Memorandum submitted by the UK Space Academic
Network (SPAN) (FC 29)
As Chairman of the UK Space Academic Network
(SPAN) I am submitting the attached evidence on behalf of the
group.
SPAN members are based in about 20 UK University
and Institute research groups that cover a broad range of the
Space disciplines including Astronomy, Climate and Earth Science,
Fundamental, Planetary and Solar System Physics.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This submission is made by the Space
Academic Network (SPAN), representing about 20 UK University-
and Institute-based research groups that cover a broad range of
Space disciplines including Astronomy, Climate and Earth Science,
Fundamental, Planetary and Solar System Physics.
1.2 Given the limited time available for
consultation prior to this submission, the content will concentrate
on the impact of the recently announced STFC budget cuts on the
Space Sciences supported by that Council and the structure of
the STFC in relation to the on-going support of the space-based
disciplines. However, the research councils are important funders
across our remit. In particular, we welcome the way NERC's strategy
emphasises the important role observations play in environmental
prediction, and thus the central role played by Earth observation
in NERC's programme. We also welcome the establishment of the
National Centre for Earth Observation, funding UK Universities
Earth observation research from NERC. Continuation of a vibrant
UK environmental science programme thus depends on continuing
funding by NERC of Earth observation science at at least the level
of today, as well as an ability to play a full part in ESA by
maintaining the UK subscription, and subscribing to new programmes
such as GMES.
1.3 The DBIS 2009 International Comparator
Performance of the UK Research Base makes clear how well the UK
performs in almost all areas. The UK is first internationally
in environmental sciences, where Earth observation is critical
to performance, and in physical sciences the UK is fourth internationally
in citations. In the area represented by SPAN, the space-based
physical science performance is better, with total high quality
refereed publications being second only to the USA. DBIS in their
comparisons note that three nations, China, Germany and the US,
are forming a separate group in performance above the next, European
cluster led by the UK. It is important to maintain and grow those
areas where the UK is well in the top group. This success is built
on the academic excellence of its Universities and Research Laboratories
which drives the technological innovations and projects from which
the key observational data can be obtained. UK access to space
has been primarily through its participation in the European Space
Agency, where it plays a leading role in mission design, instrumentation,
and exploitation. These endeavours are supported by STFC through
a combination of project and responsive-mode research grants.
1.4 The UK space industry grew by 9% per
annum between 1999 and 2007 to reach annual revenues of £5.9
billion—this growth is continuing unabated through the current
recession. Space science and Earth observation have both direct
and indirect impacts on this UK space industry. Space science
at Universities and Institutes provides technical challenges and
spin-offs, positions UK industry to win high-profile ESA contracts
and trains the high-tech workforce needed by industry for the
whole range of endeavours in which it is involved. The importance
of the space industry for the UK economy has recently been emphasised
by the Government's establishment of the Space Innovation and
Growth Team (SIGT) which will shortly present its proposals for
a 20 year plan to grow the UK space sector.
1.5 Space science has also a demonstrated
and important role in the inspiration of younger generations to
pursue courses at school and university level in STEM subjects
critical for the UK economy. It features prominently in media
portrayals of science to the public from detailed Horizon expositions
of the frontiers of science to regular spreads in the Metro newspaper
highlighting the latest space missions and results.
1.6 Our European competitor countries, with
active space programmes and industries, invest in national programmes
that supplement the large and relatively infrequent ESA science
missions with targeted smaller projects. Such projects often develop
and demonstrate the technology that will in the future be commercialised
or deployed on larger missions. Recently the UK Government has
decided that to secure the UK competitive position in the space
sector requires a move from the loose partnership arrangement
of the British National Space Centre to a full national Executive
Space Agency. SPAN welcomes this move and sees it as an extremely
important step for the UK.
2. IMPACT OF
RECENT STFC BUDGET
CUTS
2.1 Against the above strongly positive
background, the STFC is proposing severe cuts in the space sector,
which would withdraw the UK from a number of currently operational
flagship missions eg Cassini, Cluster, Venus Express, XMM, that
are heavily and productively exploited by a wide scientific community.
In addition their output has demonstrated inspirational value
and they attract regular press coverage. Although financial stringencies
are necessary, the money saved by withdrawing from key operational
missions amounts to no more than £5 million per annum. While
regular and systematic reviewing of the scientific productivity
of operating missions, such as is routinely carried out by ESA
and NASA, is essential, the present cuts appear to be uncritically
based more on the age of the projects than on their scientific
productivity. In addition they are in fields for which the next
generation of missions is not yet under construction.
2.2 The premature withdrawal from mission
operation schedules that the UK voted in favour of within the
national delegations at ESA's Science Programme Committee would
cause the UK to be branded as an untrustworthy partner. This in
turn would severely hinder UK influence and success in competing
for future activities.
2.3 Perhaps even more worryingly, the level
of responsive mode research funding being projected by STFC for
the next year is being cut. As a consequence, it appears likely
that 70% of the grants to those universities and research laboratories
engaged in the design and construction of space instrumentation
will shrink below the threshold of viability. The medium to long
term impacts of such a collapse in funding are even more serious
than the failure to capitalise on previous investments described
in 2.1 above. The closure of whole areas of space science and
the accompanying dispersal of technical expertise accumulated
over several decades, threatens to relegate the UK to a minor
role in space instrumentation and exploitation of the observations
for which the UK has already paid. This seems utterly at odds
with the formation of a national space agency and a vision for
continued growth in one the UK's most successful industrial sectors.
2.4 Should the above collapse in funding
occur, the academic sector would be unable to play a useful role
in the recently proposed STFC Gateway and Space Innovation Centres
at the Harwell Campus. Such an outcome would substantially reduce
the value of these centres in promoting valuable knowledge exchange
between the academic and industrial sectors.
2.5 The recent formation of a UK space agency
provides an unparalleled opportunity for both industry and academia
to exploit our research and our involvement in ESA for maximum
advantage. The space programmes of our major European competitors
eg France, Germany, Italy, have clearly demonstrated the importance
of conducting small bi- or multi-lateral programmes at comparatively
modest cost with NASA, other European nations or with Japan and
Russia. There are now many new opportunities with emerging space
nations, and China looks like a particularly attractive partner
from both the industrial and academic viewpoints. Small missions
conducted outside ESA allow the rapid development and demonstration
of new technologies and the exploitation of new scientific discoveries.
A careful choice of innovative small missions can in turn enable
the UK to play leadership roles in the infrequent but major ESA
opportunities. This is particularly true in the important climate
and environmental science sectors. We should be looking to build
our investments and not shrink them in these sectors. The serious
damage to the academic sector that will result from the proposed
budget cuts will gravely weaken both the space science community
and its ability to continue its support of UK industry in one
of the few major growth sectors in the economy.
3. THE STRUCTURE
OF THE
STFC AND THE
FUTURE SUPPORT
OF SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH IN
SPACE
3.1 With hindsight it has become apparent
that the creation of the STFC led to the need to fund an important
portfolio of basic sciences being awkwardly tensioned against
the operational and capital costs of national facilities that
are designed to serve the needs of the whole research base and
not just STFC scientists. In order to address this imbalance:
— different funding streams should be identified
and managed separately for these two areas; and
— asset depreciation costs should similarly
be dealt with separately.
3.2 The issue of foreign currency fluctuations
and their effect on international subscriptions has long been
a source of considerable difficulty for research council budgeting.
In particular the STFC international subscriptions total has risen
by close to 30% in the two year period from 2007 to 2009 largely
as a result of changes in exchange rate. Similar changes are seen
in NERC's subscriptions. Rate changes—in both directions—have
a disproportionately large impact on the annual budgeting process:
— BIS or the Treasury should accept the
risks of rate fluctuations given that the outcome is likely to
be cost neutral in the medium to long term; and
— since other issues e.g national GDP and
juste retour, are involved in setting the ESA mandatory programme
subscription, negotiation of the necessary international agreements,
both for ESA and for future bilateral programmes, should be handled
by the newly formed UK Executive Space Agency with STFC involvement.
This is also true for NERC's subscriptions, which are not mandatory
and where national political decisions play an even larger role.
3.3 The measures outlined in 3.1 and 3.2
above would bring an element of stability to the STFC research
grants budget line and to NERC's national funding. As has been
indicated in section 2, the recently announced STFC budget cuts
will, if implemented, have a disastrous impact on ongoing space
missions and on grants related to space activities in general.
Given the national importance of the space sector, every effort
should be made to ensure the continuing effective exploitation
of the ESA subscription and with the arrival of the national space
agency, to support a modest national bi- or multi-lateral programme
in which the needs of both the industrial and academic sectors
can be served.
3.4 Urgent discussions are needed to establish
the working interface between the STFC, NERC and the new space
agency. Here the review and funding of underpinning research programmes
should remain with STFC and NERC while support of specific mission-related
programmes and the related post-launch operations could be organized
and managed by the agency as is presently the case in many successful
European nations. It is important that the details of these arrangements
should be worked out and, given the long-term nature of space
programmes and the associated international commitments, implemented
against the background of a stable budgetary environment.
3.5 The rolling grant mechanism currently
operated by the STFC is well matched to the long gestation periods
associated with the development of new techniques and to the long-term
exploitation of observational data acquired with both space- and
ground-based facilities. It is echoed in the National Capability
funding to NERC's National Centre for Earth Observation. Funding
in this area needs to reflect the long-term nature of the satellite
programmes being driven by the science, and the need to keep teams
of experts together to exploit the observations successfully.
The funding should not be subject to large fluctuations on very
short notice. In addition the STFC, NERC and their predecessor
research councils have built up significant expertise in the assessment
and support of space-related research programmes, and this needs
to be maintained with the creation of the new space agency.
4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Space is important for a growing number
of areas eg climate, communication, navigation, space weather,
and has a proven record for inspiring the public in general and
the young in particular to become interested in the fields of
environmental and physical science.
4.2 The related industrial sector is one
of the UK's major growth areas. The Government sponsored SIGT
will shortly publish plans for a 20 year development programme
in the sector while the recent establishment of the UK Executive
Space Agency will allow UK space interests—both industrial
and scientific, to be effectively promoted on the world stage.
4.3 Against this strongly positive background,
the recently announced cuts in STFC funding will have a negative
impact both by curtailing UK involvement in ongoing ESA missions
for which we have already supported continuation at the ESA level,
and in the longer term by withdrawing funds from a range of underpinning
activities in universities and research institutes. This will
in turn weaken the nation's ability to provide experienced manpower
for an industrial sector that will shortly begin a 20 year growth
phase based on its previous successes.
4.4 The need for the STFC to fund both large
national facilities and a range of physical science research programmes
that make little use of them has led to budgetary instability
within the Council. In addition programme planning has been made
difficult by the impact of unfavourable movement in exchange rates
on international subscriptions. It is suggested that these problems
be addressed urgently.
4.5 We welcome the establishment of the
National Centre for Earth Observation by NERC, which recognises
the long-term nature of the funding required to work successfully
in this area of science.
4.6 The STFC's mechanisms for assessing
and funding research are well matched to the needs of the space
field. However it is important that the relationship between the
Council, and of NERC, and the newly formed UK Space Agency be
defined as soon as possible so that the community can continue
to compete effectively internationally.
January 2010
| 
