Science in spending review : story so far

June 26, 2013

Quick off the mark Beeb summary here. The real McCoy here, for patient readers. (In standard government fashion, much blether and very repetitive…)

Headline (1) Science budget flat cash.  Could have been worse but not exactly good.

Headline (2) Capital budget increased – extra 500M 2015-16.

Detail (1) Increased capital budget is

…enabling significant investment in projects including autonomous robotics, Big Data, and major upgrades and new facilities at Harwell Science and Innovation Campus


Detail (2) : MRC budget apparently not moved to Department of Health.

Most important point… just the beginning boys and girls. Research Council carve-up not yet announced, and maybe not even fixed. Fate of QR (see Peter’s blog post from yesterday) and student finance etc still unknown. Gird your loins and buckle up your breastplate.


March 23, 2010

So what happened at the Grand Launch ? Well mostly, lots of speechifying and photo-opps with schoolkids and UK astronaut Tim Peak. We got about twenty minutes of Mandelson before he slipped out the back. Not bad for such a busy chap, and what with Byers-gate and all that. I probably got more out of gossiping with folk over coffee and biccies than from the speeches. The questions were also helpful, apart from the gharssly planted schoolkid question. You can read some background in my earlier post, and the official BNSC statement, but here are my informal bullet points :

  • The Government agrees with “the great majority” of the IG Team’s recommendations, but we ain’t getting promised that £550M just yet. That will be decided “project by project”
  • Theres £40M now to create the ISIC at Harwell. Apparently this is £12M from BIS and £28M from an alliance of RDAs led by SEEDA. In the corridor, STFC chaps assured me that none of this was from the STFC budget.
  • The beast is called UK Space Agency. Somebody asked if we pronounce it uch-ser but Drayson reckoned UK Space Agency was short enough.
  • We got an exciting new logo. Actually I hated it. Looks like something somebody invented for a fictional fascist party in a cheap TV drama. Modern and thrusting and all that. But I guess its memorable.
  • UKSA officially starts on April 1st. David Williams from BNSC is interim Director, but there will now be a recruitment process jolly soon.
  • Meanwhile the office is in Polaris House, Swindon. Some STFC staff have moved several feet already. Final HQ not officially decided, but I don’t think the ATC will be putting in a bid, as it is not in a County Beginning with O.
  • The lunchtime gossip was that the recruitment of the Director is crucial. We may be looking at re-arranging  deck-chairs, but the opportunity is there for a strong leader to force real change.
  • Sources tell me that the ISIC plans are ready to roll and it could be “built in a year”. Other sources tell me that actually folks are looking at buying something currently under-used on Harwell campus…
  • Andy Green (Logica, IGT leader) did a heavy plug for the hub-and-spokes thing, so maybe there is real opportunity for investment other than in Harwell. If there is ever any more real extra money.
  • Old timers reckoned this whole thing was hovering somewhere in between the classic government announcement-about-nothing, and a real major investment. There was a feeling that there is a real intention to be serious about the growth of the space sector, but intentions are cheap… Anyway, we should engage rather than sniff.
  • Drayson said there would be a “single budget” but that the science budget would be separate and ring-fenced. But really there are three separate things related to space science – exploitation money, project build money, and technology R&D money. The most optimistic thing for the academic sector is that re-structuring may let us get at part three.
  • One knowledgeable source suggested to me that UKSA may hold the space science project budget, but we will still apply to STFC. Hmmm.

* PLS = Post Launch Summary. Space Junkies Joke.

Spaceward Ho

March 23, 2010

So where did all this Space Agency stuff come from ? Here are a few thoughts and links before the lift off.

Joined Up Space.
We already have the British National Space Agency. Its a kind of loose partnership, a central bureaucratic node, and a fairly low key PR machine. It doesn’t actually do stuff. So the idea is that we need an Executive Agency. This was nicely explained the other day by Paul Murdin on the Radio 4 show, Material World. The idea of the new agency was announced in December 2009, and the transition plan seems to be being handled by BNSC. The key bodies are the UK Space Board (chaired by Keith Mason) and the Space Advisory Council (chaired by Dick Holdaway), so the STFC/RAL/Harwell nexus is well represented there…

Astro PR Value.
What really strikes me is that on the BNSC front page, half the stories are usually about astronomy, and the glitzy “UK in Space” video is dominated by pictures of the Universe. Astronomical activity in space obviously has an enormous PR value. How do we capitalise on that ?

The Growth Strategy.
The space agency idea could be seen in the context of the existing UK Civil Space Strategy 2008-2012, but the real action started since Drayson took over. The “Space Innovation and Growth Strategy” has its own website. Its key report is really worth a read. Its not just the usual cotton wool. Its full of hard stuff, deliverables and dates.

The Money.

  • The current civil space budget is £268M
  • Right now that is way behind France, Italy and Germany – see the graph in this BBC article.
  • The IGS report proposes to double this to £550M in 10 years
  • The claim is that although we are talking about a Government spend of £270M, the value to the economy is £6.5bn; and after doubling government spend to £550M we get a value of £40bn. I guess I need to read the report to understand this….
  • The idea is to fund capital investments using PFI : commerce puts up the money but the government underwrites, by promising to be the main customer. In other words we pay later. PFI is the Gordon Brown Big Idea.
  • Out of that £268M, STFC is £118M – see this BNSC web page.

Research Councils come, Research Councils go, but The Lab goes on forever.

So… we need an Executive Agency. An organisation that does stuff. But who does stuff now ? Well… apart from the industrial companies …. RAL. Two other things may slot in here. The first is the new ESA centre at Harwell. An agreement with ESA was made in November 2008, and the centre physically launched in July 2009. It is initially in temporary accomodation in the ATLAS centre. The second thing is the International Space Innovation Centre (ISIC). This was originally one of STFC’s Gateway Centres, along with the Detector Systems Centre, the Hartree Centre, and the Imaging Solutions Centre. The new version of that web page has removed ISIC, but it is still listed as one of the Gateway Centres here. The BNSC web site has an information document about ISIC which is linked to this page. This explains that ISIC will be a purpose built building or buildings at Harwell, and that the ESA centre will be located inside it once it is ready.

So we see the final piece of the puzzle in recommendation 14.1 of the IGS report : the UKESA to relocate to Harwell July 2011. Those guys at The Lab plan ahead, boys and girls.

Astronomical Implications.
Very clearly the new UKESA is about commercial space activity, not about science done from space. The IGS report doesn’t even mention astronomy, or even moon exploration. However, a considerable proportion of the current government spend is about space science of one kind or another, and as I have noted above, it is used very heavily for PR. What are the plans ? One key issue of interest to us all is what happens to the space science budget as well as the ESA subscription – not the grants for postdocs to exploit ESA facilities, which will presumably stay with STFC and/or its successor, but the budget for University groups who want to design and build instruments for those missions. Personally I think multiple sources of funding for astronomy, as opposed to a single government route, could be a healthy thing. But … we need to watch the peas under the cup. Meanwhile, there is another key issue which I haven’t yet heard others fret about … will design and build effort be more concentrated than at present ? Is this good news or bad news for Leicester, MSSL, Birmingham, and the ATC ? Is it gravy for all, or time to rationalise somewhere near the dreaming towers of Didcot ? Sorry, that should have been “steaming towers”.

The IGS report speaks of “hub and spokes” but the next few months or so could be crucial in understanding what that means.

The Lab

July 3, 2009

Browsing the STFC website the other day, the way you do, I came across the section labelled “Our History“. The most striking thing is that it looks much more like a history of CLRC and its antecedents than a history of PPARC and its antecedents. Observatory Wars and the creation of the ATC ain’t even mentioned. History starts in 1920, not 1675.

When you look back over the postwar history of British Science, the most striking thing is the steady growth of the Harwell campus. Harwell started as an RAF airfield in 1937, and was chosen as the site of the Atomic Energy Authority in 1946. Culham was started a few miles down the road at the same time. The Rutherford High Energy Lab grew out of the Harwell accelerator division in 1957.

Here is what happened to the rest of Britain’s non-military physical science labs :

Royal Greenwich Observatory
founded 1675;  closed 1999
Royal Observatory Edinburgh
founded 1820; merged with RAL 2007; site still open
Appleton Lab (Slough)
founded 1920; merged with RAL 1979, site closed
Atlas Lab (on Harwell site)
founded 1964; merged with RAL 1975
founded 1962; merged with RAL 1994; site still open … just
founded 1967;  taken over by RAL ?? (can’t find date)

I think you get the point. Don’t get confused by all the name changes. The massive thing at Harwell is always there, and has gradually taken responsibility for everything, usually closing the separate site after a polite pause. The merger with PPARC meant taking over observatories in Hawaii and La Palma of course, as well as the power to issue a large fraction of University research grants, and the responsibility for our international subscriptions.

Now, I may be paranoid but I ain’t stupid. Maybe the growth of The Lab is a good thing. RAL is a presence on the world stage. If the USA can afford a handful of world class labs then we can probably afford one. And many of my condensed matter and particle physics chums are all in favour. RAL either provides the facilities they need to do their research (Diamond, ISIS, CLF) or provides the technical resources they can work with to make their contributions to CERN.  This is the same logic as the ATC but twenty times bigger.

So whats the problem ? Lets just be more straightforward. RAL has taken over astronomy, and why not ? Its a top class lab.

[Cue RAL staff to grumble about being run from Swindon ….]