HC Deb 22 February 1960 vol 618 cc143-60

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

9.16 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield (Gloucestershire, South)

I certainly did not introduce this subject in any sense as a scientist, even in the wildest possible use of that term. Nor did I do so because I am in any way personally attracted by the idea of space travel. In fact, the more I read about it, whether in fiction or in more serious magazines, the less attractive I find it. Apart from the very considerable hazard in competing with factors the effects of which are very largely unknown, the discomfort will be very considerable indeed.

There are the hazards of cosmic radiation, of the radiation in the Van Allen radiation layer, and the enormous precision that is needed to place a vehicle in orbit, first round the earth, then into orbit round some other planet, then to bring it back into the earth's orbit, and finally back into the atmosphere with some reasonable prospect of a safe recovery. I find this picture somewhat repellent from a purely personal point of view.

Fortunately, there are in the world and this country very large numbers of adventurous enthusiasts who see this in the reverse light and, perhaps still more fortunately, there is an almost limitless amount of scientific knowledge that can be explored by means in which any suggestion of putting a man in the pay-load would merely be introducing unnecessary complications in what is already an enormously complex problem.

As a Member for a constituency in which engineering is of paramount importance, I share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), which he voiced so admirably in an Adjournment debate last April. In short, can we, as a nation which relies so enormously on exporting skills rather than materials, afford to restrict our participation in space exploration to the very modest contributions which have been sanctioned to date? The hon Member for Lincoln feared that we would be contracting out of this great exploration and thereby be giving notice that we were ceasing to be a leading, industrial and technological nation in the world.

Since that date we have had very welcome evidence that it is not the intention of the Government to "contract out," as the hon. Member put it, but the very modesty of the contribution which has been sanctioned does make one wonder whether it merits the suggestion that we are actively contracting in.

The United States and Russia are, of course, devoting enormous resources to this project, but I am certain that we neither could nor should attempt to emulate those efforts or attempt to contribute anything like the resources which they are putting in to it. I am equally certain that we should not be dazzled by the magnitude of these programmes, nor ignore them.

The position of this country today must depend as much as anything on the pioneering spirit of the past, I do not believe that we can afford to ignore the challenge of the exploration of space to our pioneering spirit of the present. I do not imagine that anyone would seriously suggest that the pioneers of the past—those who opened up the New World and the sea routes to the East, the inventors and scientists—foresaw even a fraction of the wealth and benefit that their endeavours, albeit subsequently, brought to mankind. That must be even more true in pure scientific research than in applied scientific research.

I believe it would be equally foolish to determine our contribution to space exploration purely on the basis of cost on the one hand or on the commercial benefits which are likely to be derived on the other. To take an example from the aircraft industry, which is very closely bound up with this subject and intensely interested in it; I suppose that in retrospect it might be argued that the tremendous advances in such techniques as metallurgy, electronics, radar and the like, which have developed almost as byproducts from experimentation in aviation, might have been achieved at lower cost if the research had been specifically directed to those commercial attributes in the first place. But I think it is very questionable whether the possibilities would ever have been contemplated, let alone given rise to planned and specific research, if it had not been for the incentive of the larger objective.

In space research, it must be even harder to foresee developments of a commercial or social value which are likely to arise as by-products of the main objective. But even at present there are practical results of a commercial nature which seem likely to stem from a satellite programme. The obvious sphere is in greater precision in weather detection. There are also possibilities of enormously simplifying and speeding up communications.

I understand that a passive or reflector type of satellite which could stay in orbit and therefore in use for many years could receive and reflect signals from one part of the earth to another part with practically no pay load other than the reflective surface. Alternatively, I am told that a delayed relay type of communication satellite could receive signals in electronic "fast time" from one part of the earth and emit them over another part, a process which could be enormously speeded up if it was possible to put a satellite in orbit in a direction opposite to that of the earth's rotation.

A satellite with a constancy of orbit could be of immense help to navigation, since such a satellite could be made fairly easy to identify, and if the orbit were truly constant it could be made to emit radio signals giving its own latitude and longitude, thereby leaving the navigator with a mere angle measurement to take with the sextant.

Whatever the magnitude of the space programmes of the United States and Russia, their very magnitude will in itself create demands and markets for the products of scientific and engineering ingenuity from all over the world. Although, as the hon. Member for Lincoln said in his Adjournment debate, prestige is sometimes associated in people's minds with those amusing but somewhat ridiculous cartoons of little men running through space with Union Jacks and hastening to park them on the moon or elsewhere before the bearers of the Star and Stripes or Hammer and Sickle can do so, there is another aspect of prestige which I believe to be immensly important in this context.

If the United States and the Western world are to have a near monopoly in this field, the United States' scientists are likely consistently to be in the lead in the development of such things as heat-resisting metals, further development in television, electronics, temperature control at very high temperatures and pressurisation, to say nothing of the enormous importance from a medical point of view of some of the lessons which may be learnt from their researches into the possibility of putting a human being into space. If that happens, it is surely inevitable that much of the trade, particularly in those items of skill in which we so badly need to excel, is likely to go from this country to North America.

In those circumstances, I very much doubt whether it is reasonable to assume, as was assumed by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply in the debate in April, that we can indefinitely retain our best brains in this sphere in this country. It is the possessors of those brains who, almost by definition, will be particularly attracted by the challenge of this exciting exploration and the means of meeting that challenge which they will be able to enjoy in other countries. I certainly do not want us to attempt to imitate the United States' effort; it would be foolish to do so. For that effort is, to a large extent, dictated by military considerations—matters of prestige, I think to some extent in the old sense of the word which I have mentioned, and which the hon. Member for Lincoln mentioned—by their attempt to catch up with the Russians.

From the military point of view, I think it is of interest to recall that since the war the advance of the Western world has been largely based on the deterrent. In the years immediately after the war, when American superiority could be assumed, the deterrent was seen as something which would make it almost impossibly rash for Russian aggression to be undertaken on any large scale. But as it became clear that American superiority no longer existed, the deterrent was seen more as a weapon of mutual destruction, not so much to prevent a victory as to rob the victor of the fruits of victory. In our own White Paper published last week, we have seen a concentration of the nations of the Western world on schemes for producing early warnings, immensely costly schemes, which at the most, I understand, can give America only fifteen minutes' warning and Britain about four minutes' warning.

If we are not successful in the current disarmament negotiations in the sphere of nuclear disarmament, general disarmament, and the internationalisation of space, the next phase of the deterrent may well be attempts to get even earlier warnings and to produce counter-weapons which can only be successful in the sphere of space. In other words, an attempt to put various satellites into orbit, whether they be manned or merely carrying instruments. Clearly, if those efforts were successful, it could lead only to more efforts to produce more horrible forms of weapons and an arms race in space, which seems to point to an overwhelming argument in favour of international co-operation.

So far as the Western world is concerned, I do not think that co-operation should be over dominated by the United States of America. For, as I have suggested, I believe their incentive is still very largely based on military considerations. Important as those are, I believe that in the context of disarmament it could be dangerous to have an overemphasis on the attempt of America to regain her equality and then her superiority over Russia in the sphere of nuclear weapons. I certainly do not want to belittle the generosity of the United States in offering space in their Scout satellites for British instruments or the value of the International Committee on Space Research, but they impose, as I see it, as they are at present constituted a very severe limitation on British participation.

In the first place, it is as well to remember that the United States' invitation to other nations to develop instruments for their Scout programme was a general one to all nations interested; it was not specifically directed to Britain. Whatever the arrangements may have been for the immediate future for the allocation of space to Britain, in the long run we shall undoubtedly have to take our place in the queue.

Secondly, the satellites concerned are very small ones. They contemplate weights of between 100 lb. and 300 lb., leaving perhaps as little as 20 lb in weight for the instruments to be contributed by Britain and as little as one cubic foot to put them in. All that has to be contrasted with what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said at the Royal Aeronautical Society luncheon a few weeks ago. He then pointed out that a combination of our own Blue Streak and Black Knight with a small additional rocket might well be able to put into orbit a satellite weighing up to one ton, or to send a missile of about 200 lb. as far as the moon. I am very glad to notice that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) reminded us of that fact in his excellent article in the Sunday Times yesterday.

British participation, therefore, depends first of all on the shape and size of the satellite, the room available for Britain, remembering that there will be competing demands from the United States and other nations, the altitude and orientation of orbit, and matters such as stabilisation and the mechanical and heat shocks which the instruments are liable to have to sustain on launching All these factors are entirely outside the control of the British scientists who will be designing the instruments and taking part in the experiments.

Nor do I want to ignore the contribution which we have made to date. We have had a relatively successful programme with our 20 Skylark rockets, and we have had five successful launchings of the Black Knight, some of which have carried instruments for purely scientific research up to about 500 miles. We have the Jodrell Bank telescope, which has proved of immense value in tracking Russian and American satellites and earned us a good deal of prestige. We have the promise of between £100,000 and £200,000 a year towards research instruments to be put in the American Scout satellites.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has told us that the Ministry of Aviation is carrying out a design study for a British satellite launcher based on Blue Streak and Black Knight. Whatever the future of Blue Streak may be, and I am glad to see that, contrary to Press forecasts, the Defence White Paper tells us that it is to continue, its development to date, together with the development of Black Knight, must surely give us a lead over all other nations, other than the United States and Russia, in the ability to place a satellite of our own in orbit.

I do not believe that the cost need be anything like as astronomical as people make out. I certainly do not believe it need have any relation at all to the cost of the United States programme. Those costs are inflated, partly by the number of projects which are going on together and many of which overlap one another, partly by the emergency nature of their programme in their rush to keep up with the Russians, and partly by the fact that United States costs are in any case greater than costs in Britain.

One responsible estimate which I have seen puts a contribution of £1 million in the first year, rising by £1 million for each of the first five years and levelling off at about £5 million in the fifth year as something which would almost certainly give us a project of the magnitude equivalent to at least one of the twelve projects currently going forward in America.

The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, in its Report for 1958–59, suggested that we should not be able to put a satellite in orbit in under about five years from now. It also recommended the design study to which I have already referred and which we are told is now being undertaken, but it went on to say that in the opinion of the Council the cost of venturing into space with lunar, planetary or solar probes would be too great for our resources. It seems a little illogical to call for a design study before coming to any decision with regard to a satellite programme, but to rule out more ambitious programmes out-of-hand without any suggestion of a design study when considering projects further ahead than the satellite programme.

I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us tonight some reassuring news, first, of the design study with regard to Black Knight and Blue Streak, bearing in mind their ability, according to my right hon. Friend, of supporting a very substantially larger satellite than is to be available from American sources, and the enormous extra scope that that will give our scientists, in comparison with the very small space available in the American Scout satellites. Secondly, I hope he will be able to reassure us that these more ambitious projects of the future will not be ruled out until they themselves have been in due course the subject of realistic appraisal both as to costs and the benefits likely to accrue. And I trust that in attempting to assess the latter he will remember that the dangers of failure to participate may be every bit as important as any concrete advantage that can be immediately foreseen.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), I understand, was kind enough, in my absence, to refer to an Adjournment debate which I initiated about a year ago on this subject. I thank him for that.

I ask the Minister: if Blue Streak and Black Knight are to be launched for development or Royal Air Force training in Australia during the next few years, will our scientists be ready to launch satellites with them? Opinion is that that will not be so. What are the Government going to do to put them in a position to be able to do so? I am not here asking whether Blue Streak is itself a satisfactory military weapon. We shall be having a lot of discussion on that next week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) will have more to say on the wider aspect. I put the question again: if Blue Streak and Black Black Knight are to be launched for development or training in Australia during the next few years, will our scientists be in a position to launch satellites with them? If not, what are the Government doing to put them in that position? Here is a wonderful opportunity, if these missiles are to be launched, for us to cash in on the chance at very low cost to this country.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

I would not have intervened in this debate had it been confined to the usual half hour, but by very good fortune the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has chosen an occasion for this subject when we can take a little more time debating it. I certainly welcome the approach of the hon. Member to the subject.

There was a time when space travel was just a matter of fiction. It is becoming clearer and clearer every day that it is more and more of a reality. Earlier, we heard something from the Minister about his plans for supersonic flight. It seems to me that we are perhaps a stage beyond that already and that, instead of going to America in two hours, we shall be able to put someone in a capsule and fly him there in four or five minutes. It has been asked, what would be done with the time saved? I suggest that by the time we reach that stage we should have learned to make a much wiser use of our leisure.

The hon. Member, while being enthusiastic about the subject, kept his feet well on the ground. He wanted to know what practical results will come from the space programme so that our great engineering industry may be kept in the forefront of technical development and progress. That is something with which we on this side are very seriously concerned. One of the first things that we should like to know is whether there is a conflict between the scientific advisers of the Minister for Science, who has overall responsibility here, and the practical people in the engineering and productive spheres who perhaps want to get on a little more quickly than the scientific advisers may think possible.

I should like to know whether the steering committee, upon which, I presume, there are representatives of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry, is getting on with this matter in an airy-fairy or practical way. Is there a tug-of-war going on between scientists and practical people in the application of the programme?

The subject of Blue Streak has been fairly well covered, but it is perhaps the key to our debate and to future development. If it is not to be the great defence weapon first envisaged when the present Minister of Aviation was Minister of Defence, it seems to me that we have a wonderful opportunity to cut our losses, as it were, and to get something really worth while out of it from a scientific point of view. Thousands of years ago there was talk, I think, of beating ploughshares out of swords. It may be that we can beat something like a space satellite vehicle out of Blue Streak if it is not to have the military use which was first envisaged.

In a reply on 8th February, the Minister said work was being carried out on Blue Streak and Black Knight at the R.A.E. at Farnborough and in private industry, too. May we have a little more information about these modifications and what the cost is likely to be and, more important, what time will be taken in converting Blue Streak into a missile to carry space research apparatus? I agree with the Minister that Blue Streak is certainly necessary for our own independent space research programme.

That brings me to my second point. Can the Minister give us his views on the desirability of this country carrying out its own independent space research programme, a programme of sufficient size to be worth while, so that we do not tag on behind other nations in this great endeavour? We must find out how much it is necessary to spend and how much we can spend in getting a worth while programme to compare with the limited amount of money spent at present. If the figures are anything like those given by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South I think that it is something we can well afford.

The hon. Member said that we cannot afford to be left out of this. I think that that was the keynote of his speech. May we be told how much we are spending and how much the Government anticipate spending on this project to give us a completely independent space research programme? In this great development which affects the world we know, we cannot be completely independent and, even if it were possible, I do not think it is desirable. This is the one sphere, apart from Antarctica, where we can have interdependence without any grave difficulties arising.

We may not be able to compete in money and resources with the great developments in the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., but can we be told what plans there are for co-operation—first, with the United States, although we have some knowledge of that already; secondly, with the Governments of the Commonwealth, who are also interested in this problem, and thirdly whether it is possible at this stage to co-operate with Russia in a general space programme?

I was very interested in the remarks made last week by a famous Russian scientist, a lady, who was visiting this country and whose name I cannot remember, although I would not be able to pronounce it if I could. The Parliamentary Secretary will know the speech to which I refer. After giving technical explanations to a very large and enthusiastic audience of what the Russians were doing, she stated that the Russians would be very happy indeed to co-operate with the West in a space programme. It would be of great assistance if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us his ideas on that point.

The engineering capabilities have been stressed. A great electronics industry can be built up which will have tremendous export possibilities for us, as well as the worth-while pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. We cannot afford to be left out of this search for knowledge. We must be in the van of scientific thought and progress upon whatever lines it takes us and at whatever cost. There have been ideas of a satellite being used for spotting purposes, being suspended well outside the earth and able to keep an eye upon every kind of development all over the world. This could act as a policing force in connection with the atomic and nuclear tests which we hope will be banned.

I am glad that we have had time for the debate tonight and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us the fullest information possible, subject to any security considerations there may be.

9.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has raised an important subject this evening. I certainly have the greatest sympathy with the cogent arguments which he put forward in favour of a British programme of space research.

I am glad that my hon. Friend was supported by the hon. Members for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). They, also, have shown a great interest in these matters for a considerable time. We are, perhaps, fortunate, to have a somewhat longer debate tonight than we expected. I have always believed that it was far easier to put a man into space than to dam the flowing tide of Scottish oratory, but it appears that we have got away with it tonight.

Before looking to the future I should like to indicate the importance of the contribution which British scientists have already made in this field, and to give an account of the present programme. First, and still continuing, comes the Skylark Rocket programme of upper atmosphere soundings which is run in close co-operation with Australia and using the Woomera Rocket Range. In this programme over 20 successful launchings have been carried out, providing valuable information about upper atmospheric winds, temperature and electron density.

The Skylark is designed as an upper atmosphere research tool and is not in the strict sense a space vehicle. It is a 25 ft. solid fuel rocket which can carry a payload of 100 to 150 lbs. up to an altitude of about 100 miles. Later models have an even better performance than that. It has certainly proved a relatively cheap and very reliable vehicle.

The House should know that the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration has made known its interest in purchasing four Skylarks from us. An invitation is being extended to the Administration's representatives to visit the United Kingdom to discuss precise requirements, because each Skylark is, in part, tailor-made to suit the particular experiment that it is expected to undertake. We also understand that the United States wishes to fire these rockets from the Woomera range in Australia. We welcome this further opportunity of co-operation between the Commonwealth partnership and our American allies. As the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees has said, this is a field in which we want to secure the maximum possible international co-operation.

Another project that has been very successful is, as my hon. Friend said, the Black Knight research rocket. The first five firings were all successful, and I understand that this is a unique result in this sphere. Then, as my hon. Friend also pointed out, there has been the work on optical and radio tracking of satellites and space probes. He referred particularly to Jodrell Bank, which, of course, has become a household word amongst international space scientists.

The Radio Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, at Slough, has also been providing, for more than a year now, a valuable satellite orbit prediction service. It is the site of one of the three world data centres for the collection and international exchange of information about space vehicles and their associated components. Of the other two, one is in the United States and the other is in the U.S.S.R. Nor should we forget the contribution made by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough which did all the early precision optical observations and orbital studies and prediction.

All these activities add up to a programme which received many tributes from the scientists of other nations at the recent symposium held at Nice by COSPAR, that is, the Committee on Space Research set up by the International Council of Scientific Unions, which is a non-governmental institution having as its primary purpose what I think the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees wants, namely, the encouragement of international scientific co-operation. This symposium in Nice was attended by 250 scientists from more than 20 countries, one of which was the U.S.S.R. Of those 250 scientists, 40 came from the United Kingdom. They contributed about a dozen papers, and a sizeable exhibit which attracted considerable favourable comment.

Those activities are in addition to the two potentially most important aspects of our programme. First, there are the arrangements with the United States to which reference has been made. Under those arrangements, the United States has most generously agreed to launch a series of satellites containing instruments designed and made in this country to carry out experiments devised by our own scientists. The launching system proposed is a four-stage one, based on the solid-fuel Scout rocket as booster. This is capable of placing an instrument payload of about 150 lb. in an approximately circular orbit of a height of about 300 miles.

The experiments to be flown in the first of these satellites have recently been agreed. Briefly, they will be concerned with the electrical properties of the ionosphere, X-ray and ultra-violet radiation from the sun, and the intensity of primary cosmic rays. What exactly is to be carried out in subsequent satellites—and the exact number in the series has yet to be determined—is still under consideration. It is expected that the launching date for the first satellite will be towards the end of 1961.

The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees also referred to Commonwealth co-operation. So far as that is concerned, vertical soundings and experiments in the ionosphere are being carried out in co-operation with Canada and Australia, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation recently informed the House, all Commonwealth countries have been invited to give us their suggestions on all aspects of the programme, and they are being kept fully informed of its progress.

The second potentially most important aspect of our programme arises out of the design studies which the Prime Minister announced to the House on 12th May last year were to be put in hand for the adaptation of British military rockets for possible future all-British satellite programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, asked for reassuring news about these studies. I can reassure him to this extent. The work is well in hand and the information to date is favourable to the project.

I can assure the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees that there is no tug-of-war, as he called it, between one branch of the Government and another. We cannot, as the hon. Member pointed out, undertake our own independent space research programme until we have first completed the development of our own ballistic rocket. What I can tell the hon. Member for Lincoln is that what is certain is that the combination of Blue Streak and Black Knight, with a small additional rocket stage, which I understand presents no great technical difficulties, could, if wished, provide the thrust necessary to put in orbit by the mid-1960s a space stabilised satellite of between 1,000 lb. and 2,000 lb. in a near circular orbit of between 200 and 300 miles altitude. It would provide a platform for astronomical observation unimpeded by the earth's atmosphere.

Mr. de Freitas

The hon. Gentleman has used the words "if wished". I am not trying to quibble, because I know how difficult it is in winding up a short debate like this, when one has to be very careful. All I am asking is if the hon. Gentleman could develop that phrase "if wished", because if so it would help me and other people. What is the significance of the rather unusual phrase could, if wished"?

Mr. Rippon

We have to await the results of these design studies before final decisions on what we might do are taken, but I will go as far as I can in explaining to the House what the present position is.

We are also investigating the feasibility of two other classes of satellite, first, a non-stabilised instrumentation package of some few hundred pounds weight in an orbit of maximum height of between 8,000 to 12,000 miles. The primary purpose of such a satellite will be to investigate the constitution of the earth's atmosphere and its radiation and magnetic fields. Secondly, a smaller unstabilised instrumentation package of about 50 lb. in weight in an orbit with a maximum height of 100,000 miles, primarily to investigate the properties of the sun's atmosphere.

Broadly, the fields of interest are these. First, the possibility of an astronomical observatory, that is, for looking outwards from the earth from a position outside the earth's atmosphere. That would make available for the first time many octaves of ultra-violet and infra-red radiation which would provide entirely new solar and stellar data. That is at least comparable in importance with the development of radio astronomy. The second possibility is that of a terrestrial observatory, that is, for looking at the earth, capable of making world-wide meteorological and geophysical observations. That would lead to greatly improved weather forecasting. Thirdly, there is the possibility of direct physical measurement of the extra-territorial atmosphere. Typical in this field has been the discovery, to which my hon. Friend referred, of the Van Allen field of radiation.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is impossible to foresee all the benefits which might be derived from space exploration. It may be that he goes furthest who knows not whither he is going. We cannot tell where a major scientific breakthrough might come. The hon. Member himself indicated a number of possible uses in connection with radio, television, communications, navigation and the weather.

As far as the weather is concerned, the House may like to know that a new Assistant Directorate has recently been established in the Meteorological Office for the study of the higher atmosphere.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Mr. Rippon

Particular attention will be paid to the use of rockets for carrying meteorological instruments to heights of a few hundred kilometres—about three times as high as balloons go at present—and it is hoped that it will be possible to make frequent launchings. At the same time, the possibility of using earth satellites for meteorological observations will be explored.

As I think has been pointed out by all hon. Members who have spoken, in considering these matters we have to count the cost. The annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy for 1958–59, to which my hon. Friend referred, rightly said that there is a financial limit to what we can do, but the real point of the Advisory Council's argument is that while it has not recommended any British participation in the attempt, for example, to launch human beings into space, it is convinced that British science and technology have contributed and will continue to contribute valuable results in space research. The Report says—and this is broadly in line with what the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said—that these contributions should be made in specific directions appropriate to our special skills and that they should be part of an internationally-based approach.

The Advisory Council recommends the carrying out of design studies on the adaptation of British rockets, and adds that when these are available it will be possible to decide whether the additional expenditure and diversion of effort involved in a purely British satellite programme will be justified by the results which can be expected. That is the best answer that I can give to the point put by the hon. Member for Lincoln. It may be premature to make final decisions on these matters before we have further results from the design studies.

My hon. Friend mentioned some figures of the cost involved. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said on 15th February in answer to a Question: The expenditure in the first place will be modest, but as the programme develops I have no doubt that it will increase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 935.] Granted the cost of the launcher, the rest of the expenditure, to use my right hon. Friend's phrase, may not be astronomical. However, I do not want tonight to enter into that side of the argument, because the figures must necessarily be somewhat uncertain.

The position is that reliable estimates are not possible until the design studies are further advanced. But I think that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister for Science, speaking in another place, summed up the position when he said that what we have done in the space programme is to ensure that if and when a rocket is available, and should Parliament agree and the Cabinet so decide, our design studies will be available to modify that rocket for space research.

We have to work within the limits of our resources, but I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish Britain to continue to play her full part in pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Ten o'clock.