Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “#technology”

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.

At least 559 records · Page 31
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

Propulsion Technology Needs for Exploration

The objectives of currently planned exploration efforts, as well as those further in the future, require significant advancements in propulsion technologies. The current Lunar exploration architecture has set goals and mission objectives that necessitate the use of new systems and the extension of existing technologies beyond present applications. In the near term, the majority of these technologies are the result of a need to apply high performing cryogenic propulsion systems to long duration in-space applications. Advancement of cryogenic propulsion to these applications is crucial to provide higher performing propulsion systems that reduce the vehicle masses; enhance the safety of vehicle systems and ground operations; and provide a path for In-situ Resource Utilization (ISRU).Use of a LOX/LH2 main propulsion system for Lunar Lander Descent is a top priority because more conventional storable propellants are far from meeting the performance needs of the current architecture. While LOX/LH2 pump feed engines have been used in flight applications for many years, these engines have limited throttle capabilities. Engines that are capable of much greater throttling while still meeting high performance goals are a necessity to achieving exploration goals. Applications of LOX/CH4 propulsion to Lander ascent propulsion systems and reaction control systems are also if interest because of desirable performance and operations improvements over conventional storable systems while being more suitable for use of in-situ produced propellants. Within the current lunar architecture, use of cryogenic propulsion for the Earth Departure Stage and Lunar Lander elements also necessitate the need for advanced Cryogenic Fluid Management technologies. These technologies include long duration propellant storage/distribution, low-gravity propellant management, cryogenic couplings and disconnects, light weight composite tanks and support structure, and subsystem integration. In addition to the propulsive and fluid management system technologies described, many component level technologies are also required to enable to the success if the integrated systems. The components include, but are not limited to, variable/throttling valves, variable position actuators, leak detectors, light weight cryogenic fluid pumps, sensor technology and others. NASA, partnering with the Aerospace Industry must endeavor to develop these, and other promising propulsion technologies, to enable the implements of the country's goals in exploration of the Moon, Mars and beyond.

Brown, Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2006

A Process for Technology Prioritization in a Competitive Environment

This slide presentation reviews NASA's process for prioritizing technology requirements where there is a competitive environment. The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) project is used to exemplify the process. The ISPT project focuses on the mid level Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for development. These are TRL's 4 through 6, (i.e. Technology Development and Technology Demonstration. The objective of the planning activity is to identify the current most likely date each technology is needed and create ISPT technology development schedules based on these dates. There is a minimum of 4 years between flight and pacing mission. The ISPT Project needed to identify the "pacing mission" for each technology in order to provide funding for each area. Graphic representations show the development of the process. A matrix shows which missions are currently receiving pull from the both the Solar System Exploration and the Sun-Solar System Connection Roadmaps. The timeframes of the pacing missions technologies are shown for various types of propulsion. A pacing mission that was in the near future serves to increase the priority for funding. Adaptations were made when budget reductions precluded the total implementation of the plan.

Stephens, Karen↗
NASA NTRS2010

SBIR Technology Applications to Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN)

This slide presentation reviews the mission of the Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Office with particular emphasis on opportunities for technology development with SBIR companies. The SCaN office manages NASA's space communications and navigation networks: the Near Earth Network (NEN), the Space Network (SN), and the Deep Space Network (DSN). The SCaN networks nodes are shown on a world wide map and the networks are described. Two types of technologies are described: Pull technology, and Push technologies. A listing of technology themes is presented, with a discussion on Software defined Radios, Optical Communications Technology, and Lunar Lasercom Space Terminal (LLST). Other technologies that are being investigated are some Game Changing Technologies (GCT) i.e., technologies that offer the potential for improving comm. or nav. performance to the point that radical new mission objectives are possible, such as Superconducting Quantum Interference Filters, Silicon Nanowire Optical Detectors, and Auto-Configuring Cognitive Communications

Liebrecht, Phil↗
NASA NTRS2011

Carbon Dioxide Reduction Technology Trade Study

For long-term human missions, a closed-loop atmosphere revitalization system (ARS) is essential to minimize consumables. A carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction technology is used to reclaim oxygen (O2) from metabolic CO2 and is vital to reduce the delivery mass of metabolic O2. A key step in closing the loop for ARS will include a proper CO2 reduction subsystem that is reliable and with low equivalent system mass (ESM). Sabatier and Bosch CO2 reduction are two traditional CO2 reduction subsystems (CRS). Although a Sabatier CRS has been delivered to International Space Station (ISS) and is an important step toward closing the ISS ARS loop, it recovers only 50% of the available O2 in CO2. A Bosch CRS is able to reclaim all O2 in CO2. However, due to continuous carbon deposition on the catalyst surface, the penalties of replacing spent catalysts and reactors and crew time in a Bosch CRS are significant. Recently, technologies have been developed for recovering hydrogen (H2) from Sabatier-product methane (CH4). These include methane pyrolysis using a microwave plasma, catalytic thermal pyrolysis of CH4 and thermal pyrolysis of CH4. Further, development in Sabatier reactor designs based on microchannel and microlith technology could open up opportunities in reducing system mass and enhancing system control. Improvements in Bosch CRS conversion have also been reported. In addition, co-electrolysis of steam and CO2 is a new technology that integrates oxygen generation and CO2 reduction functions in a single system. A co-electrolysis unit followed by either a Sabatier or a carbon formation reactor based on Bosch chemistry could improve the overall competitiveness of an integrated O2 generation and CO2 reduction subsystem. This study evaluates all these CO2 reduction technologies, conducts water mass balances for required external supply of water for 1-, 5- and 10-yr missions, evaluates mass, volume, power, cooling and resupply requirements of various technologies. A system analysis and comparison among the technologies was made based on ESM, technology readiness level and reliability. Those technologies with potential were recommended for development.

Jeng, Frank F.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Technology Area 07: Human Exploration Destination Systems Roadmap

This paper gives an overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of Chief Technologist (OCT) led Space Technology Roadmap definition efforts. This paper will given an executive summary of the technology area 07 (TA07) Human Exploration Destination Systems (HEDS). These are draft roadmaps being reviewed and updated by the National Research Council. Deep-space human exploration missions will require many game changing technologies to enable safe missions, become more independent, and enable intelligent autonomous operations and take advantage of the local resources to become self-sufficient thereby meeting the goal of sustained human presence in space. Taking advantage of in-situ resources enhances and enables revolutionary robotic and human missions beyond the traditional mission architectures and launch vehicle capabilities. Mobility systems will include in-space flying, surface roving, and Extra-vehicular Activity/Extravehicular Robotics (EVA/EVR) mobility. These push missions will take advantage of sustainability and supportability technologies that will allow mission independence to conduct human mission operations either on or near the Earth, in deep space, in the vicinity of Mars, or on the Martian surface while opening up commercialization opportunities in low Earth orbit (LEO) for research, industrial development, academia, and entertainment space industries. The Human Exploration Destination Systems (HEDS) Technology Area (TA) 7 Team has been chartered by the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) to strategically roadmap technology investments that will enable sustained human exploration and support NASA s missions and goals for at least the next 25 years. HEDS technologies will enable a sustained human presence for exploring destinations such as remote sites on Earth and beyond including, but not limited to, LaGrange points, low Earth orbit (LEO), high Earth orbit (HEO), geosynchronous orbit (GEO), the Moon, near-Earth objects (NEOs), which > 95% are asteroidal bodies, Phobos, Deimos, Mars, and beyond. The HEDS technology roadmap will strategically guide NASA and other U.S. Government agency technology investments that will result in capabilities enabling human exploration missions to diverse destinations generating high returns on investments.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Technology Applications that Support Space Exploration

Several enabling technologies have been identified that would provide significant benefits for future space exploration. In-Space demonstrations should be chosen so that these technologies will have a timely opportunity to improve efficiencies and reduce risks for future spaceflight. An early window exists to conduct ground and flight demonstrations that make use of existing assets that were developed for the Space Shuttle and the Constellation programs. The work could be mostly performed using residual program civil servants, existing facilities and current commercial launch capabilities. Partnering these abilities with the emerging commercial sector, along with other government agencies, academia and with international partners would provide an affordable and timely approach to get the launch costs down for these payloads, while increasing the derived benefits to a larger community. There is a wide scope of varied technologies that are being considered to help future space exploration. However, the cost and schedule would be prohibitive to demonstrate all these in the near term. Determining which technologies would yield the best return in meeting our future space needs is critical to building an achievable Space Architecture that allows exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit. The best mix of technologies is clearly to be based on our future needs, but also must take into account the availability of existing assets and supporting partners. Selecting those technologies that have complimentary applications will provide the most knowledge, with reasonable cost, for future use The plan is to develop those applications that not only mature the technology but actually perform a useful task or mission. These might include such functions as satellite servicing, a propulsion stage, processing lunar regolith, generating and transmitting solar power, cryogenic fluid transfer and storage and artificial gravity. Applications have been selected for assessment for future consideration and are addressed in this paper. These applications have been made available to the various NASA study groups that are determining the next steps the Agency must take to secure a sound foundation for future space exploration The paper also addresses how follow-on demonstrations, as launch performance grows, can build on the earlier applications to provide increased benefits for both the commercial and scientific communities. The architecture of incrementally building upon previous successes and insights dramatically lowers the overall associated risk for developing and maturing the key enabling technologies. The goal is to establish a potential business case that encourages commercial activity, thereby reducing the cost for the demonstration while using the technology maturation in developing readiness for future space exploration with overall less risk.

Henderson, Edward M.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Status of Sample Return Propulsion Technology Development Under NASA's ISPT Program

The In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program was tasked in 2009 to start development of propulsion technologies that would enable future sample return missions. ISPT s sample return technology development areas are diverse. Sample Return Propulsion (SRP) addresses electric propulsion for sample return and low cost Discovery-class missions, propulsion systems for Earth Return Vehicles (ERV) including transfer stages to the destination, and low technology readiness level (TRL) advanced propulsion technologies. The SRP effort continues work on HIVHAC thruster development to transition into developing a Hall-effect propulsion system for sample return (ERV and transfer stages) and low-cost missions. Previous work on the lightweight propellant-tanks continues for sample return with direct applicability to a Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission with general applicability to all future planetary spacecraft. The Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV) work focuses on building a fundamental base of multi-mission technologies for Earth Entry Vehicles (MMEEV). The main focus of the Planetary Ascent Vehicles (PAV) area is technology development for the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), which builds upon and leverages the past MAV analysis and technology developments from the Mars Technology Program (MTP) and previous MSR studies

Anderson, David J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Critical Technology Determination for Future Human Space Flight

As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) prepares to extend human presence throughout the solar system, technical capabilities must be developed to enable long duration flights to destinations such as near Earth asteroids, Mars, and extended stays on the Moon. As part of the NASA Human Spaceflight Architecture Team, a Technology Development Assessment Team has identified a suite of critical technologies needed to support this broad range of missions. Dialog between mission planners, vehicle developers, and technologists was used to identify a minimum but sufficient set of technologies, noting that needs are created by specific mission architecture requirements, yet specific designs are enabled by technologies. Further consideration was given to the re-use of underlying technologies to cover multiple missions to effectively use scarce resources. This suite of critical technologies is expected to provide the needed base capability to enable a variety of possible destinations and missions. This paper describes the methodology used to provide an architecture driven technology development assessment (technology pull), including technology advancement needs identified by trade studies encompassing a spectrum of flight elements and destination design reference missions.

Mercer, Carolyn R.↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA's Launch Propulsion Systems Technology Roadmap

Safe, reliable, and affordable access to low-Earth (LEO) orbit is necessary for all of the United States (US) space endeavors. In 2010, NASA s Office of the Chief Technologist commissioned 14 teams to develop technology roadmaps that could be used to guide the Agency s and US technology investment decisions for the next few decades. The Launch Propulsion Systems Technology Area (LPSTA) team was tasked to address the propulsion technology challenges for access to LEO. The developed LPSTA roadmap addresses technologies that enhance existing solid or liquid propulsion technologies and their related ancillary systems or significantly advance the technology readiness level (TRL) of less mature systems like airbreathing, unconventional, and other launch technologies. In developing this roadmap, the LPSTA team consulted previous NASA, military, and industry studies as well as subject matter experts to develop their assessment of this field, which has fundamental technological and strategic impacts for US space capabilities.

McConnaughey, Paul K.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Critical Technology Determination for Future Human Space Flight

As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) prepares to extend human presence throughout the solar system, technical capabilities must be developed to enable long duration flights to destinations such as near Earth asteroids, Mars, and extended stays on the Moon. As part of the NASA Human Spaceflight Architecture Team, a Technology Development Assessment Team has identified a suite of critical technologies needed to support this broad range of missions. Dialog between mission planners, vehicle developers, and technologists was used to identify a minimum but sufficient set of technologies, noting that needs are created by specific mission architecture requirements, yet specific designs are enabled by technologies. Further consideration was given to the re-use of underlying technologies to cover multiple missions to effectively use scarce resources. This suite of critical technologies is expected to provide the needed base capability to enable a variety of possible destinations and missions. This paper describes the methodology used to provide an architecture-driven technology development assessment ("technology pull"), including technology advancement needs identified by trade studies encompassing a spectrum of flight elements and destination design reference missions.

Mercer, Carolyn R.↗
NASA NTRS2012

The Effect of Rotor Cruise Tip Speed, Engine Technology and Engine/Drive System RPM on the NASA Large Civil Tiltrotor (LCTR2) Size and Performance

A multi-year study was conducted under NASA NNA06BC41C Task Order 10 and NASA NNA09DA56C task orders 2, 4, and 5 to identify the most promising propulsion system concepts that enable rotor cruise tip speeds down to 54% of the hover tip speed for a civil tiltrotor aircraft. Combinations of engine RPM reduction and 2-speed drive systems were evaluated. Three levels of engine and the drive system advanced technology were assessed; 2015, 2025 and 2035. Propulsion and drive system configurations that resulted in minimum vehicle gross weight were identified. Design variables included engine speed reduction, drive system speed reduction, technology, and rotor cruise propulsion efficiency. The NASA Large Civil Tiltrotor, LCTR, aircraft served as the base vehicle concept for this study and was resized for over thirty combinations of operating cruise RPM and technology level, quantifying LCTR2 Gross Weight, size, and mission fuel. Additional studies show design sensitivity to other mission ranges and design airspeeds, with corresponding relative estimated operational cost. The lightest vehicle gross weight solution consistently came from rotor cruise tip speeds between 422 fps and 500 fps. Nearly equivalent results were achieved with operating at reduced engine RPM with a single-speed drive system or with a two-speed drive system and 100% engine RPM. Projected performance for a 2025 engine technology provided improved fuel flow over a wide range of operating speeds relative to the 2015 technology, but increased engine weight nullified the improved fuel flow resulting in increased aircraft gross weights. The 2035 engine technology provided further fuel flow reduction and 25% lower engine weight, and the 2035 drive system technology provided a 12% reduction in drive system weight. In combination, the 2035 technologies reduced aircraft takeoff gross weight by 14% relative to the 2015 technologies.

Robuck, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Funding Opportunities for Optical Fabrication and Testing Technology Development

Technologies to fabricate and test optical components are required for NASA to accomplish its highest priority science missions. For example, the NRC ASTRO2010 Decadal Survey states that an advanced large-aperture UVOIR telescope is required to enable the next generation of compelling astrophysics and exo-planet science; and that present technology is not mature enough to affordably build and launch any potential UVOIR mission concept. The NRC 2012 NASA Space Technology Roadmaps and Priorities report states that the highest priority technology in which NASA should invest to 'Expand our understanding of Earth and the universe' is a new generation of astronomical telescopes. And, each of the Astrophysics division Program Office Annual Technology Reports (PATR), identifies specific technology needs. NASA has a variety of programs to fund enabling technology development: SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research); the ROSES APRA and SAT programs (Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science; Astrophysics Research and Analysis program; Strategic Astrophysics Technology program); and several Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) technology development programs.

Stahl, H. Philip↗
NASA NTRS2012

Technology Investment Agendas to Expand Human Space Futures

The paper develops four alternative core-technology advancement specifications, one for each of the four strategic goal options for government investment in human space flight. Already discussed in the literature, these are: Explore Mars; Settle the Moon; accelerate commercial development of Space Passenger Travel; and enable industrial scale-up of Space Solar Power for Earth. In the case of the Explore Mars goal, the paper starts with the contemporary NASA accounting of ?55 Mars-enabling technologies. The analysis decomposes that technology agenda into technologies applicable only to the Explore Mars goal, versus those applicable more broadly to the other three options. Salient technology needs of all four options are then elaborated to a comparable level of detail. The comparison differentiates how technologies or major developments that may seem the same at the level of budget lines or headlines (e.g., heavy-lift Earth launch) would in fact diverge widely if developed in the service of one or another of the HSF goals. The paper concludes that the explicit choice of human space flight goal matters greatly; an expensive portfolio of challenging technologies would not only enable a particular option, it would foreclose the others. Technologies essential to enable human exploration of Mars cannot prepare interchangeably for alternative futures; they would not allow us to choose later to Settle the Moon, unleash robust growth of Space Passenger Travel industries, or help the transition to a post-petroleum future with Space Solar Power for Earth. The paper concludes that a decades-long decision in the U.S.--whether made consciously or by default--to focus technology investment toward achieving human exploration of Mars someday would effectively preclude the alternative goals in our lifetime.

human space flight↗
NASA NTRS2008

Mission Architecture and Technology Options for a Flagship Class Venus In Situ Mission

Venus, as part of the inner triad with Earth and Mars, represents an important exploration target if we want to learn more about solar system formation and evolution. Comparative planetology could also elucidate the differences between the past, present, and future of these three planets, and can help with the characterization of potential habitable zones in our solar system and, by extension, extrasolar systems. A long lived in situ Venus mission concept, called the Venus Mobile Explorer, was prominently featured in NASA's 2006 SSE Roadmap and supported in the community White Paper by the Venus Exploration Analysis Group (VEXAG). Long-lived in situ missions are expected to belong to the largest (Flagship) mission class, which would require both enabling and enhancing technologies beside mission architecture options. Furthermore, extreme environment mitigation technologies for Venus are considered long lead development items and are expected to require technology development through a dedicated program. To better understand programmatic and technology needs and the motivating science behind them, in this fiscal year (FY08) NASA is funding a Venus Flaghip class mission study, based on key science and technology drivers identified by a NASA appointed Venus Science and Technology Definition Team (STDT). These mission drivers are then assembled around a suitable mission architecture to further refine technology and cost elements. In this paper we will discuss the connection between the final mission architecture and the connected technology drivers from this NASA funded study, which - if funded - could enable a future Flagship class Venus mission and potentially drive a proposed Venus technology development program.

Balint, Tibor S.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Funding and Strategic Alignment Guidance for Infusing Small Business Innovation Research Technology Into Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate Projects at Glenn Research Center for 2015

This report is intended to help NASA program and project managers incorporate Glenn Research Center Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR)/(STTR) technologies into NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) programs and projects. Other Government and commercial project managers can also find this useful. Introduction Incorporating Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)-developed technology into NASA projects is important, especially given the Agency's limited resources for technology development. The SBIR program's original intention was for technologies that had completed Phase II to be ready for integration into NASA programs, however, in many cases there is a gap between Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) 5 and 6 that needs to be closed. After SBIR Phase II projects are completed, the technology is evaluated against various parameters and a TRL rating is assigned. Most programs tend to adopt more mature technologies-at least TRL 6 to reduce the risk to the mission rather than adopt TRLs between 3 and 5 because those technologies are perceived as too risky. The gap between TRLs 5 and 6 is often called the "Valley of Death" (Figure 1), and historically it has been difficult to close because of a lack of funding support from programs. Several papers have already suggested remedies on how to close the gap (Refs. 1 to 4).

infusion; space transportation;life support system↗
NASA NTRS2016

TechPort Featured at Glenn Research Center's Technology Day

The NASA Technology Portfolio (TechPort) System was featured at NASA Glenn Research Center's Technology Day on May 24, 2016. This event, which coincided with GRC's 75th Anniversary celebration, drew nearly 250 registered guests including aerospace and technology representatives, local business leaders, state and local government officials, and members of academia. GRC's Director of the Office of Technology Incubation and Innovation and Center Chief Technologist, John Sankovic, presented the opening remarks. Several technical and business-focused panel sessions were convened. NASA's Associate Administrator for the Space Technology Mission Directorate, Steve Jurczyk, GRC's Director of Space Flight Systems, Bryan Smith, and NASA astronaut and U.S. Navy Captain, Sunita Williams, were engaged as a panel for a discussion about "NASA's Journey to Mars: Science Fiction Meets Reality." Another panel moderated by the Executive Director of the Cleveland Water Alliance, Bryan Stubbs, involved a discussion with four GRC technologists on the subject of global water scarcity and water treatment concerns. The GRC panelists shared information on the development of snow-sensing, hyperspectral imaging, and non-equilibrium plasma technologies. Technology Day attendees received overviews of GRC's technologies and partnership objectives, and were introduced to areas for potential collaboration. They were also informed about opportunities to license technologies and how to do business with NASA.

TechPort↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Creating a Wastewater Technology ‘Toolbox’ for Space Exploration ECLSS

Life Support Systems (LSS) are essential for manned spaceflight; without them, humans would not survive. Upcoming long-duration missions demand robust environmental control LSS (ECLSS) due to their insolation and limited prospect for immediate resupply. As part of LSS, water purification systems will require high reliability, sustainability, and efficiency due to transport mass limitations, because routine water delivery will be very difficult and costly to resupply future habitats. This suggests a highly effective treatment method and reuse of every wastewater source. A variety of wastewater streams are generated by crew, and although not all are currently treated, habitat success will require each stream to be treated and utilized as a ‘resource’ rather than 'waste’. These wastewater streams include human wastewater (urine, feces), food waste (plate waste, inedible plant biomass), humidity condensate, hygiene water (shower, oral, handwash), and laundry. Proven technologies are often relied upon due to long-term operations. For future, longer-term missions, this paradigm must shift to include technologies based on meeting mission requirements rather than sacrificing productivity in lieu of proven existing technology capabilities. Many physical, chemical, and biological water-processing technologies are proven and established for terrestrial applications. Herein, these technologies were collected into a ‘toolbox’ to perform possible functions towards effective water purification steps in reduced gravity. Selection criteria are dependent on approach (physical, chemical, or biological), complexity/components, terrestrial performance, and potential applicability to space life support. Utilization of this ‘toolbox’ approach provides a streamline methodology for technology development and down-selection into future architecture in direct response to the dynamic space life support requirements. Establishing the ‘toolbox’ also provides organized and efficient identification of the most appropriate technologies. From there, the technologies with the largest potential to be configured for mission requirements can be further developed and appropriately assessed. This presentation seeks to provide a comprehensive review of space life support water purification requirements and challenges, as well as to present a ‘toolbox’ methodology of available technologies to aid in the difficult process of selecting appropriate LSS water purification for short and long-term NASA mission architectures.

Luke Roberson↗
NASA NTRS2023

Technology Scouting Phase 1 Report

Identifying emerging technologies is critical to a mission-oriented agency such as NASA that is always endeavoring to achieve first-of-a-kind human and scientific exploration goals. While NASA attempts to embrace faster and novel development approaches, there have been several recent examples where the Agency has been outpaced in technology research and development, especially by emerging companies. This is in part due to the democratization of space, as seen in the flood of new space companies and capital, and because capabilities and performance levels that used to be almost exclusively demanded by space missions are now scattered across many industries. Also, NASA tends to focus on technologies and techniques developed internally, within the space sector, or in clearly related disciplines. In this context, the overall goal of the Technology Scouting project is to develop an approach to conduct effective technology scouting within NASA by first assessing the need for such a capability, evaluating current and recommended approaches, and then developing a strategy to address any weaknesses in the current approach. The study was designed to be conducted in three phases, each with its own goals and objectives: - Phase 1: Validate whether NASA’s technology scouting capability is consistent with best practices from industry, academia, and other government organizations, and identify whether there is the appetite for adopting a more rigorous technology scouting capability across the Agency. - Phase 2: Identify specific opportunities and challenges to adopting a more comprehensive technology scouting program through a pilot effort. - Phase 3: Define the implementation approach for the more comprehensive technology scouting program that is in response to the information learned during the earlier phases of the study.

Ellen Gertsen↗