Memorandum 14
Submission from the Space Group Committee
of the Royal Aeronautical Society
INTRODUCTION
1. The Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS)
is the Learned Society for the Aerospace and Aviation community.
Based in London, it has a world-wide membership of over 19,000,
with over 13,000 in the UK. Its Fellows and Members represent
all levels of the aeronautical community both active and retired.
Through its various Boards and Committees, it can draw upon considerable
experience and expertise in aviation matters. In addition, the
Society has over 120 organisations who are members of its Corporate
Partners scheme.
SUMMARY
2. The Select Committee is invited to consider
the results of a consultation exercise on whether Britain should
join the other G8 countries by funding a human spaceflight programme.
The authors of this evidence are highly sceptical of the merits
of any such programme, and summarize here the results of a consultation
exercise on this subject undertaken under the aegis of the Royal
Aeronautical Society (RAeS).
HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT—UK
POLICY
3. The Space Group of the RAeS has been
consulting widely on the subject of UK human spaceflight policy.
Although the subject of human spaceflight is not explicitly mentioned
in the Select Committee's invitation to submit evidence, the Committee
may wish to take note of the results to-date of our consultation.
4. The RAeS consultation began with publication
of a Discussion Paper in the December 2005 issue of the Society's
Aerospace Professional magazine that is distributed to
all of the Society's 19,000 members. Presentations on the ideas
in that Discussion Paper were given at a number of conferences
over the following three months, resulting in comments being received
from the general public as well as from Society members. A paper
describing the results of this consultation exercise is being
prepared, and a preliminary version was presented at the SPACE
2006 conference in California in September 2006. Copies of the
original Discussion Paper and the SPACE 2006 paper are attached
for information.
5. In general our view is that this is a
good time to review human spaceflight policy because of the phasing
out of NASA's space shuttle, and the emergence of a commercial
space tourism market—currently being pioneered by the UK's
Virgin Galactic. We are generally negative about investing British
tax payers' funds in conventional human spaceflight programmes
such as the International Space Station, taking the view that
they do not address the subject of solar system exploration. We
consider that most if not all scientific exploration of the moon
can be done via robotic probes under remote control from Earth—telerobotics—because
the round-trip delay for radio control signals is about 3 seconds.
We recommend that telerobotic exploration of the moon be used
to analyse which forms of planetary scientific exploration require
a human in the loop, and which can be automated, before deciding
on the level of human involvement that is best for exploration
of Mars.
6. We are impressed with the rapid pace
of intelligent automation in recent years—the October 2005
Grand Challenge competition in the USA being a particularly
impressive illustration of the sophistication now possible with
totally autonomous vehicles—a car negotiating a 180km complex
and dangerous mountainous route at an average speed of about 20mph.
Improvements in such intelligent automation are set to continue
for a decade or more, thus reinforcing the economic argument for
using robotic and telerobotics technology where possible.
7. We note the view of other recent reports
that at least one aspect of scientific exploration of the moon
or Mars requires the physical presence of a human, namely drilling
deep below the surface. However, we are cautious about accepting
this view given that the oil and gas exploration industry is beginning
to apply digital technology to drilling—the so-called "digital
oil field" initiative. The oil and gas industry is very interested
in improving the technology for drilling in dangerous and difficult
to access locations, which could give them common cause with scientists
seeking to drill on the moon or beyond.
8. The sort of incentives that produced
the Grand Challenge innovation might be successfully targeted
at remotely controlled drilling—that is to say, by offering
a prize for achievement of such drilling instead of a conventional
research grant. We note that the technology being commercially
exploited by Virgin Galactic for space tourism was also the winner
of a competition or challenge, the Ansari X-Prize. Furthermore,
both the Grand Challenge and the X-Prize involved
commercial spin-off, which is often not the case with conventional
research grants. We certainly do not advocate the termination
of all research grants, but are persuaded that a carefully constructed
research challenge can elicit a greater amount of research and
innovation than a conventional grant.
9. Human spaceflight captures the public
imagination, but Britain's Beagle 2 probe to Mars has shown that
robotic exploration can too. Space tourism may offer a mechanism
to fulfil at least some of the public hunger for British astronauts
without the need for tax payer investment. With this in mind,
the Society is delighted to have been offered a free place on
one of the early Virgin Galactic flights which we will offer to
the winner of a competition we will initiate next year. We have
decided that the winner will be the person "who will use
the experience of the trip to best motivate young people to enter
the fields of aerospace and its applications".
10. This submission represents the views
of the RAeS Space Group Committee whose members are listed at
the end of this note. A broader consultative exercise revealed
a more positive view of a British involvement in manned space.
Most respondents argued in favour of British involvement in Europe's
human spaceflight programme. Reasons given included inspiring
young people to take up science and engineering, commercial spin-offs
and medical advances. The fact that Britain is the only G8 country
without a human spaceflight programme was a frequently used argument.
The need for on-the-spot human presence for certain scientific
investigations (deep drilling was the specific example quoted)
was frequently asserted, although none of the respondents suggested
a trade-off between investing in automated drilling and human
spaceflight—which seems the logical and prudent way forward
to the Committee.
OTHER ISSUES
11. Turning to the five specific issues
in the Call for Evidence, the following summary draws from the
remarks above:
(a) Competitiveness. Regulatory and
R&D support for the embryonic space tourism sector is considered
highly desirable. Investment in remotely controlled lunar exploration
could have important commercial implications.
(b) Benefit of ESA. The ESA manned
spaceflight programme has not, and currently does not, offer good
value for investment money, whereas ESA's unmanned science programme
does.
(c) Innovation and Knowledge Transfer.
The use of carefully targeted prizes has been shown to create
highly innovative solutions with great commercial potential.
(d) Benefits of Government Space Activities.
Compared to unmanned space activities, human spaceflight is not
cost effective in delivering public policy objectives.
(e) Space Research and Skills Base.
The need for a human presence to undertake space research should
be traded off against investment in automation before committing
to the expense of human spaceflight. Human spaceflight has great
inspirational power and the potential to attract young people
into science and technology (which the RAeS competition for a
Virgin Galactic flight seeks to encourage). The newly emerging
space tourism sector offers hope that humans can enter space much
more affordably than hitherto.
12. The members of the Committee of the
RAeS Space Group are (in alphabetical order): Richard Bavin, QinetiQ;
Prof Richard Crowther, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory; John Davey,
British National Space Centre; Philip E Davies, Surrey Satellite
Technology Ltd; Tom Keates, Hi-Tech Help; Dr John Loizou, Vega
Group plc (Vice-Chairman); Pat Norris, LogicaCMG (Chairman); David
Richer, Brunel Technics Ltd (immediate Past-Chairman); Dr Peter
C E Roberts, Cranfield University; Carl Warren, EADS Astrium.
13. Further details on the work of the RAeS
Space Group can be found at http://www.raes.org.uk/space.
October 2006
| 
