Chapter 2 - The Questions
Should Australia have a whole-of-government 'space policy'?
2.1
In a sense this is an overarching question that should be the
first asked. But in another sense it follows on from how the following
questions are answered. If the response to the other questions is that Australia
needs a profound change in its attitude to space science and industry, the
release of a new government space policy might give them a focus and be a
rallying point.
2.2
At present the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and
Research (DIISR) describes the current framework for space policy as one which:
articulates a decentralised approach in which agencies of the
Commonwealth have their own operational responsibilities in the space arena.
The Bureau of Meteorology has responsibility for securing access to weather
data. Geoscience Australia has responsibility for maintaining a range of ground
stations that can downlink Landsat and a range of other information and
distributing that to appropriate agencies and to the private sector. Defence
obviously has its defence related responsibilities, including national security
remote sensing and defence communications. [1]
2.3
DIISR also chairs the Australian Government Space Forum, which
brings together representatives from various government departments and
agencies to exchange information about twice a year.[2]
2.4
Many witnesses, however, feel this decentralised approach falls
short of what is required as a 'space policy'. The ANU's Professor Butcher
advocates a 'space plan' which would be:
...a national sector plan...not a government plan or a plan from
CSIRO but a plan which all stakeholders—industry, government and
universities—would consider to be their own.[3]
2.5
The key stakeholders in space science include the CSIRO, other
government agencies such as the Bureau of Meteorology and Geoscience Australia,
at least fifteen Australian universities, the Cooperative Research Centre for
Spatial Information and the large number of private companies who use
satellites for communications or remote sensing data, or could contribute
components, software or other services to an expanded space sector.
2.6
The Australian Academy of Science has produced its own draft 'decadal'
plan, which will be revised in the light of the rigorous discussion it is
currently receiving.[4]
2.7
The South Australian government called for a white paper,
suggesting:
In developing the white paper, the Australian Government should
rely heavily on the 2005 Chapman Report, Space: a Priority for Australia,
which to date has been inadequately considered.[5]
2.8
The CEO from the CRC for Spatial Information opined:
We need a policy that properly addresses the long-term
requirements of Australia in this area. It needs to set a vision for Australia
and it needs to have the right policy settings. It is vital that that be
developed at the same time as the right suite of market drivers to ensure that
we, as a nation, can have a prospering private sector in this area.[6]
What should Australia's role be in pure space science?
2.9
The choices are essentially to choose between three approaches:
- be a 'free rider', drawing on the insights achieved by others but
not contributing ourselves;
- contribute our 'fair share', perhaps commensurate with Australia's
1 per cent share of world GDP[7];
- be a 'leader', seeking to drive forward projects and expand the
frontiers of knowledge.
2.10
The choices could be, and probably should be, different for
different areas of space science. It makes sense for Australia to specialise in
areas where it has a comparative advantage. While the emphasis in this section
is on 'space for space's sake', it is also reasonable to ask which areas of
pure science might conceivably best assist aspects of applied science relevant
to Australia.
Does the Australian Research
Council provide adequate funding for pure space science?
2.11
Some evidence presented to the Committee was quite critical of
the ARC's attitude to space science:
We all apply to ARC, which is very difficult to work with from a
user’s point of view. Even if you are successful in ARC, you very rarely get
funding that is of an international level. That means that it is very difficult
for all of us to compete in an international business like space science or my
own business of astrophysics.[8]
When a discipline falls below a certain 'critical mass' in Australia,
it is regarded as a 'backwater' and finds it very difficult to convince
Australian Research Council assessor panels (of necessarily non-experts) that
the work is worth doing, however well it is regarded internationally.[9]
[Due to the] focus on building links between research and
industry...very few research grant applications that focus on fundamental
research, such as planetary science have been funded by the ARC.[10]
2.12
The Committee hopes to call the ARC to a future hearing to
discuss these criticisms.
Is Australian space research too
diffuse?
2.13
Particularly given the shortage of funding, it may be better to
concentrate on a few elite schools which could then afford better equipment and
have more, formal or serendipitous, exchange of views and collaborations. For
example, at present there are fifteen Australian universities teaching
astronomy.
2.14
Asked about the merits of concentrating expertise in fewer
centres of excellence, some academics were generally supportive:
when we had the cooperative research centre for satellite
systems, we had a kind of a concentration like that, and it was extremely
beneficial.[11]
I think there is certainly benefit in having some nodes...one of
the main things that the National Committee for Space Science actually put
forward was actually a National Institute for Space Science.[12]
2.15
Of course, there may be less agreement if the discussion reached
the specific stage of deciding which university schools to close. This is
particularly likely if offering space science attracts better students to the
university.
How do space and Antarctic research
link together?
2.16
There are some synergies between space research and Antarctic
research. The Australian Antarctic Division of the Department of Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts commented how Antarctic facilities could assist in
space science:
For six decades Australia has conducted a program of scientific
research in east Antarctica and much of it has been in the fields of physics of
the atmosphere above the stratosphere, and beyond it into space.[13]
2.17
They also referred to how space science can assist work in Antarctica:
...knowledge about the ice sheet overlying Antarctica, and the
continent's fringing sea ice is sketchy...undertaking the research needed into
these aspects of the globe will require...increasingly, remote sensing from
space.[14]
2.18
They drew attention to how satellite information could be
improved for this purpose:
Many existing satellites are not designed to view the South Pole
and are only observing small swathes of the continent as they pass on their way
to the northern hemisphere. Australia needs to take leadership in the various
international forums where future satellite deployments are developed to ensure
technical specifications enable coverage of Australia's Antarctic Territory.[15]
In what areas of applied space science and industry does Australia have a
comparative advantage?
2.19
Australia has some unusual endowments, such as an expanse of
southern hemisphere land to capture signals from space, and a well educated
workforce that may give some advantages in applied space science, particularly
signals processing. Among other strengths, Australian astronaut Dr Andy Thomas nominated
the following areas where Australia could excel:
I believe Australia is uniquely positioned to engage in a whole
range of activities from spacecraft fabrication, even through to the launching
of space vehicles, just because of its unique technical capabilities, education
system and geography.[16]
2.20
The then government's assessment in 2006 was that 'Australia has
competitive advantages in the ground-segment aspects of space infrastructure'.[17]
Should Australia be a launch site?
2.21
The Committee has heard conflicting views about the current state
of the Woomera rocket range. The DIISR said 'there would be considerable
investment required to resurrect any role that it might aspire to'.[18]
On the other hand, the South Australian government describe Woomera as 'an
active space launch site'.[19]
Dr Andy Thomas described Woomera as 'an ideal test range':
The Woomera test range is a facility that is unique in the
world. It is unfortunately literally gathering dust, but it is a test range
that many countries would love to have. It is a capability that Australia can
really build on uniquely to its own interests.[20]
2.22
A possible reconciliation of these views is that Woomera is
currently not suitable for large scale launching of orbital payloads but
suitable for smaller suborbital launches. The Australian Space Research
Institute has been a regular user of the Woomera rocket range since 1993 giving
students the opportunity for involvement in over 100 small-scale launches using
'sounding rockets'.[21]
2.23
One witness suggested Australia had now missed its opportunity as
a launch site:
I think things like launch capability are now closed off to us;
it is just too competitive for us to compete.[22]
Should Australia be
researching/designing propulsion systems?
2.24
Australian engineers have had some success in this area. The
DIISR commented:
Professor Allan Paul, with his hypersonic scramjet research, has
been successful in winning quite a large contract from the Americans to further
develop that work.[23]
2.25
Scramjets are supersonic combustion engines with potential
aerospace applications. They do not have to carry most of their propellent as
they can draw oxygen from the atmosphere. Australian research is being
conducted under the Australian Hypersonics Initiative, bringing together the University
of Queensland, ANU, Australian Defence Forces Academy, the Defence Science and
Technology Organisation and the state governments of Queensland and South
Australia. Hypersonics refers to speeds about five times the speed of sound
(ie mach 5).[24]
2.26
An ANU team has recently developed two revolutionary designs for
rocket engines; an ion engine and a plasma engine.[25]
The work has attracted interest from the European Space Agency.
2.27
The Committee hopes to hear more about this work before it
concludes the inquiry.
Should Australia be a base for
space tourism?
2.28
There has been increasing discussion about the prospects for
space tourism. Some market research suggests space tourism revenues could be
around $700 million in 2020.[26]
The Australian company, Grollo Aerospace, has expressed an interest in offering
space tourism experiences.[27]
2.29
The scramjet technology potentially could be employed for
tourism. The South Australian Government suggested 'the Woomera site remains a
favourite location for...the establishment of a space base for space tourism.'[28]
2.30
Dr Andy Thomas thought Australia was well-placed, but it would
not happen soon:
Australia provides an ideal forum for many of these high
altitude parabolic flights, which is what most of them are... However, the
market is still small, so I think it will be quite some time before it would be
buoyant enough to have operations in Australia as well as the other planned
operations, for example, in New Mexico that Richard Branson is supporting, and
so on. Ultimately, that could happen.[29]
Should Australia be building
satellites, rockets and similar equipment, or designing software?
2.31
Australian manufacturing has moved away from trying to compete
with imports of mass consumer products to specialising in high-tech niches.[30]
2.32
The Director of the Mount Stromlo observatory opined that:
Australia has the capability to build space instrumentation.
There are a number of people who have the background, the experience and the
capability, but it is clear that the capacity to do so is very fragmented and
quite limited.[31]
Are remote parts of Australia
analogues for Mars?
2.33
After a return to the moon, the next step in mankind's journey is
almost certainly Mars. Placing a base there would require developing expertise
in operating in, and physiologically coping with an isolated life in, a remote
rocky desert landscape. The Geological Society has suggested that the
Australian outback might be the nearest terrestrial analogue, with features
such as salt lakes and inverted river channels.[32]
Another possibility in terms of practice in dealing with isolated and cold
conditions is the Australian Antarctic Territory.[33]
Would greater involvement in space science be inspirational for students
and others?
2.34
Space seems to capture the public imagination in ways that most
other science struggles to do. Almost everybody over fifty can remember what
they were doing when Neil Armstrong took that one small step onto the lunar
surface. Many younger people have used the internet to share in watching the
pictures beamed from Mars as probes explore the Martian terrain.
2.35
Space seems to particularly captivate children:
Any of us who have had children knows that space, astronomy and
dinosaurs are the things that seem to grab all of the kids’ attention.[34]
...students at schools are very excited about space.[35]
...dinosaurs and space bring children into science and
engineering...[36]
2.36
The importance of getting children interested early was emphasised
by some witnesses:
Anything that turns the kids on and gets them started down that
path is desirable. My understanding of the education theory is the earlier you
do it, the better, and the more chance you have of retention. We would love to
see anything that gets them excited happen.[37]
2.37
Space also fascinates many graduates:
The very best students around the world do look at astronomy as
something that they would like to do. They also look at things like theology,
philosophy and so on—the big questions that engage mankind. Astronomy does have
some big questions, and it does attract some very bright people.[38]
2.38
The Committee has heard stories of the inspirational role that
space played in driving people to scientific careers:
Seeing the achievements of the space programme had a profound
influence upon me and was one of the reasons why I became a professional
engineer.[39]
2.39
A group of university students warned that:
[While] there is an enormous amount of enthusiasm in the general
public and among students studying in science and engineering towards almost
anything to do with science; student enthusiasm is dampened because of a lack
of a space industry in Australia to give a clear future for people skilled in
space engineering and related fields.[40]
2.40
Australian astronaut Dr Andy Thomas put his view:
There is no doubt in my mind that a robust national space
project is unmatched in its ability to inspire the next generation and motivate
youth to seek higher education...after my first flight into space, enrolments in
engineering where I studied skyrocketed,[41]
2.41
A contrary view about the inspirational role of space science was
put by Dr Michael Green from DIISR:
...there is no evidence that I have seen to support that
particular claim...it would be a very expensive science awareness initiative.
Arguably, if you want to raise the interest of people in science, there would
be more cost‑effective ways of doing it than funding a space programme.[42]
2.42
Responding to this, Professor Dyson said:
...there is a perception that space is extremely expensive, and it
can be, but I do not think it has to be. I think the proposals put forward in
the National Committee for Space Sciences [decadal] plan has a range of
projects going from a few million up to tens of millions of dollars.[43]
2.43
An initiative to boost the interest of the community, and school
students in particular, in space is the Victorian Space Science Education
Centre.[44]
It also helps with the professional development of teachers.
2.44
Beyond inspiring interest in science, participation in space can
be 'nation‑building' in a broader sense:
...human exploration of Mars...will be the great exploration voyages
of this century, regarded by future historians as we regard the voyages of Columbus,
Magellan and Cook. As Australian children look to the sky and, say, at
returned photos of human footprints on the lunar surface or the Martian
surface, they will see no Australian role, no Australian participation that
they can be proud of. I consider this a very bland legacy to leave the next
generation...[by contrast] Imagine the community response to knowing that there
is an Australian flag on the side of an instrument sitting on the surface of
the Moon or of Mars.[45]
Is there an economic case for government assistance?
2.45
Even if the answers to some of the questions in the preceding
section are affirmative, this could just mean the government stands back and
applauds as the private sector gets on with it, or just concentrates on
providing a supporting environment in terms of ensuring an adequate supply of
suitably skilled workers.
2.46
The case for government financial support for space industry requires
evidence that there are 'positive externalities' from the space industry. In
other words, the space industry needs to be able to demonstrate that there are
benefits generated for other parts of the economy from the sector's activities
that do not accrue to the space sector itself. This would imply that without
assistance the amount of private sector involvement in space would be less than
socially optimal.
2.47
Otherwise, especially in an economy near full employment and
suffering from skill shortages, assistance to space programmes will have the
effect of redirecting resources away from areas where they would be more
productive.
2.48
The potential spin-offs from a space programme are not limited to
technical skills or scientific discoveries that turn out to have other
applications. They include broader skills. Professor Colin Norman described
space science as 'character building'.[46]
In a similar vein were comments that:
The spin-off benefits from space technology are various, ranging
from the personnel development and managing complex systems through to the
actual technological systems that they are involved in.[47]
...there is the question of whether one can solve some of our
major climate problems, water problems and so forth without the expertise
gained from organising large projects with many, many people and from different
sectors and so on. That kind of effort is one that the space industry and the
military have spent a lot of time worrying about, so there is a lot of
experience in how to do that in the space industry...You want people who can do
things—people who can manage technology, who can manage big projects and who
know how to marshal industry and do things of a considerable magnitude. That is
what space trains you to do.[48]
2.49
Professor Butcher questioned whether this economic approach is
adopted in other countries:
...there really is no level playing field in space. Most countries
feel that space technologies, in particular space capabilities, are
strategically too important to leave to the market. The sector is generally
characterised by what the Europeans call ‘juste retour’, where the governments
try and invest as much as they can in their own countries. So, if we do not
have a space program, it is difficult to develop a competitive space industry.
If a significant space presence for Australia is desired, I do not think it
will happen without government investment, certainly not in the foreseeable
future.[49]
2.50
There are some government programmes that currently provide some
support to the industry:
- International Science Linkages programme;
-
general support for research and development, such as the tax concessions
and grant programmes;
- Australian Research Council grants;
-
funding for CSIRO and other agencies; and
- special funding for the Square Kilometre Array (see below).
2.51
DIISR claims that over $30 million has been provided for space
industry development programmes since 1996 under the AusIndustry suite of
programmes.[50]
2.52
In addition, there are space-related services the government
provides because they are a 'public good' such as information gleaned from
satellites.[51]
2.53
Professor Butcher advocates government support for science
I know that in the Netherlands...the government has concluded that...for
every dollar the government invests in the space industry, in space activities,
there are $3½ worth of economic activity generated, not always directly related
to space but indirectly as well. In the United States I think it is over a
factor of four. [52]
Is there a security case for government assistance?
2.54
Alternatively it could be argued that on military or security
grounds Australia needs to do more than the private sector would undertake on
its own initiative. For example, while the Australian defence forces can buy
satellite information from foreign satellite operators, it might be argued that
there is an unacceptable risk that these data may not be available in a period
of international tensions. This could build a case for having Australian-owned
and operated satellites even if during more normal times this is less
cost-effective.[53]
2.55
Dr Andy Thomas told the Committee:
I believe Australia must control its defence assets, and that is
only possible if the country can maintain and operate the assets that it owns
and those assets which support national security. That can only be achieved if Australia
can build the satellite systems and the ground based support systems, and
communication networks that it needs for its own unique applications, and
possibly even maintain the technical infrastructure to be able to launch these
systems to the required orbital planes on demand. That is a basic capability
that does not exist in Australia at present.[54]
2.56
Another aspect of security concerns is that in some cases they
interfere with international collaborations. A witness gave this example of
where such barriers lead to a case for government support for Australian
research:
...the major limiting factor for that sort of environment is our
national treaty obligations with the Missile Technology Control Regime and the
US ITAR, International Traffic in Arms Regulations. That limits the transfer of
that sort of technology to ensure that missile systems and weapons technology
is not proliferated across many nations. These limits stop us from being able
to interact across international borders, for fear that we may be proliferating
these technologies. That almost drives a need to have indigenous and internal
development of these technologies to ensure that not only do we not proliferate
but we also have the skills to be able to utilise and provide an informed
audience to those sorts of applications in future.[55]
2.57
The Committee will be better placed to assess these arguments
once it hears from the Department of Defence and its agencies at its Canberra public
hearing in late July. The Department of Defence is currently developing a White
Paper and 'the impact of space systems on the Australian Defence Force's
ability to contribute to Australia's security will also be addressed in this
major policy statement.'[56]
Should Australia be making more use of satellites?
Wide uses of global navigation
satellite systems
2.58
There is an increasingly wide range of applications for
satellite-sourced information. This is especially true of the global navigation
satellite systems (GNSS). The best known of these is the US-operated Global
Positioning System. This is shortly to be joined by the European Galileo, a
revamped Russian Glonass and China's Beidou. Australia should have access to
all these systems which will increase precision.
2.59
The GNSS are vital to the operation of the financial system:
the timing signals of those satellites are perhaps more
pervasive than all of the navigation information. The timing signals are used
to synchronise our national power grids, to synchronise the time stamping of
financial transactions and even to synchronise our cellular phone networks.
Were someone to deny that time signal, you would have an immediate consequence
in the transaction and therefore potentially the economics of our finance industry.[57]
2.60
One witness warned that:
GPS jammers...can be bought on the international market or
constructed from readily available electronics parts to designs that are
available on the Internet. Australia has conducted no study on the magnitude of
our risk exposure. We have no quantification of the risk of denial of GPS, no
backup plans at national level, and no national approach to responding
effectively to GPS interference events.[58]
2.61
There are also satellites which transmit pictures of the earth
and 'radar satellites' which can see through cloud cover.
2.62
Professor Sinnott described:
There is a substantial but very distributed base in Australia’s
manufacturing industry, small to medium enterprises in the main, that seek to
add value to what are a free good in terms of the signals raining down on us,
in terms of getting better precision, making these systems work better indoors
where a typical GPS receiver does not work too well, and adding some bells and
whistles in terms of added services such as telling you which restaurant you
are closest to and functions like this. A most particularly important one,
which I think will come to Australia—it is already in Europe and the US—is
reporting where you are from a mobile phone call when you call emergency
services.[59]
Monitoring through remote sensing
2.63
Geoscience Australia hosts the Australian Centre for Remote
Sensing, which operates satellite ground station facilities at Alice Springs
and Hobart to acquire data over Australia. Satellite data can be of great
assistance in mineral prospecting.
2.64
Among the applications to which monitoring by satellite is
applicable are agriculture, climate, weather, water, fire control, tsunami,
marine ecosystems.
2.65
A major user is the Bureau of Meteorology. It stressed the
importance of international cooperation:
Through international agreements under the UN based World
Meteorological Organisation, the WMO, Australia gains free access to more than
$10 billion worth of data annually from more than 180 member countries in
exchange for an Australian investment, through the bureau’s observations
programs, of around $100 million. The bulk of the $10 billion international
investment is associated with space based systems, while Australia’s
contribution is largely surface based.[60]
2.66
There are areas where Australia could get more benefit from using
satellite information:
...there is a lot of data that is available. We use a lot of it
but there is potential to harvest that a lot more and use it for a much wider
range of applications... There is a lot of data in areas such as oceanographic
monitoring, water resource monitoring, climate monitoring—environmental
monitoring right across the range. But there are subsequent applications that
you can get from those in terms of benefits through improved forecasting of
rainfall for agricultural regions. I think there are a large number of specific
application areas for which you could derive more value from that data.[61]
2.67
Improved GNSS-derived data will also be useful for earthquake
prediction:
...we will have better understanding of the earthquake risk
because we will have better understanding of the deformation that is taking
place on the continent. Currently those rates of deformation are below the
limits that we can detect, but when we improve it by an order of magnitude we
will actually be in a position to measure some of those movements and have a
better sense of which parts of the continent are actively mobile and which
therefore have the potential to generate earthquakes. [62]
2.68
A concern for users is adequate access to the radio frequency
spectrum.[63]
The Australian Communications and Media Authority is forming a
radiotelecommunications committee to examine this issue.
Remote control mining and farming
2.69
Before too long it may be commonplace for mining operations to be
controlled remotely from city offices. Reliable satellite links are crucial for
these operations. [64]
2.70
There is similar scope for farming equipment such as harvesters
to be controlled remotely, or operators to be assisted through satellite
information.[65]
2.71
There is also potential for remote farms to control stock
movements with 'virtual fences'; collars fitted to the animals deterring them
from straying.
Inventory management and transport
logistics
2.72
Satellites can help keep track of the movement of goods and
therefore reduce inventory costs.
Is there a case for
Australian-owned satellites?
2.73
There are currently no Australian-owned satellites. (Optus owns
satellites but it is now owned by Singapore Telecommunications Ltd.[66])
2.74
The above discussion shows that satellites are widely used and
are likely to be an increasingly important resource. This led a number of
witnesses to argue that Australia can afford to, and should, have its own
satellites, or least share in the ownership of satellites:
...today, we can launch our own mission with
a seven- to 10-year mission life for as little as $80 million...Why would you do
that? The dependency that we have on other missions is affecting the timeliness
of the data that we can get...Radar satellites are becoming more prevalent and,
as we discussed this morning, they are all in polar orbits for the simple
reason that eventually they will all cover every part of the globe because the
owners are commercial and they want to sell to the whole of the world. The
result of that is that your missions are time limited. The satellite only
spends a certain amount of time over any particular point. Therefore, when you
ask a satellite provider to provide you with information, typically you will
get it within 14 to 40 days, depending on the availability of the satellite when
it overflies your target...the satellite operators or owners have a means of
monitoring other people’s crops and positioning themselves economically in the
marketplace to their advantage. [67]
...you do not know exactly when you might be denied access, and the
best way for a country our size to try to cover the risk to some extent is to
be actively involved with other nations in developing observing programs and
make some contribution, whether it is in terms of providing an instrument or
part of an instrument so that we are in the game, so that we have some
involvement in the game and therefore some influence as to what happens.[68]
I am not being paranoid about this. But if we rely on foreign
defence satellites, they can be turned off at any time and we lose that
capability. If we rely on foreign satellites for, say, GPS, the American’s GPS
constellation, if that is turned off, we lose an enormous capability. Whereas,
if we had our own, the risk set becomes different; the risk set then becomes:
can another nation actually damage our assets in space?[69]
We have not asked ourselves the questions, what is the value of
the flow of all the satellite imagery that tells us what our wheat crops are
going to be yielding next season? What is the value of that flow of information
going to five other nations overseas who are predicting our wheat yields months
before we know what they are going to be? It is good enough for them to do it
and we do not do it. For example, from a simple trade based situation, we are
putting ourselves at a significant disadvantage. There are many, many examples
like that which will be borne out if we did a proper risk analysis.[70]
Australia needs to participate financially and collaborate in
their missions and deploy sensors that are purpose-designed for Australian
issues.[71]
2.75
Not owning a satellite means Australia has no input into its
capabilities:
...without having an indigenous capability, we do not have the
possibility of being parts of programs that are specifying and designing new
systems that will be useful for Australia. We really can be limited by the
products that we end up buying, basically.[72]
2.76
The Bureau of Meteorology commented:
While Australia can exert some influence on internationally
coordinated efforts through forums such as the WMO Space Program, key decisions
on mission payloads are, not unexpectedly, driven strongly by those that are
making the investments. [73]
2.77
On the other hand, autarky is generally very inefficient. It was
argued to the Committee that Australia is not self‑sufficient in many other
important areas:
I am sure you all have Microsoft Office on your desktops. This
is made by a company in Seattle; 98 per cent of computers in Australia are
dependent on a foreign company for their applications software. Every
commercial aeroplane that flies in Australia is built not in Australia.[74]
2.78
Most agencies seemed to think the prospect of being locked out of
access to date was remote:
I think the risk of losing international collaboration and
access to international satellites across the board is very low.[75]
It has not been a problem for us to date and I do not foresee it
will be in the future.[76]
2.79
Some witnesses therefore argue there were better uses of funds in
collaborative approaches:
...we would see the ideal investment, if the cost-benefit analysis
took us that way, in sensors and instruments, not in satellites themselves.
Through the collaborative arrangements we have, particularly with Japan, the
United States, China and Korea, who are about to launch a geostationary
satellite in a year or so, there would certainly be some capacity, I would
hope, to collaborate in designing an instrument—perhaps a hyperspectral
instrument—that would sit for example on a Japanese satellite which is very
conveniently located right over Australia, to the north of Australia. That
would potentially allow us to get a lot more detailed information about the
atmospheric profile, temperature and humidity and really understand a lot more
about the atmosphere above Australia. Investments like that would be very worth
while.[77]
Should there be a space cluster?
2.80
There are often argued to be synergies in bringing together
related expertise. A 'cluster' is 'a geographic concentration of interconnected
companies, specialised suppliers, service providers, firms in related
industries, training institutions and support organisations within a local area
or region. One mark of a successful cluster is that its value as a whole is greater
than the sum of its parts'.[78]
2.81
Clusters may develop because of the availability of some key
resource or position,[79]
become established where the item produced was first invented,[80]
grow around a university[81]
or spin off from another cluster.[82]
Some clusters develop in a particular location for no obvious reason but, once
established, act as a magnet for skilled people in that industry, and supporting
industries, and so remain a prime location.[83]
2.82
The literature suggests clusters can take considerable time to
develop but are then long-lasting.[84]
In some cases, once clusters have emerged, governments have encouraged them by
funding more educational facilities and supporting infrastructure. But some
attempts by governments to create clusters have been less successful.[85]
2.83
In principle, with modern communications there could be a
'virtual cluster'. But there still appear to be advantages from physical
proximity in the cross-pollination of ideas. The most prospective locations for
space clusters in Australia would appear to be Adelaide and Canberra.[86]
One pivot for a cluster would be a Cooperative Research Centre, such as the one
that operated for Satellite Systems from 1998 to 2005 and built and deployed
FedSat.
Should Australia have (or join) a space agency?
2.84
A number of witnesses pointed out that Australia is unusual among
larger and more affluent economies in not either having a space agency of its
own or being affiliated to a supranational agency.[87]
2.85
From 1987 to 1996, the Australian Space Office provided some
focus. The closest thing Australia has currently is the Australian Government
Space Forum (described in paragraph 2.3 above).
2.86
Notwithstanding the role of DIISR and the Forum, many witnesses
felt there was no prominent point of contact in Australia for overseas agencies
or private companies who wish to discuss space matters:
‘Who do we come and see?’ has been the question to many of us in
the industry.[88]
...the NSSA has frequently been approached by businesses and
individuals frustrated at the lack of support and communication channels from
the Australian government...Without a point of contact, organisations such as the
European Space Agency are discouraged from doing business.[89]
...there should be a centralised coordinating body...which has the
capacity to act as an international point of contact.[90]
2.87
The Australian Space Research Institute argued that an agency
would:
give cohesion to the various disparate space elements that are
still in Australia and help bring back some of the expatriate space assets that
have had to go overseas to look for work in the last decade or so.[91]
2.88
The lack of an agency may mean that Australia misses out on larger
interdisciplinary projects:
What is missing is large coordinated programs of research and
development that span many organisations both in Australia and obviously
internationally. We cannot do things like this alone. As director of a research
institute, that is really where I see the lost opportunity.[92]
2.89
Dr Andy Thomas argued:
I do personally believe that a single coordinating body is
needed in Australia...I do have a sense that there are a lot of competitive
organisations in the Australian arena in all of those various dispersed
activities that you referred to. I am sure the people in those organisations
have the best of intentions of their organisations, but I think you do need an
operation that has a vision that looks at the national scale of what has to be
done on a national basis and pull all of those things together to support that
national programme.[93]
2.90
A number of other groups also felt the absence of a single space
agency was damaging to Australia:
Australia has become ever more dependent on space based
services, often invisibly. Much like water in a tap, we do not understand where
the services come from; we just expect them to be there...there appears to be no
whole-of-government coordination that addresses our dependencies and hence our
vulnerabilities that arise from those dependencies...[a space agency] should
initially reside probably within the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet so that it holds a whole-of-government perspective and does not need to
consider individual departmental priorities, and therefore it can look at all
of the nation’s dependencies at a strategic level.[94]
The primary impediments [to strengthening space science and
industry in Australia] are first, that Australia has no single coordinating
body for space science.[95]
There is an urgent need to establish a single coordinating
framework for Australian space related research and applications.[96]
2.91
The Bureau of Meteorology commented:
Australia would benefit from a more coordinated national policy
framework on space matters, developed and administered through a whole‑of‑government
mechanism; that, through such national policy arrangements, the value of
current and continued international collaboration on space is recognised and
coordinated; and that targeted national investments in space science and
technology in relation to both ground and space segments should build on and
complement the international effort, with a special focus on Australia’s
national objectives—for example, in relation to climate monitoring, water
resources, environment, and disaster mitigation... in terms of a coordinated
engagement with other countries, there is no single framework for that to
happen. [97]
2.92
One possible model is the British National Space Centre, which 'essentially
coordinates the activities of a range of ministries that still retain their
budgets and their responsibilities'.[98]
This was attractive to some witnesses:
Perhaps the UK approach, which is more like a national committee
which has the key representatives at the table, may be an appropriate model. [99]
2.93
The European Space Agency has four times offered Australia an
associate membership. Some leading space scientists advocate taking up the
offer, pointing out it would allow Australian companies and universities to win
contracts with the ESA and gain better access to satellite data.[100]
Another possibility would be for Australia to take a leadership role in forming
an international space agency, such as an Asian or Pacific Space Agency.
2.94
An interesting case is Canada, arguably the most similar country
to Australia, which has its own space agency. When asked why Canada was
increasing its involvement in space, DIISR responded:
The Canadians do have a very large neighbour immediately to
their south that could be the target of, for example, Russian nuclear weapons
that would fly over Canadian territory to reach their intended targets. I think
they have some strategic reasons for wanting to have their own capability in
this context: if a nuclear war were to eventuate, their country would be in the
flight path and potentially hit by some of those were they to be aimed at the United
States—which I think we could all presume would be the case. They also
control at their northern border a range of Arctic seaways, which I understand
they have some interest in being able to monitor. I think those are two reasons
that are slightly different in Canada from Australia.[101]
Should the Australian government be giving more support for the Square Kilometre
Array?
2.95
The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) is a giant radio telescope. It is
designed to do leading edge radioastronomy. The CSIRO is the lead agency.
2.96
The DIISR commented:
...it will be an extremely high-tech instrument that will
potentially provide a lot of opportunities for high-tech Australian companies
to participate. Our assessment is that, given that the infrastructure is
largely sophisticated radio antennas and a range of supercomputing,
visualisation and other application software—which are areas where we do have
leading-edge capability, particularly in antennas and ground station
technology—we think there is quite a good opportunity for Australia to benefit
from that project. [102]
2.97
Australia has made the final two in the selection process and the
DIISR sounded confident about Australia's prospects of hosting the SKA:
I think we have a very compelling case. We have committed in the
last year to hosting a demonstration instrument, which will be a significant
instrument in its own right. It was discussed as part of ministerial and prime
ministerial visits to Europe recently. I am not sure that there is more that we
could do at this stage. [103]
Is Australian education adequate for a space future?
2.98
Some witnesses questioned whether the teaching of science and
mathematics in Australia's high schools is providing an adequate basis for
tertiary study of space‑related fields. They noted fewer students are
studying physics.
Our school education in mathematics and science is not preparing
students to come to university to do some of the difficult undergraduate
physics that is required to prepare them for that work. That has been a trend
for quite a few years.[104]
...post primary students in Australia generally did not sustain
any enthusiasm for science beyond their second year after entering junior high
school.[105]
2.99
There is also concern about a 'brain drain' of space scientists
from Australian universities. These 'technogees' are leaving Australia as they
do not see adequate research and employment prospects here:
Having significant dealings with many of the students involved
in our operations, I would have to say that a significant proportion either do
not continue their activities in an aerospace related field or they go
overseas. There is very little opportunity for graduates from those sorts of
environments to gain a work career in aerospace in Australia.[106]
...like many of my university peers, my aspiration is to work
within the Space industry. In Australia, this ambition is near unachievable,
partly due to the ongoing failure of Australian government policy. As such, I
am currently preparing to move with my family to Europe for the prime reason of
working in the Space industry.[107]
I am an Australian (with a PhD in space engineering from the University
of Queensland) but owing to the state of Australian space activity...I have
worked in the UK and in Germany for the last decade...[108]
Engineers and scientists with experience in space projects have
been forced to move overseas or are unable to return to Australia because of
the lack of employment opportunities in their chosen field.[109]
2.100
Professor Clay lamented:
Space science is not as fashionable as it used to be and it is
more difficult than a lot of other areas.[110]
Concluding remarks
2.101
There is clear commitment by many involved in space science and
excitement about the untapped potential of this area of science and technology.
The committee looks forward to completing its enquiry about this industry.
Senator Annette Hurley
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page