About Robotics

TECHBREAK inputs

In addition to the methodology definition report

provided by ISI Fraunhofer, two main inputs

into the foresight exercise were commissioned, to

the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI – Ms

Christina Gianopappa) and to ESA’s Advanced

Concepts Team (ACT).

These two reports were helpful in

framing the exercise, and deciding which technological

areas, and at which level of granularity, the

foresight exercise should focus on. It was decided

that the project would make use of the classification

of disciplines under the broad headings of ‘Key

Enabling Technologies’, as identified in 2009 by the

European Commission, i.e., nanotechnology,micro

and nano-electronics, photonics, advanced materials,

and biotechnology.

Other areas such as energy, robotics, biomimetics

or advanced propulsion and, more generally,

materials science were also addressed. These KETs

are relevant at various levels for EU’s ‘Grand

Challenges’ (Energy, Healthcare and Security).

Those key technologies already have a strong or a

developing industrial base, should receive considerable

funding in the future and would be the target

of the bulk of Horizon 2020 funding. Therefore,

strongties between ESA and the main players and

innovators in those key fields would be of signifi -

can't benefit. The Key Enabling Technologies will

be defined in the main part of the report.

A summary of the key findings of the ESPI

report is presented here and should be considered

by ESA, and even the EU:

 The Key Enabling Technologies identified

by the EU as being nanotechnologies, micro

and nanoelectronics, advanced materials and

biotechnology, should be considered comprehensively

by ESA’s research and development

programmes. In this regard, Information and

Communication Technologies (ICT) should

also be considered, creating the ‘ESA Enabling

Technologies’ concept. These categories are

essentially very broad and specific subcategories

should be identified, in consultation with space

and non-space experts in these fields, in order

to identify the ones most relevant for the space

sectors to be able to develop coherent roadmaps.

 At low Technology Readiness Levels, such new

technologies do not need to be developed exclusively

by space funding schemes. This may allow

the utilisation of funding from the non-space

sector by jointly investing in the KET’s building

blocks.

 Public and private partnerships should be set

up for co-financing research and development

in Key Enabling Technologies, since they require

large investments that ESA alone would not be

able to afford.

 ESA should proceed to apply for participation

in research and technology development under

the non-space components of the Framework

Programme. This participation, by performing

research and development in ESA laboratories,

should be enhanced.

 An effective technology watch ‘Technowatch’

mechanism is necessary in order to be able to

identify new and disruptive technologies early

enough, a Technowatch that can facilitate

spin-in, spin-out and spin-together. ESA does

currently have mechanisms which are used as

observatories for following science that is likely

to produce technology. This could be institutionalised

with clear targets and responsibilities in a

more integrated model. The possibility of having

a Technowatch independent from ESA or

jointly with other technology watch institutions

should also be considered. It is suggested that                                                 

a Technowatch should be an independent body

as these are seen as more credible when they are

not governmental agencies or those that conduct

the research.