ESF-ESA Forward Look TechBreak : Technology Breakthroughs for Scientific Progress (Minutes taken by C. Bruno)

1


ESF
-
ESA F
o
rw
a
rd Look TechBreak :
Technology Breakthroughs
for Sc
ientific Progress

(Minutes taken by C. Bruno)


KO C
o
nference, Bruxelles, 29
-
30 November 2010


Scope: how to ac
celerate and innovate in Space R
esearch and

Applications


25 participants, all
in
EU


4 Sessions:

Setting the scene






Key Enablin
g

Technologies (KET
)

–

Non
-
Space




KET
–

Space





Gap Identification Methodology (

䉲B楮獴irm楮i)



G敮敲慬 䍨C楲i†Ma牴楮r䍵汬Cm

⡳敥⁃e)


呡扬攠潦⁃潮瑥湴n㨠

卵mma特





䑥瑡D
汥搠mi湵瑥n

2

SUMMARY



Main issues:



There are no ‘first principles’

when

trying to innovate



Much progress often due to chance

thinking



A recipe
: try to identify
roads and roadblocks



3

Roadblocks

(some):



Processing time &
r
ed tape



Risk aversion



Time
Cycles: Industry vs.
Govs



Funding
:

Mindsets and beliefs (e.g., China vs. EU)


Venture capital (US vs. EU)




Philosophy:

V
ision vs. Pragmatism

e.g.:

V
ision drives means (


楮i潶慴o潮
)

癳.
M
e慮猠摲a癥⁶楳v潮



Tech transfer (“Valley of Death” betwe
en proof
-
of
-
concept to space



application)


4


Enablers

(some) (1/2)




Look for tech in different/vastly different areas (e.g.,
cars,
bio)




Imagine developments (
‘
what if…
’
)




Change risk connotation

from negative to posit
ive
:




e.g., ‘no risk, no gain’






failure = learning



灲潧p敳e




周T湫nn潴畳t⁳灡捥



摵慬⁵獥




卨Sw

晵n摥爠
灲潦i琠楳楫敬礠




䥮I敬汥捴c慬⁰a潰敲e礠⡉y⤠物杨t猠s


汥n杨瑹

湥杯瑩慴i潮o




䱯Lk⁦潲 䭅K⁡汲敡摹⁨敲攠⡢u琠n潴⁵獥o)




5


Enablers

(so
me) (2/2)




Replace
‘
either/or
’

by ‘with’




e.g.; robotics with humans instead of robotics vs. humans


Organize brainstorming by experts


䕓䘠獵F癥v
†


p慮敬s
:





偩P欠
慲a慳a


†††
䵩捲o
-

慮搠乡湯
-
敬散e牯湩捳







††


䉩潴散e









偨潴潮楣s









䅤A慮捥c⁍慴敲 慬猠









䕮敲杹g








偩P欠kr慮畬慲楴礠
慮d慴捨
數灥e瑳




佲O慮楺攠灡n敬猠sf⁥硰敲瑳 慮d⁢ 慩湳瑯a洠



















6


DETAILED MINUTES













7

Session 1

–

Setting the scene


►
Martin Cullum
: rules of the ga
m
e: to brainstorm


来湥牡g攠
獵s来獴楯湳Ⱐ楤敡猠瑯:







●
Speed up R&D process




●
Innovate

by ena
bling new technology to improve and


b
reak

through




●
Reduce costs


►
Alvaro
Gime
nez (HISPAC): ESA’s needs


8

S.1


Scientific Challenges and Tech Limitations

(1/3
)


E
arth Sciences (
Callies
)

Observat
ions still spotty. Needs better observation capability.


►
ESA’s Human Exploration (
S.

Hovland)


Prepares

studies and capabilities to ena
ble

human missions:



Moon:


mobility (Pressurized rover)






ISRU


伲






䕮敲Ey⁶楡⁦略氠c敬汳Ⱐ獯污爠r湯t 捬敡爩


Mo牥⁩渠汩湥⁷楴栠晵f畲u⁩湴敲灬e湥na特㨠⁓䌠mag湥瑳t景爠f捴楶攠cm 獨楥汤猠lG䍒C⁳ 污爩









†††
䍬C獥搠䱯o瀠汩晥l獵灰or琠⡍(䱩卓A
)










䉬B捫⽹敬汯w wa瑥爠瑲敡tm敮e.


►
In
-
ESA Space sciences
and robotic exploration (
Bandaz)


►Ground Based Space A
stronomy (Martin Cullum)


B
asi
c issues: image resolution & stability


a捴畡c㨠10
-
3

arc
-
sec


Adaptive optics (A
O) a quantic jump; led to VLT imaging,

interferometry


Cost
:

sc
ales as
c
onst x
D
2.6
;

VLT
interferometry : same law, but c
onst is lower.



Manufacturing the most expensive item, not tech






楮捲敡獩湧⁴
散e㨠潴散敳獡物汹⁩湣牥慳敳

灥p景f浡湣支捯獴⁲慴楯


9


S.1


Scientific Challenges and Tech Limitations

(2/3
)



Space Instrumentation: volume, mass: key items. Must reduce them, but:


microelectronics affected by radiation



Detectors
:

more and more sophisticated

needed



Fiber spec
t
rometers (SM)


5 瑩
me猠汩s桴敲

瑨t
渠捯nv敮瑩潮e氠卍



G敮敲慬⁡ 敡

”astro
-
photonics”


<very technical talks
,
mostly
pleading

for help…>


10

S.1

Scientific Challenges and Tech Limitations

(3/3
)



►
(Aero)space
Industry (Tortora/Kamoun
)


Key issues in technology policy
:


Risks:
who will bear
them?

Industry? Sci.

programs? Technol. Programs?


That depends on TRL!

How to mitigate risks?

<General d
iscussion: so
me key statements follows>


Industry should invest if

projects are
short
-
term. Government for
riskier
long term


pro
grams

“We need a DARPA”. “No chance of it in EU”. “More certainty in funding schedule”.


►
Main lessons from ESPI Pre
paratory Report (
Giannopapa, ESF)

(1/2)


Prepares
“
Innovation for 2020” report.


ask for document


ESPI report loo
ked at
many
tech areas


Time to
‘
market
’ (TTM) (‘market’ here = missions)
: short vs. long cycles, vastly




different in how to handle
!



e.g.
, electronic industry vs. space
frame industry


Sug
gestions to develop
new concepts
:






Cooperation





Watch developments in other areas




Watch for
roadblocks
: Intel
l
ectual Property rights (IP)


11

S.1


►
Main le
ssons from ESPI Preparatory Report (Giannopapa, ESF)

(2/2)

General

discussion:


IP,
red tape
: tremendous negative impact
:

in ESA
f
rom AO to ISS



maybe 10+ years.

China:

TTM
much faster, labs free
r

from bureaucracy
. Chin
ese gov pushes!
EU

slow
s

down…



China
wants to invest

in space, EU tries to save: basic difference!

Japan: not afraid of making mistakes. All directions explored,
then align when finding a


good lead
.


12



S.1


►
Targeted discussion on space technology needs (Martin Cullum)

Cost of Innovation/B
reaktroughs: who should pay?


Need to convince politicians


Assess risks, but
:

they will always be there

since we don’t know


Industry looks for short
-
term (6 mo
.
) gains
.

C
ycle is short.


Govs

can invest in risky projects. Convincing of soundness is key:









s
桯w⁤畡氠畳攬e湯琠橵j琠獰s捥


偡P⁡瑴敮 楯n⁴oew⁤敶敬 pm敮瑳t楮i
湯n
-
獰s捥c⡎()⁡牥 s

⡡畴(mo瑩癥Ⱐ捯湳um敲

††† †
electronics, MEMS, military,…)


There must

profitability in other areas (

摵d氠畳攩


乯瑥t 瑥渠瑷o⁡灰牯a捨敳㨠癩c楯渠癳⁰牡 ma瑩tm,⁥⹧⸺.K
湯w汥摧攠卯捩整礠癳⸠獰散楦楣

††† † † † †

灲p橥jt
s
Ⱐ
a湤n
p牯晩f⸠

How⁴o⁣潭扩b攠ehem?


K䕔⁦or⁳灡捥㨠v敲礠數灥湳楶攬ev敲y⁳灥捩晩挬⁶敲  warke
琡



G敮敲慬i穥搠物z欠av敲獩e渺n獰s捥
-
u獥晵氠s散桮e
汯g楥猠數楳琬ib畴u⁳灡捥c灯汩捹
make
r
s

††† † † † † † † † †††† † † † † † † † ††

don’t pick them
/don’t want to pick them
.


IP
often a big obstacle
.


How to progress

when national
EU
govs are weakening
, while a
EU
central

gov does not



exist (yet?)?


13


S. 1

►
TECHBREAK Methodology (J.
-
C. Worms
, ESF, and Kirten Cuhls
, Fraunhofer Institute)

Some recipes

for innovation
:


Identify
new
tech developments (
all areas!
)


Forecast, imagine developments and

their applications




i
摥湴楦y⁳灩
-
楮⁴散e
o汯gy


剥R汩穥l
獯m敷h
e牥r
瑨t牥

a牥⁴散e⁴桡琠捡渠扥⁵獥搠


汯ok⁦o爠瑨tm



How敶敲㨠T
散栠呲en
獦敲
呔)

†
no琠a琠a汬⁡畴lma瑩c

瑯⁩m灬pm敮e



14


SESSION 2 KET
-
Non Space

(NS)


How can NS be used to our goals?


►
The EC KET rationale and Europe’s long
-
term strategy (Sophie Mueller,

EC DG
-
ENTR,


D3)

S
ome key remarks from a NS

expert:


In EU
:

TTM

of
in EU
-
developed tech long/fails.
Completely different scenario in US!


Cau
ses:


lack
of venture capital





hardly any private funding

So: very good
EU
science &

tech, but TTM

very often has

gap (“The Valley of Death” = VoD))

Note
:
EU 2020 strategy
is based on KET
! But no idea of how to cross

VoD!

E
conomic impact of the 5 KET picked by E
C

for FP8: hard to determine,
for instance.

Markets resist change since th
ey may have substantial investment

in older tech
—
incentives


needed, not necessarily only moneys

How to prom
ote KET transfer to industry
? B
ig

question. EC looking for suggestions
.



s
敮搠
瑨tm
瑯tt桥⁅唠H楧栠䱥h敬



†
䕸灥牴⁇牯異

††† † † † †


(HL
E
GⰠJ.⁔桥 m C桡楲⤠a琠
e湴n
-
k整e
-
o灥p
-
摡y獀散
-
敵牯p
攮敵

,


o爠獥湤⁡r
灯獩瑩sn

灡灥爮

††† † † † † † † † †††† † † † † † † † †††† † † † † † † † ††††


15

S. 2

Goals and Limitations of KET and other emerging technologies

(1/4
)


►
Advanced materials (M. Falzetti, CSM)

Materials

often the bottleneck


摥v敬e瀬p瑲慮t晥f⁴o 獰s捥⁩湤畳瑲礮

偲潢汥m:⁳ z攠潦⁳灡捥cmar步k⁴o
o⁳ma汬l⡮漠ma獳⁰牯摵捴楯温

Red tape: thinks it is here to stay, don’t waste time to fight it:




bear it and grin…



►
Interfacial Engineering a
nd surface science (Christian Oher, Fraunhofer Inst
itute
.)

Polymers and their applications. Many potential uses in space:


Barriers
for water, vapor, oxygen, other


Organic solar cells

Composites
:


CO2 separation: OK
,

but needs 600° C, differential dilata
tion a problem


Plasma coatings


Organic
-
inorganic interfaces: contact lenses are an examples, but also glass replacement


Cultivate materials? E.g., for optics?





16

S. 2

Goals and Limitations of KET and other emerging technologies

(2
/4
)

►
Nanote
chology (Urs Duerig, IBM RC, Zu
rich)

A link between m
acroscopic world and molecules;
poses many questions and opportunities:


Manufacturing


Integration


Bridging the gap among different disciplines: QM, ‘molecular’ instrumentation,



electronics, sensors
,…


Enables photonics in a small package


Example of
typical roadmap
in EU (but also US)
from fundamental R&D to Market
:




噡汬敹映䑥 t栬ha汷ay献s

䥐
㨠
a⁂ G⁩
獵攠


牥搠ra灥Ⱐ湥not楡瑩潮t
污wy敲猩

㱶敲礠灲egma瑩挠瑡汫>


17

S. 2

Goals and Limitations of KET and other emerging technologies

(3/4
)

►
Nanoelectronics (A. Galetsas, EC DG
-
ISM, G1)

I
ncludes micro
-
electronics. Controls practically everything and will keep increasing in
importance
, e.g.


Pow
er grid control (impact of 1000s of e
-
cars
charging
…

)

Problems:


Size decreases, rel
iability decre
ases


Heat and radiation tolerance



Eventually Moore’s law will stop!


What after CMOS?


Materials (rare earths


䍨楮C

捯湴牯氩



剥捹捬楮gⰠe⹧⸬.go汤Ⱐo瑨敲⁥汥me湴n



乥N⁥湴物敳r


Ma湵晡捴畲楮n⽉湴敧牡瑩潮t


捯u灬敤⁴o mat敲楡汳l


†††
<mo牥ⁱre
獴so湳⁴桡渠n湳n敲e
/灲p灯獡汳
>


18

S. 2

Goals and Limitations of KET and other emerging technologies

(4/4
)


►
Biomimetics (J.
-
P. Vincent, U. Bath)

Wild Card talk: can biology provid
e answers? Very provocative



Structure vs
, energy:


Engineering is

using
energy to create structure







Life creates structure
s

with
minimal
energy using DNA


Consequences:
very efficient solutions from animals, plants





E.g., wasp reciprocating drill



a湡汯g

扵楬琠楳

a⁧ o搬d捨敡瀠p物汬



䍨楴楮C㨠a⁣ m灯獩瑥sm畣u⁳瑲潮 e爠r桡渠楮摵獴物d氠o湥猺‱nx⁳楤攠慲 a⁴桡渠楮潲na湩n

††† † † † † †


f楢i牳

卯m攠
very
provoca
tive questions: will we ‘g
r
ow’ a spacecraft structure? ‘C
rochet
’

a
spacecraft?



卣S汩湧 w猿



19


SESSION 3
–

KET In Space


What furthers innovation and can accelerate progress?


Drivers, challenges and showstoppers

(1/3
)


►
EU Space T
echnology Platform
(ESTP)
(A. Tobias, ESA D
-
TEC)

Informing on ESTP database on T
ech
nologies for S
pace:


Updating:

major

every 4
-
5 years


Contains the ESA

master plan
:



EU
-
compliant



Dormant technologies?



L
a
te
st issue
to be
released in 2 wee
ks (December 2010)



Look for it on ESA’s site



20


S. 3

Drivers, challenges and showstoppers

(2
/3
)


►
Space (Nuclear) Propulsion (
C. Bruno
, U. Rome)

NP:
technology already available, not yet
p
icked up in EU


GCR and Solar
Radiation: possible showstoppe
r for all human interplanetary missions:



GCR & SR dose too high for travel > a few months


W
ith chemical propulsion:
cancer
risk b
etween 2 and 30% for a Mars mission





剩獫s⁴o⁨ ma湳
:

m畳u⁢攠b整瑥爠煵慮瑩晩敤f

S
桩敬摩湧
獯汵瑩潮㨠
瑯t ma獳楶e
†

†
m畳琠瑲慶敬e晡f瑥t†

†
乐

敮e扬b湧 瑥捨

乐N
c
a渠扥⁴h敲ma氠
⡎呐⤠o爠敬散瑲楣
久t⤮ 䍨C楣攺e扡獥搠s渠m楳i楯n



Q略獴楯湳㨠牥慣瑯爠楮r敧物瑹Ⱐ牥晵敬f湧Ⱐ摵牡
扩汩瑹b⁡ 携d⁰畢汩挠慣u数瑡湣n

䍯mm敮瑳t⁴oo⁣om灬楣p瑥搠d匮SHov污湤⤮⁗桹 啓⁨av攠湥癥爠扵楬
t 攠eo爠䩉MO?

䅮獷敲㨠乁十⁣N瑥t

扩汬楯湳

瑯⁤敶敬e瀠p桥⁊hMO⁎䕐Ⱐ
瑯t⁥硡gg敲慴敤e






21


S. 3

Drivers
, challenges and showstoppers (3
/3
)


►Robotics (M.R.
Lavagna, DIA, Polytechnic of Milan)

A great enabler of space activities

Robotics progressing towar
d its
ultimate
concept


ag敮琺⁳
m整桩湧⁴桡琠獥湳敳⁁乄Nr敡獯湳

䍡灡扩汩瑩敳⁡湤⁣桡汬敮l敳e



䑥捩獩D渠mak楮i


佮
-
扯a牤⁡r瑯湯my


剥R捴楶楴c
瑩m敳ea汥l

m畳琠扥⁳桯r琠瑨慮t灨敮pm敮a⁨慰 敮楮e
)


偲P
-
a捴楶c
: not just observes and waits…
favor
s

mission
goals

(and humans)



Thus: not in competition with humans, but working together

Matches functionalities to current scenario (
in
real time).


Progress: ongoing

Note: in US the TRL is about 7, in EU more like 3
-
4.


22

SESSION 4

Gap Identification Methodology

►
Brainstorming (Kerstin
Cuhls
, J.
-
C. Worms)

(1/
6
)


Main topic
s
:


What/H
ow
to filter potential space
-
useful technologies






Identifying
focus
groups
for future specialists round tables






Send
Survey to
key experts to be selected and g
et

innovative ideas



Granularity (= level of detail)

is a key point in doing above


Worms: summarizes key points: who should invest in innovation, incentives, roadblocks, …

Bruno: main obstacles: red tape, govs not inclined to invest in R&D because of fin
ancial crisis




(China gov: just the opposite),

IP negotiates and litigations.

Spri
ngs: good points, will report to

FP8 preparatory meeting next weeks.


Worms: What ty
pe of questionnaire should the survey contain;
how to filter technologies?




How to involve NS industry?


Kamoun:
right
now NS industry

lacks drive to join
space projects: no real gains in sight,


management is conservative


buzzword: ‘concentrate on core business’

need



incentives
to join!

E.g.:
moneys to NS should be 100%, not 75% or 50%, and only



for TT.

B
runo: same incentives then

for ISS exploitation

by NS industry



23

S. 4

Brainstorming (Kerstin
Cuhls
, J.
-
C. Worms)

(2
/6
)


Giannipapa
:

objects to Kamoun ‘g
enerosity’ toward NS. Kamoun
: NS do us a favor, so
incentives

n
ecessary. But: moneys to NS only for joining projects with
S, not for developing
new products
. That’s what is

meant by TT from NS to S

industry
.

Giannipapa: th
us not for manufacturing. Kamoun: right! Giannipapa: NS unaware of/how to
wo
rk W
ith S

industry. More info necessary to motivate NS industry.

Falzetti:
there are past examples of NS and S collaborating,
for instance, ceramic bearings



deve
lop
e
d jointly by NS and S industry.


<Discussion switches to KET
:
>


Gimenez: we need to filter/identify KET

to plan missions
.
Cuhls
: one
id
criterion would be:
must be cross
-
disciplinary.

Also:
we look for new ideas, but
what is ‘a new idea’?

What does it mea
n? A driver for new things? What?

Gimenez: it is what we don’t know. Cullum: Often we don’t even know what we do not
know…

Gimenez: Use the KET

to define where we will go.

<general discussion follows

on this poin
t
>





24


S.4

Brainstorming (Kerstin
Cuhls
, J.
-
C. Worms
) (3
/6
)


Bruno: summarizing


瑷o
o灰p獩湧
灨楬p獯灨楥猺p

1⸠
o畲⁧ua汳lm畳琠扥⁷桡琠捡渠扥n摯湥n
w楴栠m敡湳⁷攠桡v攬eor

2⸠⁳瑡瑥t
o畲⁧ a汳Ⱐ

a湤⁴桥渠d
敶敬e瀠p䕔

瑯⁲敡捨⁴桥m
. Gime湥z
:

o畲⁵汴ima瑥⁧ a氠l攠e湯wⰠ楴i楳⁳捩i湣攬na湤⁷楴栠
K䕔
w攠
k湯w
Ⱐo爠
瑨a琠
we’ll ha
ve, we can
find much new science
.

Heppener: useful to look at the past and see how we found what we found.

Cuhls
: we need a vision [of where to go].

Vincent: in this context,
do not throw awa
y wild cards! [Hear, hear, No! W
ill not!]

Wo
rms: to allay fears

[of limiting ourselves to means

we have], look at how many ESA
missions are driven by Science and how many by Technology. The first dominate over the
second.

Bruno: but are also limited by Technology, e.g., read Cosmic Vision; plus,
o
ften Tech is
outdated by the time mission starts.

Cuhls
: Look at ICT: they develop it for future, not current, needs.

Cullum, Springs,
CGS representative
:

many missions driven by science in the end
develop new
technologies.

Kamoun: we must list 1. wh
at scientists want, and then 2. develop the technologies to reach
their
goals.

Otherwise: hard or impossible to proceed with ESF goals.


25

S4

Brainstorming (Kerstin
Cuhls
, J.
-
C. Worms
) (4
/6
)


Duering: follow

ICT exampl
e: in ICT there are ideas

we ca
ll “big
bets”, often crazy but

we let
people work on them. Maybe they will die after 3
-
4
y
ears, but
:
no stigma attached to failure.
In ICT 3
-
4 years may be long term.

Gimenez: in space,

long term is 2030
-
2050. M
ust look at what NS scientists are doing now.

Cuh
ls
: if we look at that, there should be a filter for ‘long
-
term’, and another for ‘short
-
term’;
this last could be
:

‘cros
s
-
disciplinary’. Bruno: why cross
-
disciplinary

should be a filter?

Cuhls
: should we

look at bottom
-
up approach in the short term? To
big bets? These are
strategies for ESF/TechBreak, but maybe there

are others. We
here might be too narrow
-
minded:
need to open up to broader areas
?

Or: limit the areas where we want to intervene,
and impose the
‘
cross
-
d
i
sciplinary’ filter.


Worms: I can
see thre
e

main areas with potential to affect the future of space:



Micro Systems and Nanoelectronics

Biotechnology
-

<
and here the formulation was
/is

still critical
>

Photonics

Advanced Materials


Cullum
distributes the list of priority areas

written by
ESA’s HISP
A
C: quite different from
Worms’.


26

S. 4

Brainstorming (Kerstin
Cuhls
, J.
-
C. Worms
) (5
/6
)


Bruno: why the differences? Worms
:
the
HISPAC
context was different
, more short
-

to mid
-
term
. Here we are looking far ahead, not like, for instance, for plann
ing the [2005] Cosmic
Vision.


<after the coffe
e
-
break
Cuhls

directs the discussion towards the survey

that should engage
experts and generate new ideas
>


Cuhls
: the scope of the survey: to collect the opinions of experts in
all
t
echnologies of possible
us
e in s
pace.

Whom to invite? By KET, or by functionality related to KET? For instance, in
the case of
microelectronics
,

packing density, complexity,… vs. CMOS, nanotubes, silicon photonics…?
Kamoun: impossible to decide prior to
writing and agreeing on
th
e document I requested
before.

Cuhls
: How to pick

up people that w
ill participate in Focus Groups?

Bruno:
these
should be
small groups, like PSWG or LSWG in ESA, say, 12.15 people max, for the four
WS areas
Worms

suggested
. Cullum: we need more details o
f the
se areas (=
more
‘
granularity
’
) before
we

can invite experts
.
Cuhls
:
we’ll invite pure scientists and industry scientists. Giannipapa:
we need more than just scientists, we need granularity
but we need also
to pick the right people
mix
, not just peopl
e.

Cuhls
: also
we need
to interview

single individuals

not participating in Focus Groups
.


27

S. 4

Brainstorming (Kerstin
Cuhls
, J.
-
C. Worms
) (6
/6
)


Kamoun: note that there are joint Academy/Industry labs
in

many countries. Scientists from
those should be i
nvited. We need people with feet in both science and industry.


Cuhls
: let’s talk about the survey. Worms: will send a draft of the survey
forms
for comments.
Only
after receiving your comments

the final version

will be sent to
potential part
icipants in
th
e survey. Cullum: we can do all that

only if we in
crease the granularity of the four areas
.


After a few more comments and e
xplanations the meeting was c
losed.


28

PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS



Personal impression
s
: most of the first day was actually
taken by
desc
riptions of very
sophis
ticated ‘needs’ coming from many

space areas.
Contributions to ‘how to fill’ the needs
varied.
Contributions to the TT discussion from Duering and Vincent were especially valuable
because of the completely different background of the
se participants
,

and thu
s had (or rather,
should have) a strong

impact.
Se
ssion 4 became at times too phi
losophical; at the same time
,

whether ESA should set specific goals
(missions)
and
thus
develop

the
means

to reach them
, or
should
instead
plan missio
ns

based on KET present or future, remained without an answer
.

Also without an ans
wer was the request by Kamoun to set up priorities
, and that

related to

NS
industry.

My understanding is that
ESF

will decide the sub
-
areas (the level of granularity) and
the
refore who the experts to invite to the Focus G
roups should be.


I noted also that the vision expressed by TechBreak, at least insofar Worms had it, is definitely
long
-
term (as Gimenez said, more like ‘30s to ‘50s), and may not payoff anytime soon
(ce
rtainly not in my lifetime!). Looking from this perspective the four major areas make sense.
And there is of course no way of knowing in advance what the real breakthroughs will be…I
remember a SciFi novel by I. Asimov, taking place in 2030 or thereabouts
, where the
protagonist calculates the return route of a stellar spaceship using a slide rule. At the time of
that writing not even Asimov could visualize a PC or laptop.


29


This said, the meeting provided an
excellent ground for generating new ideas, reali
zing
obstacles and bottlenecks,

and exchanging opinion
s

among experts coming from widely
different background
s
.


About innovation in aerospace:

see the article by
Warwick, G., (2010), “Changing the Game”,
just issued in
A
W&ST, Nov. 1/8, 2010, pp. 70
-
92
.






























30