UK Space Agency Deserves Better Than That

This is an editorial, not ‘balanced journalism’ by any means. It is unapologetically one-sided. And yes, I have a soft spot in this heart of mine for UK Space Agency, just like I do for all the endeavours in Cornwall and a good many of them north and east of there. At Orbital Today, we’re chronicling the leaps and bounds – and occasional frantic scramblings back onto ledges – of an unusual iteration of a fascinating industry. Taken as a whole, British space efforts are like none elsewhere on the planet, and that includes the current governmental infrastructure. I’m smitten.

So when the National Accounting Office published its report during FIA 2024, and headlines splashed about the shortfall in return on the funding from ESA compared to the outlays to ESA from UK Space Agency, it certainly caught my attention. After all, just the day before, Peter Kyle, the new secretary of state for the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, had hit a nail on the head, saying at Farnborough, “Something I noticed straight away, whether it was in aviation aeronautics or in space, is that every single person that I met is so dedicated to the sector, and you go way beyond what I’ve seen in many other sectors.” The FT and then others slinging the news on July 23rd was like finding a LEGO brick in a warm fuzzy slipper. Both the report and the media reaction needed studying.

The NAO Report

First off, the NAO report is well worth reading. What the reader brings to the screen may determine the tone of the report, though. For someone who agrees with Peter Kyle about the people working in the industry, it does read like a tale of people trying hard to improve upon their best. Some may see it in a very different light, and I am fully prepared to give the floor to them. Email us at [email protected] if you’ve something to say to that effect.

A sustainable environment at UK Space Agency

While fiscal matters stand out, and staff shortages are examined, there is the matter of the working environment that is broached, but not fully explained in the report. This is one area where I hope that more can be bought to light, and OT will be looking into it. Those who are “so dedicated to the sector” deserve a challenging environment in technical, not HR, terms.

In the report, there are indications that the agency is taking care of this. I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I call on the agency to tell us more.

A rather unhostile media of sorts

Through the end of July, a variety of media outlets reported on the NAO’s findings. None were truly hostile. Some were in no hurry to point out that UK Space Agency had improved the return on its contributions to ESA from 93% of funds sent to 96% in a little over a year. It seems that the reader is supposed to take the former figure and roll it between fingers and thumb to better consider the agency’s shortcomings before finding out about the improvement.

Other headlines tend to lay the blame for the unsharpened pencils of policy during the previous government squarely on UK Space Agency – then you read into the text and find out that forces outside of the agency couldn’t coalesce and create a more detailed course of action for it. Could the agency’s leadership have managed upward? I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to work. The headlines, though, indicate otherwise. UK Space Agency deserves better than that.

I’m a fan of UK Space Agency, and I think that following the NAO’s recommendations in general would only make it better. As for the coverage of the follow through, I would recommend keeping tabs of that from here.