Technology Readiness Level (TRL) advancement of the MSPI On-Board Processing Platform for the ACE Decadal Survey Mission
No abstract available
on-board instrument processing system↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “TRL”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Advancement of the MSPI On-Board Processing Platform for the ACE Decadal Survey Mission
The Xilinx Virtex-5QV is a new Single-event Immune Reconfigurable FPGA (SIRF) device that is targeted as the spaceborne processor for the NASA Decadal Survey Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystem (ACE) mission's Multiangle SpectroPolarimetric Imager (MSPI) instrument, currently under development at JPL. A key technology needed for MSPI is on-board processing (OBP) to calculate polarimetry data as imaged by each of the 9 cameras forming the instrument. With funding from NASA's ESTO1 AIST2 Program, JPL is demonstrating how signal data at 95 Mbytes/sec over 16 channels for each of the 9 multi-angle cameras can be reduced to 0.45 Mbytes/sec, thereby substantially reducing the image data volume for spacecraft downlink without loss of science information. This is done via a least-squares fitting algorithm implemented on the Virtex-5 FPGA operating in real-time on the raw video data stream.
multiangle-multiwavelength polarimeter↗
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as the foundation of Human Readiness Level (HRL)
As space programs became more complex, it became evident to NASA that a means of defining a methodological way to evaluate the maturity of technologies for spacecraft design was needed for risk assessment that could affect technical, cost and schedule. NASA first saw that infusing technology intoNASA programs required some means to assess technology maturity like flight readiness for a mission. Hence, a seven-point technology readiness level scale was developed in the mid-70s by a NASA researcher and later formally defined in 1989 (Sadin et al., 1989) that comprised of seven levels (See Table 1). These levels provided a definitive meaning of what complexity a research and technology development program should be followed. NASA recognized the approach as a useful way of an effective assessment of,and communication regarding the maturity of new technologies, using a simplistic figure of merit, the state of maturity of a technology-particularly, critical technology necessary to meet a mission/application objective
George Salazar↗
TRL Advancement & Qualification for UV & UV/Vis Photon Counting & Scientific Si Detector Arrays
No abstract provided
Hennessy, John↗
DELTA TRL Status and Design Details
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
High-frequency↗
RF Differential Phase Noise Measurements of the LISA TRL-6 Laser
RF differential phase noise (RF modulation sideband phase noise): phase jitter between the optical sideband generated from phase modulation and the optical carrier. Clock noise information of each space craft (s/c) is imprinted on the RF modulation sidebands and transferred between s/c through beating of the sidebands. Therefore, it is necessary to manage the RF modulation phase noise as light propagates from the phase modulator to the power amplifier delivery fiber.
Phase noise↗
Raising TRL of Your Lunar Payload
Preparing payloads for the lunar surface requires rigorous testing that accurately captures the extreme environmental and operational conditions. This presentation provides an overview of the lunar relevant test capabilities at NASA JSC’s Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) laboratories as well as the Energy System Test Area (ESTA) Lunar Development and Test Facility. These facilities allow teams to assess hardware performance in dusty vacuum environments, characterize interactions with high fidelity lunar regolith simulants, evaluate mechanical and thermal durability, and understand the effects of micrometeoroid and orbital debris impacts—critical factors for certifying payloads that will operate on the lunar surface or in orbit. While Lunar power challenges such as variable illumination, extreme temperatures, and dust driven degradation will be briefly summarized, the focus of this talk is on how JSC’s test infrastructure enables developers to validate designs, reduce mission risk, and ensure compatibility with CLPS and Artemis objectives. NASA JSC’s expertise and experience help industry, academic, and government teams prepare robust hardware ready for successful delivery and operation on the surface of the Moon.
Lunar Regolith Simulant↗
Raising TRL of Your Lunar Payload
Preparing payloads for the lunar surface requires rigorous testing that accurately captures the extreme environmental and operational conditions. This presentation provides an overview of the lunar relevant test capabilities at NASA JSC’s Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) laboratories as well as the Energy System Test Area (ESTA) Lunar Development and Test Facility. These facilities allow teams to assess hardware performance in dusty vacuum environments, characterize interactions with high fidelity lunar regolith simulants, evaluate mechanical and thermal durability, and understand the effects of micrometeoroid and orbital debris impacts—critical factors for certifying payloads that will operate on the lunar surface or in orbit. While Lunar power challenges such as variable illumination, extreme temperatures, and dust driven degradation will be briefly summarized, the focus of this talk is on how JSC’s test infrastructure enables developers to validate designs, reduce mission risk, and ensure compatibility with CLPS and Artemis objectives. NASA JSC’s expertise and experience help industry, academic, and government teams prepare robust hardware ready for successful delivery and operation on the surface of the Moon.
Laboratories↗
Biomaterials Out of Thin Air: In Situ, On-Demand Printing of Advanced Biocomposites: A New Materials Design and Production Technique Using 3D-Printed Arrays of Bioengineered Cells
We have completed the proof of concept described in our Phase I proposal, a two-material array of nonstructural proteins. We created an implementation of each step in our technology concept and demonstrated its critical functionality. The biological chassis and printing hardware we created as part of this work can be re-used for future work by inserting a material coding region upstream of the fluorescent tag. Overall, we showed that our technology concept is sound. The mission benefit analyses, as described in our Phase I proposal, are complete and contained in this report. These calculations show that our technology can save hundreds of kilograms of upmass for a potential planetary human habit construction mission: the mass per habitat module can be reduced by approximately one third if the biomaterials are manufactured on Earth and included in the mission upmass, and the full 240 kg per module can be saved if the materials are derived entirely from in situ resources. Mass savings between these two extremes is expected for an actual mission, depending on the level of in situ resource extraction technology. We have shown that continued advancement of this technology concept for use in a space mission environment is justified. Our survey of future development pathways proved extremely informative in light of the lessons learned from our proof of concept work and mission scenario analyses. For example, we were able for the first time to distinguish between the levels of functionality provided by production of structural proteins, other polymers such as polysaccharides, and true organic-inorganic composites such as bone and mineralized shell. This new information represents a significant advance in formulating specific applications, and key enabling technologies, for our proposed concept. We surveyed potential collaborations with other projects and synergies with enabling technologies that are developing. We have received requests for collaboration from other institutions, including labs at Stanford University and Drexel University. We have also received visits from industry, including Organovo, a tissue engineering company, and Autodesk, a major 3D and materials design software company. Finally, we have been in touch with the team behind the 2013 NIAC Phase ll 'Super Ball Bot-Structures for Planetary Landing and Exploration' and are planning to develop our biomaterial printing technology with the goal of enabling tensegrity-based rovers such as theirs to use lighter, more robust materials. A smooth transition from TRL 2 to TRL 3 assumes that the implementations of the technology concept which demonstrate critical functionality are also pathways for future development; while this is the case for most hardware or software projects, the multidisciplinary nature of our project, particularly the biological aspect of it, means that this is not always true. For example, as part of this work we showed that although there are large number of known genetic parts that correspond to non-structural materials, this is not true for sequences for structural organic proteins, let alone biominerals. These realizations allowed us to further subdivide our concept into more detailed development areas, some of which are clearly established at TRL 3, others of which were newly identified sub-technologies moved from TRL 1 to TRL 2. Similarly, although a single feasibility /benefit analysis is sufficient for advancement from TRL 2 to TRL 3, not all potential benefits to a technology concept as broad in scope as ours are apparent at TRL 2. Both our future pathways survey and our proof of concept work highlighted that the true mass savings potential of our technology concept cannot be quantified without modification of existing materials modelling tools to take into account the possibility of positional materials properties customization. Therefore, we have simultaneously both advanced one potential set of applications of our technology concept from TRL 2 to TRL 3 and also identified a previously unknown set of applications and advanced it from TRL 1 to TRL 2. Overall, we have moved the original formulation of our concept forward from TRL 2 to TRL 3, and the expanded formulation of it presented in this document has been advanced from a combination of TRL 1 and early 1RL 2 to an overall late TRL 2. We have also identified the key areas necessary for both short-term and long-term advancement, and made recommendations for specific future work in the most promising directions. With future work on a 1-2 year timeframe to continue advancement to overall TRL 3, we will be well positioned to begin work on a specific space mission technology insertion path.
Biology↗
Raising Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) Technology Readiness Above 3
NTP development is currently supported by the NASA program office "Advanced Exploration Systems". The concept is a main propulsion option being considered for human missions to Mars in the 2030's. Major NTP development took place in the 1960's and 1970's under the Rover/NERVA program. The technology had matured to TRL 6 and was preparing to go to TRL 7 with a prototype flight engine before the program was cancelled. Over the last 40 years, a variety of continuations started, but only lasted a few years each. The Rover/NERVA infrastructure is almost all gone. The only remains are a few pieces of hardware, final reports and a few who worked the Rover/NERVA. Two types of nuclear fuel are being investigated to meet the current engine design specific impulse of 900 seconds compared to approximately 850 seconds demonstrated during Rover/NERVA. One is a continuation of composite fuel with new coatings to better control mid-band corrosion. The other type is a CERMET fuel made of Tungsten and UO2. Both fuels are being made from Rover/NERVA lessons learned, but with slightly different recipes to increase fuel endurance at higher operating temperatures. The technology readiness level (TRL) of these current modified reactor fuels is approximately TRL 3. To keep the development cost low and help mature the TRL level past 4 quickly, a few special non-nuclear test facilities have been made to test surrogate fuel, with depleted uranium, as coupons and full length elements. Both facilities utilize inductive heating and are licensed to handle depleted uranium. TRL 5 requires exposing the fuel to a nuclear environment and TRL 6 requires a prototype ground or flight engine system test. Currently, three different NTP ground test facility options are being investigated: exhaust scrubber, bore hole, and total exhaust containment. In parallel, a prototype flight demonstration test is also being studied. The first human mission to Mars in the 2030's is currently 2033. For an advanced propulsion concept to be seriously considered for use, the engine development plans need to show it is feasible and affordable to reach TRL 8 by 2027 and can be qualified for human mission use.
Gerrish, Harold P., Jr.↗
Technology Readiness Level as the Foundation of Human Readiness Level
Communication of the maturity of technology through the program/product life cycles helps enhance risk management from the beginning and support decision-making strategies for research, development, and allocation of resources. Currently, many organizations use the technology readiness level (TRL) as a simple metric to indicate the maturity of the technology. This article will discuss the TRL history, define the TRL levels, show how the TRL relates to the technology life cycle, and how the TRL framework contributes to the human readiness level (HRL) structure. Through the TRL advantages and disadvantages, this article will show how the TRL falls short in numerous areas of engineering, including the integration readiness of system/subsystem components and assessment of the readiness of the technology to operate within the human capabilities and limitations. Yet the article also shows how the TRL serves as the foundation for HRL.
George Salazar↗
State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology
When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.
Bruce Yost↗
Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) HyTEC Phase 1 – Advanced Aerodynamics Final Report
The objective of the Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) – Advanced High Pressure Turbine (HPT) Aerodynamics project is to develop technology for a compact core that contributes to significant fuel burn reductions of 5-10% over current generation technologies. To accomplish this, the HPT is incorporating a range of aerodynamic features and technologies to improve component efficiency and provide favorable systems level trades. In particular, this project explored low solidity airfoils, advanced tip treatments, platform contouring, and advanced ceramic matrix composite (CMC) Stage 2 Nozzle (S2N) airfoils to eliminate the need for post throat cooling in a compact core environment. The maturation of these technology areas is expected to provide a significant improvement in component efficiencies, and consequently reductions in fuel burn, over the current state of the art (SoA). To mature these technologies to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4, a test campaign was performed that consisted of four tests at three facilities. TRL 3 testing was performed in the CW22 linear cascade at NASA Glenn for blade and nozzle technologies, TRL 4 nozzle testing was performed at GE Aerospace (GEA) Test Cell A8, and TRL 4 blade testing was performed at the Notre Dame Turbomachinery Laboratory (NDTL) using the Transonic Research Turbine (TRT) rig. Low solidity was successfully demonstrated to a TRL 4 level. Low solidity nozzles showed benefits in line with pre-project expectations, while low solidity blades were shown to have an aerodynamic penalty. Crucially, this program only considered the aerodynamic losses, and systems trades such as reductions in cooling flows are expected to continue to make low solidity blades a net positive. By successfully quantifying the aerodynamic performance in this project, these trades can be conducted to determine where in the engine architecture low solidity blades will contribute positively to system operation. Platform contouring was demonstrated to a TRL 4 level, with performance in line with the lower end of the pre-project expected range. Advanced tip treatments performance levels were indeterminate, showing the expected improvements to flow physics but with a performance level confounded by several rig issues including whirl mode induced variation in tip clearance. The elimination of post-throat cooling on the S2N was successfully demonstrated to provide a performance benefit, however that benefit was approximately half the level that was expected in pre-project predictions. Overall, the technology maturation plan for HyTEC Phase 1 was successful, bringing the suite of technologies to TRL 4.
High pressure turbine↗
The Importance of Technology Readiness in NASA Earth Venture Missions
The first set of Venture-class investigations share the characteristic that the technology should be mature and all investigations must use mature technology that has been modeled or demonstrated in a relevant environment (Technology Readiness Level (TRL) >5). Technology Readiness Levels are a systematic metric/measurement system that supports assessments of the maturity of a particular technology and the consistent comparison of maturity between different types of technology. The TRL is used in NASA technology planning. A major step in the level of fidelity of the technology demonstration follows the completion of TRL 5. At TRL 6, a system or subsystem model or prototype must be demonstrated in a relevant environment (ground or space) representative model or prototype system or system, which would go well beyond ad hoc, "patch-cord," or discrete component level breadboarding. These TRL levels are chosen as target objectives for the Program. The challenge for offerors is that they must identify key aspects (uncertainty, multi subsystem complexity, etc) of the TRL estimate that should be properly explained in a submitted proposal. Risk minimization is a key component of the Earth Venture missions. Experiences of prior airborne missions will be shared. The discussion will address aspects of uncertainty and issues surrounding three areas of airborne earth science missions: (1) Aircraft or proposed flight platform -- Expressing the capability of the aircraft in terms of the supporting mission requirements. These issues include airplane performance characteristics (duration, range, altitude, among others) and multiship complexities. (2) Instruments -- Establishing that the instruments have been demonstrated in a relevant environment. Instruments with heritage in prior space missions meet this requirement, as do instruments tested on the ground. Evidence that the instruments have demonstrated the ability to collect data as advertised will be described. The complexity of the integration of multiple subsystems will also be addressed. Issues associated with tailoring the instrument to meet the specific Venture mission objectives must be thoroughly explained and justified. (3) Aircraft/Instrument Integration -- Explicitly defining what development may be required to harden the instrument and integrate the instrument. The challenges associated with this key aspect of major airborne earth science investigations will be presented.
Wells, James E.↗
A Technology Development Roadmap for a Near-Term Probe-Class X-ray Astrophysics Mission
This document presents a roadmap, including proposed budget and schedule, for maturing the instrumentation needed for an X-ray astrophysics Probe-class mission. The Physics of the Cosmos (PCOS) Program Office was directed to create this roadmap following the December 2012 NASA Astrophysics Implementation Plan (AIP). Definition of this mission is called for in the AIP, with the possibility of selection in 2015 for a start in 2017. The overall mission capabilities and instrument performance requirements were defined in the 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey report, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (NWNH), in connection with the highly ranked International X-ray Observatory (IXO). In NWNH, recommendations were provided regarding the size of, and instrumentation needed by, the next large X-ray observatory. Specifically, the key instrumental capability would be an X-ray calorimeter spectrometer at the focus of a large mirror with angular resolution of 10 arc seconds (arcsec) or better. If possible, a grating spectrometer should also be incorporated into the instrument complement. In response to these recommendations, four instrumentation technologies are included in this roadmap. Three of these are critical for an X-ray mission designed to address NWNH questions: segmented X-ray mirrors, transition edge sensor calorimeters, and gratings. Two approaches are described for gratings, which represent the least mature technology and thus most in need of a parallel path for risk reduction. Also, while current CCD detectors would likely meet the mission needs for grating spectrum readout, specific improvements are included as an additional approach for achieving the grating system effective area requirement. The technical steps needed for these technologies to attain technology readiness levels (TRL) of 5 and 6 are described, as well as desirable modest risk reduction steps beyond TRL-6. All of the technology development efforts are currently funded through the NASA Physics of the Cosmos (PCOS) Strategic Astrophysics Technology (SAT) program; some through the end of FY13, others though FY14. These technology needs are those identified as critical for a near-term mission and briefly described in the 2012 NASA X-ray Mission Concepts Study. This Technology Development Roadmap (TDR) provides a more complete description of each, updates the status, and describes the steps to mature them. For each technology, a roadmap is presented for attaining TRL-6 by 2020 at the latest, and 2018 for most. The funding required for each technology to attain TRL-5 and TRL-6 is presented and justified through a description of the steps needing completion. The total funding required for these technologies to reach TRL-6 is relatively modest, and is consistent with the planned PCOS SAT funding over the next several years. The approximate annual cost through 2018 is $8M. The total cost for all technologies to be matured is $62M (including funding already awarded for FY13 and FY14). This can be contrasted to the $180M recommended by NWNH for technology development for IXO, primarily for the maturation of the mirror technology. The technology described in Section 3 of this document is exclusively that needed for a near-term Probe-class mission, to start in 2017, or for a mission that can be recommended by the next Decadal survey committee for an immediate start. It is important to note that there are other critical X-ray instrumentation technologies under development that are less mature than the ones discussed here, but are essential for a major X-ray mission that might start in the late 2020s. These technologies, described briefly in Section 4, are more appropriately funded through the Astronomy and Physics Research and Analysis (APRA) program.
Development↗