
| 24.62 | 12.25
| 28.81 | 30.54
| 162.34 |
|
15. Who will administer the Joint Space Technology Programme?
This proposed programme is known as the "National Space
Technology Programme (NSTP)".
The general arrangements for the management of the NSTP were
agreed by the UK Space Board at its meeting in October 2006 when
it was agreed that:
"BNSC will manage the NSTP on behalf of all of the partners,
supported by a representative body drawn from all the partners
and reporting to DG BNSC. Individual programme proposals will
be assessed on the basis of their innovation, value for money,
and socio-economical potential. Priority will be given in particular
to proposals that establish or reflect a UK global leadership
in a capability (eg small satellites). The operational management
of the NSTP, encompassing the technical and financial progress
aspects will be undertaken by the Science and Technology Facilities
Council (STFC) using its standard business systems. The STFC will
also be a supplier to the NSTP, and this will be separate from
its operational management role."
The detailed mechanisms are still being discussed, but ensuring
transparency and impartiality in the allocation of funds to specific
projects and groups is a key issue. There is also a need to establish
a board to advise on the area of technologies that should be addressed.
The present proposal is for the Membership of the NSTP PAB
to be drawn from the BNSC partners, other Government organisations,
and academic, industrial and NGO representatives. Its primary
responsibility will be to identify and advise how best to support
the key technologies that will ensure a vibrant, competitive and
affordable UK space capability. The Board will report to DG BNSC
and its Terms of Reference will be approved by the UK Space Board."
16. Why does the UK invest proportionally smaller amounts
in its domestic space programme relative to other countries? Please
provide information regarding the annual level of investment in
the DTI Space national programme from 2000-06.
The latest statistics defining national versus ESA spending
in Europe is found in the "World Prospects for Government
Space Markets 2006". As a percentage of space spending,
the years of 2004 and 2005 show that the UK had the fifth highest
spend on national programmes of the 15 nations who contributed
to ESA. [The four highest percentage spends came from Italy, Finland,
France and Sweden]. However, in 2006, BNSC spending was further
weighted to ESA programmes thus reducing the proportion of national
programme spending. This places the UK as in eighth place for
percentage spending on the national programme. [The seven higher
spending countries as a percentage were France, Finland, Sweden,
Italy, Netherlands, Austria and Germany]. It should also be noted
that for France, Italy and Germany, the absolute national spend
is higher than the UK because of their total space budget, allowing
them to undertake a wider range of activities nationally.
BNSC DTI national expenditure £ million
|
| 2000-01 | 2001-02
| 2002-03 | 2003-04
| 2004-05 | 2005-06
| TOTAL |
|
| 18.2 | 20.2 |
26.7 | 5.5
| 6.6 | 4.9
| 82.1 |
|
17. The minutes of the UK Shadow Space Board on 2 February
2005 noted that "the Board considered how to move from the
current position where a majority of core BNSC partnership costs
fell to DTI to a position where the partners on the Space Board
shared responsibility for the costs". What is the current
position regarding costs? What action has been taken regarding
this issue since February 2005?
In 2002-03, it was agreed that the subscription costs for
ESA programmes would be spread amongst the relevant BNSC partner
organisations. However the administration and staff costs associated
with the BNSC "corporate activities" (hosted in DTI)
fall mainly to DTI. These cover the office costs of all London
staff, salaries of the DTI staff acting across the partnership
and some core communications activities.
NERC, PPARC/CCLRC, MOD and Met Office partners do have staff
in London to fulfil key roles within the BNSC HQ organisation.
The current arrangements run until the end of the 2007-08 financial
year, and the UK Space Board (UKSB) will need to address how to
share these costs from CSR2007.
18. Why are there no representatives of the public on the
Space Advisory Council? Why were public representatives deemed
necessary? What plans are there to appoint representatives of
the public to the Council?
The Space Advisory Council was originally established as
a representative body for the breadth of UK space interests to
provide advice to the BNSC Space Board. Its members comprise all
BNSC partners, the Chairs of the BNSC Advisory Boards, and the
Chair of the trade association UKspace, all ex officio.
The UK Space Board decided in 2005 that in order to strengthen
the range of advice provided to BNSC in the development of its
policy, there would be merit in adding to the Space Advisory Council
membership representatives of the downstream space sector; broader
academic interest; and the public.
Following advertisement and careful consideration by the
Chairs of the Council and Space Board, the following were selected:
Professor Len Culhane, FRS, Professor of Physics, University College
London at the Mullard Space Science Laboratory (academic); and
Mr David Williams, Chief Executive, Avanti Screenmedia Group plc
(downstream). However, no decision was reached in the public category
as there were no applicants the Board considered would strengthen
the Council in outreach.
The Board and Council nevertheless remained keen to bring
in new areas of expertise, in particular in raising public awareness
of space, and so selected Mr Will Whitehorn of Virgin to represent
the public interest. In addition, Professor Sir Martin Sweeting
of SSTL was also invited to join the Council in a personal capacity
in March 2006, in view of his exceptional experience.
19. What part will the UK play in NASA's lunar exploration
programme? To what extent does the BNSC agree with NASA's lunar
exploration objectives? What action has the BNSC taken in order
to develop a relationship with China and India?
Regarding NASA's lunar exploration programme, no decision
on participation has been taken. See the answer to Question 8
regarding the actions that BNSC is taking to assess NASA's plans
and to establish the UK's position.
A summary of BNSC's activities with third countries, including
China and India, has been supplied separately at the Committee's
request.
March 2007
| 
