Technology infusion for space-flight programs

A tremendous amount of difficulty is encountered in moving technologies from laboratory demonstration (NASA technology readiness level (TRL) 3) to prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (TRL 6). This ability to infuse technologies into NASA space flight programs is limited by a number of factors. Most research funding is for R&D activities that fund tasks from TRL1 to TRL3 (concept to laboratory demonstration). Most flight projects are only interested in technologies that are at TRL6 or higher with no incentive for projects to use any space-unproven technology unless it is essential to completion of the specific mission. Semiconductors have been following Moore's law for at least four decades, meaning that electronics and packaging technologies that are more than two years old are essentially obsolete. It takes about two years to space-qualify a technology if a particular mission regards it critical. There are few or no mechanisms to qualify technologies that are not considered critical to a particular mission. Additionally, it may take 5-8 years after qualification to launch. This means that nearly all electronics being used in spacecraft, with the exception of a few specialty components such as sensors like the Herschel/Planck bolometers, are many generations obsolete. The same can be said for packaging. A new approach could be used to reduce the risk of using modern technologies and facilitate their timely implementation. One approach is to: coordinate all TRL 1-3 R&D funding (reduce overlap); require clear and precise statements of work, require progress milestones (i.e. run an experiment, complete literature survey) and to perform independent risk assessments on all TRL 1-3 projects using a variety of tools. The tools could be used to rate the technologies in three categories: looks promising - continue work; ready for TRL4 and move it into an implementation phase; or, is unlikely to be useable in the next n years /sub i/scontinue funding (long-term research would fall in the first category). The residual funding from the R&D < TRL3 phase should be used for TRL4-6 activities, which could be managed the same way: key progress milestones; independent risk assessment; rating for continuation. Additionally, NASA flight projects need to be given incentive to have a "big-picture" view. Currently, TRL 5 and 6 technologies are taken up by projects and tested to project specific criteria, where with a small amount of incremental funding, technologies could be tested to survive a much broader set of requirements that would be applicable to many different missions. The funding could easily be recovered from the programs because each would not have to redundantly fund complete testing of a particular technology. A program technology tax would be one way to cover this incremental funding. A number of examples of risk assessments are covered, emphasizing each of the above.