STIMULATING AND SUSTAINING

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION

IN THE SPACE SECTOR

Report 9, December 2007 Rolf Skaar, ESPI

1

DISCLAIMER

This Report has been prepared for the client in accordance with the associated contract and ESPI will accept no liability for any loss or damage arising out of the provision of the report to third parties.

Short Title: ESPI Report 9, December 2007 Editor, Publisher: ESPI European Space Policy Institute A-1030 Vienna, Schwarzenbergplatz 6, Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel.: +43 1 718 11 18 - 0 Fax - 99 Copyright: ©ESPI, December 2007 Rights reserved - No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means must include the following: “Source: ESPI Report 9, December 2007. All rights reserved”. A sample must be sent to ESPI before publishing. Price: EUR 11,00 EUR Printed by ESA/ESTEC Layout and Design: M. A. Jakob/ESPI and Panthera.cc Ref.: C-20590-002-P14

Report 9, December 2007 2

Technology & Innovation

Foreword

The main purpose of this report is to investigate what policy and which actions will best stimulate technology innovation and create a competitive space industry at European level.

The report is a result of desk top studies, and in particular the result of an ESPI workshop with representatives from space industry, space agencies, academia and institutions responsible for technology innovation funding. Preceding this workshop and as a follow- up several in-depth interviews were held in order to get the view of many individuals and their organizations reflected in this report.

The study is also expected to provide useful insight and information for policy and decision-makers at Government’s level and Space Agencies in Europe.

The author wishes to thank all the participants at the ESPI workshop 19th October for their contribution to this study, both during the workshop with the brainstorming and discussion and with their input to this final text. The Author also thanks the staff from ESA, CNES and Eurospace who significantly provided useful ideas both to the workshop and to this report. Also a special thanks to his colleagues and the staff of ESPI for their valuable input with a special thanks to Ms Charlotte Mathieu and Mr Nicolas Peter for their support in preparing and organizing the ESPI workshop, and for all their valuable comments to the final text. In particular, I am grateful to the Director of ESPI, Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, for his guidance and support to the final report. Also special thanks to Ségolène van den Steen and to Michel Jakob for their input and for making the final layout and preparing for production of the final report.

Vienna December 14th 2007.

Rolf Skaar, Study Leader

European Space Policy Institute 3 Report 9, December 2007

Table of contents

Foreword ...... 3

Table of contents ...... 4

Executive summary...... 5

1. Why the space sector needs technology innovation? ...... 9 1.1 Importance of spin-ins...... 9 1.2 Some comments on spin-offs...... 10 1.3 Some comparisons with US technology ...... 10 1.4 Non-dependence in space components...... 11 1.5 Launcher’s need for innovation ...... 11

2. Key challenges for sustaining and increasing technology innovation...... 13 2.1 Funding fragmentation...... 13 2.2 Coordination issues ...... 15 2.3 Standardization issues ...... 16

3. Key issues on how to foster innovation...... 17 3.1 The Need for technology maturity in-orbit demonstrations ...... 17 3.2 Using Prizes to stimulate Innovation ...... 18 3.3 A European DARPA...... 19 3.4 Importance of globally competitive European space systems and industrial supply chain . 20

4. The relationship between Space industry and Academia...... 22

5. Recruitment and Generation Change issues (succession planning)...... 24

Attachments

1 List of participants at ESPI workshop and contributors to this report 2. Programme of the ESPI workshop on Innovation 3. Presentation on Prizes 4. Presentation on DARPA 5. Summary of ESA funding with strong Research and Technology part

Report 9, December 2007 4

Technology & Innovation

Executive Summary

This executive summary will follow the conservative customers like satellite same headlines as outlined in The communications service provider Statement of Work with these 3 companies, without innovative suppliers subtitles: their business would stagnate.

• Identifying the main factors that The efforts to make space more can stimulate innovation affordable by using smaller satellites, as well as their use of more advanced In this study we use the OECD definition components is another driver for of innovation1, this implies much more innovation. These smaller satellites are than technology or disruptive becoming more and more capable. innovations. Finally, both entrepreneurial companies We start by looking at innovation from a and students, with typically modest supply/demand type perspective and funds, will not only depend on innovative looking at which stimuli creates a ideas but also foster them with their demand for innovation and then what smart use of available technologies to stimuli is needed for innovation to take reach their ambitions in space. place. For innovation to take place, the The author strongly believes that the education system, including universities, most important driving force for should be able to educate and prepare stimulating innovation in space is candidates, including scientists and demanding missions requiring engineers, who are capable of generating innovation. Such missions obviously new ideas and implementing them. include the advanced science and exploration missions, both robotic and Most European countries have, as part of manned. The demanding missions for their policies, programmes to support Earth observation including weather innovation and research. Such policies forecasting and climate change are a major contributor to innovation monitoring, and the missions producing stimulation, and if well implemented, will services, like satellite communications result in several benefits including a and navigation, are also creating a major more competitive industry and more cost demand for innovation. In the 50-year effective products and services coming. history of space activities, it is the Also the cross fertilisation between space demand for innovation that has really and non-space is beneficial to both brought innovation and technological sectors. progress in the field.

Another very important driver for • Reviewing the current situation innovation is competitiveness. In the in Europe and pointing out commercial space sector (which is the strengths and weaknesses within largest civilian space activity), innovation industry and institutions both in technology and in processes is a must to stay competitive. Even with The most striking feature of Europe’s situation in space is that, despite that the United States` government invests 1 OECD Definition: Innovation activities are all scientific, six times more than Europe. European technological, organizational, financial and commercial companies are doing extraordinarily well steps which actually, or are intended to, lead to the implementation of innovations. Some innovation in commercial activities, i.e. the satellite activities are themselves innovative, others are not communications industry with its novel activities but are necessary for the implementation geostationary satellites, the launchers, of innovations. Innovation activities also include R&D and the services produced by these that is not directly related to the development of a specific innovation. space systems. European companies

European Space Policy Institute 5 Report 9, December 2007

have more than 50% of the global only available from U.S. manufacturers) market for launchers, more than 50% of to perform both advanced robotic the order book for new communication science and exploration missions, and to satellites and hold the #2 (SES Global, put an infrastructure in space to provide Luxembourg) and #3 (Eutelsat, France) cost-effective services for weather rank in the global satellite forecasting, Earth observation, communication service providers. Europe navigation, positioning and timing, and has until now been winning such satellite communications. competition because, firstly industry reaped the benefits of past investments There is a real risk that Europe might which resulted in good performance in- loose its currently #3 position in overall orbit and many new orders. Then it put a space capabilities (after the United lot of efforts to increase cost States and Russia) and being overtaken, competitiveness, and lately industry first by China, and maybe later by India. were forced to sell with reduced margins in order to remain in the market. Now, If Galileo is further delayed, it may be European industry faces multiple threats, put in operation after the new U.S. GPS the most advanced communications III, the revived and fully implemented satellites are only available from U.S. Russian GLONASS, and even after the companies, and India and China are planned Chinese Compass/Beidou. entering the market with lower cost satellites with performance deemed In the United States, Russia, China and acceptable for some customers. India, decisions related to Space are made at the highest political level, and Another observation is that for advanced Space is used strategically and as a robotic science missions, Europe seems foreign policy tool. It is a fact that in to be approaching the same level as the Europe Space decisions are de facto United States in its ability to perform made nationally (even for ESA and complex missions. The United States has European Union decisions on space vastly more experience than Europe in matters) and the European will to use planetary missions including landings, space as part of a European overall however the basic ESA science Common Foreign and Security Policy programme is ranked to be about equal (CFSP) and European Security and with the equivalent NASA science Defence Policy (ESDP) is currently not programme. However, this position there. This is limiting the funding of depends on the use of some key Europe’s ambitions in space, both as components only available from U.S. regards space science and exploration manufacturers and subject to U.S. missions and space infrastructure to restrictions on their export (International provide services. Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)- regulated). This creates a risk for Europe This issue with decision-making in in its ability to make its own decisions Europe is also reflected in the funding of and setting its own priorities in space technology innovation. Such funding is matters. fragmented, not sufficient to create non- dependence and with major risk of not Europe currently lacks the capability of funding elements critical for the independent manned missions to space; competitiveness of the European only Russia, the United States and industry and for the ability to achieve recently China have demonstrated this future complex missions. manned spaceflight capability using national means. Europe also lacks The funding of ESA missions is totally capabilities in the area of security and dependent upon ESA industrial policy space situational awareness (SSA). with its fair geographic contribution rule. This has both strengths and weaknesses Broadly speaking, Europe has the as regards technology innovation. The available technology and expertise Member States willingness to fund (although some critical components are optional ESA missions depends in a

Report 9, December 2007 6

Technology & Innovation

significant way on what these Member programme, there is a geographical States can derive from those missions, in distribution of space activities among the particular industrial activities. This may various U.S. States in order to secure result in several Member States making the necessary votes in the U.S. certain demands for roles which they Congress. give priority to because of their national There is one innovation stimuli missing interests. Sometimes this leads to on the European side compared to the threats to decrease their participation if United States. In the United States the they do not get their priority part. Such very demanding requirements for the pressure may lead to both delays and a advanced satellites for the military and final solution which is far from optimal. for homeland security, has been probably the most important driver for The larger the project, the larger this technological innovation for space, and issue becomes. In recent times many of due to its large funding these systems Galileo delays, cost overruns and now has given the U.S. companies a definite risk of not being implemented, have advantage. been caused by Member States putting their national interests above the European interests. Venture Capital in Europe is much less specialized in early stage financing than The structure of the European space in the United States and also Business industry is a reflection of the ESA fair Angels are less frequent in Europe to geographic contribution industrial policy. stimulate innovative entrepreneurial The two large space companies in space companies. A likely reason for this Europe; Thales Alenia Space and EADS is that from a business point of view, Astrium (i.e. The “Primes”) have most of investing in space is risky, has a high their industrial activities in France, barrier to entry, and with often a long Germany, UK, Italy and Spain, then in wait for the financial returns. addition at a smaller level Belgium and Netherlands. This opens up for the next level of major subcontractors and again • Proposing actions to be taken in their sub suppliers to have better order to ensure that indeed the geographical return potential if they are European industry will keep, if located outside these five large not augment, its competitive countries. This industrial structure has edge both strengths and weaknesses; it gives the two Primes a very competitive The most efficient stimuli for technology market for their first and second tier sub innovation are demand-related. Only by supplies, with the possibility to get some having advanced missions requiring Member States to support their local innovation can Europe be assured of space companies such that these continuing to make progress. By far, companies are offering the lowest most of the investments in technology possible prices to the Primes. innovation are coming from the missions, whether it is for launchers, for This structure also prevents too much science and exploration, or for the vertical integration by the Primes; in service-oriented missions. most other industries it has been observed that too much vertical To make future missions affordable and integration leads to less innovation. It avoid delays it is important to plan well can therefore be argued that this wide in advance the research and geographic distribution of space development needed to develop the new companies actually will stimulate necessary technologies. It requires both innovation, not at least because of the planning and coordination and intense competition in the lower tier appropriate funding. It is strongly companies. The author feels it is worth recommended to strengthen the space mentioning, that also in the United technology policy, coordinated by ESA, States, starting with the Apollo with improved planning and decision-

European Space Policy Institute 7 Report 9, December 2007

making for such development to take organization, Eurospace is place. Hopefully, the larger ESA Member recommended. An important part of States will see the benefits for them and NewPro is to provide opportunities for their industries of a better coordination more in-orbit demonstrations in order to of the total technology development. test and space qualify new technologies. Such coordination must also have as one This study proposes that an agreement of its goals to increase Europe’s non- is negotiated with Arianespace, as part dependence for critical components of EGAS (European Guaranteed Access needed for its space missions. The major to Space), for the provision of regular tool for funding innovation at ESA is its piggy-back launch opportunities for such TRP (Basic Technology Research in-orbit-demonstrations. Programme) and it is recommended to substantially increase this mandatory program being a part of ESA General It is recommended to limit duplication Budget. and re-enforce harmonisation process in ESA members states in order to avoid It is recommended to continue the use of waste of funding and concentrate efforts spin-ins of commercial off-the-shelf on key identified technologies and (COTS) components in order to both products. achieve non-dependence and to reduce the time gap between space and the We recommend continuing to stimulate non-space world in their use of state-of- innovation by engaging young students the-art components. Such efforts will in student satellites, both the low cost increase the competitiveness for nano-satellites and the more collaborate Europe’s space industry, and it will lower efforts like the YES2 project (Young the cost of future missions. Engineers Satellite 2). The best way to recruit the best and brightest engineers It is further recommended that ESA is and scientists for space is to engage given an increased mandate to enforce a them early with hands-on experience more standardized architecture for during their studies. spacecrafts and satellites with standard interfaces between the various units. To further encourage such activity, and This will allow for more identical units to to stimulate innovative entrepreneurship, be procured, resulting in the typical very we recommend the use of Prize awards high non-recurring development cost to (like the ones put forward by the X-Prize be shared among a higher number of Foundation in the United States). A units manufactured. Such more concrete proposal for a Prize and its standardized architecture needs to be associated challenge is described in 3.2 developed in close coordination with (page 18). space industry, in particular with the main space companies, however with a Furthermore to engage more of final say to ESA. Such standardization academia (Universities and research should include innovative concepts and a institutes) we encourage in particular willingness to try new ideas coming from ESA and national Space Agencies to outside of ESA. broaden their contact with a broader field of basic Science. It is a general It is recommended to strengthen feeling that today the contact with technology innovation funding and we academia institutions in space matters is support the planning of the ESA NewPro limited, and mainly to those who to be decided by the ESA Ministerial established a space network long ago. Council in November 2008. A close Widening this network is believed involvement of the space industry in important to reach new scientists with NewPro planning through their common new ideas and also relevant for space.

Report 9, December 2007 8

Technology & Innovation

1. Why the space sector needs technology innovation

Although the United States put humans The other main market is the on the Moon and returned them safely government or institutional market using 1960´s technology and comprising military and security, science remembering that the most powerful and exploration and providing important rocket ever made, the Saturn V, also is services to its citizens in weather 1960´s technology, few would argue forecasting, navigation positioning and against that continued innovation is a timing, and Earth observation including must for the space sector. Without climate change. The institutional market innovation, space would loose its represents worldwide between 80% and attractiveness, loose its best people, and 90% of the total business of the space with reduced ability to recruit the best manufacturing industry, and supports and brightest young engineers and most technology development and scientists, the space would decline in a innovation, with the main technological downward spiral. developments (in volume) funded by the In this respect innovation is more than United States through Department of technological break-through inventions, Defense (DoD) and NASA programmes. using the OECD definition for innovation is also relevant for the space sector2: For both of these sectors, innovation is a key to a viable space industry and to Space can be divided into two main affordable services and to the ability to markets: explore new frontiers and do breathtaking science. Innovation is Commercial Satellite communication is needed not only in technologies (whether the largest non military market. It is continuous improvement or disruptive global and very competitive and also break-through), but also in processes provides for the largest launcher including management and in the way business and has resulted in a global science and basic research are done. space services business of providing TV- Some of the current missions in distribution, internet, broadband and advanced planning phase are so telephony to any spot on Earth, fixed or demanding that they can only be mobile. Total annual sales are around 3 accomplished by major new billions U.S. dollars for satellite systems technological developments. and 2 billions U.S. dollars for launch services. The commercial satellite sector generates revenues in services equal to 8 billions U.S. dollars at satellite 1.1. Importance of operations level and around 50 billions U.S. dollars for multimedia services spin-ins revenues offered through the satellites. In the United States, the Apollo programme consumed up to 7% per year

2 of the U.S. Federal Budget. In Innovation activities are all scientific, technological, organizational, financial and commercial steps which technology development the space actually, or are intended to, lead to the implementation of sector was highly visible and enormously innovations. Some innovation activities are themselves attractive for young engineers and innovative, others are not novel activities but are scientists. Today the space sector is still necessary for the implementation of innovations. Innovation activities also include R&D that is not directly visible, in particular human space flight; related to the development of a specific innovation. however in innovation and technology

European Space Policy Institute 9 Report 9, December 2007

terms it is no longer the driving force. If large funding there was many spin-offs we look at a state-of the-art mobile from Space and from the Apollo phone, a laptop computer, a camera, or programme to other fields. These two even an automobile, it is rather obvious examples are mentioned, the first mini- that space can benefit from spin-ins from computer built with integrated circuits the commercial non-space world. (1964) and the first Database Management System (IBM). However, commercial technologies can not simply be used as they are in the Both NASA and ESA have established space environment. They need to be Technology Transfer Programme offices space qualified which means that they which support spin-offs and help transfer have to be put on a proper technology space technologies to other sectors. readiness level (TRL) to be used in any While this is a well received effort important space project. There will supported by ESA Member States, it always be a time-gap between what is does not provide any meaningful available in the commercial world, and additional funding for space agencies what is ready for space. It is important which then could be used to finance new to reduce this time-gap. Some. smaller innovation programmes. and also the entrepreneurial space companies, have as their business model to reduce this time-gap by using as new as possible, electronic components and 1.3. Some comparisons sensors, such that their satellites becomes smaller, however still fairly with U.S. technology capable. Mainly because of the U.S. Government The technology base, in particular for very large investments in space systems submicron electronics, is changing and for the military and homeland security this put even higher priority on spin-ins. needs, the United States have available A previous NASA Administrator, Dan for their space efforts more advanced Goldin, with a background from private components and technologies than industry, became frustrated over the Europe. Two examples are shown high cost and long development time for because of their importance: the large NASA missions, and he therefore introduced the slogan “Faster, a) For communications satellites the Better, Cheaper”. Experience, however U.S. military through its Spaceway showed that this was not so easy with programme has space qualified ASIC several mission failures resulting from (Application Specific Integrated not enough testing. Circuits) components with 0.16 micrometer, 180Mhz clock rate and It must also be mentioned that some 7.1 million gates pr ASIC. The most critical technologies like propulsion are advanced ASIC chips available for space specific and innovation for these European suppliers are U.S. based technologies can not be achieved by with 0.65 micrometer, 80Mhz clock spin-ins. rate and 2.7 million gates pr ASIC. b) In computer processors the time-gap between the United States and Europe is around 4-5 years for space 1.2 Some comments on qualified radiation hardened microprocessors, equivalent to at spin-offs least 5 times more performance for the U.S. industry. This ESPI study report does not focus on spin-offs as such. Spin-offs correspond to the use of space technologies outside the space sector. During the Apollo programme with its

Report 9, December 2007 10

Technology & Innovation

1.4. Non-dependence 1.5. Launchers’s need for space components for innovation

European space industry, for all its most The need for technology innovation for successful space businesses like the launchers poses some dilemmas. For the Ariane 5 launcher and the existing European launchers, like Ariane communication satellites from Thales 5 and Soyuz from Kourou, it may be Alenia Space and EADS Astrium, are argued that stable production of identical dependent on the use of components launchers increases reliability, and any only manufactured in the United States, change to a well proven design should be even Galileo depends on the use of U.S. avoided (this has de facto been the made components. (It needs to be strategy for Soyuz). mentioned that Thales Alenia Space has recently put on the market an On the other side, there is a need for a “International Traffic in Arms Regulations reignitable second stage for Ariane 5, (ITAR) free” communication satellite both for the launching of Galileo and for which is not dependent on any U.S. bringing Geostationary communication components. satellites directly to their final orbit (instead of a Geostationary Transfer The May 2007 European Space Policy Orbit (GTO) launch as currently only way stresses the need for non-dependence of using Ariane 5). To make Ariane 5 from the U.S. for selected critical reignitable is more a question of ESA components. Such non-dependence is Member States agreeing to its funding. deemed essential for the European space There is available expertise and programme to be elaborated in full technology in Europe to do such an European autonomy, in particular with upgrade. regard to strategic decisions and systems and with regard to international However, there is a major need to cooperation. Furthermore European reduce the cost of access to space. The industry will gain better global market current most serious challenge to the penetration with reduced dependence strong position of Arianespace with its from controlled export components and Ariane 5 dual-launch capability is the equipment. It must however be Falcon 9 under development by the remembered that the best components privately funded company SpaceX in the and technologies are not always for sale. United States. This development is Therefore when discussing stimulating supported both by NASA and DARPA. It technology innovation for the space may result in a significant reduction in sector in Europe, this must support the gradual improvement in non-dependence Even if an export license is obtained, it may induce costly 3 of critical space components. delays into a project. Prominent examples are the difficulties that Europe faces in the field of electronics components. On a typical ESA satellite programme 3 Quote from ESA EUI-AH/5040/MG/EW/AP/ap (Feb approximately 60% of the EEE components procurement 2006): “Non-dependence” refers to the possibility for costs correspond to procurement of components from the Europe to have free, unrestricted access to any required USA, about 35% in Europe and the remaining 5% in other space technology. On every European satellite a countries outside the ESA Member States. This has led significant share of components and equipments are the ESA Director General to propose and start the procured outside Europe, primarily from the United States, European components initiative (ECI) in 2004. The but also from Japan and Israel. US supplied components, ultimate objective of this Europeanization activity is to parts and equipments are used in all spacecraft reduce substantially (if not eliminate) the dependence on subsystems, platform as well as all payloads institutional non-European procurement sources, particularly those that and commercial. In the 1999 Department of Defence might be subject to United States export restrictions (ITAR Authorization Bill, the U;S; Congress transferred Certificate) and for which the availability is not guaranteed. responsibility for satellite technology to the State In this context, it is important to note that ITAR is not only Department from the Commerce Department. With this limited to space. Electronic components, but it does also step a number of important exemptions such as mention explicitly components or subassemblies such as Fundamental Research Exclusion under the National propulsion systems, AOCS, antennas, TT&C, cryptography Security Directive 189 were abandoned. Virtually all etc. procurements for satellite parts are now subject to the In this situation, it is therefore clear that not pursuing any International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). Affected actions to correct the dependence situation would lead to a are members states’ national programmes, primes, serious loss of competitiveness and effectiveness of the equipment suppliers, SMEs and universities/institutes. European Space industry.

European Space Policy Institute 11 Report 9, December 2007

the cost of access to space. This is ways to really reduce the cost of access particular the case for the U.S. to space, either by investing a lot of Government which is not allowed to use money up front for a reusable or partly low-cost launchers from Russia or reusable or refurnishable launcher, or by Ukraine. developing like SpaceX a design which gives a cost, competitive enough for The reduction of the cost of access to each launcher if more of them are sold. space requires real innovation, and even Europe has a lot to loose if it refuses to more so, the smart use of existing participate in the competition of reducing technology. There are two very different the cost of access to space.

Report 9, December 2007 12

Technology & Innovation

2. Key challenges for sustaining technology innovation

Access to technology innovation is vital have specific programmes devoted to for space and for space industry to technology development activities. survive and prosper. In this chapter we These programmes can be generic will discuss how technology innovation is (such as ESA’s TRP and GSTP stimulated and funded and look into the programmes) i.e. targeted at future challenges. developments with potential use with a wide variety of space applications. Together ESA and national agencies budgets for space technology 2.1. Funding fragmentation development are in the range of 200 Million euros a year. This represents

roughly 5% of ESA expenditure for ESPI is aware of the initiative and programmes. The European activities of ESA and Eurospace for a Commission with the FP7/Space coordinated European space policy within Foundations programme also provides the Technology end-to-end process and support to technology development the technology harmonisation rounds. for space science, space ESA also introduced in 2005 the NewPro, transportation and space components, responding to the Resolution of the ESA with an average budget of 30 million Council at Ministerial level of Berlin in euros a year. 2005. NewPro is a complement to the

current technology programmes of ESA, 2. The European space industry also addressing new aspects such as non- invests in technology research and dependence, multiple use, and, development in particular areas of introduced in 2007, in-orbit validation. strategic interest with an annual The revised and expanded Newpro is to investment in the range of 150 million be presented to the ESA Ministerial euros a year. Council in November 2008. ESPI has

been given full visibility into these The European space companies have activities and key individuals from ESA their own Research and Technology and Eurospace participated in the ESPI (R&T) Departments with large number of workshop. scientists and engineers which both do This report has a long term focus to in-house development and coordinate reach beyond the next ESA Ministerial, collaboration activities with academia however it hopefully will be of use both and other industrial companies. In the in the current planning phase and long- case of large groups with dedicated term. space units, these R&T centres are fully

devoted to space-related developments, Space technology development in Europe but core and common research centres is carried out under contracts financed also carry out R&T activities promoting by ESA, countries, and other public interdisciplinary (e.g. defence and entities (e.g. European Commission, space, aeronautics and space, etc.). Eumetsat), and is also funded internally Industry does this both in order to stay by industry: competitive in their commercial space

business, (which in Europe is their 1. ESA and the major national space largest business) and to be able to agencies (such as CNES, DLR etc.) successfully bid for the complex missions

European Space Policy Institute 13 Report 9, December 2007

ESA and national governments are developments are mission-specific and procuring. According to Eurospace, only seldom are able to support the approximately 1/3 of their total R&T establishment of a recurrent business), effort budget is funded internally, the very high barriers to entry and many rest is funded mostly as part of their kinds of risks. This is probably also the contractual work and by access to main reason for the lack of new national and ESA technology funding. entrepreneurial companies entering Compared to other advanced industries, space business in Europe. In the United like IT and telecommunication industries States entrepreneurial companies are their own funding of 1/3 is very modest. now challenging the establishment by their development of new launchers, A main reason for this is, that as seen commercial high resolution optical Earth from a pure business perspective, observation satellites and also by giving investing in space business has a very birth to space tourism. occasional pay back scheme (since most 4. Specific ESA Technology Funding Programmes 3. National funding ESA probably has the best complete In most ESA Member States the national picture of the needs for technology Space Agency/Space Office use innovation for the future space activities technology funding programmes to of Europe. ESA works closely with both support both their national space national Space Agencies and space ambitions and their space industry. In industry to steer the technology some medium and small ESA Member developments in the direction of the total States these national funding needs and tries to avoid any missing programmes are the key tool to support technology elements. ESA has currently their industry in their ability to win ESA at its disposal the following key funding contracts and thus allowing the country schemes for technology innovation (it to reach its fair geographic contribution must not be forgotten that almost every according to the ESA rules. These ESA mission includes a significant programmes are decided nationally, and amount of technology innovation). (For a there is always the risk that several more complete picture of ESA countries will support the same programmes with a strong Research and technological development, resulting in Development component see attachment government money being used with no # 5.) business won. ESA is through its Technology Master Plan (ESTMP) and its harmonization activities trying to a) TRP Basic Research Technology coordinate such national initiatives, Programme however ESA can not direct a Member State national priority. In particular, the TRP is mandatory and is part of the ESA large ESA Member States, France, General Budget. TRP budget for 2008 for Germany and Italy use substantial industrial contracts is around 42 million amounts to stimulate space technology euros. The priorities are set by ESA, and innovation in their own countries and use its proposals are open for competitive the resulting technology both for their bidding among all Member States. TRP is own national programmes and for typically used for long lead technology participating in both ESA and global needs. programmes like the International Space Station (ISS). These large ESA Member States have the choice of whether to b) GSTP General Support and support technology innovation through Technology Programme ESA or nationally. Their choices will for example in a significant way influence GSTP is an optional programme; ESA the ESA NewPro initiative and its total and Member States will typically work funding. closely together to coordinate the use of

Report 9, December 2007 14

Technology & Innovation

ESA Technology Programmes vs. TRL source: ESA//C/WG-M(2005)7 issue 1,2 component subsystem component and/or model or system experimental and/or breadboard prototype prototype system technology critical function breadboard validation in demonstration in demonstration in completed and concept and/or proof of validation in relevant a relevant a space flight qualified system flight formulated concept laboratory environment environment environment (on ground) proven TRL2 3 456789 Programme TRP CTP GSTP EOEP ARTES Galileo FLPP Aurora STEP ELIPS

focus potential extension

this programme. Available funding is next generation launchers. approximately 40-50 million euros per year. Some countries will use GSTP as a funding source for its national space e) ITI Innovation Triangle Initiative ambitions and getting ESA support for such. ITI is a new inititive from ESA providing a fast lane for innovation in space applications. It also opens up for new c) ARTES Advanced Research for actors to enter space by bringing the Telecommunication Systems INVENTOR, a DEVELOPER and a CUSTOMER together in a close ARTES is an optional programme with collaboration supported by ESA. approximately 217 million euros for 2008 budget, out of which around 60 million euros is for technology. Member States and ESA will together coordinate the use 2.2 Coordination issues of these funds which may be used both

for the space segment and the ground The fact that funding for technology segment of a complete satellite innovation is fragmented implies several communication system. ARTES have challenges. Most of the funding is de- played a key role in the success of facto determined nationally regardless if European Satellite Communication funding is through ESA or not. Industry and have significantly Technology innovation which does not contributed to the fact that European have a visible potential or a business Primes are competitive in the market for case, as seen nationally, therefore runs geostationary communication satellites. the risk of not being funded. Examples

are development and space qualifying

components through spin-ins of available d) FLPP Future Launcher commercial technology which could lead Preparatory Programme to both lower mass, higher performance,

and future lower costs, might not be FLPP is also an optional programme, funded because the business case as budget for 2008 approximately 89 seen from the electronic component million euros. ESA and some Member industry is not attractive. States will in this programme coordinate To illustrate the complexity in the space the technology innovation needed for

European Space Policy Institute 15 Report 9, December 2007

industry, a representative from industry Just as an example, almost every stated at the ESPI workshop: spacecraft use a star-tracker as its 3- “Space systems are launched with axis position keeping sensor. The yesterday’s technology for today’s interface between the star-tracker and requirements at tomorrow prices.” The the spacecraft bus could be standardized timing to introduce new technology is and resulting in an incentive to use critical, not too early, not too late and modern components to reduce size, knowing the risks involved either way. mass and power consumption, and its development costs could be shared among a much higher number of units compared to today situation where there 2.3. Standardization issues is no standard interface.

Such more standardized architecture In commercial businesses, including needs to be developed in close commercial satellite communication, coordination with space industry, in technology innovation is key to increase particular with the main space competitiveness through typically a companies, however with a final say for combination of higher user value and ESA. Such standardization should include lower production costs, resulting in more innovative concepts and a willingness to units being sold. try new ideas coming from outside of

ESA. Institutional space business is rather

extreme by typically having very few

identical units being procured and very

high non-recurring costs for the development of the first unit. To make space activities more affordable and thus increase total space business it would make sense to encourage higher production rates of each system or subsystem or even a complete satellite bus or in some cases offering identical satellites for different but missions with some similarity. A good example is the reuse of parts of Mars Express, platform/avionics as well as instruments, for Venus Express stemming from Rosetta, where the cost for this first Rosetta ESA spacecraft was around 230 million euros, and by smart reuse the cost of Venus Express spacecraft was around, 70 million euros.

It is therefore recommended that ESA uses its influence as customer to force some more standardization of spacecraft architecture allowing more common use of subsystems for more missions and using competitive bidding for such subsystems. If ESA had more missions it could promote more systematically re- use approaches at component, equipment and system level, thus achieving a higher level of spending effectiveness and more competitive systems.

Report 9, December 2007 16

Technology & Innovation

3. Key issues on how to foster and stimulate innovation

3.1. The Need for tech- In this report we propose that the ESA programme EGAS, European Guaranteed nology maturity and in- Access to Space, which provides orbit demonstrations Arianespace with yearly funding to allow Arianespace to better compete with

Russian/Ukrainian launchers for the Today’s most funds associated to commercial launch services market of technology development programmes in communication satellites to GTO ESA, National agencies and the European (Geostationary Transfer Orbit), is Commission, target early stages of amended to include a piggy back technology development (from early opportunity for space qualifying of concept investigation to breadboard hardware. models, i.e. up to TRL 6-7). Later stages

of development (all validation and The marginal cost for Arianespace for demonstration phases, where less providing such a service is very low innovation occurs and higher costs are compared to a dedicated small launcher. incurred) are still insufficiently covered. Arianespace may therefore as an act of As a result, European space applications goodwill to ESA and its Member States (the programmes) are often required to who fund EGAS, either provide such support the additional development and piggy back test flights for free or at its validation costs, or to choose risking the marginal production cost and without implementation of unproven any profit. technologies, or accept de facto

dependence situations from non- Such piggy back test flights could be European sources (and the associated flown frequently and allow much shorter regulatory risk). The ESA NewPro has as delays for space qualifications of one of its key objectives to fill the “TRL- important space innovation technologies. gap”. We support this and hopefully It is worth mentioning that such an NewPro will be able to close the gap arrangement existed for Ariane 4. This between TRP funded activities and the was called ASAP (Ariane Structure for need to reach a reasonable TRL level (5- Auxiliary Payloads) and permitted up to 6). 50 kg of piggy-back load on what was

called “ A children ticket price” of An important step of the space 500.000 euros to be shared among the innovation cycle is the in-orbit test and number of small satellites. With 6 validation phase, where new satellites as used on one of the Ariane 4 components, sensors, subsystems or missions, the cost for each was less than even more complete assemblies are 100.000 euros. eventually qualified for use in space. In

order for innovative technologies to be The author has learned that Arianespace actually used, both space agencies and also for Ariane 5 offers the A5 ASAP, space industry will require both testing however at a price of 5 million euros for and space qualification to include a payload of 50 to 150kg. actually flying in space of the hardware

involved. To use dedicated launchers for

such in-orbit testing is very expensive

and in Europe almost never done.

European Space Policy Institute 17 Report 9, December 2007

3.2 Using Prizes to companies have also demonstrated interested in such alternative way of stimulate Innovation financing R&D activities with limited cost of entry and little bureaucracy . Prizes to stimulate innovation and exploration have a long history starting The ideal situation would be to have with the “Longitude“ Prize from 1714 and large Prizes, in 1-5 million euros range, Prizes which helped advance both the and coming from European wealthy automobile and airplane at the beginning philanthropists with support from ESA, of the 20th century. Prizes may provide as a tool to increase Europe’s significant stimulation to innovation, competitiveness, and eager to see major helped in many cases by bringing in new changes and new businesses arising actors. based upon their offering of a Prize to stimulate entrepreneurship and Probably the most influential space creativity. related prize is the Ansari X-Prize won by Mojave Aerospace Ventures (Burt Rutan A major benefit with use of Prizes is their and his partners) for the successful, ability to give the smartest engineers twice within 14 days, of manned rocket and scientists real hands-on experience flight to more than 100 km altitude. It and thus becoming an important was really this Prize which gave birth to recruitment tool for attracting young space tourism. The winners Burt Rutan talent to space. and his financial backer Paul Allen from Microsoft invested around 27 million U.S. In Attachment # 3 is shown the dollars to win the 10 million U.S. dollars viewgraphs from the workshop at ESPI purse of the Ansari X-Prize. NASA and prepared and presented by Nicolas Peter the U.S. Air Force cost models have Research Fellow at ESPI that worked in estimated that if the development of 2006 with the X Prize foundation on a Space Ship One were performed under study for NASA leading ultimately to the typical contractual arrangement, it would Google Lunar X-Prize announced in have cost the U.S. Government between September 2007. 600 million and 1300 million U.S. dollars. (Some would argue that the safety The author would like to propose the considerations might be different if this following challenge for an ESA sponsored was a Government financed Prize related to combining these 3 development). challenges:

The use of Prizes to stimulate innovation 1. Close distance formation flying was discussed at the ESPI workshop, it 2. Fully automatic docking in orbit was agreed that using Prizes to stimulate 3. Use of current COTS computers innovation would be a recommended and mobile phones in space to supplement to the existing innovation test if they work, or how long stimuli, but cannot be seen as a driving they function. force by itself. With a reference to a previous study by the same author: “Commercialization of It was recommended that the target for space and its evolution; will new ways to such Prizes would not be the large space share risks and benefits open up a much companies, but a combination of risk larger space market? And by taking an willing entrepreneurial companies and idea from the current Apple laptop universities/research institutes. For the computer, the MacBook, with its on-going prizes, such as the recently magnetic connector to its power cord to announced Google Lunar X-Prize, connect power, this is the proposed Prize several European groups are winning challenge: participating, typically involving young people at universities and often able to Demonstrate close distance secure additional funding from outside formation flying by two objects, and the university. Small and Medium size demonstrate that one object can be

Report 9, December 2007 18

Technology & Innovation

able to provide power to the other. During the workshop, it was discussed These two objects to use modified whether there is a need for radical COTS units, including either an Apple innovation, as opposed to incremental MacBook computer with its innovation, for space in Europe and magnetically connected power cord therefore a need to fund high-risk, high- in the one object or any other reward research. The relevance of equivalent suitable computer, and a setting up an organization like DARPA solar panel unit attached to a mobile was then discussed. phone with Bluetooth, WiFi or WiMax communication as part of Would such an institution be of strategic the other object. importance, as it is in the United States? The workshop participants were It is left to the award seekers to seek somewhat reluctant to the radical possible collaboration, including grants, innovation strategy which is a major from the mobile phone industry and/or priority for DARPA. In Europe from the computer manufacturers. If incremental innovation and spin-ins desired the challenge could be much less seems to be preferred. This is cheaper, demanding by allowing a tether less risky and acceptable by the connecting the two objects limiting the customers. maximum distance between the two objects to the length of the tether which could be the maximum distance for DARPA is another example of the huge Bluetooth, WiFI or WiMax difference between the United States and communication. This challenge is ideal Europe as regards funding available for for testing on the ground. technological innovation. The yearly DARPA budget is more than 3 billion U.S. dollars and as such completely 3.3. A European DARPA impossible to envisage for Europe.

There was a clear consensus at the ESPI At the ESPI workshop a brief introduction workshop that the practical way for of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Europe to increase funding for Projects Agency of the US Department of technological innovation for space and to Defense) was given in form of get some of the benefits which DARPA viewgraphs prepared and presented by provides to the United States, like Ms Charlotte Mathieu, now at ESPI, who developing complete new launchers worked with DARPA for 2 years. These (Falcon family of launchers from Space- viewgraphs are found in attachment 4. X) and in-orbit demonstration of new

satellites and new subsystems, would be DARPA’s mission is radical innovation for to further strengthen the existing national security. technology innovation stimuli at ESA, However, DARPA is not only about including the creation of a new funding, it is also about: programme dedicated to radical - the ability to create multi- innovation and to encourage further disciplinary teams with people collaboration and partnership between from academia, industry and ESA and EC. large research laboratories

- easier financial and contractual It was felt that for example a “DARPA procedures light” new programme funded and - very focused in terms of mission managed by EC would most likely lack - very user-oriented with close the very close coordination with ESA that relationships with users would be needed, and therefore such - failure and risk acceptance new initiative is not recommended. Any DARPA is also multi-disciplinary in terms contribution from the EC should be of activities, not only space, and they do based upon a partnership with ESA and benefit from this cross-fertilization effect coordinated. and their systems tend to be integrated

with other non-space-based systems.

European Space Policy Institute 19 Report 9, December 2007

DARPA is financed by the US DoD, and developments are driven by the its large budget is based upon its requirements of institutional customers. potential impact on U.S. Military and Homeland Security needs. If the Space technology and innovation are at European Defence Agency (EDA) should the core of the sector competitiveness, decide to have a DARPA Light type with state-of- the-art systems being at activity, it is again recommended that its the edge of market penetration and space element is to be coordinated with customer requirements. ESA. ESA has the best understanding of which technologies is most needed for European space activities, and these needs are basically the same for the Competitiveness and market pene- pure military and security needs as for tration the advanced ESA Earth Observation or Science missions. The satellite communication market with its geostationary satellites is the largest civilian market for satellites. It is commercial, global and highly 3.4. Importance of globally competitive and provides also the largest market for the large launchers to take competitive European these heavy (2.5-6 tonnes) satellites to space systems and their final orbit.

industrial supply chain The two European Primes Thales Alenia Space and EADS Astrium compete mainly with the United States based Technology and innovation: at the Primes Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Space core of industry competitiveness Systems/Loral and Orbital Sciences. These two European Primes have in the The space sector is highly dependent on past been competitive and together hold technology, and given the high more than 50% of the non-military order technological constraints of space book for geostationary communication systems the European space industry is satellites. one of the most RTD-intensive sectors in Europe. RTD is carried out under In contrast to the U.S. industry who contracts financed by ESA, countries, benefits from large advanced and third parties (e.g. European Union, technologies developments funding from Eumetsat), and is also funded internally. the DoD, The European industry has developed its capabilities in the satcom In space, technology is a critical area mainly through its participation to essential dimensioning factor. Since civil co-funded technology demonstrator operational space programmes require programmes (e.g. the ESA Alphabus proven technology for implementation, programme for platform development). technology evolution and validation The increasing share of commercial programmes are an essential enabling market-driven developments (in the factor for new space applications. broadband and mobile domains particularly) led to a re-assessment of Space technology cycles are longer than civil programmes in the satcom domain, the average high-tech cycles. From with the increase of co-funding concept validation to actual mechanism, such as implemented in the implementation, climbing the 9 levels of ESA ARTES 3, 4 & 8 programmes. As a the technology readiness scale to reach result, the existence of a sizeable and full qualification in orbit may take, in addressable market for any new some cases, 10 years and more. This technology is an essential pre-requisite implies very high technical risks that the for developments to occur. Otherwise, private sector cannot bear alone, European companies likely chose to especially since most of the technological procure commercial technologies, often

Report 9, December 2007 20

Technology & Innovation

imported from the United States. U.S. solutions (in the processor, antenna, optical technologies for example) are all covered by ITAR and generate dependence. A dependence level that can be acceptable to serve commercial customers, but that may be felt very differently by the military.

In the launch services market European companies have been doing very well too. The European Launcher company Arianespace with its Ariane-5 (soon to be complemented with Soyuz from Kourou and Vega) has more than 50 % of the global launcher market for communication satellites.

Even with the current strength of the euro versus the U.S. dollar (from 0.80 to 1.47 (84%) since the Euro replaced some national currencies in Europe) and the strong support from the U.S. DoD for technological development for their next generation satellites, the European Primes are able to compete.

It is very important that European systems are able to be globally competitive on the commercial market. If this no longer would be the case, the lack of competitiveness and loss of business would have a devastating effect on all European space activities. The cost of the complex ESA science and Earth observation missions would be much higher with fewer satellites to cover all the necessary fixed costs of the industrial sector. This could result in a negative spiral with fewer institutional satellites being procured at even higher costs.

All European programmes, ESA, EC and national to stimulate technological innovation must therefore also support the future competitiveness of the European supply chain for the commercial market.

European Space Policy Institute 21 Report 9, December 2007

4. The relationship between Space industry and Academia

In most European countries there is a much entrepreneurial efforts and not good working relationship between many companies being founded due to academic institutions like universities such involvement of a highly technical and research institutes and space nature. Only in the UK, through the industry. It has been argued that such pioneering efforts of Sir Martin Sweeting good working relationship only applies to and his team, have a university been the small portion of the academic world able to create a significant space which may be regarded as being part of industrial company, Surrey Satellite the space family (or Space Cluster), and Technology Limited (SSTL). SSTL, owned thus in some ways isolating parts of the mainly by the university and SSTL academic world. management has around 200 employees, and has become a global This theme was discussed at the ESPI leader in small Earth observation workshop and it can be observed that satellites. The Technical University of the relationship between the academic Berlin and the University of Stuttgart world and space activities is different in also have developed on its own small, each European country depending very capable satellites, however no among other things on variation in industrial activity outside the University academic funding, academic culture and has developed. In the United States the relationships built up over time. The universities like the Massachusetts representatives from the two large Institute of Technology (MIT),the European Primes (Thales Alenia Space University of California in Los Angeles and EADS Astrium) strongly argued that (UCLA), the California Institute of both in its recruitment policy and in Technology (Caltech) and the John seeking academic collaboration it was Hopkins University all have very large important to reach all of academia, and roles in NASA and other U.S. space not only those used to work on space missions. related matters. It would be very advantageous for The funding for space related academic innovation in the space sector if more work is limited in all European countries, would follow the example of Surrey and therefore those academic institutions University, and support the creation of which have established a partnership commercial activities organized as with space industry sometimes would companies. It would also help if ESA and like to keep potential new funding to national space Agencies would be willing themselves, and do not open up for to give the best universities a larger role widening of space academia. Probably outside the science program. this is a significant barrier for new academic players to enter into space ESA noted the gaps and set up the related work. Networking and Partnering initiative with Universities and Industry to co-sponsor For the ESA science missions there is a PhD research. This initiative started long tradition of involving universities three years ago and the number of and research institutes in a major way in scientists and engineers involved is providing instruments and sensors for growing. the spacecraft and to receive the data from which the science will be done. This A separate ESPI study is planned for deep involvement has not resulted in 2008 called “Improving and benefiting

Report 9, December 2007 22

Technology & Innovation

from the relationship between basic science and space industry”. Because of this planned new study this report is limited to technology innovation and the role of academic institutions in such.

To improve and benefit from the full potential of academia in technology innovation, it is strongly recommended that initiatives for closer collaboration should come mainly from space industry and from space agencies, including ESA.

European Space Policy Institute 23 Report 9, December 2007

5. Recruitment and Generation Change issues (succession planning)

In the beginning of space activities 50 The author believes that by far the best years ago, space was enormously way to make space jobs attractive for attractive for young students. As just an the best future space engineers and example, it was the dream and desire of scientists is to give them as early as the author of this report, and after possible true hands-on experience with listening to Yuri Gagarin who visited his space activities. It is therefore strongly University, to seek space job recommended to continue and enlarge opportunities in the United States, activities related to student satellites, to preferably in the Apollo programme. This Young Engineers Satellite (almost 500 did not happen, however a large number students participated on their latest of young engineers and scientists tether experiment satellite YES2), to entered space in the 1960´s and early student rockets and to national or 1970´s and are now reaching their international space camps, or any retirement age. This is creating a activity which will lead their attention to challenge both for the space industry space when they are young, and the and for space agencies when they need younger the better. to replace very senior and very experienced staff with new recruits. This is both a challenge and an opportunity. The latter coming from the fact that new recruits with a more recent education, will bring with them new knowledge and new methods of working. Often they are more trained and better prepared in the use of advanced Information Technology products, including simulation and advanced design methods. The recommended way is to have sufficient overlap between the really experienced staff nearing retirement age and allowing the young ones to work closely with the most experienced (and often bypassing some hierarchical levels in between).

One should not underestimate the capabilities of the young ones, compare the average age of those who made Apollo moon landing possible with the average age of let us say the Aurora programme of ESA.

The real challenge in recruiting for space is that the smartest candidates from higher education are too often more attracted by working in the City of London for financial institutions as opposed working with space matters at ESA ESTEC.

Report 9, December 2007 24

Technology & Innovation

Annex 1

Participants list

ESPI Workshop “Stimulating and sustaining technology innovation in the space sector.”

on 19 October 2007 from 09:00 to16:00.

Organism Name NSC Mr. Geir Hovmork Finland, Department of Industry Mr. Antti Joensuu Thales Alenia Space Mr. Erick Lansard The Netherlands, Department of Mr. Johan Lindeman Economic Affairs Eurospace Mr. Pierre Lionnet Tecnalia Aerospace Mr. Jesus Marcos ESPI Mrs. Charlotte Mathieu EADS Astrium Mrs. Marie-Catherine Palau BNSC Mr. Andy Payne ESPI Mr. Nicolas Peter Thales Alenia Space Mr. Jean Portier FFG Mr. Harald Posch Galileo Avionica Mr. Giampaolo Preti ESPI Mr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl EADS Astrium Mr. Eberhard Schulz-Luepertz QinetiQ Mr. Robert Scott ESPI Mr. Rolf Skaar ESA Mr. Alberto Tobias

European Space Policy Institute 25 Report 9, December 2007

Annex 2

Vienna, 10 October 2007 ESPI (2007)#449 RS/svds

Invitation to a workshop

Title: “Stimulating and sustaining technology innovation in the space sector.” (P 14)

I. Dates and schedule: The date is 19 October 2007, starting 09:00 and finishing at around 16:00.

II. Venue: The venue for the workshop will be at ESPI premises in the centre of Vienna, Austria.

III. Participants: around 16 (15-17) participants/experts coming from i) the main users and also providers of technology innovation like space industry and space applications industry, ii) the innovation creators like Universities/Research Institutes and highly innovative smaller organizations, iii) organisations facilitating and funding innovation like Space Agencies and Government Innovation Agencies.

IV. Foreseen topics: The preliminary topics currently foreseen to be dealt with: ¾ Challenges for increased technology innovation in space ¾ New funding mechanisms of activities to stimulate innovation in space ¾ Diffusion of innovation. Is the Space Cluster in industry and academia too isolated and thereby limiting diffusion of new ideas and entry of new companies? ¾ Succession planning, recruitment and generation change issues

Please note that there might be changes reflecting the discussions at the beginning of the workshop.

V. Workshop format and programme : The format of the workshop is a round table of experts, each participant sitting around a horseshoe shaped table with access to presentation and IT infrastructure on the spot.

Report 9, December 2007 26

Technology & Innovation

The workshop programme:

¾ Welcome by SG of ESPI Prof Dr Kai-Uwe Schrogl ¾ Introduction by the ESPI project leader, Mr. Rolf Skaar, describing the purpose of the study as well as the purpose of the workshop and the desired output. ¾ Presentation of the workshop program with the blocks of key subjects involved. ¾ Discussion on proposed workshop format by the participants ¾ For each subject there will be a brief introduction either by the ESPI team or by some of the participants which have been asked beforehand to give such an introduction. ¾ Each topic is to be introduced (ESPI team or participant) and discussed one by one by the experts/participants (no parallel subgroups foreseen) ¾ Each topic might also be subject of presentations by the participants (Presentation infrastructure on the spot, just USB key needed), to further enhance the spontaneous discussion. ¾ Each topic will be ended by a brainstorming through a previously agreed “rapporteur” which will give a brief summary of the most important observations and conclusions

The more detailed programme is as follows:

• Challenges for increased technology innovation in space. Space Agencies and space industry are conservative and do everything they can to avoid failures. They will normally only fly already space qualified components and systems. This has led to a time gap between the technologies available for space and the ones available for other commercial markets. For the very fast changing technologies like computers and other electronic components the time gap results in a major handicap for space systems compared to non-space systems. It is proposed to brainstorm on how to mitigate this situation and the following ideas are put forward: 1. Increasing the funding for space qualifying of critical components needed for many space systems. 2. Smart use of COTS. Can highly redundant system design combined with screening and shielding of COTS components reduce this time gap and allow space systems to reliably use modern commercial components? 3. Making more space flights available for qualifying components and subsystems. 4. Increasing the use of spin-ins and facilitate such spin-ins from the non-space sector.

• New funding mechanisms of activities to stimulate innovation in space. There is a large gap between the US and Europe both in funding and in available funding mechanisms to stimulate technology innovation in space. It can also be argued that innovation for space does not necessarily have to be expensive and risky. It is proposed to brainstorm on ways to improve the situation and the following ideas have been put forward: 1. Is there a need also in Europe for high-risk, high-reward type funding for space innovative concepts and technologies (for example modeled after DARPA, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)? If so, where should it belong? (EC, EDA (Europe Defense Agency) or ESA). A brief introduction of how DARPA works will be given by an ESPI staff member who used to work for DARPA.

2. Should ESA prepare for its next Ministerial Council a proposal for a dedicated Technology Innovation Programme? This could for example provide some of the benefits DARPA gives to the US. What should be the activities in such a possible programme? Both ESA and Eurospace are involved in such early planning of a candidate for this and their work will be briefly presented.

European Space Policy Institute 27 Report 9, December 2007

3. Should also Europe use prize awards (like for example the Anzari prize or the Google Moon prize) to stimulate innovation? Who should be the sponsors? Who would be eligible?

• Diffusion of Innovation. Is the Space Cluster in industry and academia too isolated and thereby limiting diffusion of new ideas and entry of new companies? Space activities typically involve both academia (Universities and Research Institutes) and industry (Primes, sub primes and SME´s). Over the years strong relations have been developed with selected academic institutions and space industry forming a kind of a Space Cluster. It is proposed to brainstorm on whether the current structure is optimal and if not, how could it be improved? Some topics to discuss: 1. Is the diffusion of new ideas at the academic level between space and non-space good enough? 2. Are space-related academic works open enough for new entrants and new ideas? 3. Is the current industrial structure in space industry too closed and thereby limiting access for new companies with other ideas?

• Succession planning, recruitment and generation change issues. Have space lost its ability to attract the best and the brightest young students? How to cope with the succession planning of retiring experienced engineers and scientists? How to renew the attractiveness for space in the engineering and scientific population?

VI. Participation and conditions Each invited participant is assumed to take charge for his travel and accommodation (special rates by ESPI possible) through his sending entity/employer.

ESPI will provide lunch on 19 October 2007; coffee& cookies during breaks, for those participants arriving before 20:00 on Thursday October 18th, a welcome and get-to- know dinner will be arranged. If you need assistance with hotel bookings, please contact ESPI trough: [email protected]

Kind regards,

Rolf Skaar

Schwarzenbergplatz 6, A-1030 Wien (Entrance: Zaunergasse 1-3) Tel: +43 (0) 1 718 11 18 -0 Fax: +43 (0) 1 718 11 18 -99 http:// www.espi.or.at UID: ATU 61873413 ZVR-Zahl: 313957060

Report 9, December 2007 28

Technology & Innovation

ANNEX 3

European Space Policy Institute 29 Report 9, December 2007

Report 9, December 2007 30

Technology & Innovation

ANNEX 4

European Space Policy Institute 31 Report 9, December 2007

Report 9, December 2007 32

Technology & Innovation

ANNEX 5

European Space Policy Institute 33 Report 9, December 2007

Report 9, December 2007 34

Technology & Innovation

Mission Statement of ESPI

The mission of the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI) is to carry out studies and research to provide decision-makers with an independent view on mid- to long term issues relevant to the governance of space.

Through its activities, ESPI contributes to facilitate the decision-making process, increasing awareness on space technologies and applications with the user communities, opinion leaders and the public at large, and supporting students and researchers in their space-related work.

To fulfil these objectives, the Institute supports a network of experts and centres of excellence working with ESPI in-house analysts.

European Space Policy Institute 35 Report 9, December 2007

www.espi.or.at

Report 9, December 2007 36