The Death of the UK Space Agency
It wasn't much, and now it is less
The UK Space Agency, as an independent body, is no more. It will be folded into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), ostensibly as part of a government initiative to streamline bureaucracy. The rationale is that such an “arms length” agencies as UKSA needlessly duplicate functions.
The name and logo will be retained; but there will be no longer be an independent budget or management. Effectively, when the change is implemented in April 2026, the Agency will be dead.
One of the claims of the government is that the change will “Ensure decisions are made with clear ministerial oversight” which seems strange given that, as an executive agency, the head of UKSA should in principle already directly report to a Minister (Sir Chris Bryant MP in this case) and when they are subsumed into DSIT they will no longer have a a direct line and instead report to DSIT management.
As part of DSIT, and decisions on space spending will be made in the broader context of the goals of that department. Opinions vary on whether or not this is a good thing, but to me it seems a logical endpoint of how we already conducted space policy in this country.
What Is Space For?
A longstanding criticism I had of the agency, and more broadly of UK space policy, is that it bought fully into the position that the government should spend money on space only as a means to achieve other objectives - such as stimulating investment, creating jobs, or safeguarding the environment. Space was never to be an end in itself.
Alice Bunn, a former director of policy at UKSA, made this explicit in an interview this morning with the Today programme on Radio 4:
It doesn't go far enough. What we really need to do is to consolidate all our space interests across government. So while space is of course interesting for our science, innovation and technology needs - its also absolutely essential for our defence needs, for our ability to monitor climate change, for the way we work generally. Everyone relies on space for communications, for travel... so if anything it doesn't go far enough. And we need to make sure that the next step is making strategic choices for national capability taking account of all our interests
Notice her use of the words “interesting” and “essential”. Which of those two categories of things will be cut in a tight budgetary scenario?
As a qualified insider rather than a politician, I take Bunn’s statements more seriously than the assurances by ministers that they are serious about space, I think her outlook on the matter is typical, and doesn’t bode well.
The UK “Brand”
Our politicians, for the most part, don’t understand the things they talk about. We’ve had ministers ask tech companies if they can stop using algorithms, for instance. They get briefed on whatever topic they are ostensibly responsible for, and then throw themselves into an enthusiastic public speech regurgitating what they have been told.
There seems to be a belief that, because investment is driven to some extent by “confidence”, the job of a Cabinet Minister to to relentlessly talk up the British economy, and then all will be OK. Growth will return for the first time in almost two decades, and politics will cease to be a zero sum game. We just have to raise everyone’s spirits!
This is why the UK Space Agency name and brand are being retained. These are seen as more essential than actual space activities because they can talk about them, wave them around, and hopefully attract vitally needed investment. The actual business of doing stuff in space is much less desirable, as it costs money. The optimisation being sought is maximum vibes for minimum expenditure.
Changing The Script
It doesn’t have to be this way. The states of the world are, by the end of this century, going to be ranked by their capabilities in space. It is possible to convince poeple that our status as a great nation is contingent on a seriousness about space exploration and even space colonisation as ends in themselves, not mere levers to try and get a decent quarter of economic growth or a nice headline.
By the next election, scheduled for 2029, this will likely be obvious to more people - the US and China will have put humans on the Moon or be close to doing so. Multiple reusable rockets will be flying at an astonishing cadence. At least one nation (India) will have joined the company of nations that can fly humans to space themselves. Multiple private space stations will exist. And there is a good chance there will be a SpaceX Starship landed on Mars by the time we go to the polls. If we wait this long to rethink policy, we will already have fallen further behind. There are things you can do to help prevent this:
First, sign this petition to spend 1 penny out of every pound the government spends on space, and share it widely.
Secondly, assuming that you’re here because you already understand the necessity of space, talk to as many people as you can about it. Make it an issue that can crop up randomly in focus groups.
And thirdly, if you are not already, please subscribe to my newsletter!