technology roadmap highlights_report 2015

Technology Roadmap Highlight Paper 2015

CATAPULT OPEN 2 Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd., Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR

Email: [email protected] | 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.




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




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’




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




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.




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?


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)




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.


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?


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’




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




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




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.




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.


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?




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





Outline Technical Requirement for autonomous positioning for trains in Europe

(‘Rail Signalling’)




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.


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.


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




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




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.


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.





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”




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




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




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.’




‘[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.’




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.’




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’




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




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’




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




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.’




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.’




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.




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’




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




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.’




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’




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




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.’