Britain’s £400 million satellite gamble in trouble

The UK is scrapping plans to build an in independent Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). First proposed under Theresa May,  the system was to be the UK’s replacement for Galileo, the EU’s GNSS, the military aspects of which the UK would have to leave post-Brexit. The government has been unwilling to accept the EU’s position that the UK would be allowed to use the system’s encrypted navigation system, the Public Regulated Service (PRS), but not to play an active role in its development.

Yet, now it seems the government has given up on its aspiration of building a fully functioning alternative. In its place, the UK government is launching a Space-Based Positioning Navigation and Timing Programme (SBPP) which “will explore new and alternative ways that could be used to deliver vital satellite navigation services.”  Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, said on Thursday when announcing the new development,  that the UK would be: “considering low orbiting satellites that could deliver considerable benefits to people and businesses right across the UK, while potentially reducing our dependency on foreign satellite systems.”

The phrase “potentially reducing our dependency”, as opposed to previous declarations on sovereign and independent capacities, screams of grand ambitions hastily scaled back. Such a move raises awkward questions about the UK government’s wider space strategy. And no area invites more questions than government’s decision earlier this year to purchase a stake in the bankrupt low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite company OneWeb, which Sharma appeared to nod to in his reference to low orbit satellites.

The UK government’s rationale for buying a 45% in OneWeb at the cost of £400 million – the same amount the government has agreed to pay for 60 million Covid-19 vaccine doses – was always a little unclear. Initially it was claimed the OneWeb would provide the UK with GNSS services. Sure, £400 million might seem like a lot, but compared to the estimated £4-5 billion required to build a UK version of Galileo from scratch it wasn’t much.

The fact that OneWeb was in fact designed to provide satellite broadband, and relied on a massive constellation of LEO satellites as opposed to smaller constellations of medium Earth orbit satellites nearly every other navigation system uses, was apparently no problem either. It was suggested the satellites could be adapted to provide both services – two for the price of one what a bargain! – and the new technology was merely an opportunity for the UK to position itself once again at the forefront of the space industry.

Still, from the start there were some flies in the ointment. It emerged that in authorising the purchase Sharma overrode the significant concerns expressed by the acting permanent secretary of the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) who warned the government.

Of greater concern were the doubts expressed by a number of experts as to whether OneWeb was suitable as a GNSS system. Meanwhile, the government, after hailing OneWeb as a basis for “a sovereign global satellite system”, began to shift the emphasis to broadband access. Further adding to the sense of embarrassment was the government’s move last week to prevent one expert witness appearing before parliament’s BEIS Select Committee, prompting the committee’s chair, Labour MP Darren Jones, to write to Sharma protesting his “gross interference”.

Now as the government prepares to scale back its ambitions it seems to have concluded critics of OneWeb’s GNSS capacity were right. So, what were the technical issues that might have forced this re-evaluation?

According to Professor Marek Ziebart, Professor of Space Geodesy at UCL, one of the biggest problems is atomic clocks. As the acronym suggests precise timing is vital for PNT and this is provided by atomic clocks. Costing about £2.2 million modern GNSS satellites have four of them to allow for redundancy. In the average MEO system of 24 satellites this means 96 atomic clocks at a total cost just under £200 million.

In a hypothetical LEO system these costs begin to multiply sharply as far more satellites are needed to provide coverage. LEO is also a more hazardous environment than MEO, so the satellites would likely need more atomic clocks to provide greater redundancy. LEO satellites would also have to be replaced far more often than MEO satellites meaning yet more atomic clocks. Extra costs multiply and pile up on each other. The fact that Atomic clocks are also manufactured in relatively small numbers also raised questions of whether it would be possible to procure sufficient numbers to make the system work.

Some experts say these problems might be averted via innovative new designs. Stuart Martin, CEO of Space Applications Catapult, argues that LEO satellite constellations might be able to forgo atomic clocks. Passive payloads, high signal frequency, and shorter signal paths could all improve synchronicity between satellites and receivers perhaps removing the need for atomic clocks.

Still, Professor Marek was sceptical with regards to potential workarounds warning that developing such as system would likely be a very long and costly process. He added “If you really think an independent system is vital for national security you go with something tried and tested, not something which will take 15 years of R&D and billions of pounds.”

He also added that even if such a thing is developed there remains the problem of commercial competitiveness. OneWeb broadcasts at a much higher frequency than standard GNSS satellites. For companies to be willing to bear the costs of installing new receivers capable of picking up OneWeb signals the new system would need to outcompete existing PNT systems which are already reliable and capable of precision down to a millimetre level.

Other apparent pros of the OneWeb purchase are also losing their gloss. While OneWeb’s HQ is already in the UK it had been speculated that following the purchase OneWeb might relocate the manufacture of its, genuinely cutting edge, satellites from Florida to Britain. The move would have been welcome as the UK’s exit from Galileo has seen many jobs tied to the project in the UK space industry move to Europe. However, in an August interview Debra Facktor, head of Airbus U.S. Space Systems which produces OneWeb satellites, appeared to dismiss this idea.

This is not to say OneWeb is of no value. Ziebart himself when testifying before the BEIS Committee spoke of a space “gold rush”. And while we may, in the words of Conservative MP Richard Fuller, end up with “more panhandlers than billionaires” OneWeb is in a respectable position. It has 70 satellites in orbit, and while this may seem modest next to 775 Elon Musk’s SpaceX has put in orbit OneWeb it is set to resume launches in December. It also has rights to use the Ku frequency for its transmissions, and rights over any part of the spectrum is a valuable asset.

Finally, even if it is ultimately not deemed suitable to provide full GNSS service, OneWeb could compliment existing PNT services. Systems like Galileo and America’s GPS are vulnerable to jamming and the stronger signals that some form of LEO navigation system could provide additional resilience. However, in this capacity the OneWeb system would almost be certainly acting as an adjunct to US or EU PNT capacities, not a fully independent GNSS system.

Whether or not this is acceptable brings us back to the fundamental question what is Britain’s post-Brexit space strategy? As Martin put it “Post-Brexit the issue of sovereignty has become a higher priority, but we’re still working out what that means. Any country wants to have maximum control over its own destiny, but that can’t come at any cost. There is still a place for diplomacy and cooperation.”

The fact we’re not only still asking this, but apparently changing our mind on it, seems to suggest a broader problem of coherency. This government has repeatedly touted its commitment to developing the UK as a space power. However, in other areas ambitious goals often seem not to be met with adequate follow-through. The vaunted new National Space Council was announced last year but has yet to even meet.

Indeed, the only major move that appears to have been made in this area is the purchase of OneWeb. For some such as Martin the purchase was a welcome sign of ambition. “They government knew it was going to be controversial, but they had the courage behind the conviction.”  Yet, for others it is symptomatic of the lack of coherent strategic thought behind the UK’s aspirations. Indeed, when asked what a coherent space strategy might look like Professor Ziebart dryly stated: “It would start with not making knee-jerk decision over the weekend worth hundreds of millions.”