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.