Space IGS 2013: Official Consultation Response Survey
Following on from Andy Green's presentation of the Space Innovation and Growth Strategy (IGS)
2013, this questionnaire is a key part of the consultation process which is being used to capture
your views on the headlines and their coordinating actions.
How does the survey work?
The Space IGS consultation paper: Accelerating Space-enabled Growth sets out seven headline areas
which contain specific actions aimed at facilitating growth in the sector. For each of these headline
themes we are asking you to 'agree' or 'disagree' with each action. Under each action please
underline/highlight the box that best reflects your views. If you feel the action is not applicable to
the specific work you do please use 'Not Applicable.' There is also a comment box provided after
each set of actions for additional feedback.
Any contact details you provide will be used by the Space IGS Team and will not be given to a third
party.
We estimate the survey may take around 20-30 minutes to complete.
About You - Contact details
Name: David Pincott, head of political research, policy & briefing
Organisation: BT
Email Address: david.pincott@bt.com
Phone Number: 0207 356 6585
I am responding to this survey: (Please underline/highlight one)
On behalf of my organisation
With my own individual views
1
Headline 1: Enhance the finance strategy and leadership of the UK’s space sector by launching a
National Space Programme and empowering the Space Leadership Council to drive
implementation, ensuring resources are available to deliver the specific actions identified.
Action 1.1: The UK Space Agency should establish a comprehensive and balanced National Space
Programme, complementary to its ESA investments, to invest in national capabilities and facilities
and to provide the flexibility to embark on national or multi-lateral programmes in accordance with
UK policy.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 1.2: UKspace should demonstrate how industry has leveraged increased Government
spending into economic growth by undertaking an economic review of supported projects by the
end of 2014.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 1.3: The UK Space Agency should continue with a targeted and selective increase in the UK
contribution to ESA optional programmes in parallel with the creation of a National Space
Programme.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 1.4: The Minister for Science and Universities and the President of UKspace should agree to
revise the operation of the Space Leadership Council into a plenary forum and establish a subgroup
of the SLC meeting quarterly focused solely on championing delivery of the ‘IGS2013: Accelerating
Space Enabled Growth’ actions.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 1.5: The UK Space Agency, UKspace, Technology Strategy Board and Satellite Applications
Catapult should establish a Space Growth Partnership Implementation Team (SGPIT) to drive
through the implementation of the IGS ASEG actions.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
2
Action 1.6: The UK Space Agency should publish an overarching National Space Policy, taking into
account the growth targets and recommendations contained in this report and ensuring a joining up
between civil and defence and security policies for Space.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 1.7: The Technology Strategy Board should build on the success of the Space Special Interest
Group and evolve this into a permanent Space Knowledge Transfer Network.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 1.8: The UK Space Agency should revise its methodology for measuring the revenues and
employment in the UK space economy to fully account for value-added applications and also provide
a like-for-like comparison of growth with previous years.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Please use the area below to add any additional feedback regarding this set of actions.
Action 1.1: the proposed national programme should be focused on: development of new
applications and services aligned to the key market opportunities identified by the IGS; and radically
new underlying technology required to deliver those services effectively.
Action 1.2: no additional comments.
Action 1.3: the UKSA will need to carefully coordinate the ESA and National Programme activities in
order to avoid duplication. The national programme should be focused on integrated satellite
applications.
Action 1.4 and the ‘sub group’ element of Action 1.5: These actions appear to have the same
objective (delivery of the IGS recommendations) and could cause some confusion among
stakeholders because of the potential for overlapping membership. It may be more practical to
create the SGPIT with a designated SLC Rapporteur to act as the conduit between the SLC and the
SGPIT.
Action 1.5: Agree in principle for the short-term, but the wording suggests that the SGPIT would
exist effectively in perpetuity or at least until all IGS Actions are delivered (possibly 20 years). It
would be better if, as part of its work, the SGPIT could identify ways for the IGS Actions to be
absorbed into business as usual activities for existing entities and identify a point in time where the
SGPIT itself would shut down.
Action 1.6: Can the Space Security Policy be published (albeit on a controlled basis)?
3
Action 1.7: BT agrees in principle, but there is potential for overlap with the role of the Satellite
Applications Catapult in terms of bringing potential partners together. There needs to be clarity over
the role of each entity.
Action 1.8: The measurement methodology and metrics would need to be published.
4
Headline 2: Develop the high-value priority markets identified to deliver £30 billion per annum of
new space applications by promoting the benefits of Space to business and Government and
engaging service providers.
Action 2.1: The Space Growth Partnership Implementation Team will co-ordinate work to ensure
that the specific activities to deliver priority markets are fed through to decision makers in the
Satellite Applications Catapult, UK Space Agency, Technology Strategy Board, industry, Ofcom and
UKTI.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 2.2: The Technology Strategy Board should launch R&D calls that are designed in scope to
support cross-sector research that uses space data to create applications in broader economic
sectors and create opportunities for the space and recipient sector to generate new applications.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 2.3: ESA IAP should launch R&D calls that develop cross-sector applications that directly
facilitate new applications using space data in other sectors, where these align with IGS and ESA IAP
priorities.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 2.4: Satellite Applications Catapult should champion opportunities for the space sector with
other Catapults in relevant downstream markets.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 2.5: The Space Growth Partnership Implementation Team to undertake a review of the
priority market trends and opportunities at least annually to validate the roadmap for delivery and
identify changes in priorities.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 2.6: The UK Space Agency and industry, as part of a National Space Programme, should
encourage the development of technology and novel services that will enable the UK to launch
commercial low cost remote sensing services.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
5
Action 2.7: The Space Growth Partnership Implementation Team to design and run an integrated
marketing campaign for space-enabled services and applications.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 2.8: The UK Space Agency should review the scale of its planned National Space Applications
Programme and ensure it can capitalise on the skills and expertise in UK Industry and academia to
substantially increase the awareness and take up of space services in Government.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 2.9: Industry to reply to more non-space, non-BIS consultations, targeting at least three
major non-space consultations or inquiries per year, to help raise the profile of space as a solutions
sector in key public user communities.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 2.10: Satellite Applications Catapult should create a new EO data access framework for
application developers, identifying ease of access, service continuity and data quality as key
attributes, with appropriate interfaces for integration of terrestrial data and services.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Please use the area below to add any additional feedback regarding this set of actions.
Action 2.1: BT agrees in principle, but with respect to Ofcom:
1. Ofcom will need to remain technology neutral in terms of its remit within the UK;
2. BT fully supports the proposal that Ofcom should be proactive in the international arena in
terms of access to and management of orbital slot resources for UK industry, so long as it
does not conflict with 1 above.
Action 2.2: The source of the budget used for cross-sector R&D calls should be transparent so that
any implications for other TSB funding lines are fully visible.
Action 2.3: no additional comments.
Action 2.4: this should be done within a wider agreement on ‘ways of working’ between all
Catapults, rather than a special procedure for space applications.
6
Action 2.5: Assigning this action to the SGPIT suggests that the SGPIT will exist in perpetuity. As
previously stated, BT believes that the SGPIT should be a temporary body that seeks to embed good
‘delivery practice’ across the rest of the UK space sector landscape rather than have an open-ended
role. In the long term, it would be better if this Action was owned by the UK Space Agency or the
Catapult with appropriate support from industry. This support could include seconding resource
from industry that has expertise in market analysis in specific areas of interest appropriate to each
annual validation cycle.
Action 2.6: Bringing a commercial mind-set to the EO sector will help accelerate the integration of
space derived data into wider downstream commercial market.
Action 2.7: This Action should be integrated into Action 2.8 and/or 3.1. There is no evidence that the
SGPIT itself will have the right skills to undertake this task and it makes more sense to align the
creation and execution of marketing activities with the drive for growing exports. The underlying
marketing messages around the benefits derived from space will be the same and it will be
important to maintain consistency when messaging inside and outside the UK. It might even be
more appropriate for the space trade associations to own the marketing messages on behalf of
industry (as a business-as-usual activity), but development of the messages should be done in
cooperation with entities that have experience in the field, e.g. UKTI.
Action 2.8: BT supports the proposed review in principle, but suggests that appropriate metrics need
to be defined and published. Output from this activity should also feed into Action 3.1 on growing
exports.
Action 2.9: BT agrees in principle in order to raise the profile of space capabilities. However, such a
campaign would need to carefully orchestrated and managed to maintain consistency and stay
focused on the main issues. It should be owned by an entity that can speak for the wider industry
and which can identify the appropriate consultations to respond to, e.g. Intellect. Intellect already
responds to government and EU/EC consultations on a wide range of topics, has a wide space
industry related membership and would be well placed to deliver this Action.
Action 2.10: BT agrees in principle to the creation of an EO data access framework, but would like to
see such a framework support ‘appropriate interfaces’ for the export of satellite data into other
systems for downstream exploitation (potentially in real time). The Satellite Catapult should not be
positioned as the only satellite and terrestrial data integration facility.
7
Headline 3: Raise Space exports by taking a strategic approach to exports and investing in
international marketing.
Action 3.1: UK Trade and Investment, UKspace, UK Space Agency, Satellite Applications Catapult, UK
Export Finance and the Export Control Organisation should jointly develop and implement a
comprehensive UK Space sector export strategy, reporting to the Space Leadership Council, defining
roles and responsibilities of each organisation in planning and delivering the required export growth.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 3.2: The Department for Business Innovation and Skills should work with the Department for
International Development to identify opportunities where overseas development objectives can be
delivered by, or would benefit from, space products and services provided by the UK.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 3.3: UK Trade & Investment and UKspace, with UK Space Agency and UK Export Finance,
should run four space export symposia per year in different regions of the UK with the aim of
encouraging companies to export and setting out the range of support available, from “Are you
Export Ready?” to advise on new market opportunities.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 3.4: The Technology Strategy Board and UK Trade & Investment should secure 20 new
multinational export partnerships in the next five years that have the potential to generate more
than £1bn in export value by running export missions for groups of UK space companies to fastgrowing hot spots in overseas markets.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 3.5: UK Trade & Investment and the Technology Strategy Board, through the Space KTN,
should introduce a new ‘one stop shop’ service that provides information and links to new business
opportunities for SMEs in overseas markets.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
8
Action 3.6: The UK Space Agency and Technology Strategy Board to determine whether domestic
procurement or SBRI grants can help stimulate the capabilities of UK companies to deliver domestic
and export solutions when considering procuring UK services and applications that can use space
data or infrastructure.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 3.7: UK Trade & Investment and UK Space Agency should identify ‘gaps’ in the UK’s
technology supply chain that can be used to encourage inward investors. UKTI Inward Investment to
launch a pilot project to systematically target companies to fill technology gaps in the UK.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 3.8: UK Trade & Investment and the UK Space Agency should develop and execute a plan to
encourage world-leading companies to establish space applications and services operations in the
UK.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Please use the area below to add any additional feedback regarding this set of actions.
Action 3.1: BT agrees in principle that an export strategy would be helpful, but would suggest that a
single owner be identified for this Action to ensure accountability. Industry needs to be involved in
this Action because it can bring the benefit of experience in terms of the current barriers and issues
around selling into the different industry sub-sectors, geographic regions and individual countries.
Action 3.2: no additional comments.
Action 3.3: BT agrees in principle with this Action, but would suggest that we are not prescriptive
about the number or format of such events. It would be useful to tailor events to recognised needs
and audience type.
Action 3.4: Export promotion is not currently part of TSB’s remit; it is not clear that TSB has either
the expertise or resources to engage in this Action with impacting on its primary role. In addition,
Export Missions require a lot of resource and planning by participating companies. It might be better
to develop a toolkit of options for export development that are tailored to specific opportunities,
sectors and geographies. Finally, the target figure of 20 partnerships sounds like an arbitrary
measure. More thought is needed on how to achieve the increase in export value across the
manufacturing and service sectors.
9
Action 3.5: This Action would duplicate existing facilities. This kind of service is already available
through UKTI, e.g. the OMIS service. There may be changes that can be made to the existing
capability to make it more visible and effective, but duplication would be wasteful of resources.
Action 3.6: BT supports the use of SBRI to encourage innovation among the SME community and it
would be useful to determine the value of its impact in order to inform future funding programmes.
However, BT does not support any action that potentially encourages protectionist behaviour in
“domestic procurement” because, ultimately, this is likely to discourage innovation / risk taking and
would lead to UK industry becoming less competitive over time (particularly where the UK has a
single source of any given capability).
Action 3.7: The primary focus should be on creating national capability where there are currently
gaps. Bringing in capability from outside the UK would be a short-term solution, but such capability
might be ‘repatriated’ by the parent company through corporate reorganisations or facility
rationalisation in future years.
Action 3.8: Primary focus should be on the creation of new UK capabilities/companies and
facilitating the growth of existing UK players in global markets. This is the way to achieve sustainable
growth. Creating a vibrant space industry in the UK coupled with an attractive business environment
(not just for space companies) is the best way of attracting international investment in the UK space
sector.
10
Headline 4: Stimulate a vibrant national Space SME sector by improving the supply of finance,
business support, information, skills and industry support.
Action 4.1: The Satellite Applications Catapult and the Satellite Finance Network should develop a
coordinated package of support for SMEs and Start-up services and applications companies to
increase the access to early-stage funding.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.2: The Satellite Finance Network, with UKspace, the UK Space Agency, the Satellite
Applications Catapult and UK Export Finance, to run regional road shows that provide start-ups and
SMEs with information about business financing and support products and services available in the
UK and provide the opportunity to directly engage with these providers.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.3: The Space KTN, with the Satellite Applications Catapult and UK Space Agency, should
produce a road-map of mentoring support schemes for SMEs specific to the Space sector and
provide linkages to the standard set of tools promoted through regional clusters.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.4: The UK Space Agency should establish a national space skills point of contact to support
the growth of regional space sector SMEs in both technical and business skills, by facilitating a
network of contacts and using web-based tools.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.5: Financial Support should be provided by the UK Space Agency and appropriate Research
Councils for a cross disciplinary Space Doctoral Training Centre. This would support PhD
Studentships that are cross disciplinary, include business skills, and are targeted at the up- and
down-stream space sector.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.6: The Space KTN, Harwell Oxford hub and Regions, with the UK Space Agency, Satellite
Applications Catapult, Technology Strategy Board and UK Export Finance, to produce and host an
‘easy access’ road-map of government support schemes to drive growth for SMEs, including links to
11
relevant partner websites. This road-map to include non-government sources of funding and tax
incentives schemes.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.7: The UK Space Agency should work with local and national partners to develop Harwell
Oxford as a focal point for the UK Space sector that acts as a gateway to regional capabilities and
supports the development and delivery of regional growth plans.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.8: The UK Space Agency and Satellite Applications Catapult will work with Invest Northern
Ireland, Scottish Enterprise, Welsh Government, BIS Local, the English Local Enterprise Partnerships
and companies in regions to develop regional space growth plans and appoint a champion(s) for
space in each regional cluster.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.9: The UK Space Agency and the Satellite Applications Catapult, with industry, will develop
a nationwide plan to co-ordinate investment in ground segment infrastructure and technology
centres of excellence needed to grow space services and value-added applications.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 4.10: The UK Space Agency, Satellite Applications Catapult, regional clusters and UK Trade &
Investment will work together to promote regional capabilities and the attractiveness of regional
locations for inward investment, start-ups and growth.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Please use the area below to add any additional feedback regarding this set of actions.
Action 4.1: this should include the facility to introduce start-ups and SMEs to potential partners and
customers in the wider space industry.
Action 4.2: this Action needs a clear owner to be identified. There is also potential for this Action to
be combined with Action 4.3 and Action 6.6 (with a single owner) to provide a ‘one stop shop’ for
start-up and SME support services.
12
Action 4.3: this Action needs a clear owner to be identified. There is also potential for this Action to
be combined with Action 4.2 and Action 6.6 (with a single owner) to provide a ‘one stop shop’ for
start-up and SME support services.
Action 4.4: no additional comments.
Action 4.5: consideration should be given to enabling students to locate at regional technical
clusters where appropriate to their studies and / or research.
Action 4.6: agree in principle, but note significant overlap with Action 4.2 such these two Actions
should be rationalised with a single owner identified for accountability.
Action 4.7: agree in principle, but care will need to be taken to ensure that in acting as a gateway
Harwell does not also become a bottleneck that inhibits access to regional capabilities. In addition,
the Satellite Applications Catapult should engage with the other Catapult Centres to determine
where there are opportunities to work with, or co-locate with, their own regional clusters as
appropriate.
Action 4.8: no additional comments.
Action 4.9: this Action appears to be vaguely worded and may be unintentionally confusing several
issues. An inventory of UK facilities would help the Catapult to identify the location of existing
capability and regional ‘centres of gravity’ that could seed technology clusters. However, there is no
evidence to suggest that there is a need to coordinate investment in traditional ground segment in
the UK: there is healthy competition in the gateway (teleport) sector and no indication of market
failure. Technology clusters, data management and research facilities are evolving naturally, usually
coalescing around a concentration of customers, a major facility or educational establishment and it
is not clear that there are any gaps or shortfalls in either a technical or geographic sense.
Ensuring that such facilities are exploited to the best advantage for the space sector should be a
function and consequence of the evolution of the Satellite Applications Catapult (and the other
Catapults) and the regional technology clusters.
Action 4.10: BT supports this Action in principle, but care must be taken to ensure that inward
investment is not secured at the cost of stifling local business creation and growth.
13
Headline 5: Increase the UK’s returns from international space projects and new space markets by
securing greater influence in large scale European-funded programmes and by improved
collaboration with space nations.
Action 5.1: The UK Space Agency, with UKspace, should create a European Space engagement plan
with the intent of better influencing the EU to select space programmes that are important for
growing the UK economy and to maximise the UK’s share of EU space programmes, available R&D
and innovation support and space-enabled applications in other sectors.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 5.2: UKspace to constitute a European Affairs Group to handle co-ordination of industry’s
policy interests and to promote engagement with EU and wider European initiatives.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 5.3: UKspace to work with the UK Space Agency to identify secondment opportunities for UK
industry personnel to represent Government in EU programme committees and identify
opportunities for placing UK nationals in relevant European bodies.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 5.4: The UK Space Agency should launch three bi-lateral science projects with nations that
offer new opportunities for growth in the space sector. These missions should be designed and
managed as affordable science missions, with the intent of reducing the time and cost to fly new
technology, commensurate with meeting the core science objectives.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 5.5: The UK Space Agency to promote the use of ESA PPPs to drive ESA-led technology into
new services that UK companies can exploit.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Please use the area below to add any additional feedback regarding this set of actions.
Action 5.1: this Action already appears to be business-as-usual for the UKSA and therefore any new
Action is redundant: the UK Civil Space Strategy 2012-2016 states that the UKSA “has established a
new EU focused team working to ensure that development in European space policy and the EU
14
space programmes have real synergy with UK national interests”. It is not clear why a ‘new’ action
plan is needed. If such a plan exists, or needs to be developed, it needs to be aligned with / driven by
the proposed National Space Policy (NSP).
Action 5.2: any such industry group should be a joint UKspace and Intellect grouping in order to
ensure that downstream industry, particularly consumers of space derived services that are not
considered to be ‘space companies’, are fully engaged in the process. The inclusion of ‘non-space’
companies will be crucial to understanding potential policy impact on the growth of the downstream
business that the IGS is seeking to achieve. In addition, inclusion of non-space companies will expose
the space industry to wider relevant policy and market issues that might otherwise be missed.
Action 5.3: in addition to elements identified, this Action should be expanded to create a rolling
programme of industry secondment to the UKSA to help address long-term market and commercial
issues in areas where UKSA may not have significant expertise and that would benefit from industry
experience, e.g. market analysis.
Action 5.4: no additional comments.
Action 5.5: BT agrees in principle, but with the following observations and caveats:



The PPP mechanism provides the opportunity to develop and bring new technology to
market quickly, but the emphasis so far has been on in-orbit capability rather than the
downstream market;
The criteria for project initiation and progress management needs to place significant
emphasis on “game changing” technology development and exploitation, i.e. those
technologies that have a significant impact on capabilities and/or costs available to
downstream application and service providers. Incremental developments only produce
marginal gains that do little or nothing to change the market landscape for application and
service providers and will not create the opportunities for the scale of downstream growth
that the IGS is seeking to stimulate;
The criteria and metrics used for project initiation decisions and progress management at
both UK and ESA levels needs to be published.
15
Headline 6: Make the UK the best place to grow new and existing space businesses and attract
inward investment by providing a regulatory environment that promotes enterprise and UK
investment.
Action 6.1: The UK Space Agency should review the UK's financial, legal, insurance and regulatory
framework on a three year cycle to ensure the UK is the most competitive place to grow a space
business. The first study should be completed by December 2014.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 6.2: The UK Space Agency, Ofcom, Department for Culture Media and Sport, Ministry of
Defence and UKspace should create a space spectrum group reporting to the SLC and DCMS
ministers. This group will seek to maximise UK long term access to Satellite spectrum and ensure UK
representatives at international regulatory meetings, as far as is practicable, take full account of the
UK growth agenda, and oversee reform of licensing procedures.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 6.3: UKspace, consulting with Ofcom and the UK Space Agency, to present to the spectrum
group by March 2014 an analysis of the future spectrum and orbital needs of the UK space industry
and the economic benefits and options for incentivising private and public operators to make full use
of spectrum.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 6.4: UK Space Agency and Ofcom should revise due diligence requirements for Outer Space
Licenses and ITU Satellite Filings respectively to reflect the ambition that companies securing these
resources contribute to UK economic growth.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 6.5: The spectrum group should study and propose changes to simplify the licensing
procedures for SME's at UK Space Agency bringing in fixed fees and unambiguous criteria that are
SME friendly.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
16
Action 6.6: The spectrum group, led by UKspace and with the support of Satellite Finance Network
and Satellite Applications Catapult, to organise a commercially focused facility to aid start-ups and
SMEs with the licensing process.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 6.7: The UK Space Agency and BIS should reform the Outer Space Act to put UK-based
companies on a level playing field with US companies. Specifically the reforms should introduce a
permissive environment for commercial space plane manufacturing and operations, and the
establishment of a UK Space Port by December 2015.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Please use the area below to add any additional feedback regarding this set of actions.
Action 6.1: no additional comments.
Action 6.2: the objectives to maximise UK long-term access to satellite spectrum and to support UK
space industry needs in international forums are already part of Ofcom’s remit. In addition, Intellect
has been asked by DCMS to facilitate and lead an industry-led Spectrum Forum to act as a ‘sounding
board’ for Government and the regulator on future UK spectrum management and regulatory issues.
It would therefore appear more appropriate for the space industry to engage directly with the
Spectrum Forum to pursue satellite spectrum interests in the context of wider UK spectrum strategy.
Ofcom can then report to / liaise with the SLC as appropriate.
Action 6.3: the wider UK space industry, i.e. UKspace, Intellect and other relevant interested parties
(e.g. the science community), should present the case for satellite spectrum requirements direct to
the Spectrum Forum.
Action 6.4: this Action appears to be poorly worded. BT interprets the intent of the Action to mean
that licences should only awarded to players that can demonstrate that the award of licences will
result in new business that will materially contribute to UK space industry growth. Assuming this
interpretation is correct; BT supports this approach but suggests that the growth-related criteria for
licence award should be published to enable transparency.
Action 6.5: this Action is confused and/or badly worded. The need or otherwise for a ‘spectrum
group’ notwithstanding (see above), making changes to the Outer Space Act licensing processes is
not a spectrum issue. This Action needs to be re-assigned to an appropriate owner.
Action 6.6: the need or otherwise for a ‘spectrum group’ notwithstanding (see above), this Action
appears to address a sub-set of the support, mentoring and tools for start-ups and SMEs identified in
Action 4.2 and Action 4.3. BT proposes combining this Action with Action 4.2 and Action 4.3 (with a
single owner) to provide a ‘one stop shop’ for start-up and SME support services.
Action 6.7: no additional comments.
17
Headline 7: Lead developments in game-changing technologies that will create new opportunities
for space-enabled applications and enhance the UK’s competitive edge by making targeted and
market-led industry and government investments.
Action 7.1: The UK Space Agency, Technology Strategy Board and Industry should take full account
of the NSTSG’s prioritised technology road maps in shaping the future technology development calls.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 7.2: The UK Space Agency should commission feasibility studies to establish the technology
development and costs for potentially game-changing technologies that would enable the UK to be
first to market in new space markets.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 7.3: UK Space Agency, Technology Strategy Board and Industry to work together to ensure an
overall year-on-year increase in investment in Space R&D from a National Space Programme, ESA
technology funding and EU Horizon 2020 programme.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Action 7.4: The Technology Strategy Board, Satellite Applications Catapult, UK Space Agency and
industry should plan and launch a series of in-orbit technology demonstrator missions that can
showcase new technologies and an end-to-end service delivery in new markets.
Agree
Disagree
Not Applicable
Please use the area below to add any additional feedback regarding this set of actions.
Action 7.1: BT agrees that the NSTSG’s roadmaps are an important input to the shape of future
technology development calls, but they are not the only input. UKSA and TSB should also stay
abreast of policy, regulatory and market landscape changes that may suggest alternative choices.
Action 7.2: the feasibility studies should address the full cost of moving from service concept to
market, not just the cost of the technology development itself. There may be factors in the
deployment of new services that make them commercially unviable in the long term, even if the
short term technology development appears to be cost effective. The output of such feasibility
studies should be used to validate and refine the NSTSG roadmaps.
Action 7.3: BT supports this Action with the following caveat: any growth in space R&D spending
should be justified by demonstrable and quantifiable market (customer) pull, not technology
18
(supplier) push. Growth in R&D spending that is not market led and subject to rigorous benefits
analysis can result in the emergence of R&D dependant businesses and / or R&D ‘tourists’ and could
impact the wider industry credibility.
Action 7.4: BT supports the use of in-orbit technology demonstrator missions in principle, but with
the following observations and caveats:





Large scale demonstration missions are inherently expensive and public funding should only
be available for the innovative technology components of any proposed mission, not
elements such as launch services or previously flight qualified bus and payload elements;
There must be sufficiently challenging acceptance criteria for any proposed mission to
ensure that the mechanism is primarily used for “game changing” technology developments,
i.e. those technologies that have a major impact on capabilities and/or costs available to
application and service providers. Incremental developments only produces marginal gains
that do little or nothing to change the downstream market landscape for application and
service providers and will not create the opportunities for the scale of growth that the IGS is
seeking to stimulate;
The criteria and metrics used for project initiation decisions and progress management
needs to be published;
All funding options for demonstration missions should be considered depending on scale
and scope, including co-funding, PPP etc.;
The wording of the Action suggests that demonstration missions could be used to offer
commercial services. In these circumstances, access to wholesale services should be
provided on an open, non-discriminatory basis to all service providers in line with state aid
requirements.
Thank You
You have now completed the survey. Thank you for taking the time to give us your feedback. Your
time and input is much appreciated.
Please hold the 14th November 2013 in your diary for the launch of the official Space IGS 2013
report. More details to be available soon.
19