RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATORS

1
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATORS
1. Strong support of the space research community
will also be needed in the future (for space
activities of Finland). space research
community works towards the same general goals
as partners from academia, large institutes and
industry
This is obvious. We could say it even more
strongly research is the driving force to
the Finnish space activities research should be
the starting point also in the space strategy
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
2. Any future programme for space science should
integrate groups from all parts of Finland,
coming from academia, Government
institutions and industry as ANTARES.
integration made by space science board?
integration rather than competition for money
this principle should be remembered also in the
case, that some new space agency would be
established one local institute alone should
not get this task
3
RECOMMENDATIONS
3. Collaborations like those which have been
established for the ANTARES programme should
be continued.
After the programme has ended, a mechanism
seems to be lacking.
Who will take the initiative to launch the next
programme, Tekes, Academy, space science
board? Is ESA programme the only and automatic
driving force for Finnish activities? No
other national needs? Are science, technology,
remote sensing and industry competing with
each other only to get public funding?
4
RECOMMENDATIONS
4. The coordinated support that the Academy and
TEKES have provided to the ANTARES programme
could serve as a model for the support of other
fields in which scientific progress and advanced
technologies are closely coupled .
Bio-science, information technology,
engineering,..? Who will take care of the
coordination (programmes, Academy, new
science boards)? Should the new space
science board be able to coordinate the TEKES
and Academy space funding?
5
RECOMMENDATIONS
5. A mechanism should be implemented to establish
a healthy balance between the exploitation of
existing facilities, contributions to projects
under development, and the preparation of new
missions also in the future.
Should this be made by space strategy
existing space bodies establishing a new
space agency or by new successive space
programmes with no intervals? Is there healthy
balance between resources (manpower, funding)
of Tekes and Academy? Funding for national
space activities (3 M) too small
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
6. The methods and contacts that have been
established to publicize scientific and
technical results should be used also in the
future.
not only in scientific magazines and
conferences but also in local newspapers, in
exhibitions, in presentations to public, in
radio and in TV active individuals (scientists,
editors) are needed
7
RECOMMENDATIONS Space Science Board
7. Creation of a new advisory body Space Science
Board that would report directly to the
Government body that has the responsibility and
the power to decide on the space programme and
to allocate the funds. This body Space Science
Board should be charged with the definition of
a long-term strategy and funding concept, and
with monitoring its execution. The basis for its
recommendations should be scientific excellence,
technological interest, and strategic importance.
Is this advisory body the Finnish Space
Agency? Is Government body Ministry of Trade,
Ministry of Education, Space Committee, or
Tekes?
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional value achieved by Space Science
Board ? - a long-term plan for space science
- the corresponding commitment of adequate
funds - knowledge of the specific requirements
of space activities - a strong and stable
national program - defining scientific and
technical priorities - the long-term goals of
the institutes and companies
Does this mean, that the existing organization
(Tekes, Academy, Ministries, and Space
Committee) has failed? Does the space agency
guarantee the coordination of funds and
continuity in space research? Does it guarantee
national integration and collaboration?
9
RECOMMENDATIONS
Problems of the new advisory body Space Science
Board the loss of independence of
universities? level of knowledge in science,
technology and in industries there is no single
governmental body for space funding Tekes
funding for ESA is 15 M, by ministerial level
decision Tekes funding for national programmes
3 M by Tekes decision Academy funding for ESO
and space 3M by Academy decision funding from
institutes and other ministries by their own
decision bringing together (management) of
Tekes and Academy funding? collaboration (or
fighting?) with Tekes ESA secretariat? taking
into account the industrial needs What are the
roles of Tekes, Academy, Space committee,
space agency, Ministries of Trade and Industry
and Education?
10
RECOMMENDATIONS
Comparison to the Swedish National Space
Board Sweden SNSB Finland (Tekes
SA) budget 77 M 18 3 21 M employees 14 7
1 8 GNP/B 236 125 sci. satellites 6 0
Finland should double its activities in space.
Academy is not willing? Tekes has concentrated
only in technology and industry?
11
RECOMMENDATIONS
8. If similar future evaluations are planned, it
may be worth considering the possibility to
provide similarly detailed technical information.
Research papers related to technology
developments had been included in project
publications in some cases but more would
undoubtedly have been possible and welcome.
self-evident industry is not willing to
publish their innovations
12
Antares Programme
Focus on space science and environmental remote
sensing.

• Programme duration 2001-2004
• Programme funding 16.8 M
• Tekes 10.2 M
• Academy of Finland 4.6 M
• Research institutes 2.0 M
• Programme ManagerProfessor Väinö Kelhä, VTT
• Further informationwww.tekes.fi/english/programm
  es/antares

Picture ESA
13
ANTARES
Project list 1. Planck Surveyor Physics
(Planck) 2. High Energy Astrophysics (HESA) 3.
Space Based Studies of Dark Matter (Darkstar) 5.
Space Weather (SWAP) 6. Cluster II and Miracle
(C2M) 7. Dust, Atmospheres and Plasmas in Solar
System (DAPSS) 8. Micro- and Mesoscale
Atmospheric Phenomena in Mars (MSW) 9. Chemical
Aeronomy of the Mesosphere and Ozone in
Stratosphere (Chamos) 10. New modelling and Data
Analysis for Satellite Based Forest Inventory
(Modafor) 11. Assimilation of Remote Sensing Data
for Environmental Monitoring (Assimenvi)
14
ANTARES
Information dissemination of the ANTARES programme
15
ANTARES
Concluding remarks
Several remarkable scientific and technological
results Inventions of two black holes
Inventions to measure star distances, and He
contents in cosmos The most sensitive 70 GHz
radiometer New assimilation method for
environmental remote sensing New technologies
for X-ray detectors New mm-wave and SQUID
applications More than 400 scientific
publications 89 person years of education of
space science and technology 24 PhD and 43 MSc
thesis Utilisation of 25 Finnish space
instruments New technologies transferred to
common markets security applications
traffic applications analysis applications
16
ANTARES
Concluding remarks
Good collaboration between funding agencies
(Tekes, SA) Good networking with national and
international partners Good collaboration with
industries Universities and research
institutes Good collaboration with space
agencies (ESA, NASA, RKA) Utilisation of more
than 50 European and American satellites Informati
on dissemination large Three dedicated Antares
seminars 322 presentations in international
scientific conferences Three Antares press
conferences 117 presentations in the Finnish
TV and radio 135 articles in popular
newspapers several open lectures for students
and for public
17
ANTARESConcluding remarks
To improve the programme method - the nomination
of the coordinator should be made earlier - the
coordinator should take part in the steering
groups of the projects - the funding decisions
(in the very beginning) should cover the whole
project - the management of the funding to the
coordinator should be easier - the funding
procedure of the Academy of Finland is too
inflexible - instructions and division of duties
for evaluation should be clarified - the
consortium leaders should be able to discuss
about evaluators - division of duties between the
coordinator and press officers to be clarified -
change of personnel in the Academy causing
friction - the high loading of the personnel in
the Academy causing delays - the promotion of the
names of the funding agencies seems to be more
important than the results in programme - the
secret mailing list of Tekes is unnecessary and
disturbing