1. science
2. biology
3. zoology
4. endangered species

! “Writing an IAP proposal, the industry perspective”
!
AnsuR and IAP Projects!
!
AnsuR Presentation April 2015
Harald Skinnemoen
CEO / Founder AnsuR Technologies
harald@ansur.no
AnsuR Technologies / Norway
Ø  SME; Founded 2005, Oslo
–  Mission critical visual communications
–  Own SW innovation & development
Ø  Visual Situational Awareness.
–  Difficult, unstable, unknown, slow channels
–  Surveillance, emergency, disaster, security, Ø  AnsuR BirdEye
–  UAV activities (drone, payloads)
Ø  Ansurance
–  Application to Insurance claims
Ø  AnsuR Solutions Barcelona 2013
ansuR –
Viking Rune Wisdom, advice,
inspiration,
communication - root for Answer
What we do
Ø Mission-Critical Visual Communication
–  Specifically for SatCom, Tetra, Cellular
Ø Geo-tagging / time stamping / LBS
–  GNSS Integration
Ø Mapping and GIS integration
–  Satellite Image (EO) Integration
Ø UAV / Drones
–  Software for payload communication –  Payload Design, Building own drones
User Needs: !
Visual Situational Awareness!
!
Sometimes, a picture says more than a thousand words.
Ø Operational Decisions
–  Situational awareness
–  Relevant Observations
Ø UAV Complementary
–  GEO: Aerial Mapping
–  VISUAL: Aerial photos WHAT
WHEN
WHERE
Communica)ons of visual data Fast and )me stamped Geo-­‐tag and GIS integra)on OBSERVE – DECIDE – ACT !
Concept and Connections
OBSERVE
Sender FIELD DECIDE
Server OP Center ACT
Receivers FIELD / Network Levels of Communications
Ø Shannon – Weaver (1948/49)
–  Three information levels A.  Technical (Shannon)
ü  How accurately can symbols be transmitted B.  Semantic (words, content)
ü  How precisely symbols convey desired meaning? C.  Effectiveness (Relevance, Usefulness)
ü  How the received message affect conduct? Ø Weaver model largely unexplored –  AnsuR ASIGN also targets B and C
ASIGN Visual Communication/s!
Built for 3 levels: Technical, Content, Relevance
SOURCE
CHANNEL
DESTINATION
LEVEL C: EFFECT
OBSERVATION
Relevant Observation
DECISION
Optimized observations
LEVEL B: SEMATIC
VISUAL
CONTENT
Relevant Content
DATA FUSION
IMAGE ANALYSIS
Optimized Content
LEVEL A: TECHNICAL
COMPRESSION &
TRANSMITTER
Network adaptation
Optimized Transfer
RECEIVER &
DECODER
Get Region of Interest
How much is relevant
1% All Observations
100%
Photos
Interesting Photo / Video
10%
Relevant Content
Time/
Location
10%
Videos
First/
duplicates
Situation
Experience
Innovasjonspris 2008
Time-stamped Geo-referenced Reliable
Crowdsourcing A basis for 110/112/113 App? ASIGN – Map Integration for UN
IAP Fits Perfectly
Ø All we do is part of
an integrated space
solution. –  Integrated Space
–  Space / Terrestrial
ESA Project Background
Ø 19 years with Nera SatCom
Ø 10 years with AnsuR
–  Contributed to ESA projects
since last millennium
•  From the 1990s…
Ø Takes us to some 20 years
Stuff from Mid 90s Already some IAP projects
Ø  SURMON, demo
–  UASatcom Study
Ø  Arctic IAP
Ø  VeriSpace
Ø  SatResponse
Ø  UrbanDRR
Ø  StarFish
Ø  Also other Artes lines (1, 3/4, 5, 8, 20)
Ø  Let´s look at each one – they all tell a story
SURMON and UASatCom
Ø  UASatCom (study)
–  Feasibility UAV for oil pipeline monitoring
Ø  SURMON demo project. –  Feasibility UAV for oil pipeline monitoring
Ø  AnsuR not prime
–  Less work in proposal
•  Need to frame what we do in others context
–  For study: We get what is “left”
–  In general smaller projects. •  Others may think we have all done
•  Reason we are invited to join
•  Initial contact via Inmarsat, whom connected us. Ø  Also loose control
–  Project delayed, –  Our part was not core, the UAV WAS, but we became
core.
•  Now we do our own UAVs for satcom payload Ø  Lesson learned:
–  Be careful with cost, ESA has a max limit.
Key HW Modules
Using a lot of GNSS in!
- AnsuR BirdEye UAVs
AnsuR MayFlyer AnsuR TryFlyer InView MicroDrone AnsuR UAV !
Efficient – Affordable!
Lightest UAV with Satcom
Ø  AB-1 MayFlyer –  Lowest cost UAV
–  Easiest regulartory regime possible
–  Lower operational cost with SatCom
Ø  Ultimate surveillance UAV Ø  Real time visual situational awareness.
Arctic IAP, Tender
Ø  IAP for Arctic, Study
–  Small role - lead by Vega Telespazio, UK
•  Baltic is not arctic
Ø  EO images to ships & arctic users –  In-situ image communications
–  Major bandwidth challenge
Ø  Limited budget, no much development
–  Totally new solution, –  Sole partner developing software
•  “pushed” to test Pre-POC SW with users. •  Interesting area for a Norwegian Ø  Reasonable effort in the proposal writing –  Ready to progress towards demo proposal
VeriSpace, Space for Insurance!
Tender, Study
Ø  Use of EO/space for insurance claims.
–  We won ESNC Norway for this.
Ø  Perfect fit for us – worked to get project.
–  Initially invited to different consortium
•  Joined 2nd when 1st collapsed
–  Very small role financially. •  Again “leftovers”. Ø  Quite a bit of work / meetings / planning
–  All others partners UK based. –  Seems worth it to meet people / clients. •  UK Workshop and work shifted in our favor Ø  Initially not exact focus on what we do
–  Partners need to “learn”
•  Important to keep focus Regional Winner
Ø Credibility
Ø Positive Energy
Ø ESA project potential
Ø Norwegian space center
SatResponse, Tender!
Study
Ø  This was right in our domain!
–  Better use of satcom for disaster
management.
Ø  Started with own project
–  Got in touch with CGI. •  They “always” want to lead
Ø  Prominent role, –  Also a lot of work to prepare •  And do in project.
Ø  Project going well. A bit late. –  Two parallel projects. •  Merging for demo? Ø  Very excited about SatResponse!
–  New non-profit entity?
Ø  United Nations, EU
Urban DRR!
Urban Disaster Risk Reduction
Ø  Our idea. UN idea. We lead. – 
– 
– 
– 
Responded to a call for ideas.
Crowdsourcing, EO, UAV, satcom. GNSS. 5 partners, 3 paid
UN, IFRC, World Bank, ADPC, Insurance
Ø  Longest application process ever…. –  Many things. Swiss /UN. –  80 pages, 8 months, NO Ø  Some strange ESA comments…. –  Changed PO…. Ø  Now great – new regime
–  ESA only contributes 30%
–  PowerPoint reports.
Ø  Would I do this again? –  Well….
StarFish!
Study
Ø  Started long ago - not yet started. –  Not sure if even submitted to ESA…
Ø  Example of project that drags out
–  Big changes in team
•  Little info
Ø  However, great opportunity
–  A small role – but a foot in the door.
Ø  New Problem (challenge) with ESA
–  Without contacting us say they have enough AnsuR
“compression technology”. (this is not what we do!)
•  Needed to lecture the person. ASIGN is what we do!
Ø  Challenge to not be directly involved. Why we do ESA Projects
Ø We are a space company
–  With background from SatCom
Ø Be part of Space Community –  Important definition as start-up important
Ø Verification and interaction of ideas.
–  Even great ideas need some adjustment.
Ø Co-funding of development
Ø Networking and partnerships
Ø Reference / dissemination / Promotion
Why not do ESA Projects!
… in some cases
Ø  Only for funding
–  Takes a lot to get started. •  Chance of repeating oneself
–  Innovation must be driver
Ø  Tenders that partially match
–  Will eventually spend too much time –  Company lacks resources in non-core areas.
Ø  Wrong partners
–  Some challenging to work with
Ø  Artes 1 from Norway
–  Difficult to be competitive
–  Often seems to “never end”
General “Feelings” Ø  Tedious Process
–  A long path from idea to project
Ø  Once started
–  Somewhat dependent on the project offices
Ø  Some concerns
–  ESA requests many documents
•  Sometimes seem ESA are “never happy”
•  Can add recommendations for more work and
not offer more funding •  Formal invoicing and poor cash flow •  Delays are common
Ø  User Driven –  Not innovation driven
–  Early requests for pricing and user
commitment Compare IAP to Other things
Ø  H2020, EC
–  We have one (GSA)
•  Looks great
–  Hard to get.
•  Chance. –  Little feedback if fail
Ø  Eurostars, SME
–  We have had. –  Central evaluation
•  Funding from National research
council
–  Difficult to get, but not
impossible. –  Poor feedback if fail
Some funding available to write proposals However, not all is gloomy
Ø  We see a shift
–  Last project most reports are PPT
Ø  People are generally kind and
helpful
–  But still strict and demanding
Ø  Sometimes it seems we are not
clients
–  But we are. We use ESA services. Ø  One can quite easily submit an idea
–  If positively received you can get
funding
•  Just need to pass all the formalities
Awards !
- and what it may mean
Ø Innovation awards
Ø Probably does not hurt.
Norwegian Space Center
Ø Always demanding and supportive
–  If we have a good case – support letter –  Asks the right questions
–  The right overhead (some, not too much)
–  Seems generally interested in the projects –  Annual meetings with info –  Really a great help!
Ø Thanks!
–  We look forward to continue work!
For further info:
harald@ansur.no
Thank you!