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: info@sa.catapult.org.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 1235 567 999 | Web: sa.catapult.org.uk
Registered Company No. 07964746
Satellite Application Catapult
Technology Roadmap Highlights Report
Contents
1. Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................3
2. Key findings from the Delphi Exercise........................................................................................4
3. Access to Space ..........................................................................................................................5
4. Satellite Communication............................................................................................................8
5. Positioning, Navigation and Timing..........................................................................................12
6. Earth Observation ....................................................................................................................15
7. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................18
8. Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................18
Annex 1: Delphi Messages ...............................................................................................................19
Annex 2: Delphi Round 2 Statistics by Question..............................................................................38
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd 2014
THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF SATELLITE APPLICATIONS CATAPULT
Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this documentation may be reproduced by any means in any material
form (including photocopying or storing it in any electronic form) without the consent of the
Copyright Owner, except in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or under
the terms of a license and/or confidentiality agreement issued by the Copyright Owner, Satellite
Applications Catapult. Applications for the copyright owners’ permission to reproduce any part of
this documentation should be addressed to, The Chief Executive Officer, Satellite Applications
Catapult, Electron Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR, UK.

CATAPULT OPEN 3
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

CATAPULT OPEN 4
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’

CATAPULT OPEN 5
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

CATAPULT OPEN 6
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.

CATAPULT OPEN 7
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)

CATAPULT OPEN 8
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’

CATAPULT OPEN 9
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

CATAPULT OPEN 10
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

CATAPULT OPEN 11
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.

CATAPULT OPEN 12
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?

CATAPULT OPEN 13
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

CATAPULT OPEN 14
Outline Technical Requirement for autonomous positioning for trains in Europe
(‘Rail Signalling’)

CATAPULT OPEN 15
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

CATAPULT OPEN 16
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

CATAPULT OPEN 17
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.

CATAPULT OPEN 18
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”

CATAPULT OPEN 19
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

CATAPULT OPEN 20
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

CATAPULT OPEN 21
 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.’

CATAPULT OPEN 22
 ‘[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.’

CATAPULT OPEN 23
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.’

CATAPULT OPEN 24
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’

CATAPULT OPEN 25
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

CATAPULT OPEN 26
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’

CATAPULT OPEN 27
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

CATAPULT OPEN 28
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.’

CATAPULT OPEN 29
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.’

CATAPULT OPEN 30
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.

CATAPULT OPEN 31
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’

CATAPULT OPEN 32
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

CATAPULT OPEN 33
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.’

CATAPULT OPEN 34
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’

CATAPULT OPEN 35
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

CATAPULT OPEN 36
 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.’

Technology roadmap highlights_report 2015

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Ähnlich wie Technology roadmap highlights_report 2015

Ähnlich wie Technology roadmap highlights_report 2015 (20)

Mehr von Dmitry Tseitlin

Mehr von Dmitry Tseitlin (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Technology roadmap highlights_report 2015