19 March 2004
Britain's attempt to boldly go where no man has gone before is being hindered by the usual problem. No, not Martians – money.
More stable funding is needed for the UK civil space programme because of the long-term nature of the project, the National Audit Office said in a March 16 report which also examined the loss of the Beagle 2 Mars probe.
The £160.2m programme is based on scientific and commercial applications of space research rather than space exploration as an end in itself. It is operated by a partnership of government departments and scientific bodies.
Much of the work is carried out through the European Space Agency under an arrangement by which each country receives contracts equivalent over time to its accumulated contributions.
A £6.9m overstatement of UK contracts, found after a 2001/02 review, probably prevented firms from winning their fair share of work but this should be rectified over time, the NAO found. It criticised the Department of Trade and Industry, whose space funding fell from £21.7m to only £8.4m in the past two years.
'DTI Space needs to adopt a longer-term strategic view and back this up with programmes that industry can rely on for stability and support over a long-term horizon,' the auditors said.
The report also looked at the development of the Beagle 2 probe, which was lost after landing on Mars on Christmas Day. It said the British National Space Centre 'did not discuss the material risks to success alongside the costs and benefits' in submissions appraising the case for support, and expense increased through the use of cost-plus contracts.
But it concluded that Beagle 2 had 'given the UK a lead in a number of technological areas'.
A separate NAO report on March 17 looked at the partnership formed by Cambridge University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to 'think the unthinkable' about applying scientific research to business. This will have government grants of £65.1m over six years.
The NAO said the Treasury had been right not to use normal appraisal methods for a project which, by its nature, had such long-term and uncertain outcomes. But it said early expectations were over-ambitious and 'aspects could have been better managed'.
PFmar2004
