Britain's mission: to boldly go into the 21st century space race

Advances in technology are igniting a spectacular boom with rich rewards in prospect

Fifty years ago this October the Russians blasted Sputnik 1, the world's first satellite, into space. In those days satellites were at the cutting edge of space technology, the arena where Russia and the US went head-to-head.

Today, satellites are the business end of the space spectrum. Manned missions may provide glamour but it is satellites that provide the high added value and the economic returns.

It is an area where the UK is strong: from Astrium, a subsidiary of the Franco-German group, and EADS, which has its UK base in Stevenage and makes satellites the size of buses, to Surrey Satellite Technology, a company founded by the University of Surrey to exploit its expertise in small satellites that has become a world leader.

Big operators include Inmarsat, the London-based company which owns a fleet of 10 satellites and is a global leader in satellite-based mobile services. Yesterday Inmarsat shares touched an all-time high in London after the company revealed its first-half revenues had risen 15.6% to $284m (£141m). Overall, about 80% of the UK's space workforce is involved with satellite telecommunications.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the strength of Britain's satellite industry, debate continues over whether the UK should stick to what it knows best or dust off long-abandoned ambitions for manned flights. As the then science minister, Malcolm Wicks, noted earlier this year in evidence to the Commons science and technology committee: "We are very much taking part in this great adventure, but this is not about the UK in a very nationalistic way of thinking it should fly the flag or that we should have our own British mission to the Moon or Mars or whatever. We should play to our strengths and our strengths are considerable."

Not that the committee agreed, concluding that Britain should keep its options open on whether space was better explored by robots or people.

Mr Wicks was not understating the case when he referred to Britain's strengths. According to research by Oxford Economic Forecasting for UK Space, the trade association, the industry employs 17,560 directly. Add in those in the supply chain or depending on the industry and the number climbs to 70,000. OEF reckons the industry contributes almost £7bn to the economy and boasts the country's most skilled manufacturing workforce.


In its vision for the industry in 2025, UK Space argues that if Britain could double its 7.3% share of the world market, and if that market continued to grow as expected, then space could be contributing £150bn to Britain's economy - a growth rate that would leave even the housing market gasping.

It's a big if. The UK is among the world's top five players in the space industry but industry sources say its standing is under threat. Countries such as China, India, Spain and Italy have picked up on the link between satellite capability and economic performance and are spending accordingly.

Jean Jacques Dordain, the director general of the European Space Agency, told MPs: "On average, the UK is an anomaly in ESA because the UK is number two in terms of the GDP and is only number five or even maybe number six in terms of contributions to ESA activities. When I compare the different countries, the UK is not on average at this position, at least in terms of budget. That is a question of choice for the British government."

Global interest in satellite technology is being fuelled by environmental concerns as well as economic. Satellites can open the way for a huge range of services beyond broadcasting.

Satellites can guide farmers ploughing huge fields in Canada, monitor crops and help to predict droughts in Africa. They can be used to help disaster recovery, showing where roads and bridges have survived to allow access to devastated areas; they can be used to help estimate the numbers of refugees in places such as Darfur by counting the tents. They can carry equipment to track changes in polar ice-caps and sea temperatures, or to monitor the health of the frail or vulnerable. They can also peer into space itself, tracking not only where manned or robot missions might go next but identifying dangerous meteorites which might have Earth's name on them. Satellites are heavily used in defence, both as "spies in the sky" and in military communications.


Though satellite services make money, the government is still perceived to have a clear role in sharing the risk of research and development. Much of its approach is coordinated by the British National Space Centre, a partnership of government departments and research councils. In 2005-06, for example, it channelled £207m into the space programme, two-thirds of which went through the European Space Agency.

Critics argue that too many government departments are involved in deciding on funding and how it is spent but not enough take a lead in adopting the technology that is developed.

In its evidence to the MPs' committee, the Royal Society called for the creation of a UK space agency to take a more active role in terms of involvement with international organisations and initiatives, which it said could pay dividends for the UK space industry. It also criticised what it called the "low level of involvement" in the ESA.

The British space centre says it is working on a new strategic programme which is expected to be published in autumn. The science and technology committee would like it to go further, developing a road map for Britain's space strategy out to 2050.

There is little doubt one is needed. Given the economic and environmental case for ever more sophisticated satellites, a new space race is under way - one with a big field and bigger prizes.