Despite their overblown rhetoric and bluster, previous Conservative administrations did well to launch the UK’s National Space Strategy in 2021, then place it at the forefront of science and technology policy making – particularly in the Boris Johnson years.
He may have scrapped the Industrial Strategy in a moment of political vandalism, but Johnson did a respectable job of talking up the “right stuff” of the UK’s space ambitions, which were on the launchpad for liftoff, he said. (Let’s gloss over the 2023 failure of the Virgin Orbit launch from Spaceport Cornwall: space is a high-risk market and rocket failures are commonplace – just ask SpaceX).
So, while Johnson may have been lying in the gutter during COVID-19 with a suitcase full of wine from a Westminster off-licence, he was at least looking at the stars.
The subtext of the former Prime Minister’s statements was clear: Brexit had left the UK desperate to feel like a superpower again, and what better way to achieve that than by celebrating its success in the cosmos? Or rather, its successes in areas such as satellite communications, in-orbit repairs and maintenance, sensors, extreme-environment robotics, European Mars rover missions, and more.
As the National Audit Office (NAO) has previously noted, the civil space sector (all applications of space technology except defence) contributed £17.5 billion ($22.7 billion) to the economy in 2021-22. Meanwhile, public expenditure on space hit £647 million ($841 million) in the same period – unaudited figures for 2023-24 are broadly the same, with expenditure of £642 million.
So, for every £1 the government invests in space, the economy receives £27 ($35) in return. At least, in theory. More on that in a moment.
Space directly supports 48,800 British jobs – some in the regions or devolved nations, and others in the wealthy Southeast – and, indirectly, a further 78,000 across the wider supply chain. So, when cynics say that the UK should stop pouring money into a vacuum and focus on solving real problems on Earth – something that satellites and other space technologies are adept at doing – just show them those figures.
But it’s fair to say that the UK has suffered something of an identity crisis since the mid-20th Century, and one that has only been emphasized by the space sector. And that is doubly the case since Brexit. That’s the view of Dr Bleddyn Bowen, Associate Professor of Astropolitics at Durham University and Co-Director of the University’s Space Research Centre.
Speaking at a Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport (WEET) Forum on space policy last week, Dr Bowen said:
If there’s a big picture that you’re taking away from this, it is maybe to think of Britain as caught in something of a binary system. We are heavily dependent – not just integrated, but dependent – on the United States for military, security, and intelligence, and for space capabilities, services, and data.
But when it comes to commerce and industry, we are integrated with the European system. So, we are significant players in the European space industry ecosystem, but on a sovereign basis.
Then he added:
Brexit was a real shock to the British space ecosystem.
And to the whole economy, where Bowen’s “binary system” is all too evident. While the US is the UK’s largest national trading partner, representing over 22% of exports, the EU is by far the biggest overall, with a combined total of 41.3%. Eight of Britain’s top 10 national trading partners are in Western Europe, with China making up the numbers in sixth place. Those are UK government figures.
So, it is a simple statement of fact that Brexit has made trade with eight of our oldest and biggest trading partners slower, more complex, more bureaucratic, and more expensive, while trade with China is restrained by Western fears over its growing influence and power.
Meanwhile, trade with the US is also growing more complex and difficult: it is far cheaper for American companies to sell into Europe as a single bloc, so Brexit is an obstacle there. And the forthcoming US Election may yet complicate things further. More on that shortly.
The good news for Brexit UK is that it remains – via the UK Space Agency – one of the largest and most important members of the European Space Agency (ESA), which is a separate entity from the European Union.
On the face of it, progress within that relationship has been appropriately stellar. In its 2023-24 annual report last month, the UK Space Agency wrote:
April 2023 saw the launch of the ESA JUICE Mission to Jupiter and its icy moons, which included key UK instruments. Last year also saw the IM-1 lunar mission which carried UK instrumentation to the Moon. The Agency has also supported the UK space sector internationally through initiatives like the International Bilateral Fund, as well as the Science and Exploration Bilateral Fund.
The Agency has spear-headed new initiatives such as the Unlocking Space for Business, the Space Clusters Infrastructure Fund, and funding to continue developing spaceports across the UK.
The Agency has also taken on new opportunities over the past year, demonstrating excellent adaptability to changing circumstances. The £160 million research and development programme for Connectivity in Low Earth Orbit (C-LEO) linked to the ESA ARTES programme, was just one of the exciting space announcements.
The Spring Budget also saw the commitment of funds to back the SaxaVord Spaceport as part of our wider space launch strategy. The Agency is also working with Axiom Space to explore the delivery of a fully commercially sponsored UK astronaut mission.
All good news. Much of Britain’s investment in space passes through ESA, as does the economic uplift it receives in return. So, ESA membership benefits the British economy, rather than being a drain on its ailing finances.
Prioritizing ambitions
But is it as simple as that?
It depends on which figures you look at. At least, that is the view of Rebecca Jones, Senior Audit Manager at the NAO. Speaking at the WEET conference, she presented a more downbeat – or granular – assessment of the UK’s progress to date.
She explained that while the space sector contributes billions to the economy overall – partly through jobs, entrepreneurship, 1,590 space-focused organizations, and a vibrant supply chain – that does not mean Britain gets back all the money it puts into ESA.
She said:
The European Space Agency aims to allocate its contracts to countries in proportion to their contribution to ESA’s budget. This means that the UK should be able to expect to receive contracts proportionate to the value of the UK’s investment in ESA, excluding its internal operating costs.
But in February 2023, the UK Space Agency reported that British companies received 93 pence for every pound the Agency contributed to ESA. So, the Space Agency started work with ESA to increase the value of contracts that the UK receives. And by Q4 2023, the Space Agency reported that the UK’s return had increased to 96 pence for every pound.
But this means that UK industry and academia are still not benefiting fully in terms of contract value from the funding that is given to ESA by the UK Space Agency.
Then she continued:
We also found that DSIT [the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology] was improving its view of progress, but it didn’t yet have a systematic framework for monitoring and evaluating progress across the whole Strategy.
We found that the Space Agency had been proactive in aligning its activities to the Strategy when it was published in 2021, but in 2022-23 it had only delivered 74% of its high-level milestones.
But those are not the up-to-date figures. According to Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency Dr Paul Bate earlier this year, it has now hit 78% of its milestones.
Even so, the big picture remains the same. So, what have the obstacles been?
Jones said:
Three principal challenges contributed to the Agency’s national projects being behind schedule. The first was delays in producing business cases for funding approval. The second was staff shortages. And the third was factors outside of its control, like geopolitical events and the pandemic.
DSIT and the UK Space Agency could be forgiven for the latter, of course: the world has hardly become more stable, and the international community more collaborative, since 2020.
In that light, what does the future hold? Again, Jones presented a more sober assessment than the bluster of the Johnson years, which were characterized by ministers talking up Britain’s status as a “science and technology superpower”.
She said:
Preparations for the next Spending Review are already underway. And when we completed our own review, the Department and Agency had identified that the Agency had more work underway than it could afford to continue, unchanged, beyond March 2025 without a budget uplift.
And we found that they may have to make some difficult decisions about which of the Strategy’s ambitions to prioritize in the next Spending Review period.
In short, welcome to the UK’s £22 billion ($28.6 billion) fiscal black hole – not as vast at the one at the centre of the galaxy, perhaps, but still unravelling the UK’s space ambitions. This week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves opted to plug that hole with tax rises in a Budget statement that was, unsurprisingly, focused on more terrestrial concerns. In the meantime, the government’s policy on space remains vague.
Musk’s political aspirations
But money is not the only force that may threaten the domestic industry and the National Space Strategy. Another is Elon Musk. And that is not just because of obvious reasons, such as SpaceX’s ascendancy as an industry force (not just in launch services and rockets, but also in payloads). Musk’s overt political aspirations may pose a danger too.
That was the view expressed in a forthright and indiscreet presentation by Stephanie Ayres, Head of Policy for the sector’s trade association, UKspace.
She said:
Musk has done some things in recent weeks which are going to have a massive bearing on what happens next. I think that the technology he’s exploring is not necessarily for us. However, it will have an effect, both as an enabler for things like the ISAM [in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing] environment, but also congestion. Things that are going to cause us problems in the future.
But at the same time, he ignites enthusiasm from the public. They watch a SpaceX launch, and we need the public to be engaged with space because that brings in the policymakers.
So far so good. But then she added:
He is currently in dispute with something like six Federal agencies in the US. He is supporting Donald Trump, and by all accounts, he’s putting money behind that campaign [Musk is paying voters and speaking at Trump rallies]. And eventually he may well become the Secretary for Commerce and the Chief Technology Officer of the USA. So, we should be watching that election very carefully.
Now, if he is the Director for Commerce or the Cabinet Secretary for Commerce, then what will he do with his competitors? Will he switch them off via the FAA? How will that work? What’s their future?
So, he has a bearing on our future too. And he also has a bearing on our industrial strategy, because if you think about it, our special relationship with the US is very, very important for providing at least a significant chunk of our space capability.
If we are in any way damaged by that, our national resilience is damaged, and therefore our ability to have growth and prosperity from the space sector will be too.
My take
A sobering and alarming thought.
From an outside perspective – viewed from Britain’s side of the Atlantic – there seems to be little guarantee that a second Trump administration, should it arise, would be motivated by fairness, the rule of law, or avoiding obvious conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, Musk has proved more than capable of using his own platforms for overt political purposes, and vice versa.
So, where might that leave the UK and the rest of the world if Musk is given free rein in government? Spinning in space, perhaps.
