UK space doesn't have to return to 'Year Zero'
We were waiting and wondering, and now we know. The new UK government coalition "believes in space".
That was the message from the man with the brief - new science minister David Willetts - after he emerged from his first meeting on Thursday.
If you've never heard of this group, that's perhaps not surprising: it was only set up in the final days of the last administration.
It was a product of the exercise last year that sought to define a 20-year strategy to develop the UK space industry.
The council is a collection of the "", and its remit is to drive the Space-IGT strategy forwards and advise government on how best it can help achieve the team's goals.
Thursday's gathering was only the second such meeting, and as science minister, Mr Willetts gets to be co-chair. He gave me a call afterwards and . In short, he wants to maintain momentum.
Many who met the previous science minister will attest that when it came to space, Lord Drayson had something of the "little boy in the sweet shop" approach to the subject. He was a big fan of space. From those in the space sector, there has been a great deal of anxiety these past few months about what a change in government would mean.
This wasn't a party-political thing: it was about the fear of stop-start, of having to re-engage and re-start conversations. David Willetts signalled to the council that he had no intention of returning to "Year Zero":
"Although he's from a different party, I began by paying tribute to Lord Drayson, because I think he was really committed on space; and I emphasised to the business people there that they shouldn't assume we've got to start all over again - if the previous government had done good things, I wasn't going to tear them up just for the sake of it. I thought some of the key reports, especially the Space Innovation and Growth Strategy, were a very good guide to action."
This is not too surprising. The last time I saw Mr Willetts before the general election was at the in Guildford. I was heading out of the door having spoken to the scientists and engineers there about its activities; he was heading into the building to do the same thing. His constituency borders the satellite-manufacturing plant of and he's been there, too.
Of course, it's all now about delivery. Money will be an issue, as ever; UK governments of every colour have and the means that this situation is unlikely to change dramatically.
Mr Willetts said he was up-front about this to the Council members, but that he was encouraged by how much of what those members then wanted to talk about didn't involve spending money. This is an important observation.
If you look at the , only a handful are wholly dependent on big money from government. Many simply require government to frame the environment. Some examples are:
• changing the regulations that would allow to launch from the UK and make this country a hub for space tourism
• allocating sufficient spectrum to satellite operators so that they can grow their services
• pooling existing government spending and committing that cash to support a privately-operated, indigenous, Earth-observation programme, along the lines of the Skynet military telecommunications project
, made this point when it issued "" on the eve of the general election:
"Industry recognises that much of the investment to launch it on its path to growth will come from industry rather than from government. Private venture capital, resulting from government setting the right climate for such private investment, will take advantage of opportunities offered in commercial markets to meet future government requirements for end-to-end services."
Some aspirations, of course, are reliant on cash from Whitehall. The way the European Space Agency operates its "" principle of giving out industrial contracts in proportion to the money invested by national governments is a case in point. If you don't put money into some Esa projects, your industry is locked out of the game, no matter how good it is.
And who chaired the Space-IGT, makes the point:
"Where the government does decide to intervene financially and otherwise, the emphasis should be on growing sectors."
All this concerns industry; as my astronomy friends like to ask me: "What about 'space science', Jonathan?" Most of the space science in the UK is directed through the (STFC) which has struggled to get to grips with its brief following its creation out of the merger between the old Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) with the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC).
Matters for them have not been helped by a fall in the value of the pound which has inflated subscriptions to organisations like Esa and put a squeeze on grants. Mr Willetts told me he has the STFC on his agenda and he will be getting round to all of the research councils in due time.
One issue which seems to be close to resolution is the UK funding of certain major international space missions. I blogged about this back in February.
Because of was looking to make a "managed withdrawal" from its operational commitment to the Saturn probe Cassini. Other ventures affected similarly included the Sun-Earth system missions and , and the X-ray telescope .
It now looks as though the European Space Agency is going to step in and pick up some of these costs. That's not confirmed yet, but it's looking that way.
Anyway, if you have thoughts on what the priorities should be for Mr Willetts, the UK space industry and UK space science - fill the void below.
±õ’m 
Comments
or to comment.