Notice

FAQs - Annex G: SST ADR Call for Proposals

Updated 9 July 2021

The following document is designed to complement the UK Space Agency’s Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST) Active Debris Removal Phase 0-A Feasibility Study Guidance.

This document will be updated with any questions and answers related to the Phase 0-A Feasibility Study which are sent to the inbox SST@ukspaceagency.gov.uk. This will ensure that everyone has access to the same information.

If you have any additional questions about the call please email SST@ukspaceagency.gov.uk.

Document last updated: 17 June 2021

Q1: Can an academic institution become a partner? How much is the eligible funding for an academic organisation? Is there a limit to the number of proposals we can be part of?

We welcome proposals that include academic institutions as partners. As stated in the guidance accompanying this grant call, academic partners will be funded in all cases at 80% of Full Economic Cost (FEC). There is no limit on the number of proposals that an academic partner (or industry partner) can join.

Q2: Would UK Space help in networking with the potential partners or sharing their expertise for the subject bid?

UK Space do not have a formal role in relation to this grant call which is a UK Space Agency initiative. The UK Space Agency and Satellite Applications Catapult would be pleased to help bidders with networking.

Q3: During this process will there be any facilitated teaming and partnering events, in a similar vein to other government funded projects?

UK Space Agency is holding an Industry Webinar on 16th June where a networking session will be included.

Q4: Detailed information about the objects is likely retained only by the object owners, be they the MoD or private companies. There is a risk that some bidders have unique and potentially unfair access to detailed information, unless it is to be provided equally to all. So that there is a “level playing field”, can bidders assume that the UKSA will obtain and share the detailed information about the selected objects?

Knowledge of the configuration of the satellite will need to be known to allow for the design of the capture mechanism. This information will sit with the manufacturer. To aid applicants without a manufacturer in the consortium UKSA will endeavour to interact with the manufacturers to try and release some of the information ahead of kick-off, but there is no guarantee that the information would be able to be secured. Therefore bidders should identify their approach to securing relevant information and detail the gaps/expected inputs from UKSA within the proposal. Please note there is a high risk that configuration information would not be released by manufactures due to it’s commercially sensitive nature.

Q5: Without pre-existing permissions, there is a risk that object owners deny or delay permission to de-orbit at a later stage, impacting the value of the investment and work leading up to that point. Also, bidders don’t want to risk being disqualified or marked-down for proposing to deorbit objects where permission is a perceived higher risk. To ensure a “level playing field”, can bidders assume that the UKSA will obtain the permission for the selected LEO objects to be deorbited?

The Phase 0 includes an assessment of the targets from a Technical and Regulatory perspective. This work will aim to answer the questions listed. The proposal includes an initial technical definition to understand the initial scope of the proposal and considerations on targets. Given the lack of detailed work at the proposal stage, bidders will not be marked down if the proposal stage targets have key regulatory and technical questions to be addressed during the study.

Q6: I assume universities are not allowed to be primes but only as second collaborators- is that correct? If universities are not allowed, are SMEs with only one employee eligible to apply for this activity? Similarly, could two SMEs apply as joint leads?

There are no restrictions on which type of organisation can prime a project. Only one organisation can be Prime. Organisations must show that they have the right skills and experience in place to lead a project.

Q7: The document states that the object should be non-cooperative but it is not clear if the U.K. assets also be non-operational. Could you clarify that please?

As stated in the guidance: R14. Each target to be removed must be uncooperative (it has not been designed, manufactured and prepared for capture and/or de-orbiting). R15. The target objects should be non-operational at the point of launch of the chaser spacecraft. These two requirements should be read in combination. You will need to review these (and the other requirements), look at the target list from the UK registry and down-select which ones fit. The selection will typically be reviewed as part of the Phase 0-A as requirements are critically reviewed.

Q8: Where can we access information from the Industry Webinar hosted 16th June?

A recording and slides from the webinar are available to anyone who wasn’t able to attend. Please email SST@ukspaceagency.gov.uk to request this information.

To aid networking and partnership building we have set up a LinkedIn group which you can use as a forum to facilitate partnership discussions.

Q9: When is the earliest we can start this project if awarded?

We expect grant agreements to be signed by the end of August. This will depend a little on grant negotiations and due diligence so we cannot give an exact date for projects to start.

Q10: Can an academic organisation lead Phase 0-A study with industry partners on board? The follow-on studies will be led by the one of the industry partners?

Yes, academic organisations can lead projects and the Prime can change between Phases if necessary.

Q11: It is said in the call guidance that phase 0 should take no more than 8 weeks - has this changed to 4-6 weeks?

Phase 0 should take no more than 8 weeks, as stated on page 3 of our call guidance. As an example we have used 4-6 weeks, but the decision on timing is down to the applicant. We would expect proposals to specify how long they plan for the Phase 0.

Q12: Is there an opportunity to demo other related technologies through this mission? For instance, space domain awareness? Or will that be considered out of scope?

The focus of this call and the mission is on ADR. If other technologies that enable the mission can be demonstrated in addition to ADR this is acceptable and may provide additional benefit, but only proposals that meet the mission concept will be considered.

Q13: What level of technical innovativeness are you looking for in the ideas, given the timeframe? Are you looking for solid matured technology to demonstrate, or ideas that show a degree of technical innovation? Is focus on implementation or innovation?

Within the proposal it is expected that the grantee will present initial mission concepts. This is to understand the prospective grantee’s understanding of the field. The Phase 0 will be the opportunity to assess a range of initial mission concepts. Innovative solutions are welcomed at this stage and it will be the opportunity to understand the performance of these options alongside the drivers in terms of technology development. At the end of the Phase 0 a solution will be down selected, that is likely feasible within the timeframes and core technologies elaborated for further development/identifications.

Q14: What is your expectation on the supply chain maturity?

The proposal must demonstrate that the partners and supply chain can deliver on the ideas presented once it comes to design phases, and work to the date stipulations in the call so that it may fly by 2025. New entrants to the market are encouraged where they can demonstrably affect the requirements of the mission.

Q15: Is there clarity at this stage on how this grant phase links to the mission phase and how that phase will be procured?

If the grant phase is deemed a success and budget becomes available, one project will be chosen to proceed to the next Phase. No decisions have yet been taken on the format of any follow-on work.

Q16: I would expect that there will be partner organisations in the mission phase who do not participate significantly or at all to these initial phases. Will this be ok?

Yes, this is understood and acceptable.

Q17: Are you happy for large organisations to take part in these initial phases self-funded? It is sometimes easier to fully internally fund than to apply for matched funding.

Yes, you are welcome to fully-fund.

Q18: From a technical standpoint, may we consider UK-registered targets to be other than OneWeb spacecraft, i.e., this is not a “OneWeb Post Mission Disposal contingency” call? Further, given the emphasis on atmospheric disposal, do you place any constraints on apogee or eccentricity for your targets, given their lesser impact on LEO?

Please see the UKSA objects registry. This provides a full list of UK objects, which includes a range of UK operators. It is expected that the Phase 0 will evaluate these targets and identify the targets most suitable for removal. On the atmospheric disposal, we have initially defined removal as initiating direct re-entry or a 50 % reduction in decay lifetime. The phase 0 should elaborate on how this drives the mission design including the removal orbits.

Q19: What entry and exit TRL levels are expected for this phase. Also, can you please elaborate on what you mean by ‘applicant’s heritage in this area’? Are you looking to fund existing ideas that show incremental improvements OR disruptive ideas that bring about a radical change?

Please see below.

Q20: I would say it is normal to do a TRL survey in Ph0/A and to identify necessary ->TRL6 activities to do in PhB. Is this wanted?

Please see below.

Q21: How would proposals involving technology transfer from terrestrial applications be viewed? Is there a preference for technologies with flight heritage? (Answered jointly)

No TRL gates have been set at this stage. The Phase 0 should define some of the key technologies and provide initial insight into the status of the technology. In Phase A, a more comprehensive review of the technology is expected. A mission launch date of 2025 has been selected and this should drive the technology selection. On heritage for the proposal, no prior art is required. The proposal will determine the understanding of the prospective grantee of the topic.

Q22: Looking ahead, given this is a grant and requires an internal investment, is there any information available on what criteria will be used to evaluate/select which project gets taken forward to next stage?

No, this information is not available at this stage.

Q23: To what extent will you be looking for the study team to carry the ideas forward into implementation, as “blue sky” ideas (although very interesting) will not have a link to a developer. This rather implies that the ability to deliver the service in-orbit is key to selecting the study team. It would be unlikely that a development team could/would adopt ideas from others (due to IPR and practical constraints). Implementors and operators will also better understand the practical issues that would undermine some of the more “creative” ideas.

The results from Phase A should be implementable, not just theoretical. The study that is down selected will likely form the basis for the subsequent phases of the mission (Design Phases B-C; and Integration and Operation Phases D-E-F). Therefore, transfer of results will be necessary. How IPR issues will be handled is not confirmed, in the instance that different parties take over the latter phases of the mission development. UKSA will separately consider this and how to enable sharing between teams.

Q24: Can a service provider be in multiple consortiums and applications?

Yes, they can.

Q25: In Annex A - Subsidy Control, you state that Academic partners will be funded in all cases at 80% of Full Economic Cost (FEC). Does this apply to RTO’s as it has for previous UKSA funding calls?

We will continue to use the same definition of research organisation as we did under EU subsidy control. The definition is as follows:

‘research organisation’: means an entity (such as universities or research institutes, technology transfer agencies, innovation intermediaries, research-oriented physical or virtual collaborative entities), irrespective of its legal status (organised under public or private law) or way of financing, whose primary goal is to independently conduct fundamental research, industrial research or experimental development or to widely disseminate the results of such activities by way of teaching, publication or knowledge transfer. Where such entity also pursues economic activities, the financing, the costs and the revenues of those economic activities must be accounted for separately. You must decide if your organisation fits under this definition. The UKSA will check our agreement with your decision during the grant due diligence.

Q26: Does the UKSA have a view on the impact of ITAR on components of inactive, non-cooperative space debris for the purposes of this mission concepts study call?

The studies should consider the legal aspects of potential missions or targets. This could include consideration of export control.

Q27: We are a global organisation, however the part of the business looking to apply for funding is a UK legal entity. We are looking to have some of our colleagues, based in the US, collaborate with us on this project. Their time will be recorded and costed in the UK legal entity books. The question is – are we allowed to utilise the capabilities of our US colleagues or will you only reimburse for labour hours worked by UK based colleagues. There are no ITAR issues.

As long as work is conducted via the UK legal entity, colleagues can be based anywhere.

Q28: Will the UK Space Agency accept proposals for the Phase B+ program from consortia that were not selected for a Phase 0/A study?

As it states in the guidance: We are requesting proposals for Phase 0-A feasibility studies, and expect to choose 2 proposals to receive a Phase 0-A grant. Results will be assessed, and a future decision will be taken on which (if any) proposal will be selected to proceed to the next phase. The UK Space Agency will make a decision on whether to proceed to the next phase only after the projects have been completed and after future budget decisions have been made.

As stated in Q16, new partners can be introduced in later phases.

Q29: Annex A Subsidy Control (p20/21) – When a UK-based subsidiary of a foreign company is participating, do the categories (SE, ME, LE) apply to an UK-based entity alone, or to the overall company group?

The overall company group.

Q30: Within the guidance it states, “The proposal must be led by a UK organisation who will receive a grant from the UK Space Agency.” I assume this means that as a US corporation, we cannot apply to this proposal without a UK-led partner?

That’s correct, the Prime organisation needs to be a UK organisation. It is possible for non-UK organisations to take part as partners.

Q31: Please could you confirm the purpose of the declaration in Section 4: Subsidy control Option 1, is to state compliance to the conditions relating to grants as a grant recipient, included in the call guidance (sections 3, 5, 6 and Annex A)?

The declaration in Section 4 of the ADR Application Form (Annex D) is for applicants to confirm which approach to subsidy control they wish to use. If they wish to use the WTO-compliant UK subsidy control regime they should tick the relevant box for which type of research and development they are applying under in option 1 and have this signed. We expect all applicants to this particular call to apply under the feasibility study part of this option. If an applicant intends to apply under the Small Amounts of Financial Assistance (SAFA) controls within the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (formerly known as De Minimis), with an application below the threshold of 325,000 special drawing rights (around £340,000) they should tick the boxes and sign under option 2.

The signed declaration in section 4 is not a general acceptance of grant conditions, this comes later in section 9. The section 4 declaration is instead a signed agreement on which form of subsidy control is to be used.

Q32: We are not familiar with the Feasibility Study section of the World Trade Organisation Subsidy Control. The WTO website does not have any guidance, government guidance appears to be for organisations running calls not grant recipients. Is there any guidance on this?

We understand there can be difficulties in interpreting subsidy control and, as this is one of the first UKSA grant calls to use the new subsidy control regime, there may be improvements we can make.  We would like to be clear now that the definitions of feasibility study, and other types of research and development studies shown in section 4 of the ADR Application Form (Annex D), match the definitions used by the European Commission state aid regime.