Guidance

Competition Document: Space to Innovate Delta Drop

Updated 17 July 2026

1. Introduction

This UK Defence Innovation (UKDI) competition is run on behalf of the UK Space Agency (UKSA) and Dstl. The UK Space Agency (UKSA) and Dstl are seeking proposals that can aid UK government to develop future space technologies of benefit across multiple HMG uses. We are looking for innovative solutions that can address the challenge areas described in the document.

In this competition we will be running a two-stage process. UKDI has introduced this 2-stage submission process to help innovators understand early on, and with reduced effort, if their idea is appropriate for the competition and to make the review and decision making process more efficient. The table below summarises the differences and expectations of the 2 stages.

STAGE	PURPOSE	EXPECTED CONTENT
Submission Stage 1	Initial innovation screening	Idea overview with outline technical plan
Submission Stage 2	Full detailed proposal review (by invitation only)	Detailed proposal with full technical description, detailed project plan and finance breakdown

All Stage 1 submissions will be carefully reviewed by the Dstl competition team. They will look for ideas that align well with the competition, demonstrate a strong chance of successful delivery, and meet the customer’s needs. Submissions that demonstrate a good fit will be invited to progress to Stage 2 and submit a full proposal.

2. Competition key information

Key Information	Competition Details
Stage 1 submission deadline	12:00 Midday on 28 July 2026 (BST)
Stage 1 decision release	12:00 Midday 04 August 2026 (BST)
Stage 2 open (by invitation)	12:00 Midday 04 August 2026 (BST)
Stage 2  submission deadline	12:00 Midday on 01 September 2026 (BST)
Total funding available	£900k.
Technology Readiness Level (TRL)	Expected to achieve TRL 3 to TRL 6.
Contract start month	Aim to start late November or early December
Project duration	Equal to or less than 18 months.
Risk Assessment Reference	RAR-TUVW7RN
Feedback release date	04 November 2026
Pre-sift criteria	See Section “Pre-sift Criteria”

2.1 Competition Specific Requirements

Please note that this competition has specific requirements as part of its pre-sift criteria . Only those proposals submitted for Stage 2 that demonstrate compliance with the UKDI pre-sift criteria will be taken forward to full assessment . These specific requirements include:

• In the financial plan, the payment milestones are such that approximately 20-25% of the total proposal value is spent within FY26/27
• The bidding organisation is UK-registered

For the full list of criteria, please see Section “Pre-sift Criteria”.

2.2 Where do I submit my proposal?

Both Stage 1 and Stage 2 forms are to be submitted via the UKDI Online Submission Service where you will need to register for an account. Only proposals submitted through the UKDI Online Submission Service will be accepted. Innovators are strongly advised to submit their proposal at least one hour before the deadline. Proposals submitted close to the deadline risk encountering issues that cannot be resolved in time. Responsibility for timely submission rests entirely with the innovator, no extensions will be made. If you are having problems submitting your proposal, email us prior to the deadline on accelerator@dstl.gov.uk or call 01980 950000 option 3 Monday to Friday 0900-1200 only.

2.3 Public facing information

Stage 1

Information supplied in this stage will be retained in confidence within UKDI for 12 months, and then destroyed. No information from Stage 1 shall be shared with any third party.

Stage 2

If you are invited into Stage 2 of this competition, when submitting your proposal, you will be required to include a title, Proposal Value Proposition Statement (PVPS) and a short abstract. The title, PVPS and abstract you provide will be used by UKDI, and Partners Across Government (PAG), to describe your project and its intended outcomes and benefits. They may be included at UKDI events in relation to this competition and in documentation such as brochures. As this information can be shared, it should not contain information that may compromise Intellectual Property.

2.4 Further guidance

For further guidance on what to expect during the submission process and how your proposal will be assessed, please see the following GOV.UK pages and forms:

• Submit a proposal
• Assessment process and criteria
• UKDI: ethical, legal and regulatory guidance
• MODREC Guidance for Suppliers
• Competition Terms and Conditions
• UKDI contracting guidance
• Cyber Security Model
• How to get in touch with your local Innovation Partner

3. Supporting activities

3.1 Launch webinar

On 8 July 2026 UKDI hosted a launch webinar to provide further detail on the problem space and a chance to ask questions in an open forum.

Space to Innovate: Delta Drop - Webinar

3.2 One-to-Ones

09/07/2026 – A series of 15-minute one-to-one teleconference sessions, giving you the opportunity to ask specific technical questions to the competition team in a closed forum. Registration for these sessions will be opened directly following the launch webinar (08/07/2026), on the Eventbrite page. Booking will be on a first come first served basis.

Non-technical questions about the competition process should be sent to the UKDI Help Centre, accelerator@dstl.gov.uk.

4. Competition scope

4.1 Background

The UK Space Agency and Dstl Space Programme are launching this UK Defence Innovation (UKDI) campaign  to attract novel technological solutions from a broad range of innovators in order to alleviate some of the UK’s Space Technology challenges. With appetite for an increased presence in space for the UK, there is a need for more technologies to support those future missions and capabilities. Be it improved data flow, better signal processing, or use of new materials in space - innovation in all areas is vital to meet the demands being faced by the domain.

4.2 Scope

The objective of this campaign is to fund research into space technologies that may not otherwise be developed within the civil space industry. This will address a set of specific problems in the space domain, as outlined in the campaign challenges.

Funded projects are expected to achieve at least Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3 (proof-of-concept) to TRL 6 (demonstration in a relevant environment) by the end of contract. Solutions currently at or above TRL 6 in a civilian environment may be eligible for funding where the technology requires development to operate in a Government or Security environment (potentially lowering the TRL).

We welcome proposals from across the full range of innovators including academia, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and large companies, from both the UK and overseas that are registered in the UK . We also welcome joint bids which bring together the strength of different industrial or academic partners.

The campaign is open to innovators from both the existing space sector and those who have not traditionally worked in this domain. Previous experience of Defence and Security work is not a requirement.

4.3 Exploitation

Successful suppliers will be encouraged to submit follow-on proposals , which the Competition Team may consider after completion of the contract. The Competition Team may also elect to pursue any proposals assessed as “fundable but not funded” through a mechanism separate from the competition.

Successful suppliers will be invited to participate in a “Show and Tell” style event at an appropriate time. This event will provide an opportunity to present their work to a wider government audience and relevant collaborative partners, with the aim of raising awareness and facilitating further exploitation of the work undertaken.

5. Competition challenges

This drop has 3 challenges. Applicants can make multiple submissions as long as each submission is materially different. A total of £900K is available to fund the three challenges and it is expected that a number of projects will be funded in total. Across all three challenges, we expect projects to achieve TRL 3-6 at the end of the contract.

5.1 Challenge 1: Technologies to enhance future sensor to response capabilities, improving coverage and response times for SDA, ISR and communications missions

Contracts available for challenge 1:

• up to £100,000 for 6 months
• up to £165,000 for 12 months
• up to £330,000 for 18 months

Challenge 1 Scope

This challenge seeks to develop technologies and demonstrations of novel communications, processing, storage, and connectivity for the space domain for government applications. We welcome technology to improve the speed of transfer of space and terrestrial sensor information to the operational decision maker and communicate out to the relevant effector. Technologies and techniques may include (as examples, but are not limited to) the following areas:

• Novel distribution of secure data from space-based sensors.
• Novel space-based networks, relays and systems to expedite data flow in the space layer.
• Innovations in the ground infrastructure to enable downlink and ingestion of space data to terrestrial systems or onward.
• Innovative processing methods to reduce data transfer burdens, thereby improving transmission and action speed.
• In orbit processing and storage capabilities.

5.2 Challenge 2: Novel technology approaches to self-protecting space based platforms

Contracts available for challenge 2:

• up to £125,000 for 6 months
• up to £200,000 for 12 months

Challenge 2 Scope

This challenge seeks to develop and demonstrate novel technologies in the space domain for government applications which could aid satellite self-protection or recovery from damage inflicted by space weather, debris or malign effects. Technologies and techniques may include (as examples, but are not limited to) the following areas:

• Novel satellite architectures to facilitate in-orbit self-repair and resilience including self-inspection and diagnostic capabilities
• Novel materials to enable self-healing structures or protective or concealing covers.
• Novel sensor applications and propulsion integration to facilitate autonomous collision avoidance.
• Innovative solutions to improve resilience to radiation events.
• Novel techniques for space object characterisation as per Cross-Government SDA requirements SR-07.

We are looking for solutions that could be useful both in today’s operational environment and also for the next generation.

5.3 Challenge 3: Technologies to enable resilience against ground based electromagnetic threat

Contracts available for challenge 3:

• up to £125,000 for 6 months
• up to £200,000 for 12 months

Challenge 3 Scope

This challenge seeks to develop technologies and demonstrations for the space domain for government applications that enable resilience against ground based electromagnetic (EM) threat. Threats in this context could include, dazzling, spoofing, jamming, eavesdropping, or denial of service. Technologies and techniques may include (as examples, but are not limited to) the following areas:

• On-board hardware and software solutions to mitigate the impacts of EM threats
• Novel waveforms and regenerative payloads.
• Novel beamforming and nulling techniques
• Novel on-board decision making.
• Novel antenna arrays resilient to RF effects.
• Geolocation of EM effectors impacting space assets.

5.4 We are interested in…

We want novel ideas to benefit end-users working in UK defence and security. Your proposal should include evidence of:

• theoretical development, methodological advancement or proof of concept research which can demonstrate potential for translation to practical demonstration in later phases
• an innovative or a creative approach
• a clear demonstration of how the proposed work applies to any Defence and Security context

5.5 We are not interested in…

We are not interested in proposals that:

• technologies or systems relating to space launch
• space technologies where the commercial market is already strongly invested (e.g. general satellite communications)
• proposals relating to human spaceflight and exploration
• proposals which could be considered an irresponsible use of space (e.g. generating unnecessary debris, or violating international treaties)
• areas which constitute research into the specific areas of: Quantum Key Distribution (QKD); security and encryption of optical communications; general object tracking and re-entry warning
• constitute consultancy or literature reviews which just summarise the existing literature without any view of future development
• are an identical resubmission of a previous bid to UKDI, DASA or MOD without modification
• present more than one bid with the same technical idea amended for the different contract lengths
• offer demonstrations of off-the-shelf products requiring no experimental development (unless applied in a novel way to the challenge)
• offer no real long-term prospect of integration into UK Defence and Security capabilities
• offer no real prospect of out-competing existing technological solutions
• do not fall clearly into one challenge as outlined above
• need an extensive requirements development phase.

6. Critical elements to include

Stage 1

Stage 1 submissions must include the following elements:

• A description of what you propose to develop and against which challenge area, demonstrating alignment with the challenge
• A summary of how your technology works, being specific on expected performance parameters. Where possible include any evidence to support your claims (open-source literature, test results etc.)
• Any constraints on the use of your technology (e.g. a minimum size of satellite, large power requirements, etc.)
• Demonstrating how your proposal is new and innovative
• Expected project durations and start and finish TRL

Stage 2

When writing your proposal, ensure you have:

• focused on the Competition requirements but also included a brief (un-costed) outline of the next stages of work required for exploitation
• included a list of other government funding you have received in this area. Making it clear how this proposal differs from that work
• included a detailed project plan with clear milestones and deliverables. Deliverables need to be well defined and designed to provide evidence of progress against the project plan. Your deliverables must include a written final report and demons tration. The final report must include plans for potential future work to further develop the technology
• planned (and costed) attendance at the following meetings, which will all be in the UK.
  • a kick-off meeting
  • a mid-project event
  • an end of project demonstration
  • monthly reviews with the appointed Technical Partner and Project Manager  and a close-down meeting at the end of the project

These activities may take place virtually. Slides presented at these meetings should be appropriately marked and made available

• identified any ethical / legal / regulatory factors. Associated risks should have been added to the Risk Register in Step 5 of the submission service along with details of how they will be managed, including break points in the project if approvals are not received
• included any requirements for access to Government Furnished X (GFX). GFX is the preferred nondescript term for anything that the Government provides in which the ‘X’ could be artefacts such as information or equipment. UKDI cannot guarantee that GFX will be made available. You should have included an alternative plan in your proposal in case it is not available.

7. Accelerating and exploiting your innovation

Ensure your deliverables are designed with the aim of making it as easy as possible for assessors to recognise expected development in technology maturity of the potential solution over the lifetime of the project. Specifically, how this demonstrates improved capability against the current known (or presumed) solutions.

Over the lifetime of UKDI awarded projects, ideas may mature and accelerate under the guidance of appropriate stakeholders, toward being functional capabilities. How long this takes, and how far towards a deployable capability the innovations progress, will depend on any future exploitation after the completion of the UKDI project.

Low TRL research and development may not be able to articulate exploitation in great detail, but it should be clear that there is credible advantage to be gained from the technology development.

7.1 Exploitation beyond your project plan

Include the following information within the Desirability question within the UKDI Online Submission Service application form to help the assessors understand your exploitation intentions:

• For projects reaching TRL 6, expected additional work required beyond the end of the contract to develop an operationally deployable commercial product (for example, “scaling up” for manufacture, cyber security, integration with existing technologies, environmental operating conditions)
• For projects reaching TRL of less than 6, costed contract options for follow-on work to achieve TRL 6.
• additional future applications and wider markets for exploitation
• wider collaborations and networks you have already developed or any additional relationships you see as a requirement to support exploitation
• how your product could be tested in a representative environment in later phases
• any specific legal, ethical, commercial or regulatory considerations for exploitation

8. Pre-sift Criteria for Stage 2

Before your proposal is assessed, all proposals will be checked for compliance with the UKDI pre-sift criteria.  Proposals will be rejected before full assessment if they do not comply.

For more information on how your proposal will be assessed please read Assessment process and criteria.

Space to Innovate – Delta Drop pre-sift criteria is as follows:

Criteria	Measure - Within scope (Pass) / Out of scope (Fail)
A Stage 1 proposal was submitted and an invitation to submit to Stage 2 was issued	Pass / Fail
The proposal outlines how it meets the scope of the competition	Pass / Fail
The proposal explains how it meets the UKDI criteria (Desirability, Feasibility, and Viability) in the relevant questions in Step 3 of the submission service	Pass / Fail
The proposal must contain a financial plan, a project plan and a resourcing plan which demonstrate how the work proposed will be completed	Pass / Fail
The delivery schedule within your proposal includes evidence of a written final report and demonstration	Pass / Fail
The proposal confirms there is no need for MODREC	Pass / Fail
The final deliverable month indicated must be less than or equal to 18 months from T0 where T0 is the project start date agreed by both parties	Pass / Fail
The proposal addresses how it will meet the TRL requirement (TRL 3 to 6)	Pass / Fail
The  proposal specifies the payment milestones such that between 20% and 25% of the full proposal value is spent within FY26/27	Pass / Fail
The proposal does not contain attachments that have been used for additional text data over the stated word counts in Desirability, Feasibility, Viability and Additional Information	Pass / Fail
If the proposal is a resubmission of a previous one, it adheres to the resubmission guidelines	Pass / Fail

9. How your proposal will be assessed 

Stage 1

All submissions received by the Stage 1 deadline will be reviewed by representatives from Dstl and the UK Space Agency and a decision made regarding the suitability of the innovation described. The review will determine:

• Relevance to Customer Requirement: Reviewers will be looking for evidence that your innovation fully addresses the problem posed by the selected challenge and an understanding of what sets it apart from existing capability
• Confidence in delivery: Reviewers will be looking for confidence that your innovation can reasonably be delivered from its current TRL to the expected TRL within the project timeline

Successful submissions into Stage 1 will receive an invitation to submit into Stage 2. Those not successful at Stage 1 will receive an email notifying them along with the key reason they weren’t successful but will not receive further feedback.

Stage 2

Proposals that are compliant at presift in Stage 2 will be assessed against  the standard UKDI assessment criteria (Desirability, Feasibility and Viability) by subject matter experts from the MOD (including Dstl), the UK Space Agency, UK Space Command (UKSC), PAG, and the front-line military commands. You will not have the opportunity to view or comment on assessors’ recommendations.

UKDI reserves the right to disclose on a confidential basis any information it receives from innovators during the procurement process, which includes the full proposal, to any third party engaged by UKDI for the specific purpose of evaluating or assisting UKDI in the evaluation of your proposal. In providing such information you consent to such disclosure. Appropriate confidentiality agreements will be put in place.

After assessment, proposals will be discussed at a Decision Conference where funding decisions are made based on the assessments, budget and wider strategic considerations.

Innovators are not permitted to attend the Decision Conference.

10. UKDI Terms and Conditions

Please read the UKDI contracting guidance which contain important information for innovators. For this competition we will be using the Innovation Standard Contract (ISC), Terms and Conditions. Information on the relevant DEFCONs can be found by registering on the Knowledge in Defence site.

We require unqualified acceptance of the Terms and Conditions. Where innovator organisations have a commercial department, they will need to provide acceptance.

We will use deliverables from UKDI contracts in accordance with our rights detailed in the contract Terms and Conditions.

10.1 Feedback

Proposals that are unsuccessful at Stage 2 will receive feedback in the form of bullet points and a couple of short paragraphs after the Decision Conference.

Where a proposal meets the fundable requirements for a competition, but is not funded, UKDI will continue to seek funding and shall consider your proposal fundable for 12 months from the date of the feedback release.

We will share the abstract, Proposal Value Proposition Statement (PVPS) and title of your proposal with partners across His Majesty’s Government that may express an interest in funding the proposal through UKDI, in accordance with the competition document. We may also share this information on our cross-government Ideas Marketplace platform to foster collaboration and attempt to elicit funding. If partners across His Majesty’s Government wish to read the full proposal to decide if they will fund it, we will share the full proposal with them without seeking your permission if it is within 60 days of the feedback release date. If it is over 60 days since the feedback release date, we will seek your permission before sharing the full proposal with them.

For other potential funders, we will seek your permission before sharing the full proposal regardless of the number of days since the feedback release date.

In the event that funding becomes available, UKDI may ask whether you would still be prepared to undertake the work outlined in your proposal under the same terms. Your official UKDI feedback will indicate if your proposal was deemed fundable but not awarded funding at the time.

11. If your proposal is recommended for funding

Funded projects will be allocated a Project Manager (to monitor the project) and a Technical Partner (as a technical point of contact). In addition, the UKDI team may work with an innovator to support delivery and exploitation including, when appropriate, introductions to end-users and business support to help develop their business.

11.1 Cyber Security Model 

The Cyber Security Model (CSM) is how Defence builds cyber security into its supply chain.

On receipt of a FUND decision, successful innovators (and their sub-contractors) must prove cyber resilience before the contract is awarded. The start of this process is the submission of a Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ allows innovators to demonstrate compliance with the specified risk level and the corresponding profile in Def Stan 05-138, and the level of control required will depend on this risk level.

To expedite the contracting time of successful innovators we ask all innovators to complete the SAQ before they submit their proposal (this is not mandated). The SAQ must be completed using the Risk Assessment number RAR-TUVW7RN. The risk level for this competition is Level 1.

The SAQ will be automatically scored against the Cyber Risk Profile (CRP) and you will be immediately informed of the outcome, compliant or not compliant.

If non-compliant, you will be required to complete a Cyber Improvement Plan (CIP) before the contract is placed which will need to be reviewed and agreed with the relevant project manager. The CIP template can be found here.

Before you start your SAQ you will need:

• the Risk Assessment Reference (RAR): RAR-TUVW7RN
• a D-U-N-S number (a unique identifier for your organisation)
• a GOV.UK One Login

11.2 Export control for overseas partners

All relevant export control regulations will apply if a company ultimately wants to sell a developed solution to a foreign entity. All innovators must ensure that they can obtain, if required, the necessary export licences for their proposals and developments, such that they can be supplied to the UK and other countries. If you cannot confirm you can obtain the necessary licences as part of your proposal, you will be required to provide this information prior to contract award, should your proposal be selected for funding.

12. Points of Contact

During the competition phase all correspondence must be via the UKDI Points of Contact detailed below.

While all reasonable efforts will be made to answer queries, UKDI reserves the right to impose management controls if volumes of queries restrict fair access of information to all potential innovators.

12.1 Innovation Partner

UKDI has a team of locally based Innovation Partners that can provide support in working with UKDI. It is strongly recommended that you contact your local Innovation Partner to discuss your idea for any aspect of this competition.

You can initiate this through the submission of an  innovation outline via the UKDI Online Submission Service. This will close on 21 July 2026 to allow time for the team to respond ahead of the competition close.

12.2 UKDI Help Centre

Competition queries including on process, application, commercial, technical and intellectual property aspects should be sent to the UKDI Help Centre at accelerator@dstl.gov.uk, quoting the competition title. UKDI cannot guarantee a response to a query but we will make every effort to respond ahead of the competition close.

13. Q&As

This is a collection of questions received in the webinar on 08 July 2026 and one to one sessions on 09 July 2026.

13.1 Intellectual Property and Funding

Q: Who will own the intellectual property (IP) and rights to the products or inventions developed under this competition? Will the UK Government require full rights access or limited rights access, and are there any conditions associated with this?

A: Under the standard UKDI contractual arrangements, including DEFCON 705 provisions, intellectual property generated through the project remains with the innovator. The UK Government will require appropriate user rights to enable the exploitation of project outputs. Where a proposal relies on third-party intellectual property that is subject to restrictions, these arrangements must be clearly identified within the Stage 2 proposal and will be considered as part of the assessment process.

Q: How is intellectual property (IP) protected during the innovation outline submission and review process, and what assurances are provided regarding those reviewing proposals, particularly where proposals contain novel ideas that may be protected through IP rights? Are any commercial organisations involved in the assessment process that could present a conflict of interest?

A: UKDI treats applicant intellectual property with strict confidentiality throughout the competition process. Stage 1 submissions are retained in confidence within UKDI and are not shared with third parties. Access to proposal information is restricted to personnel directly involved in the assessment process, which is conducted by UK Space Agency and Dstl personnel only; commercial organisations are not involved in the assessment of proposals.

Applicants retain ownership of their intellectual property, and submissions are handled in accordance with the competition process and relevant contractual provisions. The purpose of the competition is to support the development and exploitation of innovative technologies by suppliers, not to transfer intellectual property to third parties. Proposal information is therefore managed confidentially and is not shared with commercial competitors as part of the assessment process.

Applicants are nevertheless encouraged to take appropriate steps to protect their intellectual property and to disclose only the information necessary for assessment. They should also ensure that any information intended for wider publication at later stages of the competition, such as abstracts or value proposition statements, does not inadvertently disclose sensitive intellectual property.

Q: Do I understand correctly that if a submission is assessed as fundable but is not funded, it can be taken forward by UKDI without the involvement of the company that proposed it?

A: No. Intellectual property remains with the proposing organisation. Where a proposal is assessed as fundable but cannot be supported through the competition budget, UKDI may explore alternative funding routes. Should alternative funding become available, the original proposer would remain the delivery organisation and would be contracted accordingly. Proposal information is not shared outside the assessment process without appropriate arrangements in place.

Q: Is this a procurement call or a grant? What is the funding rate?

A: This competition is a contract-based procurement rather than a grant competition. Successful applicants will enter into a contract to deliver the project described in their proposal. The proposal forms the basis of the contract, and projects may be funded up to 100% of eligible project costs as set out in the proposal.

Q: The website stated that Challenge 1 funding was up to £400k for  up to 18 months, while other information referred to £330k for 18 months inclusive of VAT. Can clarification be provided on both the funding level and whether budgets are quoted inclusive or exclusive of VAT? 

A: The competition budgets have been revised so that project values are now quoted excluding VAT, in line with the standard UKDI application process. As a result, previously published figures that included VAT were amended, including the Challenge 1 funding value, which changed from £400k to £330k when VAT was removed from the published contract value. The overall level of funding available has not changed; only the presentation of project costs has been updated to align with the standard UKDI approach of quoting costs excluding VAT. This applies to the competition budgets generally, not just to Challenge 1.

Q: Are Dstl and UK Space Agency expecting to fund one bid per challenge?

A: No fixed number of projects has been mandated for each challenge. Funding decisions will depend on the quality of submissions received and the outcomes of the assessment process. The competition document indicates that a number of projects may be funded across the three challenges.

Q: The competition states that approximately 20–25% of the total project value should be spent during FY26/27. Does this mean funding is paid upfront?

A: No. As this is a contract rather than a grant, payment is made against agreed deliverables and milestones. At least one deliverable must be scheduled within FY26/27, and the value of milestones falling within that financial year should total approximately 20–25% of the overall contract value. No upfront payments are made.

Q: What constitutes an acceptable milestone for milestone payments?

A: Milestones should be linked to tangible and verifiable deliverables. Examples include delivery of a physical prototype, a demonstration, a test activity, or a presentation of agreed outputs. The deliverable must provide clear evidence that progress has been achieved.

Q: What restrictions apply if a similar proposal is submitted to this competition and another government funding opportunity?

A: Organisations may submit similar proposals to multiple funding opportunities. However, the same project cannot receive funding from more than one government source. Where multiple applications are successful, the applicant would need to select a single source of funding for that project. Applicants should declare other funding applications and sources of support as part of the application process.

Q: Can a proposal be funded if it builds on technology that has already received grant funding?

A: Yes, provided the new proposal is materially different from the previously funded work. Funding is not intended to support the same activity twice.

Q: For applications from academia, can Full Economic Costing (FEC) methodology be used for project costings?

A: Academic institutions may use their standard costing methodologies. Applicants should clearly explain what overhead and indirect costs cover and demonstrate that the proposed costs represent good value for money. Assessors will consider value for money as part of the assessment process.

Q: Are there any percentage limits on subcontracting costs, overheads or labour expenditure?

A: There are no specific percentage limits. However, all costs must be justified and represent value for money. Assessors will consider whether the proposed expenditure is appropriate for the objectives and outcomes of the project.

Q: Are there any match-funding requirements, or is each proposal fully funded by UK Space Agency and Dstl?

A: Match funding is not required. Successful proposals are funded through a contract rather than a grant arrangement. Applicants should include only the costs being requested from UKDI within their proposal. If an organisation chooses to make additional private investment into the project, this should be clearly identified and kept separate from the costs being claimed through the competition.

Q: Can capital expenditure (CAPEX) costs be included?

A: Yes. Equipment purchases may be included where they are necessary for project delivery and represent value for money. Applicants should clearly justify the requirement and associated costs. Equipment above the threshold specified within the UKDI terms and conditions may be treated as government-owned property and managed accordingly. Applicants should refer to the competition terms and conditions for full details.

Q: For funding, once a particular funding requirement has been requested, what factors are assessed in determining whether a proposal is funded?

A: Stage 2 proposals are assessed against the criteria of desirability, feasibility and viability. Desirability considers how effectively the proposal addresses the challenge and the value of the innovation. Feasibility examines the technical approach and deliverability of the proposed work. Viability considers whether the organisation has the resources, plans and team required to deliver the project successfully. The level of funding requested is considered as part of the value-for-money assessment, but the primary focus remains on the strength of the proposal and its ability to meet the competition objectives.

Q: Is there a plan to provide further funding to successful projects, including support for future in-space demonstrations?

A: No commitment can be made to future funding at this stage. However, applicants are encouraged to describe future development, and exploitation plans within their proposals. The wider space programme has a strong interest in future in-space demonstrations and successful suppliers may be encouraged to submit follow-on proposals for consideration through subsequent funding opportunities.

13.2 Eligibility and Participation & Process

Q: On the submission portal, the Space to Innovate call appears under both the UKDI Stage 1 submission and the UKDI Innovation Outline routes. Which should be used for a formal submission?

A: Formal applications must be submitted through the UKDI Stage 1 submission service. The Innovation Outline route is intended only for engagement with a regional Innovation Partner and is not a formal competition submission.

Q: What is the structure of the proposal submitted at Stage 1?

A: The Stage 1 proposal is intended to provide a concise summary of the proposed innovation. It should explain the challenge being addressed, what is novel or innovative about the approach, how it differs from existing solutions, and provide an outline of the proposed technical activity. The purpose is to enable an initial understanding of suitability for the competition. The submission is intentionally brief and significantly less detailed than the full Stage 2 proposal. A successful Stage 1 proposal is required to enter Stage 2.

Q: Is there a recommended word count for each section of the Stage 1 submission?

A: Yes. Word limits are displayed within the online submission form. Applicants should refer to the relevant field guidance when completing their submission.

Q: Will we be able to receive technical feedback if a Stage 1 proposal is deemed not to be a good fit?

A: Due to the anticipated volume of submissions and the rapid assessment timeline, feedback at Stage 1 will be limited. Applicants can expect high-level feedback, such as whether the proposal falls outside the competition scope. Detailed technical feedback will not be provided at this stage.

Q: Is submitting an innovation outline necessary before applying?

A: No. An innovation outline is primarily a mechanism to support early discussions with your regional innovation partner and is not a prerequisite for submitting a proposal.

Q: Can organisations submit more than one proposal?

A: Yes. Organisations may submit multiple proposals provided that each submission is materially different. Applicants should ensure they have the capacity and resources to deliver all projects successfully should more than one proposal be selected for funding.

Q: The competition requires the bidding organisation to be registered in the UK. Does this requirement also apply to subcontractors?

A: The bidding organisation must be UK-registered. While subcontractors do not necessarily need to be UK-registered, Dstl and UKSA are seeking to develop UK sovereign capability, and proposals with a strong UK-based element may be given preference in support of UK Defence and National Security. At Stage 2, applicants will be required to explain the roles, locations and responsibilities of project partners and subcontractors, and these factors may be taken into account during assessment.

Q: Is the cybersecurity compliance requirement a factor in proposal assessment or a prerequisite for contract award?

A: Applicants must have submitted the required cybersecurity self-assessment before submitting their proposal. Full compliance is not required at the point of proposal submission but must be achieved before any contract can be awarded.

Q: How are larger organisations, including those with existing defence-sector experience, best positioned to submit proposals, given the emphasis on engaging non-traditional suppliers and the fact that many innovative technologies originate outside the SME and academic communities?

A: There is no preference for SMEs, academic institutions, non-traditional suppliers, or any particular type or size of organisation. The competition is open to organisations of all sizes that meet the eligibility requirements, and all proposals are assessed on their merits against the published criteria.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the quality of the innovation and its ability to address the challenge requirements, rather than the nature of the organisation submitting the bid. While UKDI, the UK Space Agency and Dstl are keen to broaden participation from organisations that have not traditionally worked with defence, there is no assessment preference for non-traditional suppliers.

Organisations of all sizes, including those with established defence-sector experience, are encouraged to apply, provided they can demonstrate the capability and capacity to deliver the proposed work. This approach supports the competition’s objective of attracting innovative solutions from a broad and diverse range of suppliers.

Q: Do you have to have a registered company before applying, or can registration take place once the proposal is accepted?

A: Applicants must be registered in the UK before submitting a proposal. UK registration is a competition requirement.

Q: Are industrial partners required for the first stage, or can a university apply independently?

A: A university may apply independently. There is no requirement to have an industrial partner at Stage 1. Applications are open to a range of organisations, including academic institutions, provided all other eligibility requirements are met.

Q: Is collaboration between innovators on this challenge permitted or encouraged? Is there a formal mechanism to identify potential partners?

A: Collaboration is permitted and welcomed where it strengthens a proposal, although it is not mandatory. There is no formal matchmaking or collaboration survey associated with this competition. Organisations wishing to collaborate should establish partnerships independently. Joint bids are supported where they bring together complementary expertise and capabilities.

Q: Are collaborative proposals, including consortia with UK and/or international partners, permitted?

A: Yes. Collaborative proposals are permitted and may include partners, subcontractors, and international organisations. However, only one lead organisation can submit the proposal and enter into contract with UKDI. The lead organisation must be UK-registered, and any funding awarded will be paid solely to the lead organisation, which is responsible for managing all project partners and subcontractors. International companies may participate as project partners, provided the majority of the work is undertaken within the UK in accordance with the competition requirements.

Q: If a project requires a collaboration partner, but the prime contractor has not reached a formal agreement with that partner for the Stage 1 proposal, will this prevent the proposal from progressing to Stage 2?

A: No. Formal collaboration agreements are not required at Stage 1. Applicants should indicate how they intend to deliver the project and whether partners are expected to be involved. By Stage 2, applicants should be able to demonstrate that appropriate agreements or arrangements are in place, at least in principle, to support project delivery.

Q: If an idea has been developed through an existing UKDI funded project, can a related proposal also be submitted under this competition?

A: Yes, provided the new proposal represents a distinct project and delivers a significant advancement beyond the previously funded work. Follow-on activity is permissible, but the proposal must clearly address the requirements of this competition and demonstrate meaningful progression rather than a resubmission of substantially the same work.

Q: If a similar idea has previously been submitted to a non-UKDI competition, would it be treated as a resubmission?

A: No. Submission of a similar concept to a different funding competition would not normally be considered a resubmission. Where the proposal is being submitted to a new competition and assessed against a different set of requirements, it would generally be treated as a new proposal.

Q: Two development projects within our organisation fulfil the criteria for Challenge 2. However, these technologies are dual-use and could also be developed for civil or commercial space programmes. Are they ineligible for this competition?

A: No. Dual-use technologies are not excluded from the competition. Proposals should, however, clearly demonstrate their relevance to the challenge requirements and government applications. Individual proposal suitability will be assessed through the formal submission and evaluation process.

13.3 Technology Readiness Levels and Scope

Q: Final TRLs are expected to reach 3 to 6. Can you comment on the starting TRL? For example, would it be acceptable to start at TRL 3 or 4 and achieve TRL 5 by the end of the project?

A: Yes. The key requirement is that the project demonstrates a credible and achievable development pathway. Proposals may begin at any lower TRL, provided there is sufficient development activity to achieve meaningful progression towards the required end-state. Assessment will consider whether the proposed TRL advancement is realistic within the project’s scope, duration and budget.

Q: If the technology has previously been developed to TRL 4 or 5 for another application and the funding will be used to adapt it for this specific application, is that suitable?

A: Yes. Technologies that have already reached a higher TRL in another domain may be eligible where additional development is required to meet the specific needs of government or security applications. Applicants should clearly demonstrate the development work required and explain how the project will advance the technology within the context of this competition.

Q: At TRL 6, this is the edge of moving to orbital demonstration. Is there an expectation that hardware or software will be tested in the space environment, or would a representative environment, e.g. space simulation, suffice?

A: The required level of demonstration depends on the technology being developed and the TRL progression proposed. In line with UKDI guidance, if the technology is intended for use in  space and aiming to achieve TRL 6, the demonstration environment must be representative of the operational space environment. This would typically involve environmental testing such as thermal vacuum testing.  A digital simulation environment is not sufficient for hardware aiming to achieve TRL 6. Whether any proposed demonstration environment is sufficient to meet the TRL 6 criteria will depend on the specific technology and the assessors’ judgement. The competition is expected to support technologies progressing between TRL 3 and TRL 6.

Q: Is there a published TRL rubric that the panel scores against, or is TRL progression assessed using the general UKDI/MOD TRL scale and assessor judgement?

A: TRL progression will be assessed against the standard UKDI/MOD TRL scale, with assessors using their professional judgement to determine whether the proposed activities and evidence are appropriate for achieving the stated TRL progression.

Q: For TRL 3 to 6, what level of demonstration is expected for Challenge 3 technologies? Is a laboratory-based subsystem demonstration acceptable for early TRLs, or is testing in a more representative environment preferred?

A: The expected demonstration activity depends on the TRL being targeted. Applicants should refer to the UKDI TRL definitions and ensure that the proposed demonstration activities are appropriate for the end-of-project TRL claimed.

Q: Is a project expected to reach TRL 6 more likely to be funded than a project expected to reach TRL 3?

A: Not necessarily. There is no inherent preference for projects reaching a particular Technology Readiness Level within the competition’s target range. Assessment will focus on the quality of the proposal, its relevance to the challenge, and the credibility of the plan to achieve the stated outcomes. Assessors will consider whether the proposed TRL progression is realistic and achievable within the project scope and timescales. The competition expects projects to achieve maturity within the TRL 3 to TRL 6 range by contract completion.

Q: For Challenge 3, if a supplier proposes a low-TRL concept that is applicable to both space and non-space platforms, but is most likely to be exploited initially on a non-space platform, would this negatively affect either Stage 1 or Stage 2 assessment?

A: Assessment will depend on how well the proposal addresses the published challenge requirements and the judgement of the assessors. Applicants should clearly demonstrate the relevance and application of the innovation to the space-domain challenge, regardless of any potential wider applications in other sectors.

Q: What level of testing is expected to demonstrate progress towards the target TRL?

A: The evidence required depends on the technology and the target TRL. Representative testing, modelling, simulation, or sub-scale experimentation may be appropriate, provided the approach demonstrates meaningful progress towards the proposed maturity level. The suitability of the evidence will be assessed in the context of the specific technology.

Q: Given the budget constraints, are projects focused on simulation rather than experimental work within scope? The cost of performing real-world experiments with novel hardware can be prohibitively expensive.

A: Simulation-based approaches may be appropriate depending on the technology area and the TRL progression being proposed. Applicants should ensure that their proposed activities provide sufficient evidence to support achievement of the target TRL. Ultimately, assessment will be based on the credibility of the proposed approach and the assessors’ judgement.

Q: Would a solution that uses a digital representation of a space surveillance sensor network to optimise sensor tasking and scheduling be relevant to the competition? And how could the benefits of such a solution be measured?

A: Potentially, yes. A solution that improves the coordination and tasking of existing sensors to increase tracking performance, object reacquisition rates, or response times could align with the challenge area focused on enhancing space domain awareness capabilities. The proposal should clearly explain the operational benefit and how performance improvements would be demonstrated.

Benefits could be measured using quantifiable performance metrics such as object reacquisition probability, tracking continuity, sensor utilisation, or response times. The key requirement is to demonstrate how the approach improves outcomes compared with current methods.

Q: Would an optimisation approach based on maximising the probability of reacquiring space objects be appropriate?

A: Yes. Using reacquisition probability or similar measurable metrics as an optimisation objective could provide a clear and credible method for demonstrating improved sensor tasking and operational effectiveness.

Q: Should an application be framed around additional uses of the technology, such as rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO), if those are not explicitly mentioned in the challenge?

A: The primary focus should be on addressing the challenge as defined in the competition documentation. Additional use cases and wider benefits can be included as supporting information, but the proposal should concentrate on demonstrating how the technology meets the stated challenge requirements.

Q: Are there predefined assumptions for debris speeds, encounter conditions, or operating environments?

A: No specific assumptions are prescribed. Applicants should use appropriate and justifiable operational scenarios and parameters that support their proposed solution and its intended use case.

Q: Is a rapid deorbit and concealment capability within scope of the competition? 

A: Yes. A capability that conceals sensitive spacecraft components aligns with the challenge area focused on novel technologies for self-protection. A rapid deorbit function may also be relevant where it demonstrably reduces vulnerability, protects sensitive assets or information, and delivers a clear defence benefit. Proposals should emphasise the protection and resilience outcomes rather than presenting the solution solely as a space sustainability or deorbit service. This includes explaining how the capability reduces vulnerability, protects sensitive assets, improves resilience, or mitigates security risks. A proposal focused only on deorbiting or debris reduction may be less closely aligned with the self-protection challenge area.

Q: Is the focus on protection from deliberate attacks, or on general survivability against hazards such as debris and space weather?

A: The scope is broad and includes a range of hazards. This may include environmental effects such as space weather and debris, as well as other harmful or potentially hostile effects in the space environment.

Q: For materials and structures, is the emphasis on novel materials, manufacturing methods, or both?

A: Both may be relevant. Proposals can address innovations in materials, structures, or manufacturing approaches, provided the innovation clearly supports the challenge objectives.

Q: Would applying an existing manufacturing innovation from another sector be suitable, even if it does not involve developing a new material chemistry?

A: Yes. The key consideration is the value and relevance of the innovation. Novel application of established manufacturing techniques can be appropriate where it delivers a clear benefit for the intended space application.

Q: How is novelty balanced against confidence in delivery?

A: There is no fixed weighting. Assessment is typically based on a balanced judgement of both the innovation being proposed and the credibility of the delivery plan. A strong proposal should demonstrate both innovation and a realistic route to achieving its objectives.

Q: Does Challenge 1 cover ground-based software and data-processing capabilities, or is it limited to physical ground infrastructure such as antennas, ground stations, and downlink systems?

A: Ground-based software and data-processing capabilities are within scope. Solutions that improve the ingestion, processing, prioritisation, and routing of space-derived data to operational systems are relevant, particularly where they reduce processing burden and improve the speed of decision-making and response.

Q: Can satellite AIS be used as an acceptable space-based data source for demonstrating space-to-terrestrial data ingestion, provenance, and sensor-to-response workflows under Challenge 1?

A: Yes. Satellite AIS can be used as a space-based data source where it supports the demonstration of space-to-terrestrial data workflows. Challenge 1 includes capabilities that use space-derived data and in-orbit processing, making satellite AIS an appropriate input for demonstrating ingestion, fusion, provenance, and operational decision-support processes

Q: Can applicants propose or refine use cases as part of the project?

A: Yes. Applicants may propose their own representative use cases and describe how these could be refined with end users or technical stakeholders during the project. A well-defined use case helps demonstrate relevance and technical maturity.

13.4 Data, Security and Classification

Q: Does the competition provide access to government datasets for artificial intelligence or machine learning development, or should applicants assume all training data must be sourced independently?

A: Applicants may identify a requirement for government-provided datasets; however, access cannot be guaranteed. Some datasets may be subject to security or classification constraints. Proposals should therefore include contingency arrangements and should not rely on the assumption that government-furnished data, equipment or other assets will be available.

Q: Are government-furnished resources, such as test facilities, chambers or equipment, available to Stage 1 or Stage 2 awardees? If so, what is the process and lead time for requesting them?

A: Applicants are strongly encouraged not to rely on government-furnished resources (GFX). Where access to such resources is requested, the requirement should be clearly stated within the proposal, and a mitigation plan should be included in the risk register in case the resource cannot be provided. Any request for GFX will be considered as part of the proposal review process.

Q: Should Challenge 3 proposals assume no government-furnished assets such as representative electromagnetic threat profiles, or will synthetic or reference datasets be provided?

A: Applicants should not assume that government-furnished assets or datasets will be available. Where contracts are awarded, the appointed technical partner may be able to provide guidance where appropriate; however, there are currently no specific assets or datasets identified for provision as part of the challenge.

Q: Will further information on specific electromagnetic threat types, operational scenarios or detailed Space Domain Awareness requirements be provided during the competition?

A: No definitive commitment was provided during the session. The availability of additional information will depend on the specific project and the technical partner assigned. Any further discussion is expected to be managed on a project-by-project basis following selection.

Q: For solutions using commercial off-the-shelf software-defined radios or RF test hardware that carry US export control classifications, even where no licence is required, could this create issues within procurement, government-furnished resource or assurance processes?

A: Export-controlled components may introduce additional complexity and programme risk. Applicants are therefore encouraged to avoid such dependencies wherever possible and carefully consider any implications associated with export controls.

Q: If foreign subcontractors are involved, are there any security clearance, cyber security or regulatory considerations?

A: Yes. Project teams and subcontractors will be required to comply with the relevant security, cyber security and contractual requirements set out within the UKDI terms and conditions and associated guidance. Any applicable assurance or clearance requirements will be addressed during contracting and project initiation.

Q: Is there a classification level linked to the challenges?

A: All proposals must be submitted at UK OFFICIAL. If, during project delivery, a technical authority determines that a higher classification is required, this will be managed through the appropriate project governance and security processes. Applicants should ensure that all information submitted within their proposals remains at UK OFFICIAL unless otherwise formally classified.

Q: How frequently are projects monitored in terms of reports, meetings and reviews?

A: Successful projects should expect a programme of contract management activities that typically includes a project kick-off meeting and regular monthly reviews. Applicants should refer to the competition document for details of the expected project management and reporting requirements.

Q: Will further information be provided on the electromagnetic threats of interest under Challenge 3? If so, will any such information be classified as OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE or higher?

A: No additional threat information is currently expected to be provided as standard competition material. Any further guidance may depend on the specific project, its objectives and the involvement of the nominated technical partner. Applicants should be aware that support available during project delivery may vary according to project requirements. Any classification considerations would be addressed on a project-specific basis where relevant.

Q: Given the focus on space-domain challenges, are suppliers expected to understand the differences between space-based electromagnetic threats and other electromagnetic threats before submitting proposals, or will this be explained by the technical partner after project commencement?

A: Prior specialist knowledge is not mandatory. Applicants are encouraged to make use of publicly available information and existing research when developing proposals. Technical partners may be able to provide advice during project delivery, but applicants should not assume that project-specific threat education or requirements development will be provided as part of that support.

Q: Is competition data provided, such as radar datasets for development and testing?

A: No. No datasets are provided as part of the competition. Participants should plan to obtain or generate any data required to support their proposed solution.

Q: Can commercial data acquisition be included as a project cost? And if the purchasing cost is over £10k, would it be considered CapEx?

A: Yes, where access to real-world data is essential for testing and validating the proposed capability. Applicants should clearly justify the cost, explain why the data is necessary, and demonstrate how it contributes to project outcomes and technology maturation. Value for money should be evidenced through a clear cost-benefit rationale.

Data procurement is typically classified as an Operational Expenditure (OpEx) rather than Capital Expenditure (CapEx). However, there are a few specific exceptions where data procurement can be capitalized as CapEx:Data Asset Creation: If the procured data is used as a core, long-term component to build a proprietary product, system, or software that provides value over several years or for procuring long term software licenses

Q: Is increased sustainability design for satellites components be in scope?

A: Potentially, if the innovation can demonstrate a clear improvement in the resilience of a space system. The focus is generally on maintaining capability, resisting,  reducing and recovering from the impact of adverse events on space assets.

13.5 Challenge-Specific Questions

Q: If we have an idea that fits more than one category or challenge theme, should we submit it as a single proposal and allow UKDI to categorise it, or should we categorise it ourselves?

A: Applicants should identify the challenge or challenges that their proposal addresses. If a solution aligns with more than one challenge area, this should be clearly explained within the submission. The proposal must demonstrate how it meets the relevant requirements of each challenge.

Q: For enabling software technologies that support multiple capability themes, should proposals always align to a specific challenge, or are there routes for cross-cutting technologies that span multiple domains?

A: Proposals submitted to this competition must align clearly with one of the published challenge areas. Assessment will be conducted against the scope and objectives of the specific challenge selected. While wider applicability may be beneficial, it will not compensate for a lack of alignment with the stated challenge requirements. Applicants wishing to discuss broader opportunities should engage separately with their innovation contact.

Q: Are Challenges 1 and 3 specifically looking for space-based platform technologies, such as the control and management of space platforms, or are field-user technologies and capabilities also within scope?

A: None of the challenges explicitly limit the scope to space-based technology. The defence application must be specific to the space domain. Applicants should review the published challenge descriptions and ensure that their proposal clearly demonstrates alignment with the stated competition objectives and challenge requirements.

Q: How do you define in-orbit processing and storage capabilities?

A: Capabilities that enable information to be processed, transformed, managed, and stored within assets operating in orbit.

Q: Is a space environment for Space Domain Awareness (SDA) sensing technology eligible where the dual-use or defence application is primarily related to ground-based platforms?

A: None of the challenges explicitly limit the scope to space-based technology. The defence application must be specific to the space domain.

Q: For the topic of Space Domain Awareness, is there any preference for hardware, software, analytics or other solution areas?

A: There is no preference.

Q: For Challenge 1, does AI processing of sensor data on-platform or within the ground segment satisfy the challenge requirements?

A: Yes. Solutions involving AI-enabled processing that support sensor-to-response capabilities, improve speed of decision making, enhance data exploitation, or contribute to SDA, ISR or communications missions are considered relevant to the challenge scope.

Q: For Challenge 2, are only passive survivability technologies within scope, or can other technologies be considered?

A: Challenge 2 does not limit scope to passive survivability technologies.

Q: For Challenge 2, are the characterisation requirements relating to Cross-Government SDA requirement SR-7300 applicable only to space-based sensors supporting self-protection, or are ground-based systems also applicable?

A:  Space-based and ground-based systems are in scope for challenge 2.

Q: Does the last bullet in challenge 2 focus on ground-based sensing or on-platform characterisation?

A: Ground-based sensing is within scope, provided that ultimately it can improve the ability for a satellite to protect itself.

Q: Would a vision-based navigation or sensing system developed for another space application fall within the scope of Challenge 2?

A: Potentially. Challenge 2 explicitly includes space debris-related applications. Technologies that support space object detection, characterisation, tracking, or collision avoidance may be relevant if they address the challenge requirements. Applications related to rendezvous and proximity operations may also be considered where they support the stated objectives, although these activities are not specifically called out.

Q: Would a proposal focused on modelling and studying  applications of a technology  align with the challenge requirements?

A: The primary focus of the challenge is the development and demonstration of novel space technologies with an application in mind that fits the challenge, rather than standalone studies or modelling activities. While modelling may play an important supporting role, proposals should demonstrate a clear pathway to developing and validating an innovative technology.  

Q: Challenge 3 refers to electromagnetic threats. Does this include lasers?

A: Yes. The challenge scope includes threats such as dazzling, spoofing, jamming, eavesdropping and denial of service. Laser-based dazzling effects would fall within this broad definition of electromagnetic threats.

Q: For Challenge 3, is there a preference between the six-month (£125k) and twelve-month (£200k) project options?

A: No preference is stated. The most appropriate duration and funding level will depend on the nature of the proposal and the outcomes being delivered.

Q: For Challenge 3, would a concept that is applicable to both space and non-space platforms, such as drones, be within scope?

A: Potentially, yes. However, proposals should clearly demonstrate their relevance to the space domain, as this remains the primary focus of the competition.

Q: For Challenge 3, does UKDI require or prefer any specific method for detecting electromagnetic disturbances, or is the choice of detection approach left entirely to the innovator provided it is on-board and supports resilience against ground-based electromagnetic threats?

A: The choice of detection approach is left to the innovator. Applicants are encouraged to propose the method they consider most appropriate, provided it addresses the challenge requirement to improve resilience against ground-based electromagnetic threats.

Q: Challenge 3 mentions geolocation of electromagnetic effectors. Is there an expected level of precision or fidelity for geolocation, or are more indicative approaches acceptable at this stage?

A: No specific geolocation accuracy requirement has been mandated within the competition documentation. Applicants should propose an approach that is appropriate to the maturity of their concept and the challenge objectives. Further technical guidance may be available through project engagement with the nominated technical partner where applicable.

Q: Are there published use cases for Challenge 3?

A: No specific use cases are provided. The challenge is intentionally framed around a capability need, and detailed operational scenarios may not be publicly available. Applicants should demonstrate how their technology addresses the challenge and provides a credible example use case.

Q: Does Challenge 3 cover technologies that enable autonomous platforms to coordinate when communications, positioning, or timing services are disrupted?

A: Yes. Challenge 3 is aligned with capabilities that help distributed space systems maintain coordination and situational awareness when conventional communications, navigation, or timing services are unavailable, degraded, or contested.  

Q: Are software-defined radio approaches to electromagnetic resilience, such as novel data links or waveforms, within scope for Challenge 3?

A: Yes. Novel waveforms and software-defined radio approaches to electromagnetic resilience are within scope for Challenge 3.