Britain has a difficult decision to make on space

George Freeman, UK science minister, made a startling admission to a conference of space executives and investors this summer. Several times, he said, he had requested meetings with European commissioners about obstacles to the UK’s continued participation in the EU’s Copernicus Earth observation programme, as well as the €95bn Horizon research fund. He was ignored each time.

Next week he will meet European science ministers for the triennial council of the European Space Agency, which is not part of the EU but acts as the bloc’s procurement agency. There, Freeman told me, he expects “a strong signal” of support from his counterparts on Copernicus. But is he wasting his time?

The mood in the UK has changed — and significantly. After two years of deadlock owing to EU-UK tensions, Britain’s space industry has moved on. Attractive contract opportunities have passed by and many feel it is already too late to win those that remain.

“There is no justification at all for staying part of Copernicus,” one industry executive told me. This is someone who until recently was a forceful advocate for participation in the EU-funded programme.

Copernicus is one of the world’s most advanced Earth observation (EO) capabilities, providing free data globally to monitor the environment. The UK has contributed much to the programme, both financially and scientifically. It has been a useful platform for the UK’s EO and data analysis expertise — a recent parliamentary report found the UK has some 100 EO companies, the largest number in Europe. But that expertise could be threatened if the sector relies too much on ESA managed programmes that feed into EU controlled projects. Only the EU, not the ESA, can decide on the UK’s continued participation.

Many in the UK industry are now calling for the government to reallocate some or all of the €750mn set aside for Copernicus into a flagship national space project.

The ESA is acutely aware of the UK’s frustration, which has coloured its preparations for next week’s council of ministers where it will demand a huge budget boost. The agency must find innovative ways to meet UK demands for greater benefits from its ESA contributions — expected to rise marginally for the next budget period — while also delivering for an increasingly assertive EU. The council will be a litmus test of whether the agency can navigate that difficult triangle.

But this does not solve the bigger problem of the UK space industry, which is that after being forced out of navigation service Galileo, and with an exit from Copernicus looming, it no longer has operational programmes to bid into, nor a framework to deliver them.

This makes the funds allocated to Copernicus look tempting. A national programme could focus on the rapidly growing commercial space sector’s areas of interest — such as active space debris removal and in-orbit satellite servicing. Or the UK could leverage its data analytics expertise to complement Copernicus. After all, the economic benefit is not only to be found in collecting and transmitting data, but in how that data is used.

Setting up a flagship UK programme should not mean a rejection of collaboration with Europe or with ESA, through which some 75 per cent of the UK Space Agency’s budget is channelled. The UK is still ESA’s headquarters for space-based telecommunications programmes. France, Germany and Italy all have well-funded national space programmes that work with the agency, as well as through bilateral arrangements with other countries. And they are the three biggest contributors to ESA, far bigger than the UK.

Any UK programme would benefit from continued research partnerships through ESA, which has a deep bench of scientific and technical expertise. But, says Alice Bunn, president of UKspace, the trade body, “you can’t just invest in R&D and expect to become a major space player”.

Yet Britain’s ability to manage a national operational project any time soon is debatable. A parliamentary committee this month was scathing about the government’s national space strategy, which not only lacked identifiable funding, but “specifics and a clear programme of work”. The approach to space policy across government was deemed “disjointed and unclear”. 

If the government truly wants a vibrant and growing space sector, it will have to address the incoherence of its own ambitions before launching into the unknown.

peggy.hollinger@ft.com