UK Space Agency

Memorandum submitted by the

Institution of Engineering and Technology (UKSA 04)

The Institution of Engineering and Technology (The IET) is one of the world’s leading professional bodies for the engineering and technology community. The IET has more than 150,000 members in 127 countries and has offices in Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific. The Institution provides a global knowledge network to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and to promote the positive role of science, engineering and technology in the world.

This evidence has been prepared on behalf of the IET Trustees by the Innovation and Emerging Technologies Policy Panel and the Satellite Systems & Applications Technical Professional Network.

The IET would be pleased to offer technical assistance to suggested follow up studies.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Davies

Head of Policy

The Institution of Engineering and Technology

Overall Comments

Whilst this IET is very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the inquiry, there are some concerns that the inquiry itself may be premature, certainly if it is intended to focus on what the UKSA has achieved in its 5 month existence, without taking due account of the time normally required for things to ‘bed in’. That said, the IET acknowledges that it is right (& opportune) to examine the intended role of the UKSA and thence to assign priorities & milestones to enable the bedding-in process to be completed in as short a time as possible.

Indeed the IET has been engaged in a joint review (IET/IMechE/RAeS) to identify a collective view of what the learned institutions would like to see achieved by the UKSA. From this review, which made reference to the recommendations from the Space Innovation & Growth Strategy (‘Space-IGS’) document (issued Feb 2010) and the (previous) Government’s response (22 March 2010): "Space: a major growth opportunity for the UK", it was apparent that there are at least 30 major roles and associated activities which the UKSA needs to be engaged in. The sheer task of tackling this list and assigning milestones & priorities gives a clear indication of why the UKSA is taking time to establish itself.

In order not to lose sight of the direction of thought during the 6-month study which led to Space-IGS, reference should also be made to the stated role of the UKSA at the time of launch:

• Replaces BNSC & brings all UK civil space activities under one single management

• Co-ordinates UK civil space activity

• Supports academic research

• Nurtures the UK space industry

• Raises the profile of UK space activities at home & abroad

• Works to increase understanding of space science & its practical benefits

• Inspires our next generation of UK scientists & engineers.

Comments on Individual Questions

Q1: What progress has been made in setting up the UK Space Agency?

1.1 Clarity of purpose

The concept of a purely "civil" space agency (which is how the UKSA was described at launch) is becoming increasingly difficult to comprehend. Many satellite systems can be used for both civil and military purposes and with increasing budgetary pressure on both military and commercial space programmes it is expected that dual-role missions will become increasingly necessary. For example, ESA is explicitly referring to programmes such as GMES, the GNSS programme formerly known as Galileo, SSA and EDRS as "dual use" (i.e. for both military/security and civil applications).

The UKSA is currently not staffed to deal with these security and defence issues, and is looking to find mechanisms to work with both MOD and the Cabinet Office on these subjects. Ultimately, an agency of government will need to take responsibility for addressing these "grey" issues, and it is not currently clear which one this will be.

One suggestion would be to encourage the UKSA to interface with the UK Defence Industries Council (DIC) and also with the new A|D|S, (trade organisation responsible for advancing UK AeroSpace, Defence, and Security industries), rather than to try and invent something new. UK DIC and A|D|S already have a foot in both military and civil space.

1.2 Staff

The UK Space Agency was staffed from the start with those employed at the time within the British National Space Centre. It is felt that the existing staff of the UK Space Agency should be supplemented by those with solid industry experience. (It is understood that it was always intended to have a contingent on secondment). It has been identified (in the joint IET/RAeS/IMechE review) that industry is the delivery agent for the growth targeted by the IGT recommendations. For the Agency to lead in delivering this growth, it needs to understand how industry works and the support that it will need in the years ahead. This is particularly important with respect to the downstream industry (applications & services) where full understanding of the technical requirements and commercial models that are prevalent in different industry sectors (EO, telecoms etc.) are crucial to understanding the future upstream R&D requirements.

This is not yet happening and can only start to gain traction when an appropriate mix of public service and private industry personnel are focused on delivering the UKSA growth objectives (acknowledging that industry is the delivery partner for growth so it needs to be consulted). There were a number of slightly contrasting views expressed by contributors to this IET review. One option might be to encourage the Space Leadership Council (SLC) to provide guidance to the UKSA, but there is concern that the SLC does not have enough of the right kind of downstream commercial players in its membership e.g. there should be more involvement from players who are NOT space-centric themselves, but who exploit space capabilities in their wider business. It should be noted that it is notoriously difficult to predict what should be the next thing to develop (for example SMS Text messaging was not perceived as a need by the gurus of the mobile phone industry).

1.3 Facilities

Facilities are being established (at Harwell and Swindon), by industry and not by the UKSA. A dedicated curation facility for the handling of samples from the Moon and Mars has been advocated by the UK Space Exploration Working Group since 20071, and there is believed to be an intention within UKSA to site this at Harwell. The curation facility, control centre, data storage and processing facilities will come into existence but without the guidance and influence of the Agency.

It is understood that International Space Innovation Centre (ISIC) at the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus (HSIC) will comprise:

· an Earth Observation Hub, which is a ground station potentially capable of controlling a range of satellite systems

· the Security and Resilience Unit, which will be a centre of excellence on space security matters, including SSA, and will generate imagery-based products in support of both MOD and civil security agencies

· the Visualisation Suite, an outreach facility which it is hoped will engage and inspire young people to undertake careers in space.

It is further understood2 that the first phase of the ISIC is due to be operation in April 2011 and is to include the above facilities in early stages. A contract has been awarded to a consortium led by Astrium UK (including Infoterra, Vega and Surrey Satellite Technology Limited) to project manage the development of the facilities and to provide operational systems and capabilities. The EO hub is expected to be up-and-running, for example and basic infrastructure and pilot services should be in place for the Security and Resilience Unit within this timeframe.

A second phase, starting in April 2011 is expected to further develop the infrastructure, facilities and services provided from the ISIC, including protected data storage, data processing, a payload data ground segment, an operations centre for TDS, DMC potentially and so on.

Discussions have been underway for several months under the auspices of the ESA Harwell Working Group3 to plan for the on-going development of the facility. The IET welcomes the availability of adequate funding for the continued development of a comprehensive and world-class space centre at the Harwell site under the management and coordination of UKSA.

It is anticipated that UKSA would be responsible for setting policy and strategy, and that ISIC, with its Government and Industry partners, would be the focus for actually delivering programmes in line with that strategic direction. We are not aware of any formal agreement on these principles, nor indeed of the definitive goals of the ISIC.

It is possible, with the collocation of many organisations involved in space activities within the ISIC, that a more coherent industry voice can be established to effectively influence UK space policy measures promoted by UKSA. The IET welcomes this development. In terms of its ‘coordination’ function for UK space, the UKSA may find this a useful conduit and sounding board for policy-setting in the years ahead.

Q2: How does the UK Space Agency work with other bodies (national and international) on space issues?

As explained in the Overall Comments section, it is considered too early to focus on what the UKSA has achieved in its 5 month existence, without taking due account of the time normally required for things to ‘bed in’. The following points refer to broad principles which should be adopted in dealing with other bodies:

· The UKSA needs to take a global perspective. (It was reassuring to hear the announcements by the Science Minister at FIA on collaboration with Russia and the US (NASA))

· It needs to support UK industry in international forums (e.g. ensure the Outer Space Act does not disadvantage UK, or constrain future Space tourism or launch activity)

· It needs to speak with authority through adequate contributions to European space programmes

· It needs to progress the ‘Hub and spoke’ arrangement – bringing all national bodies together to consolidate space purchasing and supply chain

· It needs to bring together space activities of all previous funding agencies

· The current momentum in space in the UK should enable the Agency to lead the growth in the UK's influence in international agencies

· It needs to take account of the comment in Q1 concerning the uncertain relationship between UKSA and ISIC.

Q3: Is the UK Space Agency more effective at coordinating space policy than its predecessor, the British National Space Centre?

Again, it is considered far too early to tell. In view of the fact that the BNSC staff have been transferred to the UKSA and they were responsible for policy coordination before, it is to be expected that this will continue in a similar manner. However, the uncertainties produced by the current spending reviews are likely to have an effect on future funding plans and ambitions:

· UK space policy will be just one of the remaining tasks for the UKSA

· Policy will need to be underpinned by an effective strategy or policy will be ineffective and unguided.

· Industry and other stakeholders need to be involved in space policy, not just the agency. Again industry is the delivery partner for growth so it needs to be consulted. As remarked above, government may see the Space Leadership Council (SLC) as providing this input, but there is a school of thought which suggests that this is inappropriate as the SLC does not have the right kind of downstream commercial players in its membership. It is imperative that industry has a strong representation on the SLC.

· Much of the intellectual capital within the space community resides in academia and they should be represented on the SLC to ensure that there is a three-way flow between academia, government & industry.

· With reference to Q1, it would be expected that there would be consultation on the defence and security aspects as a matter of course (not yet apparent). Although thoughts seem still in the early stage of being formed, consideration is being given to the possible types of data being handled by Harwell. These could be related to military satellite systems – operational data could be handled for military systems and there would clearly have to be secure facilities which enabled this to be done in a satisfactory manner.

Q4: What should the UK Space Agency's priorities be for the next five years?

The recent government Space IGT process resulted in a number of challenging goals for the UK space industry during the next 20 years. The UK Space Agency needs to take a proactive leadership role in the execution of the space strategy, acting as a single authoritative voice for the industry and facilitating a climate of growth.

The joint IET/IMechE/RAeS review found it convenient to group these roles & activities into the following seven ‘areas of interest’; an example has been selected from each group to illustrate the point:

· National Space Strategy

e.g. the UKSA shall be given a wide remit, responsible for devising and implementing a National Space Policy that maximises the overall UK benefit from its investment in space.

· National Space (Technology) Programme

e.g. the UKSA shall be central to the establishment of a National Space Technology Strategy and Steering Group.

· Cross-department influence

e.g. the UKSA shall be given control over policy & funding (hitherto spread across govt departments & science research bodies).

· Export-led growth initiative

e.g. work with Government & Industry to prepare a review of the current situation on procurement of a sovereign Earth Observation (EO) capability. If this demonstrates there is a need for an indigenous service, look to industry to develop a robust business case as a basis for future procurement decisions.

· Outreach & skills

e.g. work with Government & Industry to significantly increase the scale & impact of activities relating to the training of the next generation of Space engineers and scientists and promote STEM subjects in schools, colleges and businesses.

· Research

e.g. protect UK intellectual assets.

· International

e.g. ensure the Outer Space Act does not disadvantage UK, or constrain future Space tourism or launch activity.

It is now essential that activities within these areas are clearly scoped in terms of requirements & milestones (hence enabling a priority listing to be established, giving the Agency a focus so that it can ‘bed in’ in the shortest possible time).

This IET suggests that the major priority for the Agency should be a national programme to sit alongside the international work that is done with our partners in ESA, NASA, and elsewhere. This was an obvious contrast highlighted during the Space-IGS process - other nations in Europe such as France, Germany and Italy have large national programmes alongside their ESA commitments. Another important area is the sponsorship of novel technologies. The UK is full of great technical concepts, as we've proved with the TechDemoSat activity. There isn't a National Space Technology Programme to speak of at present, and it would be a major step forward if the resources could be found to initiate one.

This IET believes that the following guiding principles are appropriate to setting priorities:

· Funding targeted space activities, particularly where:

◦ Clear benefits and downstream paths have been identified

◦ the UK either has, or could develop, contributory technology aimed at both scientific and commercial missions

◦ the level of funding is capable of producing worthwhile results in a sensible timescale

◦ the actions of the UKSA do not distort existing commercial markets.

· Looking to do more with less in terms of effectively linking space activities and players ; also to strengthen the linkages with other technology support activities where space applications serve wider needs in the economy and society .

· Setting (and meeting) priorities to achieve longer-term, realistic aims in specific areas, rather than trying to spread the industry too thinly (with the attendant risk of achieving nothing).

· High profile UK space missions would inspire young people to pursue careers in the space industry and related technology sectors.

Q5: Is the UK Space Agency adequately funded?

By international standards and in terms of industry's preparedness to undertake flag-ship national programmes no, there is not adequate funding for national programmes:

A review of the Space IGS recommendations shows that they all seek to make things ‘better’ in some sense and many of them imply the need for new financial resources to be allocated. It is not surprising in the present economic climate that these resources have not been forthcoming and this IET recognises that now is the time for all stakeholders in the UK Space industry to be even smarter in the setting of objectives which maximise the value-add of what we presently have and of what we can develop by effective means.

The Institution of Engineering and Technology

August 2010