Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Technology roadmap highlights_report 2015

Technology roadmap space UK 2015

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Technology roadmap highlights_report 2015

  1. 1. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 2 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Satellite Application Catapult Technology Roadmap Highlights Report Contents 1. Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................3 2. Key findings from the Delphi Exercise........................................................................................4 3. Access to Space ..........................................................................................................................5 4. Satellite Communication............................................................................................................8 5. Positioning, Navigation and Timing..........................................................................................12 6. Earth Observation ....................................................................................................................15 7. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................18 8. Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................18 Annex 1: Delphi Messages ...............................................................................................................19 Annex 2: Delphi Round 2 Statistics by Question..............................................................................38 COPYRIGHT Copyright © Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd 2014 THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF SATELLITE APPLICATIONS CATAPULT Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this documentation may be reproduced by any means in any material form (including photocopying or storing it in any electronic form) without the consent of the Copyright Owner, except in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or under the terms of a license and/or confidentiality agreement issued by the Copyright Owner, Satellite Applications Catapult. Applications for the copyright owners’ permission to reproduce any part of this documentation should be addressed to, The Chief Executive Officer, Satellite Applications Catapult, Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR, UK.
  2. 2. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 3 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 1. Introduction and Background The Satellite Applications Catapult undertook a study of emerging technologies over an intensive three month period from January to March 2015. The study was carried out by specialists from within the Catapult in collaboration with leading experts from industry and academia to validate the findings. The output from this study provides a roadmap for the trajectories of new technologies to 2020 and a view of possible longer term trends and impacts out to 2035. The outputs from the study will shape the strategy for the Satellite Applications Explore Technology Programme in addition to providing inputs into the UK Space Innovation and Growth Strategy. The study took NASA’s Integrated Technology Roadmap (ITR) Programme as a starting point1 and the technical teams at the Satellite Applications Catapult synthesised the work and made an evaluation of the potential impact of the relevant technology upon the UK space. This work was set in context2 and shared with the UK space community through an online Delphi process3. The Delphi processed was used to externally validate and evaluate the Catapult’s findings with subject matter experts from across the space community and wider. The Delphi process was undertaken in partnership with the Institute for Environment, Health, Risks and Futures at Cranfield University. The Delphi exercise identified four areas where emerging technologies, or new business models, could have a major impact upon the UK space industry. These areas were then explored in greater depth in a Technology Roadmap Workshop. Below is a high level breakdown of the whole process with the associated timings: Delphi Round 1: 28 January – 6 February 2015 Contributors were asked respond to a range of questions regarding the Catapult’s synthesis of the NASA roadmaps as the Satellite Services Future Landscape report. The first section of questions referring to the NASA work and the second to the “Future Landscape report”. Delphi Round 2: 23 February – 6 March 2015 Driven by the evaluation of the results of the first round, the questions to the second round were more structured, focussing on the prioritisation of technology areas with respect to commercial exploitation. Workshop: 12 March 2015 The presentation and distribution of the key findings and an opportunity to provide further feedback and an opportunity to identify future collaborative projects. This report provides a quick insight into the key points that came from the Delphi exercise and the workshop. The more detailed information that came out of the Delphi exercise and the workshop will be a valuable input to the Catapult Technology Strategy and to future updates to the IGS. This report is not intended to be a comprehensive record of the detailed findings from the Delphi exercise and workshop. 1 The NASA ITR programme was chosen since it considered a very broad range of technologies, was available to all members of the community on the internet, and provided an independent view of the emerging technology landscape 2 A short industrial trends overview report was prepared entitled “Satellite Services Future Landscape”. 3 The Delphi method is a structured, systematic forecasting method which elicits the views of subject experts through a multi-round online questionnaire
  3. 3. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 4 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 2. Key findings from the Delphi Exercise The Delphi exercise identified many areas where new technologies could impact the space sector and the comments provided deep insights into the blockers and enablers for UK industry to exploit these opportunities. However, one of the key messages in the responses was the importance of taking a whole system view when developing roadmaps since the achievement of ambitious future capabilities and services was likely to require both the integration of multiple technologies and the adoption of business models that incentivised all parties within the supply chain. The Delphi exercise also highlighted four areas where a deeper understanding of the issues and the scale of the opportunities would be more readily addressed through the interactive format of a workshop rather than further rounds of a Delphi exercise. The four areas were:  Access to Space;  Satellite Communication;  Positioning, Navigation and Timing; and  Earth Observation. In each of these areas the Catapult translated the issues that had been identified through the Delphi exercise into the form of assertions for the breakout groups at the workshop to discuss and then challenge or refine. The workshop used radar charts4 to provide a simple graphical representation of specific capabilities that were likely to be enabled by new technologies in 2020 and 2035. It then becomes possible to make an initial assessment of the technical viability of a proposed application, chosen from an IGS market area, by drawing the required performance as an overlay on the capability chart. 4 Also known as ‘spider charts’
  4. 4. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 5 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 3. Access to Space The Delphi responses highlighted the importance of the cost of launch upon all upstream capabilities: assertions one and three explored this further. There was general agreement that there would be greater use of electric propulsion but there were differing views upon the impact this would have: assertion two explored a high impact capability. The increasing risk from space debris was highlighted and there were suggestions for how the risk could be mitigated: assertion four explored this further. A number of respondents highlighted the importance of integrating space and terrestrial capabilities more closely and facilitating access from small terminals: assertion five explored the associated antenna issue. Assertions for consideration at the workshop: 1. What will it take to get Nano-satellite launches down to a similar price per kg to that of a geo- satellite - for example <$10k/kg. 2. Are there opportunities to use electric propulsion to introduce completely new capabilities for the maintenance and recovery of satellites? Could this impact the industry? 3. To what extent would an air-launch capability impact the industry? 4. There is an increasing risk of damage to a satellite from space debris – how will this impact the industry in the period 2020 – 2035? 5. What technological limitations need to be overcome to create a large antenna aperture using a formation of satellites in both LEO and GEO orbits? The Breakout Group considering Access to Space explored Assertions One and Four Assertion 1: What will it take to get Nano-satellite launches down to a similar price per kg to that of a geo-satellite - for example <$10k/kg? Summary of workshop findings a. Current nanosat launches are mainly into LEO b. Why is the current launch cost of nanosats so high? i. The total value of the large satellite ‘launch business’ is the driving force that dominates decisions upon investment/development of launch capability and launch scheduling. ii. The nano/cube sat market is currently low-medium volume and cost sensitive - hence the total value of the nano/cube sat ‘launch business’ is comparatively small iii. The limited total value of the nano-cube sat launch business would make it hard to recover the cost of developing a dedicated nano-cube sat launcher – thus discouraging investment in a dedicated capability c. How can the cost of nanosat launch be reduced? Technical i. Reduce cost of integration of nano-cube sat dispenser into launch vehicle ii. Reduce cost of nano-cube sat dispenser iii. Reduce cost of integration of nano-cube sat into dispenser - However these technical changes are unlikely to reduce the cost of launch to anything like $10k per kg Business model iv. Challenge is to develop a viable business model for a launch capability that can achieve an economy of scale for launching nano-cube sats v. How launch scheduling is managed will be important to achieve scale vi. Air launch might provide a technical solution but dependent upon - development of viable business model - increased volume of ‘launch business’ for nano-cube sats
  5. 5. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 6 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Radar Chart developed in the workshop d. The radar chart shows the importance of considering the cost of integration, the number of launch opportunities and the schedule reliability as well as the cost per kilogramme.
  6. 6. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 7 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Assertion 4: There is an increasing risk of damage to a satellite from space debris – how will this impact the industry in the period 2020 – 2035? Summary of workshop findings e. Geostationary Orbit (GEO) i. is less impacted by space debris and the risk is considered to be manageable ii. however slots in Geo are very limited and there are a small number of large (4-8 tonnes) satellites – damage to one of these highly capable and very expensive satellites would have major financial and societal consequences f. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – (below 2000 km) Problem i. all LEO satellites are at risk of damage from space debris ii. enforcement of specific space debris agreements is limited – management of the space debris problem is dependent upon good behaviour in community iii. the financial value of space assets is increasing iv. Modern society places great reliance upon space assets5 Solution Most important step is to: - reduce the rate at which the volume of space debris is increasing6 i. tracking of debris can mitigate, but not prevent, damage to satellites from space debris7. ii. new guidelines/regulations upon space debris would be of great value iii. more effective enforcement of guidelines/regulations at governmental level iv. frame guidelines/regulations so that management of the debris volume becomes part of the business/financial plan for all space sector companies g. Residual risk can be mitigated through i. new materials that enable satellite vulnerability to be reduced with less impact upon satellite cost/weight/payload capability ii. autonomy + propulsion technology that enables greater capability to ‘avoid’ debris that has been tracked iii. encouraging the industry to include explicit measures for the following in the specification for each mission o volume of space debris generated by the mission o vulnerability to space debris h. A constellation of satellites would provide an opportunity to design-in resilience to damage from space debris – but it would require system modelling to quantify the benefit. 5 See for example - Global Navigation Space Systems: reliance and vulnerabilities http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/global-navigation-space-systems 6 The difficulty of getting international action upon space debris was likened to the challenge of getting nations to act to mitigate climate change 7 Current tracking capability is highly effective tracking debris down to a size of 10cm, and is able to track a proportion of the particles that are between 1mm and 10cm in size. (Impact with debris >10cm considered lethal, with debris 1-10cm is likely to cause damage, with debris <1cm protection may be effective)
  7. 7. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 8 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 4. Satellite Communication The Delphi exercise highlighted the user requirement for end-to-end connectivity and the growing opportunity for machine-to-machine communication as the ‘Internet of Things’ continues to become increasingly established. The assertions explored specific issues that were raised in the Delphi responses associated with achieving closer interworking between satellite and terrestrial networks. Assertions for consideration at the workshop: 1. To what extent would a change in regulation for spectrum allocation or orbital slots affect growth? 2. Building applications that are able to access multiple satellite communication platforms, rather than tying them to a specific service provider, would grow the satcom market faster. 3. What are the enablers for seamless end to end data and voice connectivity? 4. What factors determine whether to locate processing on board a satellite or to have terrestrial capability? The Breakout Group considering Satellite Communication explored Assertion Three Assertion 3: What are the enablers to seamless end to end data and voice connectivity? Summary of workshop findings Providing a seamless data and voice service in the transport sector a. Features of the transport sector i. Voice and data connectivity for passengers on the move is a developing business area for civil aircraft, cruise ships, trains, coaches and buses ii. Communications traffic comprises a mix of business, social, entertainment iii. Potential number of installations:  Aircraft: ‘Tens of Thousands’  Cruise ships: ‘Tens of Thousands’  Trains: ‘Tens of Thousands’  Coaches and Buses: ‘Millions’  Car installations: ‘Hundreds of Millions’
  8. 8. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 9 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 b. Features of transport environment i. Size of antenna and data throughput are important factors ii. Size, weight and power consumption of equipment are important factors in aircraft and coach/bus applications iii. Outside of urban areas vehicle often has clear sightline to horizon during a flight/voyage/journey. However, in the UK rail sector there are many cuttings and tunnels that obscure the line of sight for an antenna mounted on a train. iv. Rate of turn (normally) constrained v. Aircraft and cruise ships are often fitted with a local streaming media service/cache providing an extensive range of entertainment material vi. Coaches and buses operating in urban areas will have increasing access to terrestrial wifi hotspots and 5G infrastructure with a sophisticated content management/caching capability specifically designed to improve individual user access to streaming media ‘on the move’ c. Features specific to car applications i. Cars, both human driven and autonomous, may have an increasing need for reliable connectivity for communication, navigation, legal/safety systems, and also to support use based charging/insurance The Importance of User Experience d. Improved ‘User Experience’ is something that is ‘valued’ by end-users, wifi hotspot operators and cellular network operators - it is therefore something that a business model may be able to translate into money. e. Factors that affect ‘User Experience’ include: i. Range of media available ii. Speed of download – media definition and smoothness of play iii. Simplicity of interface iv. Reduced energy use => longer battery life for user device Spectrum f. Access to spectrum is a fundamental requirement for wideband satcom communication i. Regulation upon use of spectrum is a major factor - dual use of spectrum may offer means to increase satcom capability ii. However – interference is a major issue (LightSquared L-band interference with GPS was identified an example of the problems that can arise from interference) Interoperability g. Technical viewpoint i. Four types of signal: voice, data, broadcast, m2m ii. For a single terminal to be able to access multiple satcom networks requires a full understanding of multiple layers in the communication stack iii. Indirect8, rather than direct, end user access makes it easier to achieve interoperability iv. Existing communications models have only a limited capability to represent interoperability across the different stack layers h. Business model viewpoint i. There may be an opportunity for the space communications industry to take a leading role in shaping the development of seamless urban/peri-urban/rural connectivity for end users. ii. Adoption of common standards for accessing satellite services, and exploiting new technologies to provide and manage a large number of simultaneous broadband 8 Eg through a wifi hub or 4G/5G cell mounted on the vehicle
  9. 9. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 10 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 connections/data flows, could enable the space communications industry to offer a service that enabled terrestrial operators to provide seamless end-user broadband connectivity without the need to invest in a contiguous high capacity terrestrial infrastructure in areas of low population density iii. A technical solution for the bus/coach requirement could provide the basis for a scalable family of solutions to meet a number of requirements for end-user connectivity in areas of low population density. Radar Charts developed in the workshop
  10. 10. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 11 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Seamless end-to-end communications on the move i. The radar charts show very clearly how the requirement for ships, trains and planes is achievable now and the smaller antenna size required for buses should be achievable by 2020. However, the antenna size and satellite throughput necessary to support widespread deployment in autonomous cars may not be achievable even by 2035.
  11. 11. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 12 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 5. Positioning, Navigation and Timing The Delphi exercise identified a continuing interest in reducing positioning errors. The responses identified a need to integrate GNSS and terrestrial data to support seamless indoor-outdoor positioning and autonomous vehicle requirements. The potential relevance of a new generation of cold atom quantum sensors was also noted. The workshop assertions were created to explore these issues further. The assertions were intended to provoke debate, agreement and disagreement amongst the delegates at the workshop and to focus attention on core technical (GNSS, quantum, indoor/outdoor) and market (LBS indoor/outdoor, Transport) issues. Assertions for consideration at the workshop: 1. By (about) 2020, positioning accuracies of approximately 1m (CEP) will be reliably delivered to Smartphones in virtually all outdoor environments 2. What are the blockers to mass uptake of autonomous automotive positioning and driving systems in Europe and how do we overcome them? 3. How big is the impact of seamless indoor – outdoor operation, how can the UK generate wealth from the market? 4. Will quantum technologies decrease the dependence upon GNSS? The Breakout Group considering PNT explored Assertion Two* *Within the breakout group there was in depth knowledge of the rail transport sector so a variation on ‘Assertion Two’ was considered Assertion considered: What are the blockers to mass uptake of autonomous positioning for trains in Europe and how do we overcome them?
  12. 12. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 13 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Summary of workshop findings9 Drivers a. Two drivers were identified 1) Increase throughput of existing (commuter) rail infrastructure: control the distance between trains in busy periods based upon speed and rail conditions rather than ‘hardwiring’ worst case parameters into a fixed signalling infrastructure at the design stage 2) Reduce operating costs by reducing need to maintain a large fixed signalling infrastructure which is i. distributed over a very large (rural) area ii. installed in an environment that makes maintenance difficult – eg high density tube/metro system Enablers b. The fact that only a comparatively small number10 of ‘states’ would need to be considered facilitates the use of autonomous positioning of trains: i. finite number of tracks with known position/extent and connectivity ii. finite number of branches with known position and current state iii. position of train can be uniquely defined by its position on the track iv. distance from last ‘way point’ can be measured with high accuracy (odometry) v. ‘direction of motion’ is binary vi. Speed can be measured with high accuracy vii. ‘track condition’ Blockers c. Regulatory and Organisational: the regulatory environment and the experience/culture in the rail industry are firmly based upon ‘copper’ signalling infrastructure to determine and control train position – and thereby maintain the safety of the system. It is likely to take a considerable time (>10 years) for any alternative technology to be considered a viable alternative to copper based systems. d. Technical: proving the safety of any alternative technology, to the levels that the rail industry requires, is likely to be a long and costly exercise. e. Economic: the rail transport infrastructure sector has a number of major investment projects planned or underway but the total value of the sector, in terms of potential revenue for space based PNT and m2m services, is much smaller than road or air transport. Conclusion The requirement to operate within tunnels would require at least some terrestrial infrastructure to be installed and maintained. A conservative culture and regulatory environment in the rail sector make it unlikely that the sector would be an early adopter of new, satellite based precision positioning services. The comparatively small size of the likely market for autonomous train positioning systems is a further disincentive for early investment in advanced, space based positioning capabilities that are specifically aimed at application in the rail sector 9 On-board communications and internet access for rail passengers is covered under the communications section 10 A small number of well-defined states facilitates the development and assurance of high integrity and safety critical systems
  13. 13. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 14 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Radar Chart developed in the workshop Outline Technical Requirement for autonomous positioning for trains in Europe (‘Rail Signalling’)
  14. 14. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 15 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 6. Earth Observation The Delphi exercise highlighted once again that the value generated from processing and using the information provided by EO satellites is potentially much greater than the revenue that can be generated by selling the basic data/images. Key issues related to timeliness, resolution, bandwidth/spectrum for downlinks and user awareness of the capabilities available. The workshop assertions explored these issues further. Assertions for consideration at the workshop: 1. Real time data access: what is possible? What makes it possible? (Almost Instant, <10mins, <1hr, <12hr?) 2. To what extent does the market have a need for near real time data delivery? 3. Will UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) and HAPs (High Altitude Platforms) reduce the need for high resolution commercial satellites? 4. In the 2020 timeframe advances in terrestrial technologies11 are more important than sensor and platform innovations to enable EO technologies to reach mass markets. 5. How important is satellite on-board processing? Is there always an inherent need for the RAW data? The Breakout Group considering Earth Observation explored Assertions Three and Five. The discussion in the Group also drew in aspects of the other assertions. Summary of workshop findings a. The fusion of Earth Observation data and terrestrial data is a very important area for future growth and should be explicitly addressed when developing the future EO strategy. b. Current business models, and current technical practice, for processing Earth Observation imagery/data and fusing it with terrestrial data require that all the imagery/data is consolidated in a single processing facility or in a ‘single processing cloud’. The blocker to achieving this efficiently with current infrastructure and technology is the limited terrestrial internet 11 E.g. terrestrial networks, cloud processing, new computing, big data analytics and standards (linked data) and Internet of Things
  15. 15. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 16 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 speed/bandwidth available to transport the very large data sets for high resolution imagery. This is a problem in developed nations and can be an extreme problem in less-developed nations. c. On-board processing enables new business models: for example near real-time transmission/streaming of high resolution data for a small area of the earth surface, or the streaming of information, that is of specific interest whilst storing all or part of the raw data for downloading at a slower rate to meet requirements that have a less demanding latency requirement. Such a business model would create demanding requirements for on-board storage and data management. d. Raw EO data is important i. for academic research and commercial applications that use long time series ii. to provide a comprehensive data repository that can generate additional revenue streams as new customers emerge, new processing techniques are developed and/or new uses for EO data are identified e. Spaceborne EO capability can provide time series datasets over extended periods with readily verifiable provenance f. UAS EO capability complements – rather than competes with - conventional EO spaceborne capability. Rationale: i. UAS Remote Sensing (RS) capability potentially provides:  Spatial resolution <0.2m  Timeliness: near real-time and real-time  Footprint: ‘City Block’ and below  Image frequency: <20minutes down to streaming video ii. Characteristics of UAS RS capability  UAS are inherently cheaper to build than a spaceborne capability  Faster transition between design and “launch”  The technology for a UAS RS EO capability can be upgraded much more frequently than a conventional spaceborne capability.  Operation of UAS below 20km altitude12 is heavily constrained by current legislation. However, operation at an altitude of >20 km can still provide very high resolution13 imagery with the capability to provide continuous observation of an area over an extended period.  Above 20km altitude there are few constraints upon the operation of a UAV in the UK is and a UAS RS system can therefore provide a real-time responsive capability  The ability of a UAS RS capability to observe an area on the earth’s surface from different angles (and often below the height of cloud) can reduce the impact of partial cloud cover during the period of observation – provided that the end-user application is not sensitive to the changing geometry of the image.  At 20km altitude a UAV is not easy to observe visually from the ground – whilst not truly covert it is not obtrusive. iii. Suggested User Case  Operation over a city could provide a very good user case to demonstrate the wide range of applications that can be supported with a high resolution, responsive and persistent UAS RS/ HAPs capability - and thereby stimulate additional demand for such imagery. g. The rapid advances in autonomous technologies could lead to a substantial reduction in the cost of operating a small fleet of UASs on extended duration EO missions h. If a UAS RS capability could be provided as a service with a rapid response and a low operational cost this may challenge the emerging nano-cube sat EO capabilities more than the conventional ‘big satellite’ systems. 12 In UK 13 A resolution of <0.2 m can be achieved
  16. 16. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 17 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 i. Combining UAS RS and spaceborne EO capabilities as elements of a complete EO service capability could provide a seamless capability of imagery with spatial resolution between 0.01- 0.50m(UAS) to > 0.30m (satellite) and timeliness between real time (UAS)-and > near real time (satellite). Combined with an appropriate toolset this will become an interesting business model for further study. j. HAP EO capabilities may be a future possibility but providing the data tether capability within the HAP payload and power budget would be a major technical and economic challenge. Early trials have already proved the potential of using HAPs for remote sensing. The emergence of UAS and HAPs could diminish the need for innovation of Ultra High Resolution (UHR) spaceborne capabilities. The satellite industry might see the saturation of spatial resolution around the 15- 25cm region, as it becomes dramatically more expensive to build and launch satellites with such capability in addition to the growing difficultly to justify a business model which could support higher resolution when UASs and HAPs could satisfy most applications requiring resolution of that scale. Radar Chart developed in the workshop Outline Requirement for Maritime Surveillance: Sea Mammal Monitoring Fusing satellite EO imagery with terrestrial sensor data k. Onboard image processing has the potential to automatically identify sea mammals in an image and then only download an image that contains a mammal l. The nature of the subject creates the potential for crowd sourcing analysis of a sample of images to verify/ tune/train detection algorithms. Furthermore the use of gamification could be used for human validation of computer algorithms.
  17. 17. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 18 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Radar Chart developed in the workshop m. The radar chart shows how demanding the maritime surveillance, and specifically monitoring mammals, requirement is for both resolution and area observed, and how the resolution is unlikely to be achieved for this application using satellites even in 2035. 7. Conclusions The study was undertaken to highlight the key technological trends and innovations that are likely to affect the future shape and size of the space sector and thereby assist the UK space community to focus future efforts. The Delphi process used within in this study has shown to be a very useful tool to reach out to a wide community in a structured and controlled manner. The information collected from the Delphi to validate the Catapult’s understanding of current technology trends and synthesis of NASA’s roadmap work has been invaluable. The external input has provided a whole new dimension of information, not only validating and adding to the Catapult’s work, but also bringing in unique perspectives on the technology and the industry as a whole. The next piece of work will involve adding external context to the technology piece for the UK, through identifying different key factors14 drawn from PESTLE activities which can in turn be applied to a set of scenarios. This activity, in parallel to the above work, will identify a number of specific threats and opportunities facing the industry to allow early intervention and exploitation respectively. 8. Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the generous support of experts from across the space community who made time available to complete the Delphi questionnaires and participate in the Workshop. The Catapult would like to thank everyone who took part in the process and contributed to the outcome of this work. 14 Specialists in other sectors have carried out this methodology with great success. An example of which is Cranfield Universities’ “Plausible future scenarios for the UK food and feed system – 2015-2035”
  18. 18. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 19 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Annex 1: Delphi Messages 1.0 Annex Overview 1.1 Annex structure The Annex has three main sections. The first section, “Cross Cutting Elements”, identifies cross cutting issues concerning the system, organisation and cultures that have to be considered when assessing the likelihood that the UK space industry will be an early adopter of a new technology. The second section, “Satellite Services” brings together comments specifically relevant to the four topic areas that were considered at the workshop (below). Finally the third section, “Future Landscape Feedback”, brings together general comments upon the synthesis paper that the Catapult had circulated, “Catapult_Satellite_Future_landscape_V1.0.pdf”, to support the Delphi exercise and a number of comments upon specific additional technologies that may have an impact upon the sector. Similar to the main body of this report the Satellite Services section has been broken down into: i) Access to Space; ii) Satellite communications; iii) Position/ Navigation/ Timing; and iv) Earth Observation. This Annex runs alongside the numerical presentation of the responses from the second round of the Delphi, put together by the Catapult and Cranfield University in Annex 2. 1.2 Top Level Summary In response to the question: ‘Do you agree with the Catapult identified potential benefits and applications15 which can be derived from the technology in question, are they relevant?’ a large majority of respondents, across all the technologies, agreed and confirmed that they considered the benefits and applications to be relevant and correct. 15 Identified in the SAC paper distributed with the Delphi
  19. 19. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 20 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 2.0 Cross Cutting Elements This section identifies a number of technology agnostic themes in the responses of the Delphi process that can have a major impact upon the ability of industry to become a successful early adopter of a new technology. System and Organisational Issues The importance of considering system and organisational issues explicitly in the development of a roadmap came across clearly from the comments and this influenced the way that the workshop was organised16.  ‘…trying to read across from a technology roadmap to future applications is [difficult]’  ‘…there is no information on the interdependences of the different technologies (at a high level) and how the levels of risk for one technology may impact the development or deployability of other technologies.’  I think [the amount of technological advancement in the 2020 horizon] is somewhat overstated in some areas as it seems to rely, in part, on all of these innovations happening concurrently and then being adopted in the space regime.’  ‘I think [the amount of technological advancement in the 2020 horizon is] realistic (acknowledging that the delays in getting new tech to market are as much organisational as they are technical!)’  ‘I would personally separate Satcom development from the 4G/5G as the industrial players involved in those technologies are different.’ Emergence of Companies with a Different Business Model A number of comments identified the need to consider the emergence of a new generation of companies in the space sector that are operating with a radically different business model and how this was likely to affect the shape and size of the future market for space services.  New Business Models - ‘In general, by 2020, I see the development of sensor capabilities and hardware as being less significant than development of new business models and services, forced by new players entering the business.’  New Business Models - ‘… there may be an overstatement of the impact of small satellites … However, I think that the impact of these companies on business models and the shape of the industry in general will be very significant.’  Vertical Integration – ‘Experience in the electronics systems sector, in telecoms, in media, in automotive, etc suggests that in commoditised markets vertically integrated companies do not survive, except in countries that foster this as part of national policy - e.g. China, Korea.  Vertical Integration – ‘In high-investment industries … such as energy, vertical integration is … dependent upon regional/ national policy/philosophy - e.g. in Europe the requirement for competition limits vertical integration, although less so say in France than the UK’ 16 The use of radar charts was a means to establish a clearer linkage between system performance and the performance that was required from the key subsystems and components that the new technologies made possible
  20. 20. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 21 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746  Skybox - ‘The recent "business arrangement" of Skybox by Google shows where the market is heading. Wall Street is looking for the next "Skybox" player. So a lot of companies not necessarily from the traditional EO business will try to play that role by investing is satellite based EO.’  OneWeb - ‘… it is also apparent that new, innovative space systems are now being progressed through different funding mechanisms. For example OneWeb is privately funded rather than institutionally driven. In these cases the selected technology is not necessarily related to the best technology but more driven by technology providers who are willing to invest in the programme and share revenue later.’End-User Costs - ‘There are a number of new small satellite systems in development for communications, but I am not sure if the market is ready for that additional capacity. If end-user costs are reduced then perhaps they will succeed and the traditional satellite operators will see a downturn in demand.’ The Need to Set Challenging Targets A number of comments identified the importance of developing an ambitious roadmap for satellite capability if the UK and European industry is to maintain a leading position against international competition.  Market Expectations - ‘The trend for larger communication satellites is likely to continue, but there is a need for more radical step changes in capability (increased bandwidths, reduced costs) if satellite is to keep pace with market expectations.’  Incremental Change Is Not Enough - ‘Incremental change due to increased size is unlikely to be enough on its own. The recent hype around LEO propositions suggests that more radical solutions are already being explored in the US with operational aspirations around 2020 (all the technical, launch, debris, regulatory etc. difficulties notwithstanding), yet there is no competing UK radical capability or proposition on offer (in any orbit).’ External Factors A number of external factors were highlighted that could accelerate, or prevent, new technology being adopted by UK industry. The situation was summarised succinctly by one respondent: ‘… at the heart of innovation is the confluence of need (application), creativity (R&D, both blue-skies and TRL-raising), and monetary investment. Two of those three elements are plentiful.’ Enablers  Increase user awareness – ‘However, despite [the fact that] the technology is there, the applications are more than obvious and the user requirements for cost-effective solutions exist => The only missing link is the education of involved parties to use the technology and sustain the realisation of such plans’  ‘Pressure to release allocated spectrum could accelerate adoption of technologies improving spectral efficiency.’
  21. 21. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 22 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746  ‘[Having good platforms to showcase technologies enables us to] demonstrate to users to show actual value an ROI; availability of rapid certification and verification of new technologies (this is very often forgotten).’  ‘The availability of a platform for in-space test demonstration is ever an accelerating factor.’ Blockers Several respondents expressed concern at the pace of progress in the space sector  ‘ESA's timescales, and in particular risk profile, [are] very conservative.’  ‘The bureaucracy of ESA is a major issue … most small companies cannot handle the burden of working with ESA - this needs to be tackled.’  ‘Externally a barrier could be the slowness of ESA’  ‘… 5 years is a very short time in space terms (upstream). We need to change the way we operate in space to make a meaningful advancement in this timeframe.’  ‘The key issue for the satellite industry is that the current rate of progress in the terrestrial marketplace is several times higher than that in the satellite industry. The satellite industry has always historically been lagging 5-10 years behind its terrestrial counterparts.’  ‘Small satellite business appears to offer more promise for ORE sectors currently. The reason being the flexibility in accommodating customer requirements over a shorter timeframe. Market and Funding Structure A number of difficulties were identified that were a consequence of the structure of the market for satellite services and the structure of the funding for research in the space sector.  ‘In telecommunications the institutional European market that could have driving requirements for new technologies is weak and disperse.’  ‘… research councils do not recognise early stage research in space as something in their scope - even though space has very particular requirements for promising new technologies’  ‘[insufficient] collaboration between civil/defence for early stage technologies that inevitably have dual use’  ‘the lack of UK R&I (sic) collaborative funding for upstream space’  ‘…the US appears to have a different culture and approach to problem solving - one where entrepreneurs and companies have the wherewithal (and the will) to redefine an industry landscape to enable emerging technologies to be exploited. This is likely to act as a magnet for new ideas that align with their vision without worrying about protecting existing markets or business models. However, it remains to be seen if this delivers commercial success.’ ‘The Earth Observation market has moved down stratum as companies seek to understand and utilise the capabilities of the Copernicus EU funded system in new application.’
  22. 22. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 23 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Risk Appetite A low appetite for risk (in some areas) was identified:  [It is] ‘difficult for large primes to invest in early stage risky areas, (although eventually they will be replaced by more innovative companies who do take on more risk).’  ‘The majority of these technologies are at low TRL and therefore need government backing to drive forward.’  ‘Sceptical that Industry without govt money will drive innovation in space technologies’  ‘There will be some … advances in medium/large satellite capability but this is likely to be incremental rather than a significant step change’ Unintended Consequences  Transfer of UK technology to other nations - ‘… the nature of ESA's geographic return has in the past created a technology transfer from the UK overseas - if UK companies cannot receive ESA funding directly due to the UK's limited investment, then they will team with companies from other countries; the technology transfer develops the third party countries capabilities.’ Pragmatism Several respondents introduced a note of caution about the assessment of the impact that individual technologies would have; and whether it was realistic to assume that investment in a technology would be sufficient to enable a UK supplier to achieve an enduring competitive advantage over alternative/existing suppliers in other nations.  ‘Assertions that some technologies are "game changing" seem optimistic’  ‘[The assertions] appear reasonable, but do not allow for 'disruptive' technologies and innovations. For instance, a material like graphene is not well understood enough at this time to be able to more fully scope out its potential. A level of pragmatic realism I think is necessary otherwise there is a risk of turning the roadmap into something more than the framework it is.’  ‘Solar power - I'm not aware [that the UK has the capability to make world leading developments in this area] and therefore it shouldn't be a priority’  ‘The UK has no heritage in Space Robotics for docking, capture etc. Other countries such as Canada are far ahead, therefore it shouldn't be a UK technology priority just to try to play catch up. Vehicle system and FDIR is an area where we have much more capability.’
  23. 23. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 24 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 3.0 Satellite Services 3.1 Access to Space The Delphi responses highlighted the significance that the cost to place a satellite/constellation into orbit has when decisions are being made on the adoption of a new technology into a satellite development programme. Also the significance of the risks to a satellite/constellation due to space debris and space weather when one is assessing the resilience of a spaceborne capability. A number of technologies were considered to be of value in reducing the risk of damage from space debris; and also for reducing the radiation levels to enable greater use to be made of terrestrial technologies. The comments upon electric propulsion provided a deep insight into the value of this technology for large geostationary satellites and the issues which might limit, or alternatively facilitate, the adoption of the technology in smaller satellites. Launch Cost  ‘Reducing launch costs will likely be the single biggest enabling technology/initiative’  ‘…lower launch costs will enable many business cases to close that are currently technically feasible but cost constrained.’  ‘ to allow the innovation to become a reality, costs of launches needs to fall and the number of launches needs to increase.’  ‘Launch cost reductions followed by mass satellite productions and improved processes/costs will be the biggest driver for space.’  ‘Lower costs for launch will also support an increased risk profile for the design of the satellites because they can more readily be replaced and/or more units put in orbit.’ Launch Capabilities  ‘SpaceX is driving the launch market now and has already in the last 3~4 years introduced a capability that on a like for like basis when compared with …Ariane 5 for a 6t launch, is a 30% discount on market rates and is likely heading towards 80% discount.’  ‘Consideration of fly-back booster technologies being developed in USA (SpaceX) and Russia (Angara variants)’  ‘Reusability is the key factor. If the reusable stages being developed by SpaceX come to fruition this should reduce the cost for heavier launches.’  ‘Launchers continue to be designed for GEO satellites. There cost reduction can be expected and are happening now. In LEO the issue will continue to be the diverging trend launchers - satellites. Most satellites are likely to be smaller than today's average and cheaper. It remains to be demonstrated whether dedicated launchers for a few 100 kg payload are economically feasible. Launch sharing is difficult in LEO. It is not clear whether the cost per kg in LEO will decrease significantly’  ‘It is likely that the cost of the spacecraft will dominate GEO satellites’
  24. 24. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 25 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Space debris and radiation  ‘… Situational awareness and autonomous debris avoidance should also be considered.’  ‘Space debris mitigation with cheap reliable in-space propulsion perhaps’  ‘Reliable low mass high strength coatings for protection against micrometeorites and space debris’  ‘…nanomaterials, little mention of super high tensile strength nanomaterials, new high strength binders containing mixes of CNT/graphene’  ‘…no mention of boron nitride nanomaterials for enhanced thermal protection and lightweight radiation shielding for humans and electronics’ Satellite Propulsion: full-electric satellites  ‘More than 50% of satellite weight is for the fuel to support for in-space manoeuvres, especially for comm. satellites. Alternate to liquid propulsion (e.g. electric) will reduce weight and also generate space for multiple payloads; order for smaller space-crafts will also reduce overall cost for launch’  ‘Current mass and power requirements for EP don't close the business case for its use except for the largest satellites where launch mass is a predominant factor in cost. As LV prices drop, the need for EP will only remain if it drives market competition.’  ‘Electric propulsion is more expensive and the life of the smaller Sats does not justify the investment’  ‘ Solar powered electric propulsion for interplanetary nano-sat missions is a potential gamechanger.’  ‘Electric propulsion may augment the existing chemical propulsion for the LEOS. Studies show Electric propulsion is not beneficial to missions requiring large inclination changes,, but this may change.’  ‘Chemical/cold gas propulsion technologies will still be necessary for certain missions or mission phases. EP has a definite role at all classes but is not a replacement in all cases.’  ‘… a larger impact will come from the GEO comsats market due to the introduction of the full-electric satellites which should gain at least 30% of the market in the next 5 years.’  ‘[Electric Propulsion:] within the next 5 years several technologies will be flight qualified for scientific and commercial applications and new satellite architecture will be developed.’  ‘Electric Propulsion has considerable years of in-flight heritage, and Boeing are now selling all-EP platforms, with all European primes also developing their own platforms, therefore 'risk' should be reduced to L (or at least L - M)’  ‘Electric Propulsion is given a low priority in the conclusion but is the top high priority in the NRC list. The conclusion needs to reflect this.’  ‘I do not agree with the Risk level. Electric propulsion is Medium. [There is] a large expertise in UK in this field.’  ‘For Electric Propulsion the 10 year timeframe to first use is wrong. Telecoms satellites [have already been built] in the UK that use electric propulsion for station keeping and satellites with EP orbit-raising [are being built] today. The claim that it is high-risk is also wrong. The roadmap should identify the
  25. 25. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 26 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 incremental improvement and market exploitation of EP technology.’ Satellite Propulsion: expertise in solar sails  ‘Solar sail expertise in Glasgow and Strathclyde in particular.’  ‘…solar sail earth-orbiting missions: there are [also] secondary benefits in terms of advanced materials development, monitoring and control technologies.’  Solar sail propulsion…in order to have a qualified solution for interplanetary missions it will [require] much more time (>20 y?).  For deorbit LEO-sats it [could] be available earlier (5 y). Risk … is at least Medium due to thermo-mechanical risks which could prevent the full displacement of the sail in orbit.’  ‘Since [solar sails are] currently part within Innovate UK, EU and ESA scope and current calls in deorbiting technologies, I would think this should be higher priority than low, it also has a part to play in ESAs Clean space cross cutting initiative.’  ‘Solar sail technology offers a way to de-orbit satellites from LEO but also comes with more weight and size which increases launch costs, compared to alternative technologies.’  ‘Assuming question actually means simply drag augmentation … then some kind of gossamer structure can be a useful fail-safe but it will very rarely be the preferred method.’  ‘Hover orbits above earth poles (advanced solar sails) are potentially worth consideration’ Satellite Mass o ‘One opportunity for significantly reducing the weight of satellite components whilst also offering improved stiffness, thermal conductivity (for heat sinking application) can come from the use of Beryllium and AlBeMet (Aluminium Beryllium) for the structural frameworks. The material is already used in hi-end satellite applications and has proven benefits. In the UK there is a manufacturer, ExoTec Precision, that specialises in these materials and already works within the ESA supply chain. o The use of Beryllium and AlBeMet for cubeSat structures can bring deliver >46% weight reduction (Beryllium) & >34% for AlBeMet over conventional aluminium structures. o Power: ‘Nanowires are getting close to conductivity of copper while being much less massive. This is a game changer in terms of mass to orbit.’ o ‘Improved power transmission from nanowires.’ o ‘Super-capacitors leading, for example, to increased cycle life for batteries’
  26. 26. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 27 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 3.2 Satellite Communications The Delphi responses (and subsequent workshop) highlighted a widespread interest in providing an end-to-end communication service based upon closer integration or interworking of satellite and terrestrial networks. The Delphi responses also identified the potential impact of new entrants to the market that were launching LEO constellations and were employing a different business model to the existing providers of satellite communication services. A steady, progressive, increase in the amount of satellite on-board processing was noted and a number of specific technology opportunities were identified.  However, additional discussions with the community have suggested that the Delphi did not capture the full scope of innovation in the satellite communications area, particularly the ways in which the capability of geostationary communications satellites may change over the period out to 2020 and beyond.‘The area of integrated / interworking satellite- terrestrial networks is missing17 ’ o ‘… the ability to fulfil a user end-to-end requirement by managing a connection that could be established or maintained across several different satellite and terrestrial networks.’ o ‘In the commercial domain, this relates to the ability to manage services across multiple satellite platforms, not only at the connection level, but also at the business/commercial level, i.e. dynamic order management and fulfilment for throughput or raw bandwidth.’ o ‘The boundaries between the terrestrial domain and the satellites will become blurred as customers want, for example, continuous connectivity without worrying whatever they are connected to a terrestrial or satellite network.’ Enablers o ‘The key issues are: having the right business model to make inclusion of a satellite element attractive to mainstream service providers; minimising the cost of the satellite component to make the composite service attractive to end users.’ o ‘Understand the market and businesses models - who is the customer …?’ o ‘ Terrestrial network performance is rapidly improving and long-lead space missions will need to match the terrestrial capability that will be available by the time they are deployed.’ o ‘Access to spectrum is essential for the development of satellite communications. That spectrum is under threat from terrestrial services. Additional spectrum for satellite communications is not necessarily required, given other technology developments, but some means of protecting what is already allocated needs to be found.’ 17 There is a vast investment going into network and data management within every internet ‘cloud’ – to provide the necessary scale and responsiveness in complex terrestrial architectures requires a high level of automation/autonomy and this can provide much of the underpinning technology for integrated/interworking solutions. The challenge is likely to be to develop business models that are acceptable to the various parties and to establish appropriate commercial and technical interfaces
  27. 27. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 28 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Technical enablers include o ‘Open and standard Inter-operator roaming agreements; not-for-profit traffic routing agents (like DNS for Internet domain)’ o ‘Uniform air-interface/ bearer-aware dynamic protocol switching’ o ‘Enhanced localization and self-healing’ o ‘Ground segment (or ground station) technologies are just as important. For example, the ability to generate multiple beams from a single antenna would enhance networking and capacity capabilities.’ Potential blockers Potentials blockers for integrated / interworking satellite-terrestrial networks were: o ‘Satellite operators not wanting to open up their management domains’ o ‘Terrestrial network operators not wanting to open up their management domains’ o ‘… the impact of space varies by market sector/application; in most applications, satellite is less capable and more expensive than terrestrial equivalents and tends to be used as an option of last resort or a temporary solution until terrestrial capability is provided’ o ‘…it is difficult to envisage a space application that could either significantly reduce or increase volumes of terrestrial services’ On-board baseband processing o ‘… one area that should be developed and pushed is on-board baseband processing, to enable switching/routing at the packet level. That would allow significant improvements in spectral efficiency.’ o ‘The role & interplay of on board processing & communications appears not to be explicitly noted’ o ‘Airbus Defence & Space is working on on-board processing technologies (both RF and baseband).’ Further Technology Innovations  Gateway bandwidth for Terrabit/Petabit satellites - ‘… the realisation of Terabit satellites still suffers from the gateway bandwidth issue and it is not clear that Q/V band gateways are yet in a position to supply the solution. The same applies for the petabit satellites so it is not really the technology for the user uplink/downlink but more the concatenation of data at the gateways.’  Software Defined Radio and Cognitive Radio - ‘The RF capability is likely to remain the bottleneck for true software radio…The term Cognitive Radio (CR) as originally coined by Joe Mitola was hijacked by the FCC to refer to simply dynamic adaptation of spectrum usage. For this reason, be careful to understand the usage of the term in literature. CR is advancing, but again not as quickly as anticipated.’
  28. 28. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 29 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 Terrestrial Networks o 4G Mobile Network - ‘Use of 4G mobile network for assisted services is right, but 5G will not be widely deployed by 2020 and at this stage it is unclear what features 5G could offer satellite systems.’ o 5G – Millimetre Wave - ‘The exploitation of millimetre wave transmissions in 5G is overstated. The jury is very much out on that technology. At present, the only 'certainty' in relation to 5G is the move towards an even denser networking paradigm. Millimetre wave is certainly close to realisation. Many test rigs have been built. Moreover, it forms the basis of the IEEE 802.11ad standard. The main application is unclear, though.’ o ‘The IoT and cellular industries are driving growth in the comms market at present. Most big industry players look for opportunities in these areas. ‘ Error Correction Schemes o ‘… a key technology that has not been explicitly mentioned is error correction schemes, including both forward error correction (FEC) and automatic request-to- repeat (ARQ). ‘ o ‘…decoding in an energy-efficient manner is an ongoing area of research and development.’ o ‘Additionally, satellites communicating from, e.g., LEO positions will experience various radiation events and variable path loss that suggests mission-specific codes are required.’ o ‘… from a benefits/applications perspective, advancements in FEC/ARQ could improve energy consumption and, indirectly, the mass of satellites.’  ‘There need to be more telecommunications high priorities including Integrated Network Management, Ultra wideband Communications, Spectrum Efficient Technologies and RF optical hybrid technologies.’
  29. 29. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 30 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 3.3 Position Navigation and Timing The Delphi responses should be seen in the context of a ubiquitous GNSS capability that has an outstanding performance/price ratio and which is widely assumed to continue as the dominant backbone system for outdoor navigation out to beyond 2030. There is an expectation that there will be improved system performance and improved interoperability between different systems to increase the robustness of the outdoor positioning capability. Similarly, indoor positioning is expected to become ubiquitous using radio-navigation techniques that exploit multiple combinations of communications infrastructure installed for other purposes. For many markets there will be a requirement for greater levels of robustness to support smooth and safe operation. There are discussions with the community to align with the comment below that there is a wide expectation of integrated navigation solutions emerging that fuse data from multiple different sensors and sources to determine position and orientation. The comments in the Delphi were focused upon ways in which new technologies could be used to improve upon the capabilities outlined above. For example quantum sensors are a new technology area that may lead to a step change in the performance of miniature clocks, gyros and accelerometers, but simultaneously have the potential to reduce the demand for, and dependency upon, spaceborne navigation systems. Sensor Fusion ‘It is likely the integration of GNSS functions with other sensors (on receivers) will gather pace, driven by wearable market, and so by 2020 the sensor fusion aspect may be greater than stated.’ Quantum The UK has funded a UK quantum18 hub network (through the EPSRC) which is working with UK companies to translate academic quantum research into world class leading devices. Respondents identified a number of benefits and space applications. o ‘There is currently substantial funding to develop cold atom and other quantum sensors’ o ‘Benefits include incredible sensitivity or accuracy, not possible in existing devices’ o ‘In 2020- expect some quantum businesses with quantum products (e.g. timing and components) and demonstrators which could be space-qualified (if the necessary investment is provided).’ o ‘Quantum technologies are approximately 3-15 years from market. 3 years represents the time for quantum clocks; 15 years for some applications of quantum computers’ o Quantum technologies are quite far from market. As such the following challenges are anticipated: The value of Quantum technologies is not currently understood- there is no information on how much they will cost, or indeed in many applications what the technology will look like. The components which make up quantum technologies are low TRL and may not meet the required spec (SWAP-C, plus technical specifications) to be suitable. Quantum technologies are difficult to 18 Quantum is included under PNT since there are important opportunities for quantum clocks and cold atom accelerometers and gyros to increase the accuracy and resilience of PNT solutions. The comments in this section also identify a range of other applications.
  30. 30. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 31 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 understand, and currently require specialist training which may prevent them for gaining market acceptance.’ o ‘Timing needs will get more precise on Earth - exceeding what is available with current rubidium clocks on Galileo.’ o ‘The potential benefits for quantum technologies are likely to be diverse, and difficult to predict at this time. However, applications are expected for: secure communications (quantum crypto); quantum sensor for gravity measurement (sub surface imaging) electric field sensing (health monitoring including brain pattern recognition); quantum computing (for solving multiple parallel big data sets).’ o ‘Quantum key distribution … This technology has not yet been demonstrated in space and therefore should at least be a medium risk, and quite possibly a high risk.’ o ‘The risk for Quantum Comms & QKD should be increased to M - H.’ o ‘Cold atom interferometry (CAI) is a very promising technology for space science use - but the community still has a lot of work to do to develop credible space- ready experiments. The fundamental physics community for which CAI is a part failed in the last three rounds of ESA science mission calls to get this type of experiment selected’
  31. 31. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 32 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 3.4 Satellite Earth Observation In addition to the trends already identified by the Catapult, the responses to the Delphi also picked up or emphasised several key areas which have the potential to greatly impact the industry. The first are around the emergence of civilian UAS. It is still unclear yet whether UAS will increase or decrease the EO downstream market. UAS have the potential to increase the industry by creating a seamless continuum of remote sensing capability from hyperlocal with UAVs to regional with satellites. Similarly the technology could eat into the sales of EO satellite imagery decreasing the satellite market. It is generally understood that reality will be somewhere between the two scenarios, resulting in UAS and Satellites being used as part of a bigger solution in a project. It has also been highlighted, not only in the Delphi but also the workshop, that there is the potential to have a complimentary service through combining constellations of small satellites with swarms of UASs to create a service which can satisfy almost all geographical scales. A second area of interest that came through strongly in the Delphi exercise was around the fact that data quantities are rapidly increasing in the industry and currently there is no indication to show why this trend will change going forward. There is a commercial balance between capturing all the RAW data, which can be continually re-used for new applications, and also maintaining rapid and responsive information services from real time data. What is key is that it is identified that the large anticipated growth in the industry will be dominated by greater data analytics and novel mass market applications which can ingest multiple data sources - not just satellite data. Finally programmes, such as Copernicus, which are offering free and open data will enviably (and arguably already are) having a large impact on the commercial industry. UAS ‘Earth observation: understates UAS impact. I think these will start to impact on EO by 2020 (not crudely in terms of taking business away, I think there is some interesting synergy and they do straightforwardly overlap).’ ‘ I expect that the main impacts until 2020 will occur from a combination of small satellites and UAS.’ European Data Relay Satellites ‘For small satellite EO missions there will be a requirement to download large volumes of data but until EDRS has a true low power/low cost optical link that can be deployed on small satellites then there would need to be an alternate solution- either through low cost Ka-Band or optical downlinks.’ SAR [There is] ‘still space for innovation of [SAR] sensors, then new processing techniques still to be explored, also developing low cost systems, and fused optical/SAR , providing new apps and benefits in surveillance and RS’ On-board data processing Value of raw data: ‘I disagree that on-board data processing will decrease the amount of data needed to downlink. History tells us that if we have further bandwidth we will exchange more data. Furthermore, not all data processing levels reduce the data amount and having all the raw
  32. 32. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 33 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 data on ground enables uses we may not have thought about before. It is possible though that for specific applications the data processing can be performed on-board.’ Creating value from satellite services/data A number of respondents considered that the opportunities to create value from the use of a satellite service or the data were under-represented in the paper. o ‘The value is not in the images but what is done with them’ o ‘For offshore renewable energy, there is still huge progress to be made in simply using satellite data to determine long term wind resource and other metocean parameters in the offshore environment (the key is to have a dataset with wind, wave, visibility, precipitation etc. in it which is all consistent).’ o ‘Copernicus has already impacted the Commercial EO imagery market as operators have postponed new satellite investments and companies closed. In addition companies are now focusing on the commercial applications for the free to use imagery.’ o ‘… much of the noticeable and commercially exploitable innovation will be in devices that use the data.’ o ‘the more data available, the better it is for the downstream applications. Two reasons: more data brings the overall cost down as different entities compete to be the providers of the best data; the higher quality the data is, the more valuable it is to the end user and therefore the more the sat apps companies can do in terms of data analytics.’ o ‘I think that a third area that will be particularly significant is in cloud based services and service provision which will spawn additional innovation. I think the impact will come from both some key innovative SMEs at one end of the size spectrum, but also quite possibly from Google and/or one or two other large businesses at the other end. I think the changes may be as significant in terms of business models as in technology, with the capability to disrupt the [sector] significantly.’ Integration of satellite data with data from terrestrial sensors The technologies that underpin the Internet of Things (IoT) now make it possible (in principle) to analyse, in near real time, data from an earth observation satellite and relevant data from surface sensors in the area under observation; even using the data from the surface sensors in the processing chain for the space based data collection. This could be a disruptive combination from which numerous unexpected applications/benefits arise. o ‘Forget concentrating on Space technologies. Space is one part of the solution, concentrate efforts on the whole and the integration challenge. Do not be space focussed be focussed on solving the problem’ o ‘… as satellite technology/data approaches real time availability there is the possibility of developing technologies which use satellite and sea based technology in tandem (as a single technology). [For the metocean environment], a set of cheap simple floating lidar which feed high resolution data from single points to a satellite which is measuring across a much larger area. Processing this data would then give a holistic overview of the metocean environment.’
  33. 33. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 34 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 o ‘Internet of Things (IoT) will deliver new capabilities in device security (and other areas) of benefit to satellites’ o ‘The Internet Of Things could be applied to the monitoring of Industrial capability in remote areas. This monitoring of data could be communicated by High Throughput Satellite’ o ‘The components are probably close to readiness, however, their integration will be a challenge in the current market (still highly fragmented)’ o ‘It is all about latency and cost’
  34. 34. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 35 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746 4.0 Future Landscape Feedback This section brings together a number of comments upon specific, additional technologies that may have an impact upon the sector and general comments upon the synthesis paper that the Catapult had circulated to support the Delphi exercise. The Delphi respondents suggested that the following additional benefits/applications should also be considered  ‘ disaster warning/monitoring systems.’  Nanomaterials: ‘… little mention of benefits in graphene detectors, CNT forests for straylight and radiometry, benefits for human radiation shielding for human planetary missions’  Calibration And Testing Of Spacecraft: ‘UK has considerable strength in calibration and testing of spacecraft, instruments and sensors (both existing and emergent) which is a space discipline in its own right and currently a largish cost in the value chain. Developing quality systems, more efficient test methods and training reduces the cost of access to space, plus providing UK borne measurement technologies, inward investment and export opportunities’  ‘Sample return is a key goal for the UK - so should be higher priority than "L"’  ‘There are significant opportunities in space human physiology’: ‘… to exploit the unique (zero-g) environment in order to isolate conditions and influences. One example is the area of bone health, which has huge impact (both in care and in cost around the globe) to terrestrial treatments for osteoarthritis and other conditions.’  ‘Spaceport and space tourist applications should be emphasized’ The Delphi asked: ‘…Are you aware of any expertise in the UK which could take this technology to the point of commercial exploitation?’  Numerous companies were identified by respondents and further details can be provided upon request Section 2 of the Delphi questionnaire focused upon the Catapult document “Technology Roadmap Assertions” which identified potential technology scenarios within the time horizons of 2020 and 2035.  Question 1 asked: ‘Do you think that most of the innovations in the next five years (until 2020), which will impact operational and commercial exploitation of satellites, will occur either in the terrestrial domain or in the small satellite business? If you do not think either of these will have the biggest impact, what do you think will be the largest changes in the technological landscape to 2020, and why?’  There was general support in the comments for the assertion that most of the innovations in the next five years (until 2020), which will impact operational and commercial exploitation of satellites, will occur either in the terrestrial domain or in the small satellite business
  35. 35. Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015 CATAPULT OPEN 36 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR Email: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk Registered Company No. 07964746  Question 2 asked: ‘Do you believe that the Catapult’s assertions either overstate or understate the amount of technological advancement in the 2020 horizon? Do you think that the technology is closer or further away from realisation?’  Respondents were generally supportive – typical comments were along the lines of ‘Based on current knowledge, the assertions seem logical.’ Specific responses to Question 2 included:  However the extended time for a new technology to make an impact was highlighted: ‘The technologies might be nearing maturity by 2020, and some may be in the early stages of deployment for specific applications/markets, but it is unlikely that any of them will have a material commercial impact until after 2020. Specific examples of technologies included:  ‘meta-materials are a long way from low cost production (high unit value does not necessarily mean significant absolute value);  optic links have a limited application and significant operational challenges;  HAPS has a huge regulatory agenda to address even if the technology can be made to cost in.’  Question 3 asked: ‘What are your thoughts on the applicability of the technology of the Catapult’s assertion within the 2035 horizon? Has the technology been over or under represented in terms of innovations?’ Respondents were generally supportive on the assertions made in the document. Specific comments included:  ‘Difficult to predict innovation over a long timescale - the examples given could be viable, but many other 'innovations' may appear over next 20 years.’  ‘…I think there is a huge demand for the kinds of technologies that are being discussed and that this will drive the innovations. If the 2020 vision is realized then I think the 2035 horizon is also achievable. I think this will be mostly driven by terrestrial needs and terrestrial systems (e.g. computing capability, autonomy, big data etc.)’  ‘Earth observation: I think the Catapult vision to 2035 is too dominated by space segment thinking (plus HAPs). There should be some vision of what will happen on the ground (or in the cloud) in terms of how EO will be used in an innovative manner. ‘  ‘This is rather difficult to be confident about, but I think some vision is needed which might not end up being the whole picture, but at least is likely to form part of the picture and therefore be important. I think the focus could be around how services might be integrated and delivered and would require consideration of the way things might develop with innovative business models.’

×