Total Technology Readiness Level: Accelerating Technology Readiness for Aircraft Design
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Jeanne Yu↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “technology readiness”
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 for the Smart Grid
Reluctance to adopt new technology into a utility application is understandable, given the critical nature of the infrastructure and the less-than-ideal experiences of some power companies. The authors of this paper have considered adapting the NASA approach of classifying technology readiness, but find it not quite appropriate because NASA was both the developer and the eventual user of the new technology it was evaluating, whereas a utility is ordinarily in the mode of a customer, acquiring a new product from a manufacturer. Instead of a generic scale of technology readiness, a scale of readiness is proposed specifically for the smart grid, based on the many standards that exist for the relevant technologies. In this paper we present an overall structure for organization those standards. The acceptance of new technology is organized into five SGL (Smart Grid Level) steps, numbered five through 9 to correspond approximately to the last five numbers of the NASA TRL scale. SGL 5 is a certification that the hardware and software of the technology is safe for the system into which is intended to be placed. SGL 6 is documentation that the system is safe for itself, and will have adequate reliability. It is thus clear that the steps differ from NASA’s TRL in that technology development is not required, the transition is more one of documenting already existing system readiness. Since SGL 6 describes a system that is safe for the power system and for itself, it should not be restricted from being in a pilot-scale study, and achieving SGL 7. A larger-scale demonstration in a realistic environment will demonstrate interoperability and achieve SGL 8. Only when systems are installed and operating, and when disposal plans are in place will the designation of fully operable at SGL 9 be granted.
Kirkham, Harold↗
Technology readiness levels and technology status for selected long term/high payoff technologies on the RLV program
The development of a new space transportation system in a climate of constant budget cuts and staff reductions can be and is a difficult task. It is no secret that NASA's current launching system consumes a very large portion of NASA funding and requires a large army of people to operate & maintain the system. The new Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) project and it's programs are faced with a monumental task of making the cost of access to space dramatically lower and more efficient than NASA's current system. With pressures from congressional budget cutters and also increased competition and loss of market share from international agencies RLV's first priority is to develop a 'low-cost, reliable transportation to earth orbit.' One of the RLV's major focus in achieving low-cost, reliable transportation to earth orbit is to rely on the maturing of advanced technologies. The technologies for the RLV are numerous and varied. Trying to assess their current status, within the RLV development program is paramount. There are several ways to assess these technologies. One way is through the use of Technology Readiness Levels (TRL's). This project focused on establishing current (summer 95) 'worst case' TRL's for six selected technologies that are under consideration for use within the RLV program. The six technologies evaluated were Concurrent Engineering, Embedded Sensor Technology, Rapid Prototyping, Friction Stir Welding, Thermal Spray Coatings, and VPPA Welding.
Rosmait, Russell L.↗
A review of thermochemical upgrading of pyrolysis bio‐oil: Techno‐economic analysis, life cycle assessment, and technology readiness
Abstract Technologies for upgrading fast pyrolysis bio‐oil to drop‐in fuels and coproducts are under development and show promise for decarbonizing energy supply for transportation and chemicals markets. The successful commercialization of these fuels and the technologies deployed to produce them depend on production costs, scalability, and yield. To meet environmental regulations, pyrolysis‐based biofuels need to adhere to life cycle greenhouse gas intensity standards relative to their petroleum‐based counterparts. We review literature on fast pyrolysis bio‐oil upgrading and explore key metrics that influence their commercial viability through life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno‐economic analysis (TEA) methods together with technology readiness level (TRL) evaluation. We investigate the trade‐offs among economic, environmental, and technological metrics derived from these methods for individual technologies as a means of understanding their nearness to commercialization. Although the technologies reviewed have not attained commercial investment, some have been pilot tested. Predicting the projected performance at scale‐up through models can, with industrial experience, guide decision‐making to competitively meet energy policy goals. LCA and TEA methods that ensure consistent and reproducible models at a given TRL are needed to compare alternative technologies. This study highlights the importance of integrated analysis of multiple economic, environmental, and technological metrics for understanding performance prospects and barriers among early stage technologies.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Readying technology for a super SST
A technology readiness evaluation is made of the configurational, propulsion system, avionics, and materials/manufacturing methods which could be integrated to produce an economically viable SST by the year 2000. Aerodynamically, promising results are noted in the cases of arrow-wing planforms and blended wing/body cross sections, as well as in vortex flaps. In structures, metal matrix composites with high specific strength at high temperatures and thermoplastically formed/diffusion-bonded titanium alloy sandwich structures are identified as being of primary importance. Performance improvement prospects are also noted for engine efficiencies and sonic boom overpressures. The various technologies are envisaged as the bases for a two-engine, two-crew cockpit, 250-seat arrow-winged SST.
Petersen, R. H.↗
Solar sail-solar electric technology readiness and transfer assessment
A method of conducting a technology readiness assessment was developed. It uses existing OAST technology readiness and risk criteria to define a technology readiness factor that considers both the required gain in technology readiness level to achieved technology readiness plus the degree of effort associated with achieving the gain. The results indicate that Solar Electric Propulsion is preferred based on technology readiness criteria. Both Solar Sail and Solar Electric Propulsion have a high level of transfer potential for future NASA missions, and each has considerable technology spillover for non-NASA applications.
Chase, R. L.↗
Technology readiness assessment of magnetohydrodynamic stability control
The technology readiness level scale is revised with clear definitions for magnetohydrodynamic stability control technologies for magnetic confinement fusion. The definitions are in the form of a sentence with three dimensions, which are the system complexity, the test environment, and the cost. A clear and simple definition is sought after to make an assessment based on the evidence which is agreeable to the fusion energy development community. A sample technology readiness assessment (TRA) for the electron cyclotron current drive-based control of neoclassical tearing mode for ST Advanced Reactor, using the proposed scale, reveals that the risk of a TRA being misinterpreted is high, which can only be avoided with an understanding of the procedure described in this paper.
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
Technology Readiness Assessment for Stirling Power Convertor
Stirling-based power conversion system could represent a critical enabling technology for future NASA missions, offering significantly enhanced power efficiency over traditional thermoelectric systems. To ensure the successful infusion of this technology into deep space and planetary surface missions, a rigorous evaluation of its maturity and associated risks is essential. The objective of this Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) is to determine the current technology readiness level (TRL) of the Stirling power convertor and identify key technical risks and challenges associated with its maturation and potential infusion into a targeted flight system. The evaluation process will rigorously follow the NASA TRA procedure: (1) determining the requirements that underpin the design, function, and performance; (2) finding and listing all new technology elements (NTEs) and critical technology elements (CTEs); (3) identifying the level of integration assumed for the assessment; and (4) assessing the TRL for each NTE and CTE. The overall subassembly TRL will then be determined via a roll-up using the “weakest link” criterion, culminating in a final (5) assessment of risks to further progression of maturity. This paper will present the results of a comprehensive technology readiness assessment (TRA) conducted on the Stirling-based dynamic power conversion subassembly, excluding the radioisotope heat source. The paper will also describe a detailed breakdown of the TRL roll-up and a matrix of identified risks and recommended mitigation paths, along with identified key technical risks and challenges to achieve the required long-duration performance. Key Words: Radioisotope Power Conversion, Technology Readiness Assessment
Radioisotope Power Conversion↗
Development of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Metrics and Risk Measures
This is an internal project milestone report to document the CCSI Element 7 team's progress on developing Technology Readiness Level (TRL) metrics and risk measures. In this report, we provide a brief overview of the current technology readiness assessment research, document the development of technology readiness levels (TRLs) specific to carbon capture technologies, describe the risk measures and uncertainty quantification approaches used in our research, and conclude by discussing the next steps that the CCSI Task 7 team aims to accomplish.
carbon capture simulation↗
Considerations for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Reactor Technology Readiness Level Advancement
Nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) is a candidate in-space propulsion technology for crewed missions to Mars. An NTP engine relies on the use of a reactor as a heat exchanger to directly heat a hydrogen propellant which is expanded through a nozzle for high specific impulse (> 850s), high thrust (>15 klbf) propulsion. NTP reactor and engine technologies are currently being developed to enable a future NTP engine prototype demonstration. Technology readiness level (TRL) definitions are a useful tool to plan necessary technology advancement tasks as they provide guidance on expected development activities and necessary level of fidelity of test article or testing conditions for demonstration tasks. However, technology readiness definitions for an NTP reactor and related demonstration tasks have not yet been defined. This paper identifies relevant TRL definitions by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Department of Energy (DOE). Based on these definitions, preliminary recommendations on testing conditions and important parameters to consider for NTP reactor technology development planning are provided for TRL 1 - 6. As a part of this effort, functional characteristics and important performance parameters for the reactor are identified, as well as a summary of relevant literature which was considered when assessing development tasks capable of meeting TRL definition criteria.
nuclear thermal propulsion↗
Considerations for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Reactor Technology Readiness Level Advancement
Nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) is a candidate in-space propulsion technology for crewed missions to Mars. An NTP engine relies on the use of a reactor as a heat exchanger to directly heat a hydrogen propellant which is expanded through a nozzle for high specific impulse (> 850s), high thrust (>15 klbf) propulsion. NTP reactor and engine technologies are currently being developed to enable a future NTP engine prototype demonstration. Technology readiness level (TRL) definitions are a useful tool to plan necessary technology advancement tasks as they provide guidance on expected development activities and necessary level of fidelity of test article or testing conditions for demonstration tasks. However, technology readiness definitions for an NTP reactor and related demonstration tasks have not yet been defined. This paper identifies relevant TRL definitions by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Department of Energy (DOE). Based on these definitions, preliminary recommendations on testing conditions and important parameters to consider for NTP reactor technology development planning are provided for TRL 1 - 6. As a part of this effort, functional characteristics and important performance parameters for the reactor are identified, as well as a summary of relevant literature which was considered when assessing development tasks capable of meeting TRL definition criteria.
nuclear thermal propulsion↗
Technology Readiness Levels for Advanced Nuclear Fuels and Materials Development
The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) process is used to quantitatively assess the maturity of a given technology. The TRL process has been developed and successfully used by the Department of Defense (DOD) for development and deployment of new technology and systems for defense applications. In addition, NASA has also successfully used the TRL process to develop and deploy new systems for space applications. Advanced nuclear fuels and materials development is a critical technology needed for closing the nuclear fuel cycle. Because the deployment of a new nuclear fuel forms requires a lengthy and expensive research, development, and demonstration program, applying the TRL concept to the advanced fuel development program is very useful as a management and tracking tool. This report provides definition of the technology readiness level assessment process as defined for use in assessing nuclear fuel technology development for the Advanced Fuel Campaign (AFC).
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
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↗
New Developments in the Technology Readiness Assessment Process in US DOE-EM - 13247
A Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) is a systematic, metric-based process and accompanying report that evaluates the maturity of the technologies used in systems; it is designed to measure technology maturity using the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale pioneered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the 1980's. More recently, DoD has adopted and provided systematic guidance for performing TRAs and determining TRLs. In 2007 the GAO recommended that the DOE adopt the NASA/DoD methodology for evaluating technology maturity. Earlier, in 2006-2007, DOE-EM had conducted pilot TRAs on a number of projects at Hanford and Savannah River. In March 2008, DOE-EM issued a process guide, which established TRAs as an integral part of DOE-EM's Project Management Critical Decision Process. Since the development of its detailed TRA guidance in 2008, DOE-EM has continued to accumulate experience in the conduct of TRAs and the process for evaluating technology maturity. DOE has developed guidance on TRAs applicable department-wide. DOE-EM's experience with the TRA process, the evaluations that led to recently developed proposed revisions to the DOE-EM TRA/TMP Guide; the content of the proposed changes that incorporate the above lessons learned and insights are described. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Technology readiness levels for advanced nuclear fuels and materials development
The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) process is used to quantitatively assess the maturity of a given technology. It was pioneered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the 1980s to develop and deploy new systems for space applications. The process was subsequently adopted by the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop and deploy new technology and systems for defense applications as well as the Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate the maturity of new technologies in major construction projects. Advanced nuclear fuels and materials development is a critical technology needed for improving the performance and safety of current and advanced reactors, and ultimately closing the nuclear fuel cycle. Because deployment of new nuclear fuel forms requires a lengthy and expensive research, development, and demonstration program, applying the TRL concept to the advanced fuel development program is very useful as a management, communication and tracking tool. Furthermore, this article provides examples regarding the methods by which TRLs are currently used to assess the maturity of nuclear fuels and materials under development in the DOE Fuel Cycle Research and Development (FCRD) Program within the Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC).
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
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.↗
JPL Technology Readiness Assessment Guideline
New capabilities in spaceflight missions are enabled by new technologies. Transitioning new technology to spaceflight elements is difficult and introduces risk, but finding the right balance between benefit and risk leads to scientific advancements and novel space missions. A clear understanding of the risks of new technology can create an environment where innovation is nurtured rather than avoided. The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) was developed as a metric for the maturity of new technology, but, in the past, assessing the TRL was often done informally and inconsistently. This frequently led to discrepancies between the TRL as perceived by the technologist and that perceived by a project. JPL has developed a guideline for their projects to provide a basis for a consistent Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA). Highlights of this guideline are presented here. It is anticipated that the implementation of this guideline will enable the hand-off from technologists to project engineers leading to greater acceptance of technologies by flight projects. On completion of a satisfactory TRA, an agreement can be made between the parties on the maturation plan required for successful infusion of the technology into a flight mission.
Frerking, Margaret A.↗