Project skills PHYS 40881

Assessor 1
This is an attractively set-out report with some pretty (if not entirely relevant!) pictures.  There are a fair number of points where the writing could have been improved; the numerous short sections with multiple layers of numbering (5.3.4 etc) do not aid readability or the development of an argument.  There are only limited connections between the sections.

An oddity of the structure is that it is clear from the start that the team favours human space exploration (HSE); in 2.3 four arguments to the contrary are outlined, in as many lines, and then dismissed in a couple of sentences on the grounds that humans thrive on controlled risk.  The next several chapters all relate to HSE.  Only in chapter 6 is any attempt made to justify this, whereas by this stage one would expect to have moved on to the pros and cons of various possible recommendation.   The cost issue is briefly discussed in relation to unpopular current spending plans (defence, ID cards) but never in relation to the scientific benefits which could accrue if the money were spent in other ways.  

After reading this report I tried to find out more about Aurora on the ESA and PPARC websites, and found it surprisingly hard to find anything pertaining to human flight, though it is clearly part of the long-term mission.  Its current activities are focused on robotic missions such as ExoMars and the MSR.  The information contained in section 2.3, for instance, did not seem to be available on-line (ref 11 is unhelpfully mis-labeled; it should be the executive summary of the CFD Report "Human Missions to Mars").  It seems clear that, before 2009, essentially no Aurora money is being spent on projects related to human space exploration (HSE); furthermore up till then the UK is participating fully (109 MEuros out of about 800 in total).  Beyond 2009, the budget could change dramatically. Close et al estimated that the UK would need to spend £150m per year for 25 year, but there is no indication that Aurora is looking for that kind of money for some time to come.  This being the case, I am surprised that the report did not have much more on ways that the UK could become involved in the ISS.

Assessor 2
In general this report was reasonably well written --- although there were quite a few inconsistencies. These largely centred on how to justify the cost of a manned mission. For example, the ability of manned missions to excite the young and suggest to them a career in science, or to keep abreast of technological advances, are both given as reasons for funding such a mission. However in Section 3.4. we are told that "For a manned space mission to be financially viable, the scientific information produced must outweigh the monetary costs of the mission". This is coupled with the information that Project Apollo cost over $100 billion! My main feeling was that this was a report written by enthusiasts for space travel and that it lacked objectivity as a result. Of course, (i) it is no bad thing that team members adopt a certain position --- as long as it does not cloud their judgement too much, (ii) it is never going to be easy to justify space travel without invoking "national prestige", "exciting a new generation about science",... which are hard to quantify financially, and (iii) students of physics are going to have a natural bias in subjects such as these. One minor irritant involved giving currency conversation rates to 6 figure accuracy.

Assessor 3
Technically reasonably well written and presented report, but with a few instances of misplaced commas, a few figures not referred to in the text and an important reference is not dated. The report sets out to argue for increased investment in a particular area of science. This is a difficult task, and the arguments as presented do not come over as a resounding case for the recommended level of involvement. The report does not really get to grips properly with why lack of UK involvement in Human Space Exploration (HSE) is an issue. There are scientific and, more importantly, cultural benefits, but these are discussed very generally and a few specific examples would have helped. For example, a fuller discussion of the scientific knowledge and technologies which arose form the Apollo programme would have strengthened the argument, whereas a discussion of the Hubble Space telescope seemed to have less to do with the specific area of exploration. The case studies, as presented, seemed to break up the report a little too much; some information presented seemed a little unnecessary to the later discussion and analysis. The latter covered all the obvious bases, but tended towards a more superficial coverage. In particular, the arguments concerning where other government spending went were a little specious. In the recommendations appear a little too disconnected with the discussion. Involvement in ISS was not substantiated. One “recommendation” just asks a question that I’d expected the report to answer!