The British National Space Centre released today a new vision to “stay at the forefront of space sector”. The policy largely calls for measures to improve existing strengths in areas like satellite communications, remote sensing, and space science. Included in the policy is the creation of an “international space facility” in the UK devoted to climate change and robotic space exploration as well as “closer involvement” in international space exploration programs.
What about expanding British national space efforts into other areas, like human spaceflight? The report leaves the door open: “In 1986, the UK chose not to participate in human space missions. The publication of the Global Exploration Strategy provides a suitable point in time to review this decision. BNSC will undertake a study of programme options drawing on the findings of the 2007 UK Space Exploration Working Group taking into account the scientific, technological and economic costs and benefits, and UK’s existing strengths in robotic exploration.”
Initial reaction to the report is mixed. The BBC plays up the reconsideration of human spaceflight as well as plans for a robotic lunar mission called MoonLITE. However, The Guardian reports that human spaceflight proponents in the UK are criticizing the report for not taking a stronger stance on the issue. “The government has missed a huge trick in terms of being able to offer inspiration to young people,” Nick Spall of the British Interplanetary Society told the paper.
Oh, pish posh, says Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, in The Times of London. While Rees mentions the BNSC report only in passing at the end of his essay, he is critical of government-run human spaceflight, be it the ISS or NASA’s exploration program: “Were I an American taxpayer, I would be opposed to this: if it is done Nasa-style, it will be hugely expensive and vulnerable to delays and political setbacks,” he says of NASA’s plans to return to the Moon and beyond. (He does need to update his rhetoric a bit: he claims that “tens of billions more dollars must be spent to finish the space station”, which would be tough to do given that the station is supposed to be finished in 2010). “As a European,” he argues, “I believe we should learn a lesson from the space station, and limit our collaboration with Nasa to ‘bite-sized’ unmanned projects; we should be wary of committing ourselves, as an inevitably ‘minor partner’, to a hugely expensive manned programme.”
From the second article:
“There’s no commitment at all from this strategy. We’re the only developed nation that doesn’t have an astronaut, despite the fact that we’re the fifth largest economy,”
It’s really a shame. Argentina, Costa Rica, and Peru all have astronauts.
Of course Micahel Foale flew on the Shuttle, Mir, and the ISS. and Piers Sellers flew on STS-112, and they were both Brittish… So …
There is a proposal in last month’s Spaceflight for Britain to add two modules to the Space Station. Worth a read, whatever side you are on.
As for the Astronomer Royal, we should consider this institution’s past track record — “spaceflight is utter bunk” just before Sputnik! — before taking seriously what they have to say today.
— Donald
Be bold Britannia, and join us!
New worlds await!
I agree with Rees that they shouldn’t get involved with human missions if they’re to be done NASA-style. However, there’s no reason they need to be. The UK could work with a space station company like Bigelow, for example. They could also contribute to the astronaut training activities of other countries by trading time bought by the UK government on Virgin Galactic (to use a UK commercial supplier) for suborbital astronaut training for astronaut or experiment time on the ISS. They could also contribute to NASA’s human lunar effort with small robotics efforts, if they want to emphasize that part of their program. Maybe NASA could trade something for data from such an effort. If they want to emphasize “satellite communications, remote sensing, and space science” – which I personally think is a smart plan that has commercial, military, environmental, and industry advantages – they can still get in on the exciting and inspirational NewSpace crewed suborbital spaceflight activity by funding integration of science instruments into these suborbital flights. There are plenty of opportunties in human spaceflight that don’t go the “giant, expensive, slow, risky but spectacular” NASA route, but that instead are more mammalian, and possibly more rewarding.
Interesting ideas, Ray. Also of interest, there has been an ongoing debate within Spaceflight between a group of Reaction Engines engineers (including Alon Bond) on one side, which argues that because of their innovative studies and designs — Hotol, Skylon, et al, and even Virgin Galactic — that Britain is in a potentially unique position to advance spaceplane technology to the next level. On the other side are a group of engineers who argue that Britain could send a series of astronauts to the Space Station on Soyuz, advancing a key British skill — medical technology — while using existing infrastructure and staying within modest increases to Britain’s current space spending.
Of course, neither of these is likely to happen under current British policies, but it is worth noting that, historically, Britain has been one of the most innovative nations in aerspace technology. “Vertical Empire,” a book about the birth and early death of British space ambitions is worth a read, especially for those interested in looking for any indications of an impending withdrawal from human spaceflight by ourselves.
— Donald
It seems to me that current British policy will diminish innovation and manufacturing. It seems to leave the 3rd world to innovate and manufacture new products based on their and other countries investment in human space flight based R&D. They are turning into a consumer nation with out the manufacturing base to support the employment required for people to afford it.
Britain joined us in the war; wouldn’t it be better for them to join us in human spaceflight? If both countries took what they spent on the war for just 1year and invested that in their space programs a lot of jobs would be created.
The UK builds and sells some of the most advanced weapon systems in the world. Imagine what they would have by now if they had invested in a manned space program.
If you want a “Terminator” type of world with autonomous robots connected to the web and maybe causing havoc. Then their current policy will help that out (Weapons R&D + Robotics).
[…] The British National Space Centre released today a new vision to “stay at the forefront of space sectorâ€. The policy largely calls for measures to improve existing strengths in areas like satellite communications, remote sensing, and space science. Included in the policy is the creation of an “international space facility†in the UK devoted to climate change and robotic space exploration as well as “closer involvement†in international space exploration programs. — Space Politics […]