In space as it is on Earth

Image: James Vaughan

IN ITS relatively short, six-decade history space exploration and its commercial applications have come to be perceived as cutting-edge, inspirational and a hugely beneficial pursuit for humankind in general.

But one of the biggest challenges faced today by the global space community and its new frontier entrepreneurs is arguably one of the least glamorous. How to deal with the increasing volume of space junk and debris orbiting Earth?

The dangers stacking up in Earth orbit are largely the result of the old “use it and throw it
away” mentality prevalent throughout the early decades of space exploration, although certainly not unique to the Space Age.

Take a look at the detritus created by a modern, technologically literate human society right across our 21st century planet and you will see that such a throwaway culture seems firmly embedded in the human psyche.

But given our ever-growing reliance on orbiting technology, ensuring the lifetime safety of flight for satellites and future astronauts is now more important than ever because, if left unchecked, the dangers posed by space debris will rise exponentially.

A cascading debris event - the spontaneous timing of which is wholly unpredictable by its nature - could have a devastating effect on the space infrastructure we have come to rely on so much.

Even as we transition from ‘old space’ to ‘NewSpace’ the preponderance of space debris shows little sign of abating. Despite some welcome initiatives, practical answers are still largely in their infancy.

So, if we want to maintain a rapidly evolving space programme that is both everyday and frontier, dealing with a problem of this magnitude can no longer be just an altruistic, desirable goal to be addressed “at some point in the future”. Space is too valuable for that.

Time is short but if we establish and adhere to basic guidelines, solutions are just about achievable. The space debris problem needs a two-pronged approach - cleaning up the junk we’ve already created and establishing international agreements to prevent it getting worse.

Our technological and commercial futures are at stake and the onus is on the whole space community to ensure the mess we’ve created on Earth isn’t replicated in orbit around our planet. Ultimately, safety in space is key for all operators and so far remedial actions are not being agreed or put in place anything like as quickly as they should be.

If it can’t be re-entered at the end of its useful life the ultimate goal for anything that goes into Earth orbit is to “retain, re-use and recycle”. But, of course, it is so often a question of commercial priorities - and looking after one’s own space junk doesn’t really pay.

The special series of articles on the following pages in this issue of ROOM is a welcome addition to the space debris debate. Each article addresses a different aspect and together they highlight the problems, challenges and some of the potential solutions.

Just as it is on Earth, now it is in space. And when it comes to anthropogenic space debris the question has to be asked: are we doing too little too late?

Foreword from the Spring 2019 edition of ROOM - The Space Journal

Time to revoke Article 50

Early morning Abu Dhabi.

I've been out of the country this week, not in Europe for a change but in Abu Dhabi for a global space conference. There are plenty of Brits around and, let me assure you, the view from here of our country in crisis due to a demented prime minister is no better.

I watched her rant yesterday, dressed up as a speech, courtesy of a Sky News feed in my hotel room TV. Has anyone ever learned anything from a speech by Theresa May? I think not. Sinister, dangerous and almost entirely counterproductive is how I would describe her latest effort.

MPs - whose votes she still needs - woke up today  angrier than ever at being blamed for the failings of this reckless, deluded PM who, unforgivably, has whipped up fury against parliament and is putting party before country yet again.

The core politics of May's public statement, ‘I, the Leader, defend my people against a rotten parliament' are divisive and sinister.

Despite her protestations to the contrary, the impasse in parliament is actually all of the prime minister’s own making. She never reached out to the 48 percent, or to other parties to create a Brexit compromise. And she set down red lines from the outset on which she has proved stubbornly intransigent.

During last night’s brief appearance couched as a ‘statement to the people’ we probably saw Theresa May at her worst. An authoritarian with no authority, trying to stir up the malcontents in the country - and to what end?

She is rightly being called a genuinely ‘bad person’ (in Trumpesque-speak) for that performance, and the most divisive leader imaginable in terrible circumstances. Her contempt for parliamentary democracy and crass populism apparently knows no bounds. It is profoundly anti-democratic to blame parliament for her mistakes and incompetence.

No surprise, therefore, that people across the rest of Europe, and in the wider world from where I view this sorry state of affairs, are beginning to look at the UK as a failed state.

To avoid catastrophic implosion as a nation we are sadly now left with few realistic possibilities or options. The most pragmatic being to revoke Article 50, grow up and put this whole sorry episode behind us.

Sign petition: Revoke Article 50

Brexit's climate of change

Photo: Clive Simpson

SO FAR this year our natural world has delivered any number of examples of what future anthropogenic climate change might bring - and even now, in late September, we have recently witnessed two record-breaking hurricanes wreaking havoc on different sides of the globe.
                                   
Extremes are the story of our weather reporting and forecasting these days, yet mainstream media hardly dares make the connection that we are living through the first, potentially deadly consequences of climate change.

Global warming knocks urgently at everyone’s door but in the UK we look inward, consumed by a delusion born of self-interest. This is Brexit - and the UK’s impending annexation from Europe is the political equivalent of climate change.

To mention both climate change and Brexit in the same sentence is an interesting dichotomy in itself because it is rare to draw comparisons between such disparate things as political ideologies and what might loosely be described as a ‘force of nature’. One could argue, of course, that each is a self-inflicted catastrophe that is wholly, or at least partly, avoidable.

Another singular conclusion relating to each also encapsulates the point. Namely, it seems likely that the end results of both are going to be far worse than anyone is properly admitting, and the effects unless we change course - globally in the case of climate change - will be felt not for just a few years but for generations.

For the UK, Brexit is a fundamentally flawed exercise. It was never really about what was good for the country but what served the self-interests of vocal and fanatical political factions. At every turn, it seeks, without reason or rational argument, to undermine the values on which this country was built.

“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,” cried King Solomon at the beginning of the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. History teaches us that it is vanity and individualism, as opposed to pursuing the greater or common good, that has mostly brought great countries to their knees and destroyed mighty civilisations.

We now know there was never to be a tangible Brexit dividend, and every day it seems clearer the country is being held ransom, not by scapegoat immigrants or even sound political thinking but by lies and untruths disguised as vacuous phrases and innocuous sound bites.

"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree," wrote Lewis Carrol in Alice in Wonderland. “Which road do I take?” she asked. “Where do you want to go?” was his response. “I don't know,” Alice answered. “Then,” said the cat, “it doesn't matter.”

But it does matter because without any kind of realistic, future-looking vision ‘the people perish’, to paraphrase a quotation from the book of Proverbs (29:18). 

The northern hemisphere heat extremes of summer 2018 maybe have already been largely forgotten as we go about our everyday business. We continue to ignore the big picture of climate change at our future peril. Likewise with Brexit.

Ultimately there is no third way and, despite the protestations of a prime minister and leader of the opposition both in dogmatic denial, the choice is simple - a hard, chaotic Brexit or remain a member of the EU.

Two years on from that awkward, ill-defined referendum we still wander indecisively, a country lost and disorientated in some crazy political paralysis. We do still have choices but time is running short.

As a people, a country, we can hold up the torch of enlightenment and hope - just as we once did. Or we can cower in the shadows, weakened by ignorance and fear, and retreat alone into the dark of night.

Over two long years, Theresa May and her government’s repeated attempts at 'negotiations' have utterly failed the nation. Her bid to offload responsibility to the EU is truly embarrassing, a vain effort to shift the blame for laying waste a country she purports to love.

Often in times of impasse, difficulty or strife we turn to literature for solace, advice or even prophetic wisdom. Maybe also to discover words of honesty and hope that politicians, so bound by their short-term profanity, are afraid to utter.

The great American poet Robert Frost might therefore be relied upon in this instance to sum things up nicely. My appropriately amended (with apologies) version of his poem ‘Fire and Ice’ somehow strikes a new resonance, covering as it does both natural and political boundaries in a few short lines:

“Some say our world will end in fire, some say ice. But from what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favour fire.

“But if I had to perish twice I think I know enough of hate to say that for destruction ‘Brexit’ is also great and will surely suffice."

Lift-off for Scotland

The wild and unspoilt north of Scotland - I see no rockets!

SCOTLAND'S A’Mhoine peninsular is one of the most beautiful and remote spots left in the UK. It’s in Sutherland at the very top of mainland Scotland and you’ll be forgiven if you’ve never heard of it.

I visited the area one Easter. It was some long drive from ‘civilisation’ along deserted and desolate minor roads skirted by the most breath-taking mountain and coastal scenery imaginable.

More than 100 miles north of Inverness, we pitched a couple of tents for the night on a pristine, white-sanded beach at Scourie. It was just us, the waves and the wildlife - and a crystal clear dark sky.

The next day we continued another 20 miles or so north to Durness, a small civil parish in the north-west the Scottish Highlands. This isn't the most north westerly point in mainland Scotland but it is certainly the most north westerly village.

It marks the point at which the main coast road from Scourie turns right and heads south east to Thurso via Tongue and through the A'Mhoine peninsular.

Durness is one of the few remaining places of any size in mainland Scotland that you can only access by single track road. The white lines cease some 14 miles south on the A838, and the road east along the north coast of Scotland to Tongue and Thurso has many single track stretches.

The multi-billion pound aerospace industry's high-tech Farnborough International Airshow might then seem a ‘million miles’ away but this is where business secretary Greg Clark officially announced on Monday (16 July) that Scotland is to host a new UK launch base on the A’Mhoine peninsular .

The UK government is making £2.5 million available to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Scottish government's economic and community development agency to “develop a vertical launch site in Sutherland”.

And according to Clarke’s statement it “could see lift-off from the early 2020s and create hundreds of jobs. It will use innovative rocket technology to pave the way for a world-leading spaceflight market in Britain”.

Really, one might ask? Of course, the UK’s tabloid press websites couldn’t wait for the embargoed countdown to pass (10.30 pm on 15 July) and were fast off the mark with flights of fancy.

“The spaceport will host launches of satellites and rockets into outer space before eventually including commercial flights which will venture outside our atmosphere,” wrote Mark Hodge in The Sun.               

SNP (Scottish National Party) MP Philippa Whitford seemed to have a better grasp of things when quoted in The Mirror. She said, “launches are currently carried out from Kazakhstan,” giving the distinct impression to the unitiated that Brits might be lining up to compete directly with the Russian launch site.

“Easy launch access from Scotland would benefit the commercial satellite industry right across the UK,”  added Whitford.

Well indeed it might but let’s be honest the A'Mhoine peninsular is not going to be anything like the launch facilities in Kazakhstan, or French Guiana (Europe’s rocket launch site), or NASA’s Florida for that matter.

An artist's impression of the proposed launch site.

Like much of recent government policy, the spaceport announcement is definutely a high-profile attention-grabber designed to make the country feel that in a post-Brexit world it will recapture something of the pioneering spirit.

However welcome the idea, it’s short on detail, content and, above all, finance. I’m guessing that the £250 million would be barely enough to get planning permission through - and the rest will have to come from private funding.

One pathway to a British launch site might lie with the likes of Skyrora, a startup launcher business with serious private funding and it’s headquarters in Scotland.

"As a launch company based in Edinburgh it's very exciting for us that, finally, the UK's first vertical spaceport has been given the green light to be built in Scotland,” business development director Daniel Smith told me.

A consortium led by American aerospace giant Lockheed Martin might also become one of the partners. It could bring a version of the Electron rocket to Scotland which it currently is starting to fly out of New Zealand.

Greg Clarke’s ambitious statement that we “could see lift-off from the early 2020s and create hundreds of jobs” may seem overly simplistic given the hoops hat still have to be jumped through.

But perhaps we should keep things in perspective? Despite the tabloid hype we’re not, at least for the time being, talking about blasting people into space - merely a new breed of satellite known as CubeSats, which are roughly the size as a loaf of bread and can be hurled into orbit on top of a giant firework.

The countdown clock is already ticking on a lucrative commercial market for launching the new generation of mini satellites and time is short for the UK if it wants to capture a significant share of the nascent small launch market.

Regional authorities, rocket operators and the government are going to have to move fast if they want to avoid the opportunities being snapped up other countries. Come on Scotland, you can do it!

See my news item too - Rockets for Scotland

Top banana

WHEN it comes to one of our most popular fruits the UK’s major supermarkets have presided over a race to the bottom for the beleaguered banana industry.

British supermarkets, led by discounters Aldi and Lidl, have for many years used bananas and milk as huge loss leaders - and in the process largely put all but the biggest producers of both out of business.

Supermarket buying power and unfair trading practices, which have driven down the prices they pay to tropical fruit suppliers, has had a negative impact on earnings and working conditions for banana plantation workers. Or, in the case of small-scale producers, such as those in the Caribbean’s Windward Isles, threatened their very survival.

The recently proposed merger between UK supermarket giants ASDA (Walmart) and Sainsbury's raises the prospect of an ever more powerful buyer able to exert even more pressure on prices by squeezing suppliers even further.

Sainsbury's has already said the merger could lead to price cuts in their stores of "around 10 per cent on many of the products customers buy regularly" - and in the case of bananas that would be 3p off the current price per kilo, or 12p from the cost of a pack of eight Fairtrade bananas.

For too long, low prices for bananas in our supermarkets have been synonymous with squeezing suppliers. The prospective merger will therefore is not necessarily good news to already struggling suppliers of bananas and other tropical fruits to the UK market.

Jacqui Mackay, national co-ordinator of Norwich-based Banana Link said: "Banana Link has worked constructively with Sainsbury's and ASDA for many years, both individually and through the World Banana Forum, to support their ethical buying practices.

“We hope that the merged retailer will take a lead in ethical sourcing by ensuring that the prices it pays cover its suppliers' costs of sustainable production and that any projected price cuts are not be made at the detriment of tropical fruit workers and small-scale farmers that produce our favourite fruit.”

Is there an upside? Sainsbury's and ASDA both have demonstrable commitments to ethical sourcing of bananas and all of Sainsbury's bananas carry the Fairtrade label, which ensures fair minimum prices for suppliers which cover the costs of sustainable production.

Both are members - along with Banana Link - of the World Banana Forum, which brings together stakeholders in the global banana supply chain to work towards consensus on best practices for sustainable production and trade.

The increased buying power and greater economies of scale of the merged retailer could provide an opportunity for greater commitment to the ethical sourcing of tropical fruit.

NFU Scotland Chief Executive Scott Walker said: “There is an opportunity here for potentially the biggest player in the UK's retail sector to put in place a system of responsible sourcing and to end the spectre of Unfair Trading Practices by supermarkets.”

A recent proposal by the European Commission for legislation on unfair trading practices in global food supply chains might be welcome news. By protecting small and medium-sized food suppliers against abusive practices of large buyers, it aims to address insecurity among supermarket suppliers, which directly impacts the most vulnerable people in the supply chain.

Banana Link is a small not-for-profit co-operative, founded in 1996, which campaigns for a socially just, environmentally sound and economically viable banana industry. It works in close partnership with Latin American banana workers trade unions, small farmers in the Caribbean and civil society organisations in Europe and the US.

Dazzled by LEDs

DO you still enjoy driving at night? Well, if you don’t and - apart from the ever-increasing traffic volumes - there might be another, initially less obvious, reason.

Last week Public Health England warned that high levels of blue light in LED street lighting can be uncomfortable and are known to cause retina damage. The same goes for the new generation of ultra bright LED vehicle headlights.

The executive agency of the UK govrnment's Department of Health also suggests that daylight-running lights on cars can lead to drivers being dazzled by oncoming vehicles with the risk that they may not see hazards until too late’ - a problem that can be exacerbated by misty conditions and fog.

Right across the UK - and with little heed to the mounting medical evidence against them - LED street lights have been used to replace older forms of street lighting as they are much cheaper to run, easier to control and can have less general light dispersal.

But all this comes at a price and John O’Hagan of Public Health England is now warning that councils and vehicle manufacturers should be considering social and health factors as well as their budgets.

Writing in the chief medical officer’s annual report, he says that if local authorities have been replacing mercury and sodium street lights with LEDs purely on the basis of energy efficiency and cost it is possible to end up with installations that may not be “fit for purpose”.

“Some streetlight luminaires have LED sources that can be seen physically projecting below the luminaire, becoming a glare source or light pollution,” explains. “The light spectrum may also be enriched in the blue, which may be beneficial for keeping drivers alert will be uncomfortable for many people. High levels of blue light are known to cause damage to the retina in the eye.”

O’Hagan acknowledges that LEDs can be provided in a range of colour temperatures and that “warmer colours” are more appropriate for populated areas.

Research assessed by Public Health England and others also raises concern about the variable illuminance of LED light sources which, at the extreme, switch on and off 100 times per second.

“In such circumstances rotating machinery, which could include the blades on a food mixer, may appear to be stationary if the rotation rate matches the modulation rate or is a multiple of it,” suggests O’Hagan.

This frequency can also result in headaches, migraines and feelings of malaise in those sensitive to light modulation.

As blue-rich white light continues to spread across the country like wildfire pollution, a considered national lighting policy is urgently needed is to minimise harmful consequences for humans and wildlife.

Street lights and vehicle lights with a far too high CCT (Correlated Colour Temperature) values (ie, well above 3000 Kelvin) are becoming commonplace.

Public Health England and the Campaign for Rural England are now among the growing number of international organisations calling for lower CCT levels and warmer colour temperatures to help prevent glare, discomfort and potential medical problems in humans, as well as reducing adverse affects to wildlife.

Space: Brexit's new frontier

Control centre for the EU's Galileo satellite navigation system.

CHINA'S out of control space station, which is set to come crashing out of orbit this weekend, offers an alarming metaphor for the possible trajectory of Britain’s multi-billion-pound space industry after Brexit.

The sector, which is worth £14 billion a year and estimated to contribute £250 billion to the wider economy, was almost universally dismayed by the result of the referendum. As Richard Peckham, head of trade organisation Ukspace and director of strategy for Airbus Defence & Space, put it: “I don’t think I’ve met anybody in the space industry or academia who wants Brexit.”

Along with broader warnings, about how the sector will cope with the likely impact on the cross-border movement of goods, services, data and people, on which it relies, there have also been specific and immediate threats to the sector. This includes uncertainty over the UK’s continued participation in the EU’s Galileo navigation and Copernicus Earth observation programmes, as well others such as Govsatcom (which deals with communications), IRIS (air traffic management) and SSA/SST (space debris).

Peckham, and others in the sector, have said that the impact of Brexit has already been felt, with foreign customers and suppliers making contingency plans to exclude British firms, as a precaution, in case UK companies become ineligible for future contracts.

His advice to the government has been not to approach negotiations with the EU in an “adversarial manner”, because other countries might see this as an opportunity to take work from the UK, while UKspace also outlined five things it wanted from negotiations with the EU: to retain full access to EU space programmes; to avoid UK industry being marginalised; to retain access to and influence in the collaborative R&D programmes run by the EU; to maintain access to the EU pool of skilled labour; and to keep frictionless access to the EU single market without burdensome customs and administration.

There is no evidence that ministers have been listening to these pleas, but space has certainly been elevated to the higher echelons of government this week, after it was revealed the European Commission had written to the UK to explain that it would be inappropriate to divulge highly sensitive information to a departing member state about post-2019 contracts for the secure element of its Galileo satellite navigation system.

“If the commission shared this information with the UK (which will become a third country) it would irretrievably compromise the integrity of certain elements of these systems for many years after the withdrawal of the UK,” the letter said.

It suggests Britain’s space industry will be locked out of the programme, with its companies frozen out of the next round of long-term contracts relating to the system – which are expected to be awarded in June.

Basic navigation services from the Galileo satellites are available for all, but use of the encrypted, robust Public Regulated Service (PRS) is designed for government-authorised users – such as the military, fire brigades and the police – and is restricted to those inside the EU.

The row suggests that every fear the industry has may be realised. The sector is so closely entwined with Europe that after the UK leaves the EU, it risks being lost in space.

This is not to say that ‘Europe’s’ space ambitions equate to the EU’s, of course. The European Space Agency (ESA) is a separate body, after all, and not part of the EU. Norway and Switzerland are members of the ESA, for example, but not members of the EU. And not all of the EU’s 28 members are members of ESA.

But the EU itself is a major contributor to ESA, principally for the Galileo global navigation satellite system (GNSS), which began operations in December 2016, and the Copernicus Earth observation programmes, and it is likely to become ever more involved in this field.

Airbus UK and other British space companies believe their expertise puts them in a strong position to win more Copernicus business and there will be dozens of new lucrative Copernicus contracts up for grabs in the next two to three years. But the latest row over involvement in Galileo might indicate otherwise.

The UK’s space industry, which provides jobs for around 40,000 people, has been doing well, buoyed by its previous close involvement in European space programmes, and is currently showing growth of around 7% a year. The sector’s success has helped prompt the Space Industry Act 2018, which received Royal assent earlier this month and is aimed at providing a regulatory framework for the commercial launch of satellites from UK spaceports.

Though receiving much publicity this is perhaps more a flight of fancy than anything grounded in near-term reality, and should not be seen as something that would provide anything like an alternative to ESA membership. 

Plans for commercial spaceflight launches from UK spaceports might become more viable in the future with cheaper launch systems, including some of the horizontal launch systems with which entrepreneurial UK space businesses are involved. On the other hand, several of the proposed spaceport locations are in Scotland, which might be affected if the country, which voted to remain in the EU, had a further independence referendum and decided to leave the UK in order to seek membership of the EU.

So what of the future of the UK space programme? As ESA and the EU are separate organisations, the UK will most likely continue with ESA membership as the preferred option for the foreseeable future. Although it is possible that the UK might look for other models, including a home-grown space programme, it is highly unlikely that Britain alone could undertake the breadth of activities in space science and technology that has been possible as a member of the ESA, including human spaceflight.

Stormy waters lie ahead for any organisation linked to Europe and the knock-on effects of Brexit for one of the UK’s most buoyant and future-looking industries and the thousands of people it employs couldn’t be more profound.    

This article by Clive Simpson, a freelance journalist and managing editor of ROOM - The Space Journal, first appeared in The New European newspaper (Easter edition, 28 March -11 April).