UK must give more to ESA to get benefits of space industry boom, says Brian Cox

The UK should hitch its cosmic wagon to the European space agency and contribute more cash to the intergovernmental body, professor Brian Cox, musician, media luvvie and Manchester University particle physicist, told the UK's second Parliamentary chamber this week. Professor Brian Cox at the House of Commons on 3 March – click …

[Andy 73]

Um....

Don't collaborate with this external group because you're at the mercy of changes in policies.... collaborate with this other external group and be at the mercy of their changes in policies instead.

It might be an idea to be the Taiwan/Switzerland (pick a neutral country metaphor of your choice) of Space technology - do stuff that everyone needs rather than trying to pick a club to belong to.

Cox is thankfully very open about his Europhile politics, which should certainly be part of the debate, but let's not make policy based on "100 reasons why we should be part of Europe". Current geopolitical tensions suggest that picking sides might have serious long term consequences that we might be better off avoiding.

[Paul Crawford]

Re: Um....

Current geopolitical tensions suggest that picking sides might have serious long term consequences that we might be better off avoiding.

The problem is the UK lacks the scale to do most of these projects on its own, so it needs to partner with others and ESA has been more predictable than most for a long time.

[UCAP]

Re: Um....

With ESA, when a project is given the go ahead, funding is allocated for the entire duration of the project. With NASA, they have to grovel to Congress each year to get the money for the next year for each project. I know which is the better approach!

[SundogUK]

Re: Um....

The successful approach is the better approach. And that means the USA.

[Andy 73]

Re: Um....

I never suggested doing things on our own - simply looking to support the entire community rather than committing to a single group. We do this in many industries, particularly automotive, so why not space? If we have something to offer, we should offer it.. and to everyone.

The 'lacking scale to do projects' argument falls apart in an age when private companies are very successfully challenging national programmes for technical leadership.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Um....

So which UK based (HQ and manufacturing) is successfully challenging the national programme for: nuclear, onshore wind turbine and solar panel production?

[vogon00]

Re: Um....

I can answer that one for you. We have sod all 'manufacturing' capability now, at least at scale. We've sold it all, along with several other areas of UK life (Electricity distribution, water supply etc).

I remember when manufacturing involved "mixing raw ingredients together yourself" to make product...now we'd rather buy those skills in on a sub-contract or just buy in and re-badge someone else's manufactured product.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Um....

"We do this in many industries, particularly automotive, so why not space?"

Automotive is a terrible example. They can't even agree on a standard power connector for EVs.

[katrinab]

Re: Um....

In the EU (and UK), we do have a standard power connector for EVs. It is CCS2.

In the US, it seems they have now standardised on Tesla's formerly proprietary connector, now called NACS.

[munnoch]

Re: Um....

My 5 year old plug-in has two charging connectors neither of which is CCS2.

The great thing about standards etc....

[SundogUK]

Re: Um....

Five years ago no one gave a shit. The standards are more recent. That is how these things work.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Um....

"so it needs to partner with others and ESA has been more predictable than most for a long time."

There's also more opportunity to partner on projects that are a better fit from a UK standpoint.

[Roland6]

Re: Um....

>” The problem is the UK lacks the scale to do most of these projects on its own, so it needs to partner with others and ESA has been more predictable than most for a long time.”

This fundamentally was one of the arguments for joining with Europe, across many areas which Westminster did very poorly, for example regional redevelopment, agriculture, scientific/technology R&D…

The laugh, which @Andy 73 obviously doesn’t get, is that by better funding our ESA activities, UK companies will be better positioned to work with other agencies such as NASA.

[Justthefacts]

Re: Um....

That depends which space projects you mean. If you mean *science experiment* projects, then yes. The scientific community does not need two GAIA spacecraft, or two LISA interferometers. By banding together, we avoid pointless duplication; can afford bigger experiments; and mostly importantly of all on the science/analysis side participate in a nexus of where the best and brightest go. The Camelot effect. Also, worth bearing in mind that on science projects, most of the *value* is not under ESA funding or auspices at all, it’s the university Principal Investigators with (national) R&D funding. That’s the positive side.

On the other side, the engineering side, ESA is a catastrophe. Not only do you not “need scale” for telecoms and earth observation R&D, it is the exact reason why Europe has failed. When you have to “ask permission” to do developments, you prevent the actual doers from just JFDI. Nobody in either Airbus or Thales (the two European primes) has *any interest* any more in whether the systems they build are commercially viable. The only purpose of these programs (in their minds) is to get paid by ESA for doing an R&D. If you are in any meetings, the strategic purpose of one R&D program is simply positioning to be in the best place to win the next R&D program. Boondoggle programs like EDRS-C become entirely self-sustaining.

ESA’s programs performance on value for money (less than 10% of the money spent by govt goes on actual engineering), and ridiculous industrial structures (georeturn) is well-documented and I won’t rehearse it too much here. Other than to point out, that in a *normal* economy, projects get done by the companies with the *greatest* capability. But in the ESA-funded world, the main criteria are to put the workflow in the hands of those *least* competent to do it, in order to “develop the capability of the industry”. That’s not my sour-grapes belief, it’s literally written down in black and white in the contract Statement of Work.

[Persona]

Re: Um....

Unfortunately ESA lacks scale too. Last year they accounted for less than 5% of orbital launches.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Um....

It's never really dawned on some that bing part of the community means that you're part of the decision making process whilst being outside it means that you're not.

[MJI]

Re: Um....

They are the local group, so best to join in with, but we can blame Borrris for that

[Dizzy Dwarf]

Re: Um....

It was a mistake to leave the Virgo Supercluster.

Bloody Milkywayexiters.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Um....

"Bloody Milkywayexiters."

Splitters!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Um....

You can't blame the people. You have to blame the guy that wrote lies across the side of a TIE bomber.

[rjsmall]

Re: Um....

Although the ESA may have European in it's name it isn't an EU department / organisation - it exists outside of the EU. https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/ESA_and_the_EU#:~:text=ESA%20is%20an%20intergovernmental%20organisation%2C%20whereas%20the%20EU,aim%3A%20to%20strengthen%20Europe%20and%20benefit%20its%20citizens.

It makes sense to co-operate with them on scientific missions but it seems like commercial space is going to be dominated by private companies such as SpaceX or Blue Origin.

[werdsmith]

Re: Um....

Indeed, Canada is a contributor to ESA. UK are a contributor. It's not the EU and not an EU project.

[UCAP]

Re: Um....

ESA was established long before the EU came into existence. The EU has tried several times to take control of ESA on the basis that they both have the word "European" in their name, but each time has resulted in ESA saying some very pointed words to the EU.

[TedF]

Re: Um....

"saying some very pointed words to the EU" - like fork off?

[Roland6]

Re: Um....

Probably more like: Casse-toi

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Um....

Though we shouldn't forget that ESA is subject to its only internal politicking, which one of the reasons why Ariane 6 was so severely delayed. But it's pretty much the same with all multinational organisations: everyone wants to be a chief, and everyone wants to make sure that they're financial contribution is spent in their country in some way.

[TDog]

Re: Um....

And they have no interest in being commercially successful at the risk of internal stress. Multifunded by nations they are a soft ride to a safe future, whereas those in it for profit rather than prestige or overnment subsidy seem to me more efficacious in the medium term. Blue Origin, SpaceX and a host of small rocket entryists, many of whom will presumably be subjected to those commercial pressures.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Um....

The commercial companies you list depend upon government contracts for success and you even qualify your analysis that you "presume" they will be subjected to commercial pressure. Looks more and more like it could be a duopoly and the US might use its "extraterritorial" jurisprudence to try and enforce something like Exclusive Economic Zones in orbit and elsewhere, such as the moon.

[Roland6]

Re: Um....

> whereas those in it for profit rather than prestige or overnment subsidy seem to me more efficacious in the medium term

And the long term, ie. Beyond 10 years?

Too great a focus on the short to medium term has directly lead to the situation where we are in thrall to US companies that have grown off (US) government funding, which given the size of the US economy could outspend any single nation, until China got its act together…

Remember part of driver for European projects is to maintain (and enhance) European capabilities, beyond being simple maintainers of foreign equipment.

[Paul Crawford]

Re: Um....

Ariane 6 suffered from bureaucracy and politics, much the same as most US-gov funded projects have done. Though it pains me to say it, SpaceX did a much better job to get a good rocket but that was also largely down to Musk's funding thought numerous explosive disassembly's which did not come with the delays and pork-barrel politics that USA and ESA funding does.

ESA does have some EU projects like Galileo that the UK were kicked out of post-Brexit, but those are projects specifically funded by the EU (political organisation) rather than the ESA normal member's funding (many also in EU, also political, but often more stable as tamed by the desire for geographical-return policy coming back to fund their own industries).

[MJI]

Re: Um....

Yes, but we are being blocked on some projects.

And the point was ESA rather than other groups, and of course Borrris messes everything up

[GioCiampa]

Re: Um....

Thanks for adding to my "'European' institutions, that are not part of the EU" list.

[MyffyW]

Re: Um....

Well I can sort of see the local connection angle. But when it comes to orbiting the planet, everything is local, ne c'est pas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Um....

Switzerland is part of ESA though. And Taiwan, well, it's known for plenty of great things, but that doesn't include much space exploration so far.

[karlkarl]

Re: Um....

> do stuff that everyone needs rather than trying to pick a club to belong to.

This part I really do agree with. Whether England sides with NASA or ESA, our contributions are going to be tiny and insubstantial. We have spent the last few decades focusing purely on re-selling crap mobile phones and houses to ourselves for a quick buck rather than progressing in any bit of science.

So if we can pick a niche, really focus on that and then offer that to *both* NASA, ESA (and heck CNSA and ROSCOSMOS once we are all friends again); then we might actually have some impact.

If we do pick a "club", ESA or NASA makes little difference, will end up just acting as a "good little worker" and lose much autonomy preventing us from finding our niche.

(Yes, I do still think leaving the EU was risky but that ship has sailed).

[Roland6]

Re: Um....

It’s not really a matter of taking sides as good commercial sense.

By contributing to ESA the UK gets to develop and maintain capabilities that make it more attractive to other partners such as NATO.

[TVU]

UK must give more to ESA to get benefits of space industry boom, says Brian Cox

He's right as we cannot now necessarily rely on US partners under the current circumstances.

For what it's worth, I'd really like to see more scientific and technical cooperation between the ESA, Japan's JAXA and India's ISRO.

[Version 1.0]

Re: UK must give more to ESA to get benefits of space industry boom, says Brian Cox

We're all people on our world so "scientific and technical cooperation" needs to be worldwide to support our future. The risks are the future of our sun in billions of years, it might die and we need to work out a method to move around the universe which will require scientific and technical cooperation worldwide. As fish we originally climbed out of the sea and a few of the fish became monkeys, eventually evolving to walk around our world and these days post on Facebook etc ... lets evolve some more to visit and start to live in other solar systems in the universe.

Brian Cox is very smart, it's always good and helpful to listen to his science views.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: UK must give more to ESA to get benefits of space industry boom, says Brian Cox

We have lots of monetary contribution to ISRO, but have absolutely no say in what it does.

Look at how much the UK used to give to the Indian government in aid to help with basic sanitation (maybe that is being cut back ATM) and how much the Indian government gives to ISRO (rather than spend on basic sanitation). The UK has just outsourced space exploration with no say in the outcome.

Anon, as I work in the industry and voicing the inconvenient truth is career limiting.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: UK must give more to ESA to get benefits of space industry boom, says Brian Cox

"For what it's worth, I'd really like to see more scientific and technical cooperation between the ESA, Japan's JAXA and India's ISRO."

With Trumps current penchant for chaos and yo-yoing between various policies and objectives, I think most countries that have dealings of any kind with the US are probably very much look at all the options such as "can we weather the storm and hope things change in 3.5 years" to "how fast can we diversify away from any dependency in the USA"

[A Non e-mouse]

I always thought Brian's performance in the Bourne films was some of his best.

[MyffyW]

I'm looking forward to the next synthpop hit "Winter is coming"

[Roland6]

Expect the video to have a Game of Thrones theme.

[Charlie Clark]

How about when they were both booked into the same hotel at the same time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Brian Cox has an IQ score of 183 ... that's excellent he's quite smarter than I am and I'm always very impressed with his thoughts.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an IQ of 163, in conversation, I am awed by his speed of thought; he is in a totally different class to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

spend more

to burn up earths O2 to put more junk in space. We don't have anything important that needs addressing on earth. meh

[Patrician]

Re: spend more

There's always one:-

Key benefits of the space industry, just a very short list:

Communication Technologies:

Satellite communication networks enabling global connectivity

GPS navigation systems for precise location tracking

Improved telecommunications infrastructure in remote areas

Environmental Monitoring:

Satellite imagery for tracking deforestation, climate change, and natural disasters

Monitoring weather patterns and forecasting severe weather events

Oceanographic research and monitoring

Disaster Response:

Rapid assessment of disaster damage through satellite imagery

Communication support during emergency situations

Efficient coordination of relief efforts

Healthcare:

Development of new medical technologies and treatments through space research

Telemedicine applications connecting remote areas to medical professionals

Advanced imaging techniques like MRI and CT scans

Navigation and Transportation:

Precise navigation systems for maritime and aviation industries

Optimized logistics and delivery routes

Development of autonomous vehicle technology

Materials Science:

Creation of new materials with superior properties by utilizing microgravity conditions

Advanced manufacturing techniques like 3D printing optimized for space applications

Scientific Discovery:

Understanding of the universe, planets, and celestial bodies

Research on the effects of space radiation and microgravity on the human body

Exploration of potential resources in space like asteroids and the moon

Economic Growth:

Job creation within the space industry and related sectors

Innovation and technology transfer to other industries

Investment opportunities in space-based services and infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: spend more

bla bla bla, any excuse to tax and pollute.

[that one in the corner]

Re: spend more

I'm confused. You can not see a single worthwhile entry in that list and yet you are spending time on a tech site instead of walking behind your ploughshare.

[Potemkine!]

Re: spend more

That is what do trolls generally.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: spend more

I used to when I was young, envisioning the promise of the future. But now I see things for what they are.

[MachDiamond]

Re: spend more

There's loads of the things that come out of NASA research every year that apply to things on Earth. I used to get a "NASA Spinoffs" catalog each year of the things that have been worked out and can be licensed.

If you are working on ways to support humans off-Earth, most of that research will apply to improving sanitation and food preservation/production just about anywhere. During Apollo, a massive amount of work in metallurgy was gone that continues to pay off to this day. Not just in the metals, but in the knowledge to create new alloys with specific characteristics. The bleedin' solar tiles that Elon was promising years ago were first patented by NASA. There's lots of emphasis on compact nuclear power generation that can be deployed on the moon and Mars. The beauty of NASA working on such projects is they are mostly going to be publicly available with patents applied to be able to hand US organizations a preference in getting licenses since it was paid via taxes to do the research.

[John Smith 19]

"I used to get a "NASA Spinoffs" catalog each year of the things"

It's called NASA Tech Briefs

The 60-80's stuff were 1-2page descriptions of stuff developed either by NASA or the AEC. The modern stuff is a bit IT and AI heavy (some NASA centres have done a lot of AI work on automated flight operations and management-by-exception detection).

The moderns stuff is a bit more "designed" but could still offer nuggets of IP that any company could (in principle) license. Both in materials, (like the copper alloy that enabled increasing the size of an expander cycle engine like the RL10 about 4x)

Notable things-that-never-happened were developing a way to bolt carbon-carbon tiles (TCE about 4-6x10^-6) to underlying aluminium alloy (15-24x10^-6) without them being pulled apart, and cast-to-shape Shuttle tiles that eliminated a huge amount of machining. The triangular weave (top and bottom layers with woven zig-zag support between) TPS blanket architecture that eliminated re-waterproofing (believed to be used on the X37b). Blanket TPS is about 1/4 the price of tile TPS, but if you could quadruple the size per tile (by doubling the length and width of each tile) what that cost differential still exist?

Not to mention the in-situ and post landing damage sensors developed to accelerate damage detection and TPS replacement.*

*Yes I got quite interested in TPS design as it's a major reason why reusable space vehicles are expensive.

[MachDiamond]

Re: "I used to get a "NASA Spinoffs" catalog each year of the things"

"It's called NASA Tech Briefs"

There was, maybe still is, a monthly Tech Briefs magazine and the annual Spinoff catalog. I've got all of the ones I received in a box somewhere, I think. It's a lot to keep up with so I don't really need to get the magazine anymore as I'm not actively working in aerospace as much.

[John Smith 19]

"I'm not actively working in aerospace as much."

I think that's part of the problem.

Just because something was developed for aerospace use does not mean that it's use is solely confined to aerospace use.*

I'd also point out that any stuff that was patent protected before roughly 2000 has long since expired.

*I'm especially thinking of unusual valves and various (for want of a better term) "Construction hacks"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "I'm not actively working in aerospace as much."

> Just because something was developed for aerospace use does not mean that it's use is solely confined to aerospace use

My son is studying aerospace engineering at uni. His reasoning was that all the new materials: ceramic’s, 3D printing etc. we’re only taught as part of the aerospace course.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: spend more

You forget Teflon and Velcro :-)

[John Smith 19]

"You forget Teflon and Velcro :-)"

Ho ho.

Neither in fact invented by NASA.

For the record PTFE was IIRC discovered by accident when it was realised that the contents of a tank of a fluorocarbon had polymerised. The gas has become a solid. A very slippery solid.

Velcro was inspired by burrs getting caught in the hair of horses.

[MachDiamond]

Re: "You forget Teflon and Velcro :-)"

"Neither in fact invented by NASA."

NASA still made lots of novel uses of both. Teflon especially and then published what they did which is awfully nice of them.

[xyz]

Re: spend more

Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity spring to mind. That bit of the NASA satellite didn't work so NASA cribs the data from ESA. Maybe we should shut down the feed, given that all that SMOS stuff will be "woke" anyway to a certain mop headed cretin and his mutt Musk.

God just thought... Donald Dasterdly and Muskly. .

[MyffyW]

Re: spend more

I'll catch you next time, pigeonBiden

It's no laughing matter, but still we laughed....

[that one in the corner]

Re: spend more

Picture Donald dropping out of control as Muskly, hovering on his tail, laughs "Gimme, gimme, gimme".

[MachDiamond]

Re: spend more

"Picture Donald dropping out of control as Muskly, hovering on his tail, laughs "Gimme, gimme, gimme"."

Please, I just had dinner.

[John Smith 19]

"Donald Dasterdly and Muskly"

Excellent work.*

*But despicable people

[Spazturtle]

Re: spend more

"to burn up earths O2 to put more junk in space"

There are very few ways of burning O2 and you need chemical like Platinum hexafluoride, none of which are used in rockets. Usually oxygen is used as the oxidiser.

[Return To Sender]

Burning the Earth's Oxygen

"to burn up earths O2 to put more junk in space"

Piqued my curiosity a little, so did a brief bit of search engine stuff for context numbers. Ballpark numbers, not rigorously accurate ofc, came up with:

Atmospheric oxygen: 1,080,000 gigatonnes or 1.08 million billion tonnes or 1.08 x 10^15 tonnes

Full load for a Falcon 9, c. 380,000 kg, call it 400 tonnes to allow for evaporation losses etc. and keep the maths simple.

Good news! We can launch 2.7x10^13 (27,000,000,000,000) Falcon 9s (or equivalent) before we run out of oxygen! Well, less than that 'cos everyone will have asphyxiated of course, but hey! Frankly couldn't be arsed to see if anybody's done any numbers on how much new oxygen gets added to the atmosphere, though. Left as an exercise for the reader

RTS

[that one in the corner]

Re: Burning the Earth's Oxygen

> how much new oxygen gets added to the atmosphere,

SpaceX use kerosene and methane, both with lox, so the combustion products are nothing exotic (ignoring weird stuff due to nitrogen plus heat etc), from which Life is able to recover the oxygen. Not so much new as recycled (again).

Within error bars, the only oxygen that is actually lost from Earth is whatever ends up being literally carried outside the atmosphere by the spacecraft - discounting the volume that is carried back down again for all those stunning landings.

You can probably bump your 2.7x10^13 up a couple of factors of ten.

[Roland6]

Re: Burning the Earth's Oxygen

> SpaceX use kerosene and methane

Remember reading an article which basically said our supply of high grade fuels is the limiting factor in our space ambitions (ie. Ability to lob stuff into space).

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Burning the Earth's Oxygen

"Good news! We can launch 2.7x10^13 (27,000,000,000,000) Falcon 9s (or equivalent) before we run out of oxygen! Well, less than that 'cos everyone will have asphyxiated of course, but hey! Frankly couldn't be arsed to see if anybody's done any numbers on how much new oxygen gets added to the atmosphere, though. Left as an exercise for the reader"

Another useful side effect: As the planet gets warmer, wild fires are more likely. But a lower oxygen content makes fires harder to start. Win:Win :-)

[John Smith 19]

"to burn up earths O2 to put more junk in space. "

In case you haven't quite grasped it, you've been trolled.

Stop feeding it.

[Tron]

Didn't Boris promise us a space agency?

Presumably they were shifting primary space funding to that. They should have at least finished the car park by now.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Didn't Boris promise us a space agency?

The failed Boris Garden Bridge cost £53 million

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47228698

[Michael B.]

Re: Didn't Boris promise us a space agency?

Huh? The UK Space Agency was setup in 2010 nearly 15 years ago.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

"The difference to me, between NASA and ESA, is that if you're a major contributor to ESA, then you're part of the decision making process," Cox pointed out.

Now, who could the UK nominate to be their representative to the ESA decision making process? Let's ask Mr Cox.

[Richard 12]

Professor Cox is busy

After all, those mountains need to get stared at. Amazing.

Maybe Brian Ince has the time.

[conscience]

Re: Professor Cox is busy

I'd be more willing to listen to Brian Cox if he promised to stop narrating space documentaries as I cannot stand watching the ones he is on.

Space. Isn't it big. Amazing! It's so black. Wow! etc.

Considering his intelligence, why doesn't he use it to educate about his chosen subject rather than insult his audience? Surely he can phrase and explain things so it is understandable to the masses and informative at the same time? I appreciate that he's trying to make it more accessible, but it's dumbed down so much that whatever he narrates is totally pointless.

Cox (or someone at the BBC) clearly seems to think that copying the approach of David Attenborough is a good idea, but Attenborough also suffered from the same dumbed down narration style. Not that it seemed to harm his popularity or career much, but it usually ruined whatever programme he was on imo. Considering the excellence of much of the accompanying video/images that were often used in both of their programmes, it was such a shame.

Although if Cox was off working with the ESA, maybe we could get a new space narrator? In which case, I'm all for it.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Professor Cox is busy

James Burke will always be the only space narrator for the BBC

[Roj Blake]

Re: Professor Cox is busy

Jim Al-Khalili is pretty good, but mostly exiled to BBC4.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Professor Cox is busy

It could be a BBC affliction - even on Radio, they seem to want to pair up with a "comedian" in order to "reach" the audience, who invariably end up sprouting nonsense. That also pads out the time that needs to be filled.

[Roj Blake]

Re: Professor Cox is busy

It's so bad that Thiiiiiings Can Only Get Better.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brian is more interested in doing stuff, ie. Real science, rather than the politics of science. So, following your thread, Brian is basically saying: give the ESA more so that I can having funding to do some exciting work.

[John Smith 19]

Britiain *did* finally create a British Space Agency

Originally formed as a "Buyers club" for HMG purchase of space-stuff it is a separate agency here

It was a key funder (through ESA) for Reaction Engines, until someone ran them into the ground.

And let's not forget the Johnson bought the UK a satellite comms constellation.

What's happening with that now?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Britiain *did* finally create a British Space Agency

Well, apparently, OneWeb is still 11% owned by the UK, UK,gov has "special voting rights", there is a fully working 630 sat constellation up there and the Gen 2 sat start launching this year with satnav signals and 5G direct to cell facilities on them. They don't seem to make the news much, but are still in operation and building their systems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Britiain *did* finally create a British Space Agency

And in the running to replace StarLink for Ukraine.