Martian mania: Americans' obsession with the red planet

The Rise of the Martian Craze in the Early 20th Century

The early 1900s were a time of immense optimism and technological progress. Innovations such as the automobile, mechanical flight, and wireless communication captivated the public imagination. This era of discovery and possibility was epitomized by Thomas Edison’s belief that “everything, anything is possible” in the next century. Among those who shared this enthusiasm was balloonist Leo Stevens and astronomer David Todd, who, in 1909, set out to prove that communication with Martians was not only possible but imminent.

Their plan involved flying a hot-air balloon 10 miles above Earth so that Todd could send messages to the red planet. The pair was not just optimistic—they were confident. “We will be talking to the people of Mars before the 15th of next September,” Stevens declared. However, their mission never took off due to a lack of funding. Despite their failure, their belief in extraterrestrial communication was fueled by a widespread fascination with Mars during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

This fascination was largely driven by Percival Lowell, a wealthy Bostonian who transformed himself into an amateur astronomer after being exiled from polite society for abandoning a marriage proposal. Lowell became obsessed with Mars, convinced that he had discovered artificial canals on its surface—structures that, he claimed, could only have been built by intelligent beings. His theories were based on the work of Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, who first observed what he called "canali" (channels) on Mars in 1877. Though Schiaparelli was known for his absent-mindedness, his observations sparked a decades-long debate among astronomers.

Lowell's claims gained traction when Mars passed close to Earth in 1892, making the canals appear more visible. Newspapers like the New York World ran sensational headlines, fueling public excitement. When the Lick Observatory reported seeing lights on Mars, it led to a media frenzy. Were the Martians trying to signal Earth? It was a topic of conversation everywhere.

Despite the scientific community's skepticism, Lowell continued to promote his ideas through speaking tours and publications. He argued that the canals were irrigation systems used by Martians to transport water across the planet's arid landscape. His theories captured the public's imagination, leading to a wave of Martian-themed cultural phenomena. H.G. Wells’ novel The War of the Worlds (1897) became a bestseller, while dance crazes, Broadway shows, and even advertisements featured Martians.

However, not everyone was convinced. Astronomers like Walter Maunder challenged Lowell’s claims by conducting experiments with schoolchildren, showing that perceptions of Mars' surface varied widely. This suggested that what was seen through telescopes might be influenced by human error or optical illusions rather than actual structures.

Lowell’s reputation suffered further when Eugène Michel Antoniadi, an astronomer from the Meudon Observatory, produced clearer images of Mars that revealed no canals—only natural features. Despite this, Lowell refused to admit he was wrong, continuing to claim new discoveries even as the scientific community labeled him a charlatan.

Though he never proved the existence of life on Mars, Lowell’s work inspired a generation to dream of alien worlds. His legacy, though controversial, played a significant role in shaping humanity’s early fascination with space and the possibility of life beyond Earth.

Martian mania: Americans' obsession with the red planet

The Rise of the Martian Craze in the Early 20th Century

The early 1900s were a time of immense optimism and technological progress. Innovations such as the automobile, mechanical flight, and wireless communication captivated the public imagination. This era of discovery and possibility was epitomized by Thomas Edison’s belief that “everything, anything is possible” in the next century. Among those who shared this enthusiasm was balloonist Leo Stevens and astronomer David Todd, who, in 1909, set out to prove that communication with Martians was not only possible but imminent.

Their plan involved flying a hot-air balloon 10 miles above Earth so that Todd could send messages to the red planet. The pair was not just optimistic—they were confident. “We will be talking to the people of Mars before the 15th of next September,” Stevens declared. However, their mission never took off due to a lack of funding. Despite their failure, their belief in extraterrestrial communication was fueled by a widespread fascination with Mars during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

This fascination was largely driven by Percival Lowell, a wealthy Bostonian who transformed himself into an amateur astronomer after being exiled from polite society for abandoning a marriage proposal. Lowell became obsessed with Mars, convinced that he had discovered artificial canals on its surface—structures that, he claimed, could only have been built by intelligent beings. His theories were based on the work of Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, who first observed what he called "canali" (channels) on Mars in 1877. Though Schiaparelli was known for his absent-mindedness, his observations sparked a decades-long debate among astronomers.

Lowell's claims gained traction when Mars passed close to Earth in 1892, making the canals appear more visible. Newspapers like the New York World ran sensational headlines, fueling public excitement. When the Lick Observatory reported seeing lights on Mars, it led to a media frenzy. Were the Martians trying to signal Earth? It was a topic of conversation everywhere.

Despite the scientific community's skepticism, Lowell continued to promote his ideas through speaking tours and publications. He argued that the canals were irrigation systems used by Martians to transport water across the planet's arid landscape. His theories captured the public's imagination, leading to a wave of Martian-themed cultural phenomena. H.G. Wells’ novel The War of the Worlds (1897) became a bestseller, while dance crazes, Broadway shows, and even advertisements featured Martians.

However, not everyone was convinced. Astronomers like Walter Maunder challenged Lowell’s claims by conducting experiments with schoolchildren, showing that perceptions of Mars' surface varied widely. This suggested that what was seen through telescopes might be influenced by human error or optical illusions rather than actual structures.

Lowell’s reputation suffered further when Eugène Michel Antoniadi, an astronomer from the Meudon Observatory, produced clearer images of Mars that revealed no canals—only natural features. Despite this, Lowell refused to admit he was wrong, continuing to claim new discoveries even as the scientific community labeled him a charlatan.

Though he never proved the existence of life on Mars, Lowell’s work inspired a generation to dream of alien worlds. His legacy, though controversial, played a significant role in shaping humanity’s early fascination with space and the possibility of life beyond Earth.

Will AI Replace Historians? Skeptics Remain.

The Future of Historians in the Age of AI

The idea that historians might be among the most vulnerable professions to artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked a mix of skepticism, concern, and curiosity. According to a recent study by Microsoft, historians ranked second on a list of jobs most at risk of being replaced by AI. This revelation came as a surprise to many, especially those within the field who see their work as deeply human and irreplaceable.

Sarah Weicksel, a former historian at the Smithsonian Institution and now the head of the American Historical Association, first learned about the ranking at an industry conference. When someone joked about historians being replaced by AI, the comment carried more weight than it seemed. “It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what we do,” Weicksel said. “Historians don’t just memorize dates or facts—they interpret the past, analyze its meaning, and contextualize events in ways that no machine can replicate.”

The Microsoft study, titled “The Occupational Implications of Generative AI,” analyzed how AI interacts with various job tasks. It found that 91% of a historian’s work could be partially or fully addressed by AI queries. However, the researchers emphasized that this does not mean AI will replace historians entirely. Instead, they noted that while AI can assist with certain aspects of historical research, it lacks the nuanced understanding required for deep analysis and interpretation.

AI and the Fear of Job Displacement

The fear that AI could displace white-collar workers is growing louder, with corporate leaders and AI companies often highlighting the technology’s potential to automate tasks traditionally performed by humans. This has led to headlines asking, “Are there any AI-safe jobs left?” The answer, according to experts, is not clear-cut.

Matthew Martin, a senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, pointed out that while concerns are valid, there is currently little evidence of AI significantly impacting employment. “The fear is that AI is going to take everyone’s job,” he said. “But it’s a little early to say that.”

Despite these concerns, many historians remain confident in their profession. Their skepticism is rooted in both their professional expertise and historical precedent. Throughout the years, the humanities have faced similar doubts, with critics questioning the practical value of degrees like history. For example, California Governor Ronald Reagan once criticized the funding of “intellectual curiosity” over more practical fields. Yet, despite such challenges, history remains a popular major, and recent graduates have lower unemployment rates than those in computer science, according to the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

The Role of Historians in the Modern Workforce

Historians are far from being limited to academia. Many find roles in unexpected places, such as the National Security Agency, government agencies, and even corporate environments like the American Girl doll company. Brendan Gillis, a historian involved with the American Historical Association, described his peers as “the utility infielders of the workforce baseball team.” They adapt, contribute, and fill essential roles across industries.

Weicksel acknowledges that AI will change how historians work but insists it won’t replace them. “Generative AI can’t replace expertise,” she said. “It can’t truly understand information and contextualize it the way historians do.” She recalled advice from her PhD adviser: “You don’t need to remember every date—what you need to know is how to interpret events in a broader context.”

How the Study Was Conducted

The Microsoft study evaluated job tasks using the O*NET database, which categorizes occupations based on their responsibilities. Researchers compared these tasks with data from 200,000 conversations between users and Microsoft’s Bing Copilot AI. They looked for instances where AI successfully completed similar tasks.

According to the findings, jobs most at risk included interpreters and translators, followed by historians, passenger attendants, sales representatives, writers, and customer service representatives. On the other end of the spectrum were jobs involving physical labor, such as dishwashers, roofers, and embalmers. The occupation least affected by AI was the dredge operator.

Interestingly, the O*NET database itself lists historians as having a “bright outlook” with expected growth in the coming years. This suggests that, despite the concerns, the demand for historical expertise is likely to remain strong.

The Broader Implications of AI on Employment

Mark Muro, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, highlighted the complexity of predicting AI’s impact on jobs. He warned against making drastic career decisions based on current projections. “It would be precipitous to massively shift your pathway based on current information,” he said. “But there’s also no room for complacency.”

Muro also pointed to the history of technological disruption, such as the rise of ATMs in the 1970s. While ATMs initially reduced the need for bank tellers, they ultimately led to more jobs as banks expanded and tellers transitioned to other roles. This pattern may repeat with AI, though the long-term effects remain uncertain.

A Confident Outlook for Historians

Despite the uncertainties, Weicksel remains optimistic about the future of her profession. “Don’t worry,” she said. “We’re not going anywhere.” History, she believes, will continue to play a vital role in shaping our understanding of the world.

As AI continues to evolve, the challenge for historians—and all professionals—will be to adapt, embrace new tools, and maintain the human elements that make their work indispensable. In the end, history will be the judge.

Will AI Replace Historians? Skeptics Remain.

The Future of Historians in the Age of AI

The idea that historians might be among the most vulnerable professions to artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked a mix of skepticism, concern, and curiosity. According to a recent study by Microsoft, historians ranked second on a list of jobs most at risk of being replaced by AI. This revelation came as a surprise to many, especially those within the field who see their work as deeply human and irreplaceable.

Sarah Weicksel, a former historian at the Smithsonian Institution and now the head of the American Historical Association, first learned about the ranking at an industry conference. When someone joked about historians being replaced by AI, the comment carried more weight than it seemed. “It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what we do,” Weicksel said. “Historians don’t just memorize dates or facts—they interpret the past, analyze its meaning, and contextualize events in ways that no machine can replicate.”

The Microsoft study, titled “The Occupational Implications of Generative AI,” analyzed how AI interacts with various job tasks. It found that 91% of a historian’s work could be partially or fully addressed by AI queries. However, the researchers emphasized that this does not mean AI will replace historians entirely. Instead, they noted that while AI can assist with certain aspects of historical research, it lacks the nuanced understanding required for deep analysis and interpretation.

AI and the Fear of Job Displacement

The fear that AI could displace white-collar workers is growing louder, with corporate leaders and AI companies often highlighting the technology’s potential to automate tasks traditionally performed by humans. This has led to headlines asking, “Are there any AI-safe jobs left?” The answer, according to experts, is not clear-cut.

Matthew Martin, a senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, pointed out that while concerns are valid, there is currently little evidence of AI significantly impacting employment. “The fear is that AI is going to take everyone’s job,” he said. “But it’s a little early to say that.”

Despite these concerns, many historians remain confident in their profession. Their skepticism is rooted in both their professional expertise and historical precedent. Throughout the years, the humanities have faced similar doubts, with critics questioning the practical value of degrees like history. For example, California Governor Ronald Reagan once criticized the funding of “intellectual curiosity” over more practical fields. Yet, despite such challenges, history remains a popular major, and recent graduates have lower unemployment rates than those in computer science, according to the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

The Role of Historians in the Modern Workforce

Historians are far from being limited to academia. Many find roles in unexpected places, such as the National Security Agency, government agencies, and even corporate environments like the American Girl doll company. Brendan Gillis, a historian involved with the American Historical Association, described his peers as “the utility infielders of the workforce baseball team.” They adapt, contribute, and fill essential roles across industries.

Weicksel acknowledges that AI will change how historians work but insists it won’t replace them. “Generative AI can’t replace expertise,” she said. “It can’t truly understand information and contextualize it the way historians do.” She recalled advice from her PhD adviser: “You don’t need to remember every date—what you need to know is how to interpret events in a broader context.”

How the Study Was Conducted

The Microsoft study evaluated job tasks using the O*NET database, which categorizes occupations based on their responsibilities. Researchers compared these tasks with data from 200,000 conversations between users and Microsoft’s Bing Copilot AI. They looked for instances where AI successfully completed similar tasks.

According to the findings, jobs most at risk included interpreters and translators, followed by historians, passenger attendants, sales representatives, writers, and customer service representatives. On the other end of the spectrum were jobs involving physical labor, such as dishwashers, roofers, and embalmers. The occupation least affected by AI was the dredge operator.

Interestingly, the O*NET database itself lists historians as having a “bright outlook” with expected growth in the coming years. This suggests that, despite the concerns, the demand for historical expertise is likely to remain strong.

The Broader Implications of AI on Employment

Mark Muro, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, highlighted the complexity of predicting AI’s impact on jobs. He warned against making drastic career decisions based on current projections. “It would be precipitous to massively shift your pathway based on current information,” he said. “But there’s also no room for complacency.”

Muro also pointed to the history of technological disruption, such as the rise of ATMs in the 1970s. While ATMs initially reduced the need for bank tellers, they ultimately led to more jobs as banks expanded and tellers transitioned to other roles. This pattern may repeat with AI, though the long-term effects remain uncertain.

A Confident Outlook for Historians

Despite the uncertainties, Weicksel remains optimistic about the future of her profession. “Don’t worry,” she said. “We’re not going anywhere.” History, she believes, will continue to play a vital role in shaping our understanding of the world.

As AI continues to evolve, the challenge for historians—and all professionals—will be to adapt, embrace new tools, and maintain the human elements that make their work indispensable. In the end, history will be the judge.

The 2025 OLED TV Showdown Heats Up – Beyond Just Brightness

The OLED TV Market: A Battle for Supremacy

The competition between LG and Samsung in the OLED TV market has been fierce, especially since Samsung made a strong return with its QD-OLED technology. These two Korean giants have consistently dominated the market, outpacing other brands like Panasonic, Sony, and Philips in terms of market share. While these other brands offer high-quality TVs, they often fall short when it comes to features, design, and pricing.

One of the main reasons for LG and Samsung's success is their comprehensive range of features. Their smart TV interfaces are more user-friendly, and they provide better gaming capabilities, including support for higher refresh rates and multiple HDMI 2.1 ports. Additionally, their sleek designs make them more appealing to consumers who value aesthetics as much as performance.

Despite this, it’s important to note that Panasonic, Sony, and Philips still produce excellent TVs. For example, Sony and Panasonic are known for delivering some of the best sound quality in the industry, while Philips offers unique features like Ambilight to differentiate itself from competitors.

Picture Brightness and Innovation

A key area where LG and Samsung have had an edge is in picture brightness. Traditionally, OLED TVs were not ideal for bright room conditions, but recent models from LG and Samsung have significantly improved in this aspect. Samsung introduced the OLED Glare Free screen on the S95D, which enhances visibility in well-lit environments. This innovation has helped LG and Samsung maintain their lead in picture quality.

However, price has also played a crucial role in their dominance. Until recently, LG and Samsung were able to offer their flagship OLED TVs at lower prices than their rivals. For instance, the LG G4 and Samsung S95D were available for around $2,600, while the Panasonic Z95A was priced at $3,100. Despite the Z95A’s superior sound system and potentially better picture quality, the price gap made it less attractive to many consumers.

Sony’s Bravia 9 mini-LED TV offered a competitive alternative, but the preference for OLED over mini-LED remained strong for some buyers.

Current Pricing Trends in 2025

In 2025, the landscape has shifted slightly. The LG G5 and Samsung S95F launched at similar prices, around $3,399 for the 65-inch model. However, both saw price drops in anticipation of major sales events. What caught many off guard was how aggressively Sony and Panasonic priced their new models.

The Sony Bravia 8 II and Panasonic Z95B were launched at prices close to those of LG and Samsung. As of mid-August 2025, the prices have continued to fluctuate:

• LG G5 65-inch: $2,999 / £2,699 / AU$5,295
• Samsung S95F 65-inch: $3,299 / £2,799
• Panasonic Z95B 65-inch: $2,999 / £2,799
• Sony Bravia 8 II 65-inch: $2,999 / £2,499 / AU$5,295

This shift indicates that Panasonic and Sony are now offering competitive pricing, making them more attractive options for consumers.

Performance and Preferences

Opinions on these four TVs vary widely. Recent blind tests revealed different preferences among viewers and experts. One test, conducted by The Shiro Copr, favored the Samsung S95F and LG G5 for their brightness and vibrant colors. Another test by Value Electronics highlighted the Sony Bravia 8 II and Panasonic Z95B for their accurate SDR and HDR performance.

While the Z95B and Bravia 8 II may lack some of the advanced gaming features found in the G5 and S95F, they offer superior built-in sound systems. Comparisons between the Z95B and Bravia 8 II showed that both outperformed LG and Samsung in audio quality, reducing the need for additional soundbars.

Although LG and Samsung still lead in picture brightness, the gap in other aspects of picture quality has narrowed significantly. As the year progresses, the competition between these OLED TVs is expected to intensify, making the choice for the “OLED TV of the Year” increasingly difficult.

Final Thoughts

The OLED TV market continues to evolve, with LG and Samsung maintaining a strong presence. However, the emergence of competitive models from Sony and Panasonic has created a more balanced playing field. Consumers now have more choices than ever, and the decision will depend on individual priorities such as price, features, and performance.

The 2025 OLED TV Showdown Heats Up – Beyond Just Brightness

The OLED TV Market: A Battle for Supremacy

The competition between LG and Samsung in the OLED TV market has been fierce, especially since Samsung made a strong return with its QD-OLED technology. These two Korean giants have consistently dominated the market, outpacing other brands like Panasonic, Sony, and Philips in terms of market share. While these other brands offer high-quality TVs, they often fall short when it comes to features, design, and pricing.

One of the main reasons for LG and Samsung's success is their comprehensive range of features. Their smart TV interfaces are more user-friendly, and they provide better gaming capabilities, including support for higher refresh rates and multiple HDMI 2.1 ports. Additionally, their sleek designs make them more appealing to consumers who value aesthetics as much as performance.

Despite this, it’s important to note that Panasonic, Sony, and Philips still produce excellent TVs. For example, Sony and Panasonic are known for delivering some of the best sound quality in the industry, while Philips offers unique features like Ambilight to differentiate itself from competitors.

Picture Brightness and Innovation

A key area where LG and Samsung have had an edge is in picture brightness. Traditionally, OLED TVs were not ideal for bright room conditions, but recent models from LG and Samsung have significantly improved in this aspect. Samsung introduced the OLED Glare Free screen on the S95D, which enhances visibility in well-lit environments. This innovation has helped LG and Samsung maintain their lead in picture quality.

However, price has also played a crucial role in their dominance. Until recently, LG and Samsung were able to offer their flagship OLED TVs at lower prices than their rivals. For instance, the LG G4 and Samsung S95D were available for around $2,600, while the Panasonic Z95A was priced at $3,100. Despite the Z95A’s superior sound system and potentially better picture quality, the price gap made it less attractive to many consumers.

Sony’s Bravia 9 mini-LED TV offered a competitive alternative, but the preference for OLED over mini-LED remained strong for some buyers.

Current Pricing Trends in 2025

In 2025, the landscape has shifted slightly. The LG G5 and Samsung S95F launched at similar prices, around $3,399 for the 65-inch model. However, both saw price drops in anticipation of major sales events. What caught many off guard was how aggressively Sony and Panasonic priced their new models.

The Sony Bravia 8 II and Panasonic Z95B were launched at prices close to those of LG and Samsung. As of mid-August 2025, the prices have continued to fluctuate:

• LG G5 65-inch: $2,999 / £2,699 / AU$5,295
• Samsung S95F 65-inch: $3,299 / £2,799
• Panasonic Z95B 65-inch: $2,999 / £2,799
• Sony Bravia 8 II 65-inch: $2,999 / £2,499 / AU$5,295

This shift indicates that Panasonic and Sony are now offering competitive pricing, making them more attractive options for consumers.

Performance and Preferences

Opinions on these four TVs vary widely. Recent blind tests revealed different preferences among viewers and experts. One test, conducted by The Shiro Copr, favored the Samsung S95F and LG G5 for their brightness and vibrant colors. Another test by Value Electronics highlighted the Sony Bravia 8 II and Panasonic Z95B for their accurate SDR and HDR performance.

While the Z95B and Bravia 8 II may lack some of the advanced gaming features found in the G5 and S95F, they offer superior built-in sound systems. Comparisons between the Z95B and Bravia 8 II showed that both outperformed LG and Samsung in audio quality, reducing the need for additional soundbars.

Although LG and Samsung still lead in picture brightness, the gap in other aspects of picture quality has narrowed significantly. As the year progresses, the competition between these OLED TVs is expected to intensify, making the choice for the “OLED TV of the Year” increasingly difficult.

Final Thoughts

The OLED TV market continues to evolve, with LG and Samsung maintaining a strong presence. However, the emergence of competitive models from Sony and Panasonic has created a more balanced playing field. Consumers now have more choices than ever, and the decision will depend on individual priorities such as price, features, and performance.

Brilliant British Engineers Shun Whitehall's Quangos

The Rise and Fall of the UK Space Agency

The UK Space Agency (UKSA) was disbanded last week, returning its functions to Whitehall. Many saw this as a welcome move, given the agency's troubled history. A year earlier, a National Audit Office (NAO) report had exposed serious inefficiencies within the organization. Industry insiders even suggested that the agency might have been one of the worst creations of New Labour.

This situation raises an important question: how did the UK, once a leader in space exploration, end up in such a position?

The story of the UK’s involvement in space is one of brilliant engineering talent, often overshadowed by bureaucratic neglect. In contrast, countries like Italy and France, which have maintained stronger industrial bases, are now far ahead in space technology.

Today, British entrepreneurs are making waves with innovative projects. For example, companies like SpaceForge are developing advanced materials in space, while others are working on removing space debris using robotic arms. These developments highlight the potential of the UK’s engineering sector, especially with the drop in launch costs creating new opportunities.

However, there is a gap between these small startups and major players like Airbus, which played a key role in the Mars Rover project. This lack of middle-tier support has hindered growth.

David Whitehouse, a well-known author and former BBC science correspondent, argues that the UK has lost its place in the space race. He notes that even Russia, once a dominant force, is now struggling. Rebuilding the UK’s presence in space would take decades, he says.

Forty years ago, advocates pushed for a British equivalent of NASA—an independent agency capable of making strategic decisions without political interference. This led to the creation of the British National Space Centre (BNSC), which had a dynamic leader, Roy Gibson, who had previously headed the European Space Agency (ESA).

Despite initial enthusiasm from the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, the BNSC faced challenges due to political divisions. Margaret Thatcher was not fully supportive, and after Gibson left, the agency lost momentum.

In 2009, Labour replaced the BNSC with the UKSA. Over the next 15 years, the agency received a £1.75 billion budget. However, it largely passed this money to the ESA, which controls three major space powers: the US, China, and the ESA itself.

While the UK gained valuable projects like the Mars Rover and the Jupiter orbiter "Juice," the NAO criticized the lack of proportionality between the funding provided and the contracts received. The report also pointed out that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology lacked a clear understanding of its funding and requirements for the space sector.

The UKSA also developed some strange priorities. One was focusing on exporting regulations to other countries, despite having little influence with major powers like the US and China. Another was the push for domestic spaceports, such as the Shetland Space Centre at SaxaVord, which some critics describe as little more than a large car park.

There were also questionable investments, such as the disastrous Virgin Orbit project, which ended in bankruptcy. The agency also approved the sale of Inmarsat to a US company, while resisting further investment in OneWeb, a promising satellite navigation startup.

Despite these issues, the disbanding of the UKSA didn’t generate much public outcry. Most people saw it as a necessary step, given the agency’s failures.

Whitehouse notes that the UK government has always wanted to be part of the space future but has never been willing to invest the necessary funds or develop a clear strategy. As the country faces financial difficulties, the prospects for a larger UK space sector seem increasingly distant.