Oral evidence: Satellites and space, HC 804Tuesday 9 February 2016

Oral evidence, 9 February 2016.

Witnesses

Joanne Wheeler, Partner, Bird & Bird, Professor John Remedios, Director, National Centre for Earth Observation, and Dr Christopher Mutlow, Director, STFC-RAL Space, gave evidence.

Chair

Welcome. Thank you for coming today and sitting through the first session. I saw you listening closely to that evidence. Can I start by asking Professor Remedios a question about our imaging capability? We heard a little about Earth observation. I think the UK is the only G8 country that does not have sovereign imaging capability. Does that matter? Does the fact that much of our data comes from overseas data providers matter to us?

Professor Remedios

There are two aspects to that from my point of view. One is that the fact that we do not have it is somehow taken by people as indicative of lack of capability, which is certainly not the case. If you look at our broader missions in Earth observation or beyond, we are very technology capable, but it is seen as a marker. The part about access to data does matter. You can acquire data commercially by buying it from any company. That is not necessarily so bad. It means that there might not be a focus on what the UK needs to grow its industry, or indeed its science. One of the points I might come back to later is the interplay between science and industry—between the research base and industry. It certainly has been very important to see our satellite producers producing imaging capability that can meet the needs of science or the market, and how you do that is perhaps by telling the Government that probably they themselves have a requirement for high resolution data in addition to the data services they get. How much they need is an open question.

Chair

I suppose that is my next question. The marker for capability is a signal we send out about whether it is important and about what we are able to do, but on the point about accessibility and what we actually need, whether in the public or private sector, would it make a difference if we had sovereign capability? Is it worth paying the money to achieve that?

Professor Remedios

I have not been privy to estimates of the cost of doing it, but I would point to the fact that it is becoming cheaper to do. If you look at the new constellations of satellites, costs vary, but in various reports you can find estimates from a few million to tens of millions. That sounds expensive, but on a satellite scale it is a lot cheaper than a big platform. It is also the case that you want to get frequent coverage. Even if you can get the data from somewhere else, but you can contribute your own system and somehow integrate it, you can get more frequent coverage, and that is important. This is the middle of a piece of work, which I think has already been mentioned, going on across government to look at Government needs, but from a scientist’s perspective I can tell you that when we are asked by Government or industry what we can achieve and so on—it might be about land use management or flooding—we are quickly in agreement that there is a time coverage gap, and there can be a spatial gap. There are some things we can do and some things we cannot do. There is a good illustration from Germany, where they have the TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X data. They make data available commercially, and there is free access for science and for Government. It seems to work from what I see. Everyone speaks very highly of it. We have used some of the data ourselves. Somebody wanted to know where all the highest mountains in the Andes were, and how to climb them, so we were able to use satellite data to show them what they could not see. Now they are busy climbing mountains. It gives you a new perspective that you would not get otherwise, and that is important.

Chair

You have told me about the capabilities that would be available. You have not really given your judgment about whether it is worth investing in the capability, or what you think the best solution would be.

Professor Remedios

I would not want to be drawn on whether it is worth investing, in the sense that it is a question of the cost versus how much you can get out of it. Is it a desirable capability if the cost was reasonable? Yes.

Chair

What is your view, Dr Mutlow?

Dr Mutlow

I understand why John is not answering that from the point of view of the academic community. I do not think the requirement for that capability comes from the academic community; it probably comes more from inside Government, so we are probably not the right people to ask the question in that sense. John is right that increased frequency of coverage is always an advantage for any application, as is improved spatial and spectral resolution. We always ask for it. The question is about what we are trying to do with it. If we are trying to understand processes in the atmosphere or deliver some application, you have to take the application and decide what you need for that. In the abstract, it is quite difficult for us to say hand on heart that we need such a capability, but there may well be other people who do.

Chair

In and of itself that is a helpful answer. My next question is a follow-on from the end of the previous session. I want to ask about the skills gap and the impact it is having on your sector at the moment. We understand that there have been some problems with interoperability of data, the need for sophisticated processing tools and the need for very highly skilled individuals to ensure quality of data, and so on. Can I ask all of you to respond to this question: to what extent has the effective use of Earth observation data been held back by the digital skills shortage we are hearing about from various people who have written in?

Professor Remedios

It is certainly becoming a problem. If you are going to expand the community that includes the science and industrial base, there are lots of requirements for skilled people. It is not just in the digital area; there can be gaps in the engineering area and so on, but the amount of data we are getting is huge, and the ability to handle it is a big problem. In the academic research base, which includes a facility in my colleague’s organisation, we have a lot of skills in dealing with data. What we lack a bit is the ability, through our degree structure and onward, through PhDs or masters programmes, to produce people we will then employ or will farm out to industry to employ. The exact reasons for that are not clear, but there is no joined-up strategy to do it. There are a number of fragmented efforts. For example, it is not clear that the research councils or the Department for Education buy into it in a big way, but that is what you need to do if you are to match the ambition set out in the innovation and growth strategy, or indeed the ambition of the research base, which is exploring new views that we can get from space. We are doing really well at it, but people are important.

Dr Mutlow

I sit in the ground between industry, academia and Government, so I am fairly well placed to see in all directions. We certainly spend a lot of our time worrying about training people. We have problems getting people who are skilled enough to look after our own programmes: that is, engineers and data scientists across the piece. The growth of the space sector is creating interesting challenges for all of us, in that we are losing people to the companies, which is a good thing because it means we are passing on skilled people. STFC itself has recognised that big data is an area where a lot needs to be done and is setting up special schemes to try to tackle the whole issue of big data. Through the Natural Environment Research Council and John’s good offices, we run large facilities where some of those large data skills can be learned. We run graduate programmes and we have apprenticeships, but more of that could be done and it is something we need to look at. Funding of the research base and pulling those skills through into industry and delivering impact is very important. We forget that sometimes when we look at the funding for space.

Professor Remedios

It is certainly an area where, for example, the research councils, which are very supportive of the research we do, could do quite a lot more. They could say that space is very important—Earth observation in our case is very important, but it could also be another satellite technology—and that they are going to take some of their existing schemes and prioritise investment in that area because it will deliver on a much needed gap. I see some willingness, but it is very slow and not coherent. I would like to see more.

Chair

Dr Mutlow, I want to follow up comments made in the previous session about the gap around early stage satellite-specific engineering, ICT and communications, because the EPSRC does not support the space sector and you only support space science. Is that something you recognise from your position?

Dr Mutlow

The Space Agency supports some very important programmes—Earth observation, instrumentation and space technology—which take things to a certain point. Quite a lot of money is available for the early stages of missions. We have to work through ESA to get our science programmes funded, and that is a very long-term exercise for a scientist who wants something delivered. In some cases, it takes five to 10 years to get a mission to fruition. Therefore, there is a need for some support for instruments to put on spacecraft within the UK. John would probably agree with me about that.

Professor Remedios

Yes.

Dr Mutlow

We have a lot of early stage development, which influences ESA and puts us in a good position with ESA, but sometimes there are things we could do better to capitalise on that.

Chris Green

The space and satellite sector is growing rapidly, which is putting more and more pressure on the available spectrum bandwidth. Ms Wheeler, is the demand hindering growth and expansion at the moment? Is there too much pressure or demand to cope with it?

Joanne Wheeler

You are absolutely right. There are growing and competing demands for spectrum, which is a finite resource, and in different sectors’ various applications for it. You have already mentioned Ofcom’s strategic review. Satellites in particular have increasing demand for data-intensive services. A balance needs to be struck between satellite and other applications and satellite and other sectors, and it is important for even the satellite sector to put its evidence-based case to Ofcom when Ofcom is allocating spectrum. As Stuart Martin said in the previous panel, it is an increasing problem. I do not know whether it is yet an issue. The main issue I have heard about recently is CubeSats getting access to relevant spectrum. They use amateur satellite spectrum at the moment, and it is very crowded. It is about getting access to that quickly, because Ofcom, and International Telecommunication Union processes at international level, are not known for their speed.

Chris Green

There is a certain trajectory, with demands and expectations going up and up, and we have to look to the future and think about what we need. We need a very strong voice for the space industry as a whole, but the Royal Aeronautical Society says that the space sector has been rather quiet, especially in comparison with terrestrial users. Do you agree?

Joanne Wheeler

There are two things. There are messages from Ofcom and from the space industry. The space industry is often compared with the mobile industry, and the mobile industry has a very loud and very large lobbying voice. The space industry has a smaller lobbying voice, which comes back to my point that it is very important that the space industry works together to get evidence-based criteria to Ofcom. Ofcom, however, as was mentioned by the last panel, is growing in its support for the space industry. Recently, at the World Radio Conference in November last year, it was probably more supportive than before, particularly in regard to protecting what is called the Ka-band for satellite services. There has also been an MOU recently between Ofcom and the Space Agency that allows them to work more closely in regard to the spectrum needs of the industry and to take a step closer to ensure cross-governmental support. Recently a space spectrum advisory committee—I think that is right—has been set up between industry, the UK Space Agency and Ofcom. The feedback I am getting from industry is that they feel that Ofcom is now listening to their voice. However, to answer your question fully, I do not think we are quite there yet. What is vital is that Ofcom has the right resources to understand the needs of the space industry and to represent them at international level. When I was conducting the regulatory work for the innovation growth strategy 2010 and 2013, I interviewed most of the large satellite operators and asked, “What are your main concerns? What are you looking at when you set up or grow in a particular country?” Interestingly enough, they said that corporation tax was important but so was access—sustainable access—to spectrum and feeling that they were represented at international level by the national regulator. That is quite important. Ofcom is taking steps, but we are not quite there yet. If you will allow me to answer your question even more fully, Ofcom has published amendments to something called procedures for the management of satellite spectrum, which put quite onerous responsibilities on satellite operators—new additional milestones, which are quite cumbersome, beyond what is necessary at ITU level and beyond what is necessary to other administrations from the ITU. While Ofcom is listening to the industry, I would like to see a consistent approach rather than very onerous requirements and procedures for the management of satellite spectrum.

Chris Green

Are those onerous expectations unique for the requirements, or the perception of the requirements, of the particular sector, or is it perhaps a crossover from the telecoms sector?

Joanne Wheeler

They are quite unique procedures for the management of satellite spectrum and what are called the filing rules at Ofcom. If you want access to spectrum, you usually make a filing through Ofcom to the International Telecommunication Union. What Ofcom is proposing is potentially more cumbersome than, say, what the French, the Dutch and the Germans are proposing.

Chris Green

In that sense, there is not international agreement or consensus on what the rules should be. Is it each country coming to its own conclusions?

Joanne Wheeler

Good question. There is international consensus under what is called the radio regulations. They flow down to national Governments, who need to pay homage to them and apply them, but they can also go beyond them. We see Ofcom, in the new proposed amendments, going well beyond them. Ofcom should be praised for trying to deal with the issue of what are called paper filings, which are filings for satellite networks without intended use. That is not in the interest of anyone in the industry, and can be dealt with at international level, but Ofcom is taking it very seriously and applying quite onerous restrictions. It is just at the consultation stage, so we will have to see what comes out when Ofcom produces a statement.

Chris Green

That is the strategic review of satellite and space spectrum use.

Joanne Wheeler

Yes, and the consultation on the procedures.

Chris Green

What do you see as a good outcome for the strategic review? What are the demands that you might direct towards them?

Joanne Wheeler

I would say a good balance of use of spectrum for space services and for satellite services, but what satellite needs, unlike other sectors, is sustainable use. If you are putting up a large geostationary satellite, you do not just need sustainable access to spectrum in the near term; you need it for 15 years. There should also be recognition by Ofcom of the strategic importance of the space and satellite industries, and their value to public services—national security, science, innovation and so on. Potentially, it goes beyond what other sectors require. Ofcom needs that holistic approach and, hopefully, the MOU with the Space Agency and the strategic advisory committee will allow Ofcom to have a more evidence-based approach.

Professor Remedios

Sustainability of spectrum use is absolutely vital for our community, certainly for Earth observation and beyond. One of the things Ofcom has been receptive to is our explaining to them why that is. Basically, from a sensing point of view, those are fundamental properties of what we are trying to observe. You have to use the correct frequencies and, indeed, the correct combination of frequencies. Ofcom is beginning to understand that if you take a frequency out it actually has a big effect down the line. The point about public benefit—weather forecasting or whatever—has been taken as well. Ofcom has certainly been in contact with me about the evidence we produced showing the different uses of physical spectrum for physical applications, asking, “How do satellites use this?” such as diagrams and so on.

Chris Green

A telecoms industry may be allocated a spectrum that may be better or worse, but for satellites there may be certain requirements, so you need a particular frequency.

Professor Remedios

Absolutely. Given that satellites are increasingly being used for long-term monitoring of change, actually using a consistent set of frequencies over a sustainable period, a very long period, is very important. Ofcom’s international role at the World Radio Conference is, therefore, particularly useful, and it has been quite positive about that. You have to work internationally on that score.

Chris Green

Absolutely.

Dr Mutlow

What John is talking about are specific frequencies that gases or something of interest in the atmosphere emit. We also have to worry about bands adjacent to that and the harmonics of that. If you happen to be transmitting accidentally in that band, it has potential to do damage. Some of those things are very important societal benefits. We are using those frequencies because you can see water vapour in the atmosphere, or you can measure the temperature profile, which affects our ability to weather forecast. It is vital that we recognise that that has to be traded against the mobile phone operators and so on.

Carol Monaghan

In July 2014 we saw the launch of two demonstration CubeSats. I understand, Dr Mutlow, that RAL was involved quite heavily in providing the ground station for communication and control and planning those launches. Could you give us some indication of how well the technology performed during that mission?

Dr Mutlow

I am not sure that we were involved in the ground station for TechDemoSat, but certainly we were involved for UKube-1. There were some challenges with the hardware, which is one of the problems we have with CubeSats; the technology is quite immature and we are learning a lot. The mission can be regarded as a success, because it certainly demonstrated that the technology could do what it requires. One of the things that people forget when they have CubeSats is that, although the satellite itself is quite small, the level of sophistication required to control it is still pretty much as complex as it is for a big satellite, in some circumstances, and that always needs to be taken into account when we are doing these things. As for TechDemoSat, that was an opportunity to test some space hardware. Of course, with all the kinds of things we are doing, making sure that the equipment works properly in space is one of the key things that people are looking for when we pitch a mission to the European Space Agency. Has this technology got heritage in space? Will it continue to work? Nobody wants to invest in things that will not work. Having technology demonstration satellites, where we can test out whether the new hardware will work, and maybe that cheaper approaches to things will work, is very important to us, although satellites need to be representative of the satellites we are pitching our missions towards.

Carol Monaghan

We heard earlier concerns about small satellites in terms of controlling them, power sources, reliability and stuff like that, as well as tracking them, which is absolutely crucial.

Dr Mutlow

We obviously do that at Chilbolton, too.

Carol Monaghan

Did any of those issues materialise during your test missions?

Dr Mutlow

Not particularly. I do not think there were any issues of that kind. The whole idea of small satellites is very popular. The National Science Foundation in America has a very vibrant programme and is using them for training, but there they have a very frequent set of launches. If something goes wrong, the person gets a chance to rebuild the satellite and fly it again. Regulation is quite important. If we fly small satellites and CubeSats alongside some of the bigger satellites we fly, we can extract more value from some of the bigger missions that we are funding. That is something we are very keen on doing, but they have air traffic control problems.

Carol Monaghan

On air traffic control, if something goes wrong in terms of the orbit—if it goes into the wrong orbit—is there the possibility then to make changes?

Dr Mutlow

It depends whether we can communicate with it. We have Envisat, which is the size of two London buses, flying around, and they lost control of that; there is no chance of bringing that down. It is always very important to keep these things out of the way of the large platforms. It is now an important part of all satellite programmes that we carry enough fuel to de-orbit. It is a concern. If we confine them to the lower orbits, where they naturally decay very quickly, it is less of a concern. Certainly some of the original iridium satellites that were at a very high altitude are now decaying through orbits that we use for the bigger satellites, and that is a problem.

Carol Monaghan

When the small ones decay, will they decay sufficiently by the time they have completely gone?

Dr Mutlow

Yes. They just burn up. If you put them low enough, the drag just brings them out of orbit. That is what we do with the bigger ones, too; you have to design them so that they burn up when they come in.

Carol Monaghan

Some land in the sea, though.

Dr Mutlow

Yes, some land in the sea.

Carol Monaghan

Hopefully, not in the centre of a city.

Dr Mutlow

Increasingly, people are much more careful about it. When we fly one of these satellites now, a large proportion of the fuel we take is specifically for the purpose of de-orbiting it. Everybody is being very responsible now.

Carol Monaghan

Mention was made in the previous panel of some of the concerns about organisations that wanted to put satellites into orbit, and concerns about possibly the technological knowledge of particular organisations. Is that a fair concern?

Dr Mutlow

It is not really my area of expertise, but one would be concerned. People have to know what they are doing if they are going to put stuff in a place where it might interfere with everybody else. It is not a joke if we lose a billion-pound satellite because somebody launched a very small satellite in its path.

Carol Monaghan

I am trying to gauge whether it is a big organisation trying to stifle smaller organisations, or are there real consequences?

Dr Mutlow

No. Like anything, with sensible professional advice and certain standards, it should be safe. The regulation authorities need to be satisfied that people have competence, just the same as we have a driving licence when we drive a car.

Carol Monaghan

Maybe this is one for Ms Wheeler.

Dr Mutlow

Yes, I think it is.

Joanne Wheeler

It is an interesting industry because so many people want to use CubeSats for very exciting testing, development and so on. To answer your question, we are seeing more communications with companies that may lack experience but have a lot of enthusiasm. We need to make sure that they get the right advice from the catapult or Innovate UK and so on, because there have been a few in-orbit failures. Things are changing as experience builds up. We would not want to thwart the enthusiasm and the growth of this industry, but it needs to be mitigated, because of the risk of space debris and the risk of interference with other satellites and so on. It needs to be managed.

Victoria Borwick

That leads us neatly to asking a bit more about the licensing and insurance regulations, having heard the previous answers. To what extent do you think the current regulations prevent smaller people in the industry, or larger ones, from flourishing? What is your view on insurance and regulations?

Joanne Wheeler

Perhaps I could give a view and then pick up on the CubeSats compared with larger satellites. It is a difficult balance. I will give a tiny bit of background, to echo David Parker. The Space Agency is in an interesting dilemma. It has the duty of a regulator to manage risk and liability, control conjunctions and collisions, and to protect the public purse, but it also has to stimulate economic activity and growth and promote upstream technologies and downstream applications, which we all want to encourage. Dr Parker was slightly modest because he forgot to mention one change. They have capped the concept of unlimited liability, which obviously encourages CubeSats but also larger satellites. Previously, UK companies were not on a level playing field, because there was a concept of unlimited liability, which, let’s be honest, investors and banks do not like getting their head around, and that is now capped at €60 million. I am not aware of a regulator that has done as much in the last two years for large operators and small operators, and really tries to put them on a level playing field. The branding of the UK Space Agency and the clout of a licence is very important at international level for small players or larger players. We are not quite there yet, as David Parker mentioned. The licence process, particularly for small start-up companies and CubeSats, is lengthy and document heavy, but by its nature it is lengthy and document heavy; it is actually rocket science. The timing for the grant of a licence is six months. That may be too long for quick-to-market CubeSats that want to get to the market early to establish their competitive position. Saying that, the Space Agency understands this and is embracing it. It has put out a consultation with recommendations that are supported by the UK CubeSat Forum. There is also evidence of financial standing, which is easier for larger operators but much harder for smaller operators, when you have to have evidence of two or three years of audited accounts. Again, in collaboration with the Space Agency, I have not seen that to be an issue. The licence fee is £6,500. If that is per satellite in a constellation, and you have 12, 24 or 36 satellites, it gets rather expensive when it is business fees for a small start-up CubeSat. Again, I am aware of one example in the UK where there is one licence for exactly the same satellites on the same launcher, and one licence fee. I appreciate that that is part of the recommendations, too. I very much hope that the UK space industry pushes forward with those recommendations. I would like to mention two other things—insurance, which you mentioned, and ITU, the spectrum aspects. Spectrum is a cumbersome process, particularly for CubeSats. The ITU requirements and procedures are costly and time-consuming. It is difficult to co-ordinate for CubeSats and small sats, simply because they may not know the orbit trajectory, and the orbit characteristics may be unknown. That is simply the nature of a satellite. Moves are afoot at international level to do something with that. I would appreciate it if Ofcom could embrace it. To deal with your insurance and third party liability—are you happy for me to continue?

Victoria Borwick

I think so. We are probably going to be called to vote, but keep on. I won’t delay you further because we are going to be voting in a minute.

Joanne Wheeler

I understand that you need to go to vote. Third party liability insurance seems to be a hot topic and quite contentious just now. It is seen as a significant barrier to entry for small satellites. It is €60 million per satellite. If you work it out, that is about 0.1%, which is about £60,000 a year for small satellite operators, so you can imagine how it could add up per satellite. Again, the Space Agency is embracing that as an issue, and looking at recommendations to deal with the situation, particularly recommendation 8, which says that if a financial assessment is carried out to look at the benefits of the CubeSat, and the risks can be mitigated and the risks are low, the third party liability insurance can be waived. It can be waived today. It does not require additional legislation. Criticisms have been made of the Government that the UK is the only one that applies this third party liability insurance. Actually, that is not the case. A report published at the end of last year said that the UK is the only state that applies third party liability. That is not the case. Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg do, and at almost equivalent amounts. The only difference is the US, where third party liability is voluntary and does not apply to CubeSats.

Victoria Borwick

The only area you have not covered is the industry’s take on the spending review announcement that some innovation grants would instead be loans. Is that going to restrict funding, Dr Mutlow?

Chair

Loans versus grants through Innovate UK.

Dr Mutlow

Innovate UK is very important for people in the industry, but it is not something I can comment on because I am not from Innovate UK.

Victoria Borwick

No problem. That is absolutely fine. Thank you very much. It sounds as though we may be going to vote in a minute. I wanted to make sure that we had covered all the topics that might have come up.

Dr Mathias

As we asked the other panel, what is your opinion of the Government’s space policy and strategies? Do you think there is a balance between the commercial space sector and basic space research?

Professor Remedios

I am happy to comment. In the national space policy document, as opposed to what the agency does in practice, I do not think there is enough emphasis on the research-based missions. They are incredibly important and they inspire people. They achieve things. We discover things we did not know before. The UK is very successful in doing it, both in space science and in Earth observation, where I could speak more authoritatively. UK scientists led the CryoSat mission, they are leading the EarthCARE mission, and the Biomass mission to come. There is a reason for that, because those missions are important and UK scientists are good at doing it. I noticed in the previous session that there was, none the less, a little bit of separation between the research base and the industrial argument. I see them as co-deliverers in this space. It is a high technology area.

Dr Mathias

You do not think there is a problem if they are asked for a short to medium-term industrial connection with their research.

Professor Remedios

We need more support to do that. There is not enough pull-through from the research base. There are not enough joint academic-industrial programmes as opposed to one or the other. The catapult does its best, but most of its money is supporting the industry and its activities rather than the pull-through from the research base. Many companies that come to us want us to help them develop the methodologies; they can see the idea but they need expertise to help them deliver it. We do our best, but eventually you just run out of time.

Dr Mutlow

We have to remember that the pipeline for tomorrow’s future commercial missions probably starts in the academic community. We are reaping the benefits today from seeds that we probably sowed 10 years ago. It is important that we keep that pipe flowing. Like John, I think we need to make sure that the research is important. It is also important for the skills agenda, delivering skilled people who can then lead in the space industry and take it forward. I agree with John that the translation between academia and commercial impact is a tricky area. We are trying to invest a few people there. There are people delivering on the academic side and there are people delivering on the commercial side. We miss the link, and there is more we can do to make that link better. There are also some infrastructure questions about whether we need larger infrastructure in the UK, which is run for the collective but brings in some other companies, so that we can improve our economic impact. That is probably a slightly different question.

Professor Remedios

On the pipeline point, it has been very important to bring through new technologies that are really different, and to measure things that we just did not measure before. We have a gravity mission, about which somebody said, “Isn’t that just about fundamental science, blue-sky science?” We now find that people are beginning to use gravity measurements for all sorts of things that are not just academic, but related, in a way that they did not do before—water tables and all sorts of things.

Dr Mutlow

That gravity mission—the second generation gravity mission—involves cold atoms technology, which is currently under development in academia, and it will be a commercial thing in the future.

Dr Mathias

Do you agree, Ms Wheeler?

Joanne Wheeler

Yes.

Dr Mathias

Is there any problem with the funding falling between different research councils? Do you have an idea about that?

Joanne Wheeler

I do not tend to come across the funding.

Professor Remedios

The engineering point was touched on earlier, and I know that in the community it has been a big concern that somehow the research councils and the space agenda are not joined up. For instruments and sensors, given all the changes between research councils and the Space Agency, where they are sharing or passing over programmes—the Space Agency has some programmes and STFC has some programmes—they do not operate in the same way. We still have lots of uncertainty. Probably there is less confidence at the moment in the UK Government and research councils putting in the money to push the missions and the sensors forward. Who is doing what and how it is all joined up is a little uncertain at the moment.

Dr Mutlow

We are certainly using funding from outside space to try to further the space agenda. Some of the technologies we are trying to develop for space are medical applications and detection applications, to try to get money to move the technology forward to an actual space mission. There is some reverse-spin income.

Professor Remedios

They are, essentially, long term. You need long-term sustained funding at a sensible level for confidence and the ability to tell people that you are going to deliver. You cannot start a process and say, “We are not going to deliver now because we have changed our mind.” I am not saying that anyone is doing that, but there is a danger, unless you set this thing up properly, that that will happen.

Chair

I am afraid that we are going to have to bring the session to a close. Thank you all for your answers. They have been really helpful in getting us started off with our inquiry. It is a very exciting inquiry for all of us. Before we rush off to vote, I will mention for the space geeks among us, like Derek Thomas to my right, and those who have been inspired by Tim Peake’s mission, that the international space station will actually be visible tonight, passing east to west over the UK, at 18.20. If you want to find out more about it, for those watching, you can have a look online at spotthestation.nasa.gov. That is vital information for all of us. Thank you very much. That brings the session to a close. Oral evidence: Satellites and space, HC 804 10