UK space programme criticised

Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:00 AM

There has been sharp criticism of the British National Space Centre Partnership in the latest report from respected Public Accounts Committee.

MPs concluded that the body - which runs the UK's space programme - had failed to explain how its investment benefited the UK.

The management of the ill-fated Beagle 2 project was also sharply criticised, with the committee arguing that it highlighted the centre's poor risk management.

Beagle 2 was due to land on Mars on Christmas Day 2003, but vanished without trace.

In February 2005 a report from the European Space Agency concluded that the project should never have been given the go-ahead, because it failed to attract sufficient guaranteed funding from the outset.

Committee chair in the previous Parliament Edward Leigh, said: "Individual space projects are expensive, take a long time to develop, and cannot always guarantee results. In the face of such uncertainty it is essential that the Partnership does everything it can to monitor projects closely and reduce the risk of failure."

He added: "The failure of the Beagle 2 project highlighted the British National Space Centre Partnership's poor risk management. In this case risks were exacerbated by an over-ambitious timetable, last-minute technical changes and uncertain funding. Ambitious projects like this should go ahead only if enough money has been made available up front and due allowance has been made for risk."

The PAC was working from the basis that the exploration of space is not an end in itself, but that it should reach "specific scientific, commercial and social objectives".

In 2003/04 the Government spent £188.6 million on civil space activities, with the money co-ordinated by the British National Space Centre and the DTI. Two-thirds of the budget goes through European space and weather forecasting bodies with the remaining third spent in the UK.

Of this third, MPs said that cost control was "compromised by the limitations of internal information systems" and that the partnership "does not summarise the benefits across space programmes, nor monitor progress against strategic objectives."

Mr Leigh added: "The partnership does not have enough information to explain how its investment provides value for UK taxpayers. For example, there has been no independent evaluation of the benefits estimated to arise from our investment in the European satellite navigation system.

"The partnership should also seek a review of European Space Agency procurement policies which, by guaranteeing each member a proportion of contracts, may sacrifice value for money. It also needs to do more to engage smaller British firms that may have a valuable contribution to make."

Tags: