FAQ [All OGs]

PERASPERA / FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

(This FAQ and Web portal reflects the PSA consortium’s view. The EC and REA are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains)

Q6  [All OGs]: How the different Operational Grants will be coordinated among them as part of the H2020 SRC Space Robotic Technologies?

A: All partners of the Operational Grants and the partners of the PSA PERASPERA will later sign a Collaboration Agreement in order to ensure that results of the individual projects can be used to achieve the overall SRC objectives. A template for such a Collaboration Agreement is available on the web at:


Q7 [All OGs]: Will the bids be considered non compliant/none responsive if they do not meet the requirements/objectives outlined in the Guidelines?

A: These guidelines are intended to assist applicants in preparing their proposals in the context of the Strategic Research Cluster. The supporting document provides indicative guidance for the applicants, in order to optimally align their proposals to the Strategic Research Cluster objectives.

In case a proposal chooses to deviate from what is expected from an Operational Grant (as outlined in the guideline), this choice should better be well justified and explained.
A proposal that does not fully answer to the expectations in the Guidelines will not be automatically declared out of scope and will be evaluated by Independent Experts. In any case, it is up to the Expert Evaluators to assess the degree to which the expectations are met by the proposals and the impact of potential deviations.

Q15 [OG4] [All OGs]: Will the reference implementations (Orbital, Planetary) remain in hardware with INSES for the next phase, or are leased sensors sufficient to validate its performance in the common demonstration scenarios? 

A: The common building blocks will need to demonstrate ability to be integrated together. It remains to be defined precisely how the outputs of the first phase of OGs will be used in the next phases. Such matters will also be regulated by the Collaboration Agreement.

The objetive is to keep the sensor hardware for the activities to be pursued in the subsequent calls (this is particularly true for the Planetary Track where only ground demos are targeted). It can be envisioned however to reduce the procurement cost by not duplicating the sensors that might be present in both reference implementations.

The UE will remain the owner of all OGs deliverables.

Q18 [All OGs]: Given the suggested milestones for OG3 in the Call document, Task4 is scheduled to finish in Month 22 and the final project presentation is on Month 27 which means Task5 is carried out between Month 23 and 27. However the schedule table also indicates that a final acceptance meeting should take place in Month 24. This is only 2 months into the Task5 activities. We are not very sure what is expected to be delivered/completed at this final acceptance meeting. Can you help to clarify please?

A: Because we are dealing with six different projects that need to be coordinated and aligned, and the products integrated in a timely and efficient manner, we in the PSA envisage that there will be natural teething problems with all the projects; in short, we don’t anticipate all the projects starting at the same time because of the amount of cat-herding involved. As such, please note the word “tentatively” before 24 months. It would be dependent upon the progress of the other OGs, particularly OG6. In any instance, your progress will be monitored by the SRC Board and any such flexibility can be discussed.

Q19 [OG3] [OG4] [All OGs]: Should we show, at the end of the project, that we are mastering the whole set of sensors and that these sensors can offer the required interface and modularity capabilities or should we build a complete robotic system including data processing and fusion functionalities ?

A: The first part of the alternative is the right one. It is definitely not foreseen within OG4 to build a robotic system with data processing and fusion capabilities since this would overlap with OG3 activity.

Nevertheless, it shall be proven that the OG4 end product can be interfaced with OG3 functionalities to demonstrate various capabilities of perception/navigation system. This type of activity will be performed within OG6 in coordination with all relevant OGs (OG3 for the most part). The elaboration of the demonstration requirements will be also elaborated in a collaborative mode.

Bidders attention must be drawn on what is indicated on page 5 of the “SRC Guidelines Space Robotics Technologies (COMPET-4-2016)” document:

“Even though the integration of OG outputs is in the future, all OGs need to interact in order to prepare for the future integration. The interaction among OGs will be based on:

  • Cross delivery of interface specifications
  • Cross delivery of preliminary/final outputs
  • Integration and demonstration of the final outputs of OGs in common test platforms

Each OG Consortium is expected to nominate an “interface engineer” in order to coordinate establishment and maintenance of interface specifications with other OGs.”

Q23 [OG2] [OG6] [All OGs]: What kind of testing is expected for OG2: simulation or with the robotic platform provided by OG6. In case it is the second, what kind of test should we think about? The problem is that, while this 2016 does not aim to fully integrate all OGs, OG2 strongly depends on OG1, OG3 and the rover or spacecraft. In consequence, if these are not integrated, then the OG2 would need to develop basic functionalities.

A: The test scenario for OG2 (and all other OGs) must be provided by OG6 in the test facilities (orbital servicing and planetary exploration platforms). It is the responsibility of OG6 to provide test facilities that are able and appropriate for all OG testing. That would include provision of a Mars-yard, a rover, etc. but also the operative system in which will be running the Autonomy Framework (OG2).

The full integration of the OGs are not going to be covered in this first call, but is for example the consortium of OG2 (AF) and OG1 (RCOS) consider that is better to do the final testing running the Autonomy Framework (OG2) over the RCOS (OG1) instead of other operative system this integration will be really welcome by PERASPERA PSA. Full integration is beyond the scope and funding of this call, but partial integration is recommended, as it will strengthen the ties across the SRC.