Memorandum submitted by QinetiQ (UKSA
14)
(Dr Scott is QinetiQ's ESA Account Manager &
Programme Director for the UK Centre for Earth Observation Instrumentation)
GENERAL REMARKS
The formation of the UK Space Agency has been
largely welcomed across industry and across government. It is
certainly seen as a positive move by QinetiQ. The new organisation
has only been in existence for a few months and is still, in effect,
in the process of formation. Therefore it is possible only to
offer interim assessments, at this stage.
What progress has been made in setting up the
UK Space Agency?
Our visibility of the internals of the UKSA is limited.
We are aware that UKSA staff are extremely busy, as they maintain
ongoing UK/ESA space activities whilst establishing the new Agency.
In addition, certain key players from BNSC have retired or moved
on, and those taking up the equivalent roles in UKSA have been
very active in consulting with ourselves (and other industry)
to re-establish the relationships and background knowledge needed
to support us. They have been collectively very responsive to
us in terms of requests for meetings and information. It looks
to us that they have made good progress. We believe that agreements
are advanced between UKSA and the former BNSC funding partners.
Some of these agreements are signed, but others have not yet concluded.
We await the outcome of the CSR and the Technology
Roadmapping exercise both of which will determine the future trajectory
of UKSA.
How does the UK Space Agency work with other bodies
(national and international) on space issues?
We are aware that UKSA staff are active as previously
under BNSC, in ESA and the EC (in space-related areas), especially
in the ESA Policy Committees. UKSA provide face to face briefings
to industry on matters to be discussed ahead of these important
ESA policy meetings.
TSB staff with ESA national delegation responsibilities
appear to find it hard to travel to ESA premises outside the UK
at present—travel budgets appear to be on a very tight rein.
It is hoped that this is a temporary situation, as the relationship
between ESA and the UK delegation members depends strongly on
frequent personal contact and consequential confidence building.
In the UK, UKSA appears to have a strong relationship
with the Technology Strategy Board, and demarcation of space responsibility
in TSB is becoming clear, and it is understood that TSB space
budgets (ARTES primarily, and also CEOI) will migrate to the UKSA.
However the formal relationship between TSB staff (secondment
etc) and UKSA has not yet been declared. UKSA and TSB usually
attend meetings of UKspace by invitation (the space industry trade
organisation in the UK).
The UKSA often have fact finding visits to UK
companies and organisations, and are always available for consultation
on specific matters. We have noted that UKSA has been more responsive
in this respect than BNSC.
UKSA staff are members of the Centre for Earth
Observation Management Board, and as time allows, attend CEOI
events, workshops, conferences and final project presentations.
The UKSA appears to have a strong understanding
with the appropriate levels of UK government including the current
Science Minister, David Willetts.
Staff from the Research Councils have been seconded
into the Agency, but it is not yet clear how beneficial the new
relationships between the RCs and UKSA will be. Recent discussions
(August 2010) indicate that the close physical proximity of colleagues
from the RCs in Swindon is helping to improve communication and
efficiency.
Is the UK Space Agency more effective at coordinating
space policy than its predecessor, the British National Space
Centre?
There are signs that the UKSA is taking a more
joined-up stance on policy, but it is very early days. The BNSC
was always under-resourced, and they were always undermined by
the need to constantly negotiate with funding partners in order
to implement policy and strategy. The UKSA should be more effective,
we expect it to be more effective, but it is too soon to know
how effective it has become.
What should the UK Space Agency's priorities be
for the next five years?
Apart from the Astrium Prime, UK organisations (companies
and SMEs) are currently at a disadvantage in accessing and securing
noble work in ESA and other international space missions, as many
other European states have vigorous national space technology
programmes which allow their broader industry to access missions
with technologies and subsystems at a qualifying level of maturity.
It is therefore vital that UKSA is able to establish the National
Space Technology Strategy and Programme, to allow UK organisations
to compete in Europe and further afield for access to international
space programmes.
There should be a focus on enabling a balanced industrial
landscape (upstream and downstream, Prime and non-Prime) and increased
support for enabling international sales of UK technologies and
products.
Most of the priorities have been set out in
the IGS report, and QinetiQ endorses those priorities.
Is the UK Space Agency adequately funded?
Although our visibility is limited, UKSA are
in the process of acquiring the space budgets of the funding partners
of BNSC. Naturally some partners are backtracking when faced with
cuts to their overall budgets. The effectiveness of the strategy
of the new Agency depends strongly on whether it has adequate
budgets for implementation, and in the short term will need to
have access to the funds at least equivalent to the sum of all
contributions from the original BNSC funding partners.
The arguments within the Innovation and Growth Strategy
seem to have been broadly accepted by the government. Although
it is understood that in the short term, funds in the UK will
be extremely tight, the delivery of the IGS benefits cannot be
realised unless an appropriately ramped but intelligently targeted
level of funding is provided to UKSA.
The government and UKSA appear to have accepted
the `virtual centre' model for delivery of space instrumentation
technology as exemplified by the Centre for Earth Observation
Instrumentation. This programme has been very efficient and cost-effective
in preparing collaborative industrial and academic consortia and
their novel technologies for space missions. However, CEOI is
currently a very a modest programme, which lacks the resources
to fund instrumentation to full spaceflight standard. It is however
essential not to lose momentum, and it is proposed that the CEOI
is funded in the interim at the same level as in past years. To
address flight instruments on missions of national priority, its
funding will need to be appropriately ramped and its structure
evolved. The role and scope of the CEOI, and models for management
of all aspects of a putative National Space Technology Programme
within the UKSA is currently under discussion.
Dr Rob Scott
QinetiQ's ESA Account Manager & Programme Director
for the UK Centre for Earth Observation Instrumentation
August 2010
| 
