The scientific case

We have described in Chapter 3 the genesis of the Skylark programme, and the development of the rocket into a reliable and versatile vehicle for space science experiments requiring a duration of a few minutes at altitudes up to a few hundred kilometres. Here we follow in more detail one important technological development, that of attitude stabilization of the rocket head. This transformed the vehicle from a mere carrier of equipment to high altitudes, to a sophisticated facility enabling astronomical instruments such as spectrometers in the ultra-violet, and X-ray detectors, to be aligned accurately on the sun and on selected stars. Attitude controlled Skylark became the forerunner of the astronomical satellites Ariel 5, Ariel 6, and The International Ultra-violet Explorer (IUE).

On 21 April 1955, when it was clear that a scientific programme using the high altitude rocket being developed by RAE Farnborough would indeed become a reality, a group of interested scientists met informally in Massey's room at University College London (UCL). In addition to Massey and R.L.F. Boyd of UCL, the group included J. Sayers of Birmingham University, D.R. Bates of Queen's University, Belfast, and W.J.G. Beynon of The University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. Possible experiments were discussed in relation to the expected performance of the rocket. It was decided that RAE should be asked to provide, if possible, either telemetry of the angular aspect of the rocket axis during flight, or preferably stabilization of the aspect ‘by means of a large gyro having its axis along that of the vehicle’.

We have already pointed out that it was quite clear that the rocket and satellite programme in the IGY would continue and, indeed, expand after that ‘year’ had terminated (31 December 1958). Permanent organizational arrangements had therefore to be set up in advance of that date. Even in the USA the pre-IGY programme was based on the use of sounding rockets and was comparatively small so that it did not call for elaborate organization. The launching of satellites was quite another matter. This new activity called for a much more elaborate organization in the USA while in the UK it was obviously clear that the ad hoc IGY arrangement of the Artificial Satellite Sub-committee would need to be translated into some more permanent organizational form.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the USA

The launching of Sputnik I had a traumatic effect throughout the USA. To many, it seemed that the Russians had stolen a march on them and that it was vital to catch up without delay if the security of the USA were not to be jeopardized. President Eisenhower was one of the few who did not take this view and remained unperturbed. However, the urge to make up for lost ground as rapidly as possible was at first channelled to a large extent into the examination of the administrative structure within which space research, not only space science but also applications both civil and military, would be carried out.

The Governments of Belgium, Denmark, France, German Federal Republic, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Interested in studying the possibilities of European Collaboration in research in space science and space technology and in the pooling of the knowledge thereof.

Space Science in Britain was initiated, and the foundations for its development were laid, very largely by one man, the late Sir Harrie Massey. Sadly, his untimely death in November 1983 occurred before this Preface could be written, but the main text of the History was complete. It bears witness to the enormous contribution which he made through his vision, foresight and determination. With the close co-operation of the late Sir David Martin, then Executive Secretary of the Royal Society, and the late Roger Quirk, then a senior member of the Ministry for Science, Massey as Chairman of the British National Committee on Space Research, took the lead in harnessing the essential components for a British Space Science programme.

The resulting combination of science, mainly from university departments of physics, and technology, mainly from government research establishments, supported by government funds and backed by electronic and aerospace firms in British industry, proved to be very successful and more than able to hold its own with the tightly organized Space Agencies of other countries. Massey always believed that his first duty lay with British Universities, but his vision extended far beyond those boundaries. From the mid-1950s to the end of his life he was tireless in stimulating and encouraging international co-operation in the furtherance of space science. The extensive and highly successful joint programme between Britain and the USA, the genesis and development of the European Space Research Organization, later to become the European Space Agency, the Commonwealth Collaborative Programme and many aspects of the work of COSPAR and of the European Science Foundation, all bear the marks of Massey's genius for leadership in co-operative programmes of science.

March 1959

COSPAR has a truly historic opportunity to become an effective force for international co-operation in space research. This co-operation will be most fruitful and meaningful if the maximum opportunity to participate in, and contribute to, all aspects of space research can be provided to the entire scientific community. In this regard, COSPAR can serve as an avenue through which the capabilities of satellite launching nations and the scientific potential of other nations may be brought together.

The United States will support COSPAR in this objective by undertaking the launching of suitable and worthy experiments proposed by scientists of other countries. This can be done by sending into space either single experiments as part of a larger payload or groups of experiments comprising complete payloads.

In the case of individual experiments to become part of a larger payload, the originator will be invited to work in a United States laboratory on the construction, calibration, and installation of the necessary equipment in a US research vehicle. If this is impossible, a US scientist may be designated to represent the originator, working on the project in consultation with him. Or, in the last resort, the originator might prepare his experiment abroad, supplying the launching group with a final piece of equipment, or ‘black box’, for installation. However, this last approach may not be practical in most cases.

(The announcement below is being released simultaneously by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Washington and the European Science Foundation (ESF) in London for use in newspapers Thursday, February 26. The ESF is an organization representing the scientific communities of 14 European countries. The announcement contains recommendations on the use of the Large Space Telescope (LST).)

Announcement

Twenty-one scientists from the USA and Europe convened by the Space Science Board of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences and the Space Science Committee of the European Science Foundation have met to discuss matters concerning international co-operation on space observatories, with particular reference to the planned project of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to orbit a large optical telescope beyond the earth's distorting atmosphere.

The LST will be complementary to the new generation of ground-based telescopes that will be coming into action over the next few years and will be used for those areas of research in which it, and it alone, can operate.

In Chapter 6 we recounted the steps which led to the establishment of ESRO as an organization for the support of European space scientists by the cooperative provision of most, but not all, of the technological facilities, project management services and contractual services needed in the 1960s. In so far as the vertical sounding rocket and scientific satellite programmes were successful, bearing comparison with any contemporary similar activities elsewhere, ESRO was very successful. But on a broader basis, there was by 1968 much dissatisfaction both among the space scientists making use of ESRO facilities, and amongst the member States providing the funds. Many scientists were critical of what they believed to be poor value for money, although these criticisms were not always easy to substantiate because of uncertain subsidies supporting alternative ways of proceeding. Governments tended to look critically at the build-up by ESRO of expensive technical and engineering facilities which clearly could be of great value to co-operative European programmes in applied space technology, whereas their restriction to the ESRO programmes of space science alone could, it was believed, lead to under-utilization and expensive duplication. In the background the faltering progress of ELDO, the desire of many Europeans to see a comprehensive space capability in Europe, including European satellite launching rockets, and the ever-present industrial and commercial interests in exploiting a new and potentially powerful technology, all contributed to a very confused scene in the late 1960s.

No. 1

Excellency,

I have the honour to refer to the discussions on space research held in Washington between representatives of the Government of the United States of America and of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to propose that the two Governments should now conclude an agreement to join together in a mutually beneficial program of co-operation in space research to expand human knowledge of phenomena in space through the use of space vehicles.