Written evidence submitted by Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London (ESA005)

Declaration of Interests:

              University College London’s Mullard Space Science Laboratory undertakes a programme of space science experimentation and research which includes projects funded by the UK Space Agency, UK research councils, ESA and the EU. We are also contractors to ESA and European space prime contractors.

              MSSL is the largest university-based space science institute in the UK and has flown ~40 instruments on international spacecraft. It has provided instrumentation to many of the leading space observatories and probes and is engaged with the majority of ESA’s future space science programme.

1.               What are the strengths and weaknesses of the funding, organisation, and work of the European Space Agency?

1.1              ESA is an effective and successful organisation. From the point of view of the mandatory Science Programme, which is our main experience, the agency has seen the development of a sequence of highly successful missions, almost always meeting their initial specifications, and with a record of excellent reliability. These highly demanding technological projects provide a platform of European space instrumentation development that feeds the growth of the European industrial sector. European space science and space astronomy is at the front rank internationally.

1.2              The cost-effectiveness of ESA’s missions is probably better than NASA – the benchmark. Nevertheless, there remains room for improvement and it is important that innovative approaches to cost reduction continue to be introduced, albeit not at the cost of reliability. It is reassuring to see the introduction of ESA’s Small (S) class missions which provide an opportunity for such innovation although disappointing that the UK Space Agency has not been able to contribute significantly to this initiative to date.
 

1.3              One important advantage over the NASA programme is that long-term financial decisions can be made which allows ESA to manage a coherent programme of science research without numerous costly and ineffective funding reviews. This continuity is absolutely fundamental in programmes which typically last over 20 years from selection to the end of operations. However, ESA’s current mission selection process is certainly protracted and liable to delay, alteration and lack of visibility. Nevertheless, their current mission portfolio is well-balanced and internationally very well respected. The European and UK science community is well represented in the selection process.

1.4              Space science and exploration has often provided opportunities for international collaboration and ESA’s science programme is a very good example of this. By exploiting and valuing national perspectives, priorities and characteristics, ESA is able to achieve much more that might be done by individual European nations or small, ad hoc European collaborations. It combines industry, agency and some of Europe’s finest scientific institutions and universities.

1.5              ESA has shown recent progress in controlling internal costs and we would welcome a continuation of this programme to allow the maximum resources to be deployed on ESA missions. However, ESA needs to maintain a core of technical staff to manage the large industrial contracts that are the major part of their external activities.

1.6              The weaknesses of ESA’s funding and organisation are related to the multi-national nature of the organisation, which adds to the complexity of governance, and some inefficiencies. The so-called georeturn approach is highly effective in ensuring sufficient benefit is returned to funding nations. However, its implementation can be difficult and constraining. The number of ESA member states has grown significantly which adds to this complexity and stresses its decision making processes. ESA needs to continue to work to sensibly minimise the impact of this complexity.

1.7              In the past 10 years, ESA has run several of its space science programmes entirely through industrial contracts, rather than the Principal Science Investigator/Nationally funded instrument model used on successful missions such as XMM, Herschel and Planck, each with strong UK roles. We recognise the value of industrially-led missions in some situations, but investigator-led missions have developed the science expertise that now exists within Europe and should continue as the major part of ESA's programme.

2.               In light of the European Commission’s recent Communication on relations between ESA and the EU (COM 2012 671), what relationship between ESA, the EU and the UK would provide the most effective governance regime? Why?

2.1              COM 2012 671 identifies several areas where there are mismatches between the EU and ESA (such as membership), and the difficulties arising from the growing EU role in space matters through the Lisbon Treaty. The document suggests a “rapprochement of ESA towards the EU” as the solution, especially in order to promote operational efficiency and democratic accountability. However, this ignores the fact that ESA is responsible to EU member states individually and is hence democratically accountable and legitimate. It would seem unlikely that oversight by the EU would in any way increase operational efficiency. Nor does the document address many of the issues arising from the different membership; are Norway and Switzerland to be somehow removed from ESA? Changes may be necessary, but it seems unlikely that a transfer of responsibility of ESA from oversight by nation states to the control of the EU as suggested by COM 2012 671 is the best solution for ESA, or for UK interests within the space arena.

2.2                            The further mismatch regarding security and defence is likely to be difficult to resolve. ESA’s non-engagement in defence issues has kept a potentially divisive dimension from disrupting the relatively cooperative environment that ESA has created.

3.               How effective is the EU’s support for research and innovation in the space sector? What effect have changes to the Multi-Annual Financial Framework had on ESA and support for the space sector from the Horizon 2020 programme?

3.1              EU funding is important for the space sector, especially in a context of recent UK research council constraints. We note the growing importance of EU funding but also the need to align strategies between ESA, the EU and national priorities. We note that the technology roadmaps developed by the National Space Technology Strategy Group give a useful backdrop of UK capability but fail to provide a focused strategy.

4.               How effective has the UK Space Agency been and what improvements could be made? Is the UK effectively exploiting opportunities for growth in the space sector or could more be done?

4.1              In our experience, the UK Space Agency has been effective within the constraints permitted by its resources. These may not be up to the ambitions expressed in the 2010 IGS Report (www.bis.gov.uk/assets/ukspaceagency/docs/igs/space-igs-exec-summary-and-recomm.pdf) but nevertheless solid progress has been made against a difficult economic backdrop. The UK Space Agency is supportive of the main scientific and technological initiatives within UK space science groups, and provides an appropriate oversight and management framework to promote the securing of major new initiatives important to the UK science and technology base, and ensuring the delivery against current obligations.

5.               Does the UK get good value for money from its membership of ESA? How does its return on investment compare to other countries?

5.1              It would appear so.[1] This identified that in 2007 the UK has the lowest public space budget among the G7 countries (Figure 5.1), of which ~75% is to ESA. Considering the scale of the UK presence in space, this indicates an excellent return on investment.

5.2              From our perspective, without ESA, UK participation in some of the most important scientific endeavours would not be possible, and nor would the consequent benefits to UK society and the economy (knowledge-based networks, advanced technology development) be realised.

6.               How resilient is the UK’s space-based infrastructure? Are threats from space debris or solar activity being appropriately mitigated? What role do, or should, ESA and the UK Space Agency play in addressing these issues?

6.1              Some progress has been made in recognizing the threats associated with Space Situational Awareness that covers the issues mentioned. It will be important to address all aspects of these issues including the underlying science, monitoring and mitigation - at present the focus appears to be mainly on monitoring and then in only a partial way, for instance there is no present upstream solar wind monitor. For solar activity in particular a better understanding of the chain of interaction between Sun and Earth is necessary and ESA’s Solar Orbiter mission will address some of the underlying science related to this. The development and implementation of mitigation strategies including response to incidents seems unsupported within the UK.

April 2013