|
NEWS
-
Workshop "What can GALILEO and GMES do for society?"
To get a better a better view of the chances these two important European space programmes offer for users, VRI (Flemish Space Industries) organized on April 10th a workshop together with VLEVA (Liaison Agency Flanders-Europe) and the Belgian Science Policy. During this event some Belgian companies presented the added value for potential users of GALILEO and GMES by highlighting their activities in the field.
You can find the programme here
Underneath you wil find the presentations of this event:
-
Umicore Solar Team
The Umicore Solar Team competed for the second time in the Panasonic World Solar Challenge 2007 in Australia. The Belgian team ended secondly after the Dutch team of TU Delft and with a large lead on the teams from Australia, Japan and the USA.
The VRI members Umicore, LMS, VITO and the Von Karman Institute participated in this successful mission.
Study by Bart Verheyden: Cardiovascular control in space and on earth: the challenge of gravity
PRESSRELEASE
ARCHIVES
4th Flemish Space Days
On November 17th, 18th and 19th 2006 the 4th edition of the Flemish Space Days took place in the Media Center in Ostend.
On November 17th a seminar with the working title 'Sense or Nonsense of Private Investments in Space' was organized by VRI. The program and the presentations of the speakers can be found here
Workshop
'LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRIAL SPACE STRATEGIES'
October 27th, 2005
Summary conclusions
On October 27th VRI organised in the Academy House in Brussels an international workshop, in order to discuss alternative industrial space strategies with our European colleagues and all levels of science policy-, and economical policy makers.
Hereby you will find the summary of the results of that workshop, which are based on the results of the audience poll organised in the afternoon. The background of the alternative space strategies is described in the VRI Workshop Programme [PDF - 5.188 KB]. You can find an overview of the detailed poll results here [PPT - 1.375 KB].
Alternative strategies
A clear conclusion of the workshop is that the audience is wishing alternative strategies issues, which need to be better addressed within the European Space policy. 79% of the participants indeed recommend to better address issues related to the provision of products or services for commercial satellite applications (they consider these issues as “capital”, “very important” or “important”), while 83% of them recommend to better address those related to the integration of small space missions or scientific instruments.
The best programmes to support industrial competitiveness are the following: Industrial R&D programmes (77% of respondents consider them as “capital”, or “very important”) and small institutional programmes (68% of respondents). Dual-use (47%) and military programmes (46%) are also recommended. Large ESA institutional programmes are getting a lesser support (18%).
A large majority of the workshop audience consider that a larger percentage of governmental space budgets should be allocated to alternative space programmes (84% of respondents consider these issues as “capital”, “very important” or “important”).
Regarding the promotion of alternative strategies, the audience considers that the best way to achieve that objective is to use existing communication channels such as National Delegations to ESA (a 1st priority for 66% of respondents). The creation of a new association such as Eurospace (22%) is favoured to a lesser extent, as well as organising workshops on alternative space strategies (6%) and organise monthly meetings with the Director General of ESA (3%).
Industrial R&D programmes
The audience considers that ESA should focus in priority on Short-term R&D close to the market (a 1st priority for 53% of respondents), then on Mid-term R&D (38%) and finally on Long-term R&D (18%).
To continuously open “Call for Proposals” (as used in ARTES-4 programme) is considered as the best instrument for ESA to solicit industrial R&D proposals (a 1st priority for 58% of respondents), followed by Invitation-to-Tender (29%).
Most respondents consider that ESA is best placed to define the thematic priorities in R&D programmes (92% consider that it should be “ESA exclusively”, “mostly ESA” or “ESA and industry equally”).
However they consider that the Industry is best placed to describe the detailed objective of each individual R&D activity (69% consider that it should be “Industry exclusively”, “mostly Industry” or “ESA and industry equally”).
Regarding the ESA role in the evaluation of industrial proposals, the audience thinks that ESA should evaluate in priority:
industrial experience and quality of proposal (86% consider it as “capital” or “very important”) value-for-money (53%), market relevance (44%), appropriate use of previous ESA R&D support (43%) the presence of all the elements of the value chain (34%).
Regarding the ESA role in the management of industrial R&D activities, the audience thinks that ESA should in priority:
adopt lighter management procedures and become less bureaucratic (87% consider it as “capital” or “very important”) allow for the adaptation of the specifications of the product or service to be developed according to the evolution of the market (61%) monitor industrial R&D achievements according to the present ESA “result driven” approach (32%).
Small missions
The following mechanisms are considered as important for ESA to improve the cost-effectiveness of its space missions: use small “smart” missions to qualify technologies under the responsibility of alternative space companies (67% consider it as “capital”, or “very important”) and to a lesser extent push large space system integrators to adopt technology developments from alternative space companies (31%).
ESA can best promote new innovative low cost missions by inviting alternative space companies to contribute to the definition of ESA missions (70% consider it as “capital”, or “very important”), by issuing “Call for Proposals” with outlined mission objectives (44%) and by allowing industry to make “non compliant” proposals to ESA ITT’s (26%).
The most efficient ESA programmes to fund low-cost space missions are:
- programmes primarily dedicated to R&D such as GSTP (85% consider them as “capital”, or “very important”)
- programmes covering various scientific applications such as PRODEX (53%)
- new programmes still to be defined (39%)
- programmes dedicated to a specific application (33%).
"Presentations of papers":
- Tellitec and Newtec presented by Mr. Christian Zanoth and Mr. Dirk Breynaert [PPT - 1451 KB]
- TTI presented by Mr. Tirso Velasco [PPT - 379 KB]
- Skysoft presented by Mr. Justino de Sousa [PPT - 3.020 KB]
- Qinetiq and Verhaert Space presented by Mr Haskell and Mr. Paul Verhaert [PPT - 14.781 KB]
- Vito presented by Mr. Francis Vanderhaeghen [PPT - 1.173 KB]
"Presentations of ESA":
|
