219 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
219 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 1 ===
|
|||
|
|
Proposal Evaluation Form
|
|||
|
|
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
|
|||
|
|
Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
|
|||
|
|
Evaluation Summary
|
|||
|
|
Report - Research and
|
|||
|
|
innovation actions
|
|||
|
|
Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
|
|||
|
|
Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
|
|||
|
|
Proposal number: 101288039
|
|||
|
|
Proposal acronym: SPARTA
|
|||
|
|
Duration (months): 36
|
|||
|
|
Proposal title: SPARTA — Space-ATM Real-Time Awareness
|
|||
|
|
Activity: IR-02-WA5
|
|||
|
|
N. Proposer name Country Total
|
|||
|
|
eligible
|
|||
|
|
costs
|
|||
|
|
% Grant
|
|||
|
|
Requested
|
|||
|
|
%
|
|||
|
|
1 EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE
|
|||
|
|
SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
|
|||
|
|
BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
|
|||
|
|
2 DFS DEUTSCHE FLUGSICHERUNG GMBH DE 81,130 1.97% 81,130 1.97%
|
|||
|
|
3 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT
|
|||
|
|
EV
|
|||
|
|
DE 908,224.63 22.09% 908,224.63 22.09%
|
|||
|
|
4 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 315,285.78 7.67% 315,285.78 7.67%
|
|||
|
|
5 ENAV SPA IT 176,917.31 4.30% 176,917.31 4.30%
|
|||
|
|
6 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 217,059.41 5.28% 217,059.41 5.28%
|
|||
|
|
7 ENAIRE ES 106,750 2.60% 106,750 2.60%
|
|||
|
|
8 Europe Space Centre GmbH DE 55,835.85 1.36% 55,835.85 1.36%
|
|||
|
|
9 ENTE NAZIONALE PER L'AVIAZIONE CIVILE - ENAC
|
|||
|
|
ITALIAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
|
|||
|
|
IT 242,383.75 5.90% 242,383.75 5.90%
|
|||
|
|
10 SkyNav Europe BE 842,928.98 20.50% 842,928.98 20.50%
|
|||
|
|
11 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 162,470 3.95% 162,470 3.95%
|
|||
|
|
12 LINKOPINGS UNIVERSITET SE 73,237.5 1.78% 73,237.5 1.78%
|
|||
|
|
13 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI
|
|||
|
|
SCPA
|
|||
|
|
IT 279,226.78 6.79% 279,226.78 6.79%
|
|||
|
|
14 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 190,400 4.63% 190,400 4.63%
|
|||
|
|
15 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AIR TRAFFIC
|
|||
|
|
CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATIONS
|
|||
|
|
CA 116,812.5 2.84% 116,812.5 2.84%
|
|||
|
|
16 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 59,745 1.45% 59,745 1.45%
|
|||
|
|
17 THALES LAS FRANCE SAS FR 114,625 2.79% 114,625 2.79%
|
|||
|
|
18 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES UK LTD UK 168,317.63 4.09% 168,317.63 4.09%
|
|||
|
|
19 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
|
|||
|
|
Total: 4,111,350.12 4,111,350.12
|
|||
|
|
Abstract:
|
|||
|
|
101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 1 /
|
|||
|
|
4
|
|||
|
|
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 2 ===
|
|||
|
|
The development of an enhanced Network Real-time Monitoring Module and associated enhanced procedures and eventual enhanced supporting tools
|
|||
|
|
for the management of space-launch and higher-altitude operations at the level of the European ATM Network Manager (NM). It includes space and
|
|||
|
|
higher-altitude operations data integration (from Launch and Re-entry Operators (LRO), Launch and Re-entry site operators (LRSO), STM, Higher
|
|||
|
|
Altitude vehicle and site Operators with the NM and ATM), looking to generate, maintain and broadcast a full European network wide situational
|
|||
|
|
awareness picture. Note that this a continuation of ongoing research embedded in the SESAR 3 project ECHO 2, under the HORIZON-SESAR-2022-
|
|||
|
|
DES-IR-01 Call.
|
|||
|
|
Evaluation Summary Report
|
|||
|
|
Evaluation Result
|
|||
|
|
Total score: 13.62 (Threshold: 10 )
|
|||
|
|
Criterion 1 - Excellence - weight 40%
|
|||
|
|
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.40
|
|||
|
|
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
|||
|
|
- Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives: degree to which the objectives and scope are compliant with the call material, well understood
|
|||
|
|
and fully addressed.
|
|||
|
|
- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions from their initial to their target maturity level, including the
|
|||
|
|
underlying concepts, models, assumptions and interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the
|
|||
|
|
integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research
|
|||
|
|
outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate.
|
|||
|
|
- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D
|
|||
|
|
work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates breakthrough
|
|||
|
|
innovation potential.
|
|||
|
|
SPARTA proposal is in line with the call specifications of WA5-2 ‘’Highly automated ATM for all airspace users'' and addresses the Enhanced automation support
|
|||
|
|
for space-launch management. The concept of operation covers the strategic, pre-tactical and execution of Space Transport Operations (STO) integrated with the
|
|||
|
|
ATM systems and processes.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal identifies two solutions. Solution 1 addresses the strategic and pre-tactical phase of STO Mission Planning integrated with ATM Systems to provide the
|
|||
|
|
NM, ANSPs and State authorities with all the data necessary to assess the impact on the safe and regular management of the air traffic. Solution 2 focuses on the
|
|||
|
|
execution of launches and re-entry operations. These Solutions shall also provide STO/HAO operators with clear and predictable processes. These objectives are
|
|||
|
|
compliant with the call material.
|
|||
|
|
The development of these Solutions is based on the work done on the previous ECHO2 project, but SPARTA extends the scope of launch and re-entry operations to
|
|||
|
|
cover strategic and pre-tactical phases and introduces new elements such as planning frameworks, CDM processes, and the inclusion of HAO/HAPS in an
|
|||
|
|
operational context to be validated at TRL6. This will be done by producing a complete set of deliverables and validated solutions that are ready for
|
|||
|
|
standardization, regulation and eventual deployment.
|
|||
|
|
The scientific methodology is clear and sound. The approach is aligned with the SESAR Framework and associated models, ensuring that the concepts, assumptions,
|
|||
|
|
and architectural elements are applied. The proposal maturity target is well defined. The proposal explains what the solutions are aiming to achieve; however they
|
|||
|
|
are not linked to clear performance objectives and the qualitative performance expectations are not sufficiently described. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The validation activities for reaching the target maturity level are defined very briefly and the proposal explains that the validation activities will be defined in the
|
|||
|
|
VALP. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The DMP, the open-science and FAIR aspects are covered to a satisfactory level.
|
|||
|
|
The work of SPARTA is mainly based on previous projects ECHO and ECHO2 as the topic is new and not consistently implemented in Europe. SPARTA goes
|
|||
|
|
beyond the state of the art proposing a standardized, interoperable and harmonized concept and prototypes in scope, with a higher maturity and integrated in the
|
|||
|
|
ATM system.
|
|||
|
|
However, the proposal does not adequately consider the new service delivery model and the level of automation. This is a minor shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The proposal defines that live operational systems will not be used to avoid procedural, security, and stability risks. However, it is not clearly determined how the
|
|||
|
|
cybersecurity aspects will be handled. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
Criterion 2 - Impact - weight 40%
|
|||
|
|
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.70
|
|||
|
|
101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 2 /
|
|||
|
|
4
|
|||
|
|
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 3 ===
|
|||
|
|
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
|||
|
|
- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material.
|
|||
|
|
- Appropriateness of the contribution to standardisation and regulation: the extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the project will
|
|||
|
|
contribute appropriately to the relevant standardisation and regulatory activities.
|
|||
|
|
- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation
|
|||
|
|
(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
|
|||
|
|
The impact on the realization of the objectives and performance identified in the ATM Master Plan (MP) for the phase D can be found in the scope and objectives
|
|||
|
|
of SPARTA. For each Solution, an assessment of the impact has been well-provided in the proposal. The solutions developed in SPARTA will impact operational
|
|||
|
|
and safety, network performance, regulation and interoperability, demonstrating as such its potential breakthrough of the business as usual. By addressing these
|
|||
|
|
elements, SPARTA contributes to making STO and HAO missions integrated in the Digital European Sky, where all the Airspace Users (AUs) have a seamless
|
|||
|
|
access to the airspace with high degree of safety and efficiency as required in the ATM MP Phase D.
|
|||
|
|
The breakthrough of SPARTA versus business as usual is the potential to shift STO mission management from today reactive posture and fragmented document-
|
|||
|
|
based exchanges, to a predictive, responsive and coordinated process at European network level. By enabling faster, more accurate and less disruptive hazard
|
|||
|
|
management, the solution strengthens safety and improves overall efficiency of the network for accounting all kind of operations included STO and HAO.
|
|||
|
|
The impact pathways, while credible, are largely qualitative. Quantitative indicators for assessing system-level benefits and D&E performance are not fully
|
|||
|
|
elaborated. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The outputs of SPARTA's Project Deliverables are suitable, concerning the contribution to standardization and regulation. OSED and Stand and Reg deliverables
|
|||
|
|
will be used for submission to ICAO, EUROCAE, and the EUR STO Project Team, providing direct pathway into standardization, interoperability, regulation and
|
|||
|
|
industrialization.
|
|||
|
|
An initial plan of Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation (CDE) activities is formulated with sufficient details. This is also reflected in the dedicated WP
|
|||
|
|
where activities, milestones and deliverables to be produced are sufficiently described.
|
|||
|
|
The IPR aspect is properly addressed and an IPR framework at Consortium Agreement level will be also implemented.
|
|||
|
|
Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation - weight 20%
|
|||
|
|
Score: (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.50
|
|||
|
|
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
|
|||
|
|
- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources
|
|||
|
|
overall.
|
|||
|
|
- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
|
|||
|
|
The SPARTA Work Plan is structured to ensure that all Work Packages contribute to the delivery of two coherent SESAR Solutions, with evidence of strong
|
|||
|
|
alignment across planning and operational phases as the proposal manages interdependencies both vertically (between phases of the same solution) and
|
|||
|
|
horizontally (across solutions and cross-cutting WPs). The breakdown of the WPs is in line with the provisions of the SESAR Framework and Project Handbook.
|
|||
|
|
The Initial Stand & Reg Deliverables are expected to be delivered late at month 18 for both of the solutions. Moreover, all the deliverables' final draft should be
|
|||
|
|
provided two months before the Exit Maturity Gate, however some of them planned to be delivered later than the gate. This is a shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
The project structure complies with the Lump Sum approach and principles.
|
|||
|
|
While the proposal outlines the main responsibilities of Work Package leaders and provides an overall view of consortium roles, it does not provide sufficient task-
|
|||
|
|
level details of the individual contributions. For example, there is no clear description of the activities to be performed by ANRA Technologies UK Ltd, which is
|
|||
|
|
requesting funding under the project. The proposal does not clearly specify this partner’s concrete responsibilities, deliverables, or level of involvement in specific
|
|||
|
|
work packages. This a minor shortcoming.
|
|||
|
|
Scope of the application
|
|||
|
|
Status: Yes
|
|||
|
|
Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Exceptional funding
|
|||
|
|
A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme
|
|||
|
|
their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research
|
|||
|
|
infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more
|
|||
|
|
information, see the ) HE programme guide
|
|||
|
|
Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why.
|
|||
|
|
Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
|
|||
|
|
Status: No
|
|||
|
|
101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 3 /
|
|||
|
|
4
|
|||
|
|
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 4 ===
|
|||
|
|
If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the
|
|||
|
|
reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Use of human embryos
|
|||
|
|
Status: No
|
|||
|
|
If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Activities excluded from funding
|
|||
|
|
Status: No
|
|||
|
|
If YES, please explain.
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Do no significant harm principle
|
|||
|
|
Status: Yes
|
|||
|
|
If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Exclusive focus on civil applications
|
|||
|
|
Status: Yes
|
|||
|
|
If NO, please explain.
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
Artificial Intelligence
|
|||
|
|
Status: No
|
|||
|
|
If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
|
|||
|
|
Overall comments
|
|||
|
|
Not provided
|
|||
|
|
101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 4 /
|
|||
|
|
4
|
|||
|
|
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=== PAGE 5 ===
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your
|
|||
|
|
organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally
|
|||
|
|
sealed.
|
|||
|
|
This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely
|
|||
|
|
binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European
|
|||
|
|
Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity.
|
|||
|
|
Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your
|
|||
|
|
organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt.
|
|||
|
|
Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic
|
|||
|
|
signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation
|
|||
|
|
symbol.
|
|||
|
|
More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders
|
|||
|
|
Portal.
|
|||
|
|
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq)
|
|||
|
|
|