David J. Anderson, Carl E. Sandifer II, Timothy R. Sarver-Verhey, Daniel M. Vento, and June F. Zakrajsek

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Planetary Science Technology Infusion Study

Findings and Recommendations Status

NASA/TM—2014-218308

September 2014
	
	
	








	



	

!

	
	
"#"	




		


	
	

		


"$
	

%	



	&	

		


'	
	
	



	
(

	)
	

			


	




	
*
	

)	

+

")
		*



*	
	",

. 5$6$79:7$%)
	




		
	
;
	 


				


	
	
<
	
	

"






	







		


		
	+	*
	


	

		





	<


		


. 5$6$7=5=%)(9= 

		
	"
	 


&	>#	 

	
	*
	#	
	






(




<"

. $%)$%))5%)

"+

	 


	
		

. $%?5)5$59:7$%$


		




	"


	
	
	




	
	


	"

. 5$79:7$%


	
	
	

	

 

	
	
	
;





	*;

	

. 5$6$7)7%5+

	


	


		
'



&	
	



	

&
	&

			

?
	

	
	




	
	


*,

. 	
	




http://www.sti.nasa.gov

. 5+
"
	>

help@sti.nasa.gov

. ?<"
	>




	

(#@@BCDEDCEGHB

. 

	

(#

 @@BCDEDCEGHJ

. K	
,


	

(#

 $	
		

	



DLLE	(	

6
	=(JLHDOCLBJH
David J. Anderson, Carl E. Sandifer II, Timothy R. Sarver-Verhey, Daniel M. Vento, and June F. Zakrajsek

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Planetary Science Technology Infusion Study

Findings and Recommendations Status

NASA/TM—2014-218308

September 2014


	



	


Q)	$	 

$%
@@LBE
	



$	
		

	



DLLE	(	

6
	=(JLHDOCLBJH



	

	

EBHL*)


<	UJJBLJ

	
",VV***


Level of Review,
	"	*"


NASA/TM—2014-218308 iii 

Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Motivation for Conducting PSD Technology Infusion Study ....................................................................... 1

Technology Infusion Study ........................................................................................................................... 2

Study Charter and Team ......................................................................................................................... 2

Study Approach and RFI Responses Received ...................................................................................... 3

Analysis Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Steps ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary of the Findings ...................................................................................................... 6

Summary of the General Findings (RFI Appendix A Questions) .......................................................... 7

Strategic ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Process/Structure—AO Implementation.......................................................................................... 7

Process/Structure—Technology Development ................................................................................ 7

Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Culture/Communications ................................................................................................................. 8

Summary of Specific ISPT Findings (RFI Appendix B Questions) ....................................................... 8

NEXT Ion Propulsion System ......................................................................................................... 8

Hall Effect Thruster Propulsion (HET) for PSD Missions .............................................................. 8

AMBR Chemical Thruster ............................................................................................................... 8

Aerocapture ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Summary of ASRG Findings (RFI Appendix C Questions) .................................................................. 9

Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) ....................................................................... 9

Cross-Cutting Technology Finding .................................................................................................. 9

PSD Technology Infusion Recommendations ................................................................................. 9

Additional Technology Needs .............................................................................................................. 11

Other Considerations .................................................................................................................................. 12

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix A.—Charter ................................................................................................................................ 17

A.1 Planetary Science Division Technology Infusion Study, November 16, 2012 ....................... 17

A.2 Study Team Plan ..................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix B.—Request for Information (RFI) ............................................................................................ 19

B.1 Planetary Science Division Technology Infusion Study—General Information .................... 19

B.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 19

B.3 Technology Infusion Study Process ........................................................................................ 19

B.4 RFI Response Details .............................................................................................................. 20

B.5 RFI Appendix A: Technology Infusion Study Questions ....................................................... 21

B.6 RFI Appendix B: In-Space Propulsion Technology Program Technology Infusion 

Study Questions ....................................................................................................................... 22

B.1 RFI Appendix C: Radioisotope Power Systems Program Technology Infusion Study 

Questions ................................................................................................................................. 24

B.2 RFI Appendix D: References and In-Space Propulsion Technology Program 

Technology Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 25

B.2.1 References ....................................................................................................................... 25

B.2.2 Technology Descriptions ................................................................................................ 25

Appendix C.—Background ......................................................................................................................... 27

C.1 Technology Development and Needs for Planetary Science Missions ................................... 27

C.2 Discovery and Scout Mission Capabilities Expansion (DSMCE) Studies .............................. 29

C.3 Mission Applicability of Propulsion, Power, and Entry Vehicle Technologies ...................... 29

C.4 Providing Incentives to Infuse NASA-Developed Technology .............................................. 30
NASA/TM—2014-218308 iv 

C.5 2010 Discovery 12 Announcement of Opportunity ................................................................ 31

C.6 2009 New Frontiers 3 Announcement of Opportunity ............................................................ 32

Appendix D.—Findings .............................................................................................................................. 33

D.1 Findings Development Process ............................................................................................... 33

D.2 General Findings ..................................................................................................................... 33

D.3 Infusion Technologies: NEXT ................................................................................................ 35

D.4 Infusion Technologies: Hall Effect Thruster ........................................................................... 36

D.5 Infusion Technologies: AMBR Thruster ................................................................................. 36

D.6 Infusion Technologies: Aerocapture ....................................................................................... 37

D.7 Infusion Technologies: ASRG Technology ............................................................................ 37

Appendix E.—Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 39

Appendix F.—PSTR Major Technology Development Observations/Issues ............................................. 43

Appendix G.—PSTR Major Recommendations ......................................................................................... 45

Appendix H.–Summary of Four NASA Technology Infusion Studies/Papers ........................................... 47

H.1 Definition of Tech Infusion ..................................................................................................... 47

H.2 Technology Infusion Challenges ............................................................................................. 47

H.3 Steps/Activities/Processes/Models to Improve Technology Infusion ..................................... 49

References ................................................................................................................................................... 52
NASA/TM—2014-218308 1 

Planetary Science Technology Infusion Study 

Findings and Recommendations Status 

David J. Anderson, Carl E. Sandifer II, Timothy R. Sarver-Verhey, 

Daniel M. Vento, and June F. Zakrajsek 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Technology infusion means the pathway by which technologies, previously unused by 

space flight programs, move from their current status onto space flight missions. The 

technology can be several generations old, the state-of-the-art or anything that is 

deemed useful to the accomplishment of NASA space missions. (Ref. 1)

Introduction 

The Planetary Science Division (PSD) within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s 

(NASA) Science Mission Directorate (SMD) at NASA Headquarters sought to understand how to better 

realize a scientific return on spacecraft system technology investments currently being funded. In order to 

achieve this objective, a team at NASA Glenn Research Center was tasked with surveying the science and 

mission communities to collect their insight on technology infusion and additionally sought inputs from 

industry, universities, and other organizations involved with proposing for future PSD missions. This 

survey was undertaken by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) activity that requested input from the 

proposing community on present technology infusion efforts. The Technology Infusion Study was 

initiated in March 2013 with the release of the RFI request. The evaluation team compiled and assessed 

this input in order to provide PSD with recommendations on how to effectively infuse new spacecraft 

systems technologies that it develops into future competed missions enabling increased scientific 

discoveries, lower mission cost, or both. This team is comprised of personnel from the Radioisotope 

Power Systems (RPS) Program and the In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Program staff. 

The RFI survey covered two aspects of technology infusion: 1) General Insight, including: their 

assessment of barriers to technology infusion as related to infusion approach; technology readiness; 

information and documentation products; communication; integration considerations; interaction with 

technology development areas; cost-capped mission areas; risk considerations; system level impacts and 

implementation; and mission pull. 2) Specific technologies from the most recent PSD Announcements of 

Opportunities (AOs): The Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG), aerocapture and aeroshell 

hardware technologies, the NASA Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, and the 

Advanced Materials Bi-propellant Rocket (AMBR) engine. 

This report will present the team’s Findings from the RFI inputs and the recommendations that arose 

from these findings. Methodologies on the findings and recommendations development are discussed. 

Motivation for Conducting PSD Technology Infusion Study 

Planetary Science Division has a long history of technology investment that is not limited to science 

instrumentation. There is considerable investment in spacecraft technologies that will extend and enhance 

the science return of future missions. These technologies for solar system exploration were identified in 

the 2006 Solar System Exploration Roadmap (Ref. 2) and subsequently thoroughly assessed and 

presented in the last Decadal Survey (Ref. 3), with several recommendations for targeted technology 

advancement. These technologies have shown to have enabling or critical applicability across a broad 

range of the missions of interest to PSD. The organization responded with substantial technology 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 2 

TABLE 1.—TECHNOLOGY INFUSION SUMMARY 

PSD Program, 

AO year 

Incentive 

amount, 

$M 

Incentivized technology Community response Outcome 

(number selected) 

New Frontiers 3, 2009 15 NEXT thruster and PPU Two proposals used NEXT None accepted 

5 AMBR thruster No Proposals None accepted 

 

Discovery 12, 2010 GFE ASRG Six Step 1 proposals Two Step 2 proposals. 

Non-ASRG mission 

19 NEXT thruster and PPU Three proposals used NEXT None accepted 

10 

20 

Aerocapture TPS and hot structures, 

or Aerocapture Maneuver 

Two proposals used 

Aerocapture TPS/HS 

None accepted 

5 Use of AMBR thruster No proposals – 

investment and incentive approaches designed to encourage Mission Planners, Principal Investigators, 

and Space Scientists to take advantage of these technologies. NASA’s New Millennium Program was a 

productive avenue to technology validation through targeted flight opportunities until its conclusion in 

2007. Subsequent technology infusion programs were integral elements of the most recent proposal 

activities in 2009 (New Frontiers 3) (Ref. 4) and 2010 (Discovery 12) (Ref. 5) where they were identified 

for broad applicability of missions of interest. The description of these activities, as well as more detail on 

the Decadal Survey results, is presented in Appendix C. 

Even though PSD has been investing in the development of relevant and enabling technologies for 

over 13 years, the technology incentivization in the last Discovery and New Frontiers AO’s has not led to 

the adoption of any of these technologies in a funded mission. A summary of the technology infusion for 

the two AO’s is summarized in Table 1. 

The Decadal Survey said that these technologies continue to be of high value to a wide variety of 

solar system missions and that NASA should continue to provide incentives for these technologies until 

they are demonstrated in flight. At the present stage, the organization was concerned about the 

effectiveness of its investments. The technology development programs and PSD management are 

motivated to understand how to better realize a scientific return on spacecraft system technology 

investment. 

Technology Infusion Study 

Study Charter and Team 

The Planetary Science Division (PSD) chartered this study to understand how to better realize a 

scientific return on spacecraft system technology investment by enabling the first use of these 

technologies through competed mission opportunities. To this end, PSD formed a team comprised from 

the Radioisotope Power Systems Program and the In Space Propulsion Technology Program staff to 

execute this study. These two Programs within PSD are focused on developing technology to support 

planetary mission needs. The full charter is provided in Appendix A for reference. 

The primary objective of this study was to provide PSD with recommendations on how to effectively 

infuse new spacecraft systems technologies into future competed missions enabling increased scientific 

discoveries, lower mission cost, or both. In order to answer this objective, the questions in Table 2 were 

used to develop a Request for Information (RFI) that solicited the community’s input. 

 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 3 

TABLE 2.—FORMULATING QUESTIONS FOR THE RFI 

Questions 

How can technology efforts be better developed, communicated, and offered to allow for implementation into a competitively 

selected mission? 

How mature does a new technology need to be before being recognized as viable and ready for infusion by the end user? 

What are the barriers to the use of newly developed technologies in competed missions? 

What were the benefits and limitations of the technology incentive methodology used in the New Frontiers 3 and Discovery 

12 AO’s? 

How can the technology incentive methodology be improved? 

How did the DSMCE study impact the evaluation of the ASRG technology in mission concept planning and the development 

of a proposal in response to the Discovery 12 AO? 

How does PSD reduce real and perceived new spacecraft system impact on mission risk? 

From the end user perspective, are there any other viable options for technology infusion which NASA could consider? 

There are two secondary objectives that were considered, 1) For the RPS Program, understand 

Discovery 12 (Ref. 5) lessons learned from proposers and evaluators regarding the integration of the 

ASRG into mission concepts; and 2) For the In-Space Propulsion Program, understand lessons learned 

from proposers and evaluators regarding the use of NEXT, Aerocapture, and AMBR for Discovery/New 

Frontiers (Refs. 4 and 5) class missions. Additionally, what were some specific reasons that these 

incentivized technologies were not proposed in response to the recent Discovery/New Frontiers AO’s? 

(Refs. 4 and 5) 

Study Approach and RFI Responses Received 

The approach taken to answer these questions and fulfill the study charter comprised releasing an 

RFI, analyzing the data acquired, a series of discussion with the community and responders, an update if 

required, documentation of the study and final presentations and dissemination of the results. An RFI was 

used to maximize our contact with the members of the science and mission communities. The RFI had 

three sets of questions that were provided in appendixes. RFI Appendix A asked questions that were 

relevant to any science technology area, where RFI Appendix B and C asked questions specific to the InSpace Technology Program and the Radioisotope Power Systems Technology Program, respectively. The 

RFI is provided in Appendix B. The RFI requested specific responses to questions that were derived 

based on the questions in Table 2 as well as an open response to submit other consideration that the 

questions might not have covered. 

The RFI generated 11 responses from within Industry and the government that represented a good 

cross-section of the user community. Table 3 provides a list of the responders and the sections of the RFI 

to which they provided responses. The responders were able to respond to sections that were applicable to 

their experience and interests. Two of the responders, TASC and Charles Stark Draper Lab, did not 

directly respond to the questions in the appendix but did provide approaches for assessing technology 

readiness and utility for PSD. 

During the analysis phase the study team generated common themes across the input received, and 

developed recommendations based on these themes. This process is explained in detail in the next section. 

This report captures the findings based on the RFI submissions and the derived recommendations that 

will be delivered to PSD in order to inform and support an upcoming Announcement of Opportunity. 

Further information will be gathered from the user community during dissemination of the report at future 

conferences and Analysis and Assessment Group meetings. Any new insights of significant merit will 

subsequently be brought forward to PSD. The Technology Infusion Study is synergistic with several other 

related study activities, as shown in Figure 1. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 4 

TABLE 3.—RFI RESPONDERS BY ORGANIZATION, ENTITY, APPENDIX IDENTIFIED 

TO WHICH THEY RESPONDED AND THE NUMBER OF PAGES OF THEIR INPUT 

Organization Entity type App. A App. B App. B (2) App. C 

Aerojet (25 pages) Corporate 

Ball Aerospace (11 pages) Corporate 

The Boeing Company (13 pages) Corporate 

Lockheed-Martin (8 pages) Corporate 

John Hopkins University, APL (20 pages) Federal Lab 

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (45 pages) Federal Lab 

NASA Ames Research Center (4 pages) Government 

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (13 pages) Government 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (18 pages) Government 

TASC (27 pages) Corporate * 

Charles Stark Draper Lab (6 pages) Federal Lab * 

Figure 1.—The Technology Infusion Study will feed other related studies 

Analysis Approach 

Steps 

Request for Information (RFI) submissions from 11 respondents were reviewed by the evaluation 

team. As mentioned previously, the RFI was divided into three domains. These were: 

General insights on technology infusion by PSD and NASA (RFI Appendix A) 

Targeted insights on the technologies under development by the In-Space Propulsion Technology 

(ISPT) program (RFI Appendix B) 

Insights on the agency’s RPS/ASRG infusion efforts (RFI Appendix C) 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 5 

The respondents were provided a set of questions for each of these domains. These questions were 

typically open, and did not provide instruction or limit the types of responses that could be provided. 

Hence, there was significant overlap and diversity of responses. Consequently, this made it difficult to use 

the question structure to organize the responses in an effective fashion. 

While in hindsight it should have been foreseen, the responses in many cases focused on a portion of 

the technology areas discussed in the RFI. Consequently, the team found that, while there were significant 

inputs for several topics, there were very limited inputs for other questions. 

The evaluation team collected the responses into a set of findings that captured what the team 

identified as the important messages conveyed by the respondents. 

The initial set of findings was determined upon reading all of the submissions and extracting critical 

and substantive statements that provided insight and information. These statements were organized into 

specific topics. From the set of collected statements, the evaluation team developed the “Findings” 

statement text. The Findings statements were structured to represent a specific declaration of the current 

state of an identified situation. The supporting text quotes from the RFI documents were then used to 

establish a scoring based on the degree of support for or against the Findings statement. These scores 

identified how much the statement is perceived as correct or incorrect by the respondents. The Findings 

statements, support statements, and scoring were reviewed extensively by the evaluation team. The 

organization of the Findings evolved through these discussions before arriving at the current four category 

structure. The final findings set are represented in the tables in the Appendix D. Figure 2 pictorially 

shows the study analysis method. 

The process for capturing and consolidating the findings can be summarized in the following steps: 

Extracted 545 relevant responses from 190 pages 

Grouped similar extracted responses and developed 71 short finding statements 

Consolidated statements into the four common themes from the Planetary Science Technology 

Panel’s (PSTRP) Issues and Recommendations (Ref. 6) 

o Strategic, Process/Structure, Resource, and Culture/Communication 

Determined level of respondent agreement within the finding statement (see Appendix D) 

Figure 2.—Study analysis method 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 6 

The process for capturing and consolidating the recommendations can be summarized in the 

following steps: 

Created 11 consolidated respondent-based recommendations from 113 explicit and implicit 

recommendations in the RFI responses 

Developed 12 team based recommendations after analyzing the RFI responses, and considering 

additional knowledge and insights from meetings, studies, and outside discussions with the 

planetary community and HQ 

Consolidated into 14 Recommendations, and grouped under the four Themes (see Appendix E) 

o Used the same “Themes” as used in the Planetary Science Technology Panel’s (PSTRP) 

Issues and Recommendations (Ref. 6) 

Findings and Recommendations 

Executive Summary of the Findings 

The findings from the Technology Infusion Study indicate that the End-User Community 

(Industry/proposers) want to use NASA developed technologies to support PSD missions (Decadal 

finding and recommendation). The technologies enable or are applicable to 36 of 47 missions identified in 

the Decadal Survey. However, these enabling technologies are either perceived not to be ready or are not 

actually ready for infusion into missions. The results of the study indicate that there is a need to resolve 

technology readiness issues, to complete development, to document better, and to qualify the technologies 

for infusion. This last finding is also a Decadal Survey Recommendation. 

At the present, proposers perceive SOMA to judge new technologies as high risk, which prevents 

their use in proposals and possible infusion. Current incentives for technologies are not sufficient to 

overcome real or perceived risks, and implementation and/or accommodation costs that will limit Return 

on Investment (ROI). This results in PSD losing credibility when it comes to technology development and 

infusion. Examples of this are stopping the flight hardware development of the ASRG and not selecting 

mission proposals with incentivized technologies. While the Planetary Decadal Survey supports the 

continued development and incentivization of these PSD developed technologies, these actions introduce 

uncertainty in the community on how PSD might support or incentivize technologies in the future. 

The Technology Infusion Study findings and recommendations are consistent and synergistic with the 

Planetary Decadal Survey (Ref. 3) the Planetary Science Technology Review Panel (PSTRP) (Ref. 6), 

and the TRL Uniformity study findings and recommendations (Ref. 7). 

As previously mentioned within the Study Charter and Team section, the Technology Infusion Study 

RFI had three sets of questions that were provided in appendixes. RFI-Appendix A asked questions that 

were relevant to any science technology area, where RFI Appendix B and C asked questions specific to 

the In-Space Technology Program and the Radioisotope Power Systems Program, respectively. The full 

text of the RFI is provided in Appendix B of this document. The RFI requested specific responses to 

questions that were derived based on the questions in Table 2 as well as an open response to submit other 

consideration that the questions might not have covered. Throughout the remainder of the document, the 

term “infusion technologies” will generally be used to refer to the set of Advanced Stirling Radioisotope 

Generator (ASRG), aerocapture maneuver and aeroshell hardware, the NASA Evolutionary Xenon 

Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system, and the Advanced Materials Bi-propellant Rocket (AMBR) 

engine technologies which PSD has been developing and is trying to infuse into future missions. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 7 

Summary of the General Findings (RFI Appendix A Questions) 

After collecting and collating the data, the evaluation team grouped the findings within the following 

four themes: 

1. Strategic: “How technology enables science for PSD” 

2a. Process/Structure: AO Implementation—“How best to infuse technology into missions” 

2b. Process/Structure: Technology and Implementation—“How to ensure technologies are 

infusion ready” 

3. Resources: “How can resource availability and utilization improve technology development 

and infusion?” 

4. Culture/Communications: “How can culture and communication be improved to support 

technology development and infusion?” 

The findings associated with each of these themes can be found below. The complete list of findings 

with the level of respondent agreement can be found in Appendix D. 

Strategic 

The RFI respondents expressed that NASA is supporting the right infusion technologies, which are 

more attractive because they are mission enabling, and are needed to further planetary science missions. 

They also recommended that NASA continue to develop the infusion technologies. 

Process/Structure—AO Implementation 

In order to infuse technologies into missions, the respondents expressed that mission opportunities for 

the infusion technologies should be mandated. They also noted that Capability Enhancement studies are 

beneficial to technology infusion efforts. (Reference information on the 2007 Discovery and Scout 

Mission Capabilities Expansion (DSMCE) study can be found in Appendix C.) 

In addition, they expressed that incentives provided by NASA to date were insufficient to enable 

higher value missions by offsetting risk and completing maturation and implementation. However, 

providing government furnished equipment (GFE) is a preferred incentive because the government 

assumes the risk. 

With respect to the AO process, the respondents felt that the requirements for proposal submission 

were not fully communicated and that there was limited transparency in the selection process and criteria. 

Another general finding is that the process of the Technical, Cost, Management, and Other Factors 

(TMCO) panel used to evaluate major flight mission projects is perceived as risk-averse and resistant to 

new technologies. There is also a belief that the panel may lack the sufficient information necessary to 

adequately make assessments of the infusion technologies. 

Process/Structure—Technology Development 

The respondents expressed opinions about the process associated with technology development. They 

emphasized that there is a lack of consensus on the status of Technology Readiness Levels and their 

meaning. Currently, TRL determination depends upon the evaluator (technologist, mission designer, user, 

SOMA) with different backgrounds and perception of TRLs. The responders noted that there are 

numerous instances where inconsistent TRL designations from heritage technologies are claimed. TRL 

should be established at the system level, and not targeted components. In many cases, the infusion 

technologies are not demonstrated at target conditions (relevant environments). Technology development 

precedes knowing the relevant environments of selected missions, which adds complexity to the 

technology development and TRL determination. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 8 

In addition, TRL designation should be determined by an independent party and separate from the 

technology developer. From an AO process standpoint, TRL designation is typically not validated in time 

to support AO release and proposal development. TRL status is time dependent and requires maintenance. 

As a result, in many cases, technology becomes unviable due to limited use, leading to loss of capability. 

Resources 

The responders noted that accommodation costs are not being addressed with the incentives provided 

by NASA. These accommodation costs include implementation, launch vehicle and safety, and 

integration. Adequate resources have to be provided to ensure that technology development can 

accommodate mission pull. Technology development should be coordinated with the Science Technology 

Mission Directorate (STMD) and others. 

Culture/Communications

With regards to addressing the impact of communication to improving technology development and 

infusion, the respondents re-iterated that TRL designation and supporting information data/documentation 

was insufficient. This information needs to be established prior to AO release and infusion technology 

documentation needs to be fully matured to meet the user needs for spacecraft integration. The 

community expressed that TMCO does not have sufficient information to evaluate technology risk, which 

is necessary to ensure a level playing field for proposers. The proposers would like more Subject Matter 

Expert (SME) access throughout the proposal process. They noted that direct communication with the 

experts is critical to resolving risk and ensuring successful mission development. 

After consolidating the general findings that were applicable throughout the study, the evaluation 

team captured infusion technology specific findings and they are found below. 

Summary of Specific ISPT Findings (RFI Appendix B Questions) 

NEXT Ion Propulsion System 

The mission and science community wants the NEXT system. However, the thruster is at TRL 6 

but the system as a whole is not. Completion of the Power Processing Unit (PPU) is necessary. 

Electric Propulsion (EP) accommodation requires increased spacecraft power 

Incentives for infusion are insufficient, though utilizing GFE could be viable. 

Hall Effect Thruster Propulsion (HET) for PSD Missions 

PSD Hall system wanted by the science and mission community. Thruster options are currently in 

development but a mature PPU is needed to meet planetary requirements. 

EP accommodation requires increased spacecraft power 

Cost-sharing incentive viability mixed throughout the community. Utilizing GFE could be viable. 

The HET system is more attractive when there are multiple use applications 

AMBR Chemical Thruster 

Not ready, interest mixed, incentives/GFE not viable. 

Two Divergent views: Some responders expressed that the current AMBR 140 lb thruster needs 

to be at TRL 8. Others conveyed that significant changes to the AMBR thruster capabilities are 

needed (to achieve original goals). 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 9 

Aerocapture 

Aerocapture maneuver technology is critical for flagship missions beyond current decadal 

priorities. Use of new thermal protection system (TPS) materials would be beneficial over 

heritage implementation 

Two Divergent views on flight readiness exist: Some expressed that flight demonstration is 

needed. Others communicated that the technology is ready and no further development is 

required. 

Little interest in cost-sharing incentives 

Aerocapture infusion was limited by institutional/organizational constraints. (Example: One 

vendor who developed an Aerocapture technology was reluctant about supporting a competing 

proposal using that technology while it was pursuing its own proposals for that AO.) 

Summary of ASRG Findings (RFI Appendix C Questions) 

Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) 

Incentives were considered disincentives by some members of the community 

Implementation costs that were not covered burdened proposers 

Parallel technology development with proposal development created issues 

There was an inability to share content with mission proposers during proposal process 

Technical implementation issues kept slipping 

Perception by the proposers that SOMA believed ASRG was risky 

Lack of consensus on TRL status 

Program Library (documentation) needs improvement 

Direct communication provided was valuable, and should be expanded 

Infusion was hindered by complex organizational relationships between NASA and the 

Department of Energy 

Cross-Cutting Technology Finding 

The infusion technologies need additional maturation to achieve TRL 6 as a system and are not 

currently ready for integration. 

PSD Technology Infusion Recommendations

The consolidated set of 14 recommendations to improve PSD technology infusion efforts can be 

found below. Prospective implementation approaches can be found within the sub-bullets. The majority 

of the recommendations were derived directly from the findings, and the mapping of their dependencies 

can be found within Appendix D and Appendix E at the end of this report. The term “infusion 

technologies” continues to refer to (ASRG, NEXT, etc.), while the term “technologies considered for 

infusion” will be used generically, but could also include the current “infusion technologies.” 

I. Strategic: Technology Investment Portfolio 

1. Provide resources to enable successful technology infusion and being a “smart buyer” for PSD 

unique/critical mission needs 

II. Process/Structure: Technology Development and Implementation: TRL 

2. Implement a defined, transparent, and independent process for validating and documenting that a 

technology being considered for infusion has achieved TRL 6 (or more), 9 months (or more) prior 

to AO release 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 10 

a. A technology to be considered for infusion should be at a system-level TRL 6 nominally 6 to 

18 months prior to AO release. 

b. Improve and maintain documentation for technologies being considered for infusion to ensure 

necessary information is available to interested parties 

c. Establish independent body to conduct TRL determination 

3. Complete development and qualification of the current infusion technologies (ASRG, NEXT, 

etc.) to alleviate risks and meet the needs of future PSD missions 

a. Finish technologies with a flight demonstration by any means to establish flight heritage 

(1) Mandate the infusion technologies on an AO, provide funds for ride shares, re-establish 

New Millennium for NASA developed technologies, or negotiate TDM opportunities 

b. Qualify to a set of Decadal Survey DRM's and/or generic requirements from mission user 

needs derived by holding a User Community TIM and/or vet through a Technology Advisory 

Panel 

II. Process/Structure: Technology Development and Implementation 

4. Determine accommodation costs/burdens associated with new technology adoption into future 

missions 

5. Establish approach to sustain technology capability so that future PSD mission needs can be met 

a. Develop PSD unique requirements to meet mission needs, and identify if technology needs 

are PSD unique 

b. Evaluate use or modification of commercial products to meet PSD unique mission 

requirements 

c. Develop PSD unique technologies with industry (transferring the technology out of PSD) to 

open the possibility of commercial flight opportunities 

d. Commercialization/"Multiple-use" should be considered at the beginning of technology 

development for risk reduction and establishing flight heritage 

6. The use of mission capability enhancement studies should be expanded to improve both the 

understanding of mission requirements and the constraints associated with implementing new 

technologies 

II. Process/Structure: AO Strategies for Tech Infusion 

7. PSD should present the incentive approach for the use of technologies considered for infusion 

approximately 9 to 12 months prior to AO release to establish common understanding for SOMA, 

industry and mission implementers, and technology developers 

a. Documentation validating TRL 6 for any technology considered for infusion should be 

released no later than six months prior to AO release 

b. Incentive approaches should address maturation of the technology from TRL 6 to flight 

implementation 

8. PSD through the AOs should establish/designate missions that mandate the use of infusion 

technologies 

a. Determine the science missions that would benefit significantly from infusion technologies 

(See II.3.b) 

9. Incentives approach for technologies considered for infusion must address the completion of 

system-level development work (from TRL 6 to flight infusion) and address accommodation 

costs/impacts 

a. Any technology being considered for incentivization must have an assessment of readiness 

and associated risk. 

b. Qualify a new technology to DRM requirements, then re-qualify or delta qualify as necessary 

to Mission specific requirements when known 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 11 

c. Evaluate accommodation of technologies considered for infusion to mitigate barriers in the 

AO incentive approach (cost, risk, knowledge, etc.) 

d. To achieve more Decadal Survey science goals, PSD should increase the risk and cost that it 

is willing to accept regarding the use of technologies considered for infusion in future 

mission AO’s 

e. PSD should determine its threshold regarding GFE versus cost sharing incentive limits for 

each infusion technology (including accommodation costs/impacts) 

f. The user community wants PSD to provide technologies as GFE and cover accommodation 

costs/impacts thru ATLO and Ops 

III. Resources 

10. Imperative that PSD complete technology development of the infusion technologies (ASRG, 

NEXT, etc.) to guarantee adoption into missions. 

a. Provide sufficient and sustained resources to mature new/infusion technologies to TRL 6 by 

AO release 

b. To ensure satisfactory development of infusion technologies, shorter development timescales 

will improve infusion with mission opportunities 

11. Technology Portfolio Investment 

a. Establish dedicated PSD spacecraft component technology program to assist future infusion 

activities, and provide sufficient resources to sustain PSD unique technical 

expertise/knowledge and facilities in NASA, industry, and academia 

(1) Successful technology infusion must be sustained in a competitive environment 

IV. Culture/Communication 

12. Improve and ensure robust communication opportunities between technology developer, mission 

manager, and proposing communities to encourage better understanding of technologies 

considered for infusion 

a. Ensure a representative POC or subject matter expert is available with authority to 

communicate and advise interested parties to ensure technologies considered for infusion are 

used properly to maximal benefit 

b. NASA should ensure that all interested parties have fair and equitable access to the 

technologies considered for infusion 

13. Establish a customer advisory board to advise PSD on technology needs, performance 

requirements, and evaluation approaches to ensure level playing field for all parties 

a. Institute evaluation processes to avoid placing barriers to infusion of new technologies in the 

AO process 

14. Develop partnerships with other organizations to broaden interest, appeal, and create sustaining 

support for technologies considered for infusion 

a. Establish agreements to maximize cost sharing opportunities within the Agency (SMD, 

STMD, HEOMD) 

b. Foster and maintain partnerships for advocacy between technology developers and users 

Additional Technology Needs 

The RFI asked for feedback on what other spacecraft bus technologies would be of the most interest 

to the planetary science mission community? The responses are summarized in Table 4, and are 

compared to those identified in the 2011 Planetary Decadal Survey (Ref. 3). 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 12 

TABLE 4.—RFI RESPONSE SUMMARY AND DECADAL SURVEY COMPARISON 

RFI New Technology Needs Decadal Survey Technology Needs 

Advanced Power and Propulsion Propulsion: Electric and chemical propulsion 

Green propellants 

Photovoltaic Arrays Power: Photovoltaics and RPS 

– Increased Efficiency cell performance 

– Lower mass and stowability 

– Extended extreme environment capabilities 

– (Low-intensity, low-temperature; high-temperature, highintensity; higher radiation tolerance) 

Thermal Protection systems 

– Carbon phenolic-like capabilities 

Entry Vehicles 

Aerocapture/probes/EDL/EEVs/TPS 

Deep Space Optical Communication High data-rate communications 

High bandwidth communications 

Reconfigurable avionics systems 

Low mass structures Cross-cutting technologies seeking to reduce mass and 

power requirements 

Ultra-lightweight Propellant Tanks 

Interplanetary Nano-Spacecraft 

Deep Space Atomic Clock Autonomous operations 

Sample Return/Handling Technologies Extreme environments 

Planetary Simulant Development Mobility systems/platforms 

Mars/planetary ascent vehicles 

Mission design tools 

Other Considerations 

The incentivized “Infusion Technologies” considered in the RFI represented a diverse set of 

technology infusion approaches/challenges/considerations. 

ASRG as GFE 

NEXT as a propulsion system, not just a single component 

AMBR chemical thruster as a potential drop-in replacement 

Aerocapture is not just a component or a subsystem, it involves more system design and 

integration 

The Technology Infusion Team noticed other competing technology development considerations 

which influenced the study responses or recommendations. 

Competed missions vs. Directed/other Government missions vs. Commercial applications 

o Multi-mission vs. Mission specific requirements 

Long timescale for technology development vs. Mission pull/priorities evolve over time which 

changes technology needs 

o Far-term vs. near-term mission needs for new technology 

Unique Planetary mission requirements vs. commercial flight hardware 

o Degree to which unique requirements are met vs. cost, risk, developing, and/or maintaining a 

unique technology 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 13 

New technologies provide increased spacecraft/mission capabilities 

o Enables more science value 

o Could increase mission complexity with higher cost and risk uncertainty, which are often at 

odds in a risk adverse cost constrained environment. 

On February 20, 2014, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) released a notice that it was planning 

on releasing a Draft Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for Discovery Program missions by May 2014. 

The community announcement discussed the following as it relates to technology infusion and addressing 

accommodation costs of implementing new technology capabilities: 

Discovery Program investigations may propose Technology Demonstration Opportunities 

(TDOs) to demonstrate new capabilities. TDO proposals... are funded outside of the cost cap and 

may possibly not be selected even if the parent mission is selected for flight. 

Discovery Program investigations involving entry, descent, and landing (EDL) into the 

atmosphere of a Solar System object (including the Earth) shall include an Engineering Science 

Activity, to be funded outside of the cost cap, to obtain diagnostic and technical data about 

vehicle performance and entry environments. Details of the goals and objectives of this activity 

will be posted on the Discovery Program Acquisition Website (discovery.larc.nasa.gov) in the 

Program Library. 

The schedule for fueling of radioisotope power systems (RPSs) cannot be met in time for the 

expected launch window of Discovery 2014 investigations. Therefore, Discovery Program 

investigations may not propose the use of RPSs. 

NASA is considering providing additional technologies as Government-Furnished Equipment 

(GFE). Currently under consideration is a commercially produced version of the NASA 

Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system (two flight model power processing 

units and two thrusters). Also under consideration is the Heat Shield for Extreme Entry 

Environment Technology (HEEET)—a woven Thermal Protection System. 

Decisions on the three technologies described above, or any other technologies (e.g., Deep Space 

Atomic Clock, Advanced Solar Arrays), will be made before the release of a draft AO. 

Launch Vehicle costs and procurement will be the responsibility of NASA. Launch vehicle 

standard services will be provided as GFE and the cost will not be included in the cost cap. The 

cost of mission specific and special launch services, including the use of radioisotope heating 

units (RHUs), is the responsibility of the PI, and must be included within the cost cap. NASA is 

reviewing the possibility of offering options for different launch vehicle capabilities and their 

impact on the cost cap. 

Investigations are capped at a Phase A-D cost of $450M (FY15), excluding standard launch 

services. The now-standard 25 percent minimum reserve on Phases A-D will be required within 

the cost cap. Operations costs (Phase E) are not included in the cost cap, but will be evaluated for 

reasonableness. Lower-cost investigations and cost-efficient operations are encouraged. 

The following observations can be offered as they relate to technology infusion and addressing 

accommodation costs of implementing new technology capabilities: 

NASA is accepting greater risk for the infusion of NEXT by being willing to provide it as GFE. 

Use of EP on missions can enable missions to utilize smaller and lower cost launch vehicles. 

Restricting launch vehicle options to larger more costly launch vehicles can de-incentivize the use 

of a new technology. The excess C3 from a larger launch vehicle can negate the benefit from 

using EP and result in a lower PI cost, but a higher overall total cost once the launch vehicle cost 

is added in. By allowing lower cost launch vehicle options it would allow proposers to design 

missions using the advanced technologies to enable the mission requiring smaller launch vehicle 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 14 

capabilities and resulting in a lower overall cost, and therefore, increasing the science value for 

the cost. 

The use of these advanced technologies can enable more challenging missions to outer solar 

system destinations. By judging Phase E operations costs on cost-efficient operation, missions to 

the outer solar system destinations using any of these advanced technologies won’t be at a costcompetitive disadvantage compared to inner solar system missions that are likely to have shorter 

flight times and therefore lower Phase E operations costs. 

The TDO option allows for technology demonstration and validation without impacting the cost 

risk for the proposed mission. It would be judged and funded on its own merit, as long as its 

accommodation does not impact the cost or risk of the proposed mission. 

Requiring any re-entry mission to accommodate GFE sensors and instrumentation will allow for 

the gathering of needed atmospheric data that will support model development and validation, 

and feed forward to lower as lower risk for future re-entry or aerocapture missions. 

Summary 

A Request for Information Action was released by the Planetary Sciences Directorate to understand 

and assess the progress of its Technology Infusion investments. An evaluation team based at NASA 

Glenn Research Center managed this RFI and collected inputs from the science and mission communities. 

These inputs include, but are not limited to, barriers to technology infusion as related to infusion 

approaches, technology readiness, information and documentation products, communication, integration 

considerations, interaction with technology development areas, cost-capped mission areas, risk 

considerations, system level impacts and implementation, and mission pull. From the assessment of these 

inputs, a series of prioritized findings were compiled. Additionally, an extensive list of recommendations 

was developed between the RFI responses and the evaluation team’s input. 

For the first finding, it was widespread position that the end-user community, including both industry 

and proposers, want to use NASA developed technologies to support PSD missions. In particular, these 

technologies enable missions that are of interest to the science community. However, the second finding 

was that there is a prevalent perception that these technologies are not ready for infusion into the 

missions. To resolve the readiness issues, it was recommended in multiple instances to complete the 

development of the technologies, thoroughly document them, and qualify the technologies for flight. 

Third, a major drawback to using these technologies is that it is perceived by proposers that SOMA 

judges new technologies as being too risky to accept proposals that use the new technology. 

In the last Discovery AO, PSD provided incentives to encourage proposers to use new technologies 

such as NEXT and ASRG. The fourth finding was that the end-user community considered the 

technology incentives to be insufficient to overcome the risks and cover implementation and launch 

accommodation costs. As a result, PSD is losing credibility when it comes to technology development 

and infusion. 

In response to these issues, the following recommendations were developed to address this situation: 

Develop an incentives approach for infusion technologies that addresses the completion of 

system-level development work (from TRL 6 to flight infusion) and accommodation 

costs/impacts 

Implement a defined, transparent, and independent process for validating and documenting that 

infusion technologies have achieved TRL 6 (or more), nine months (or more) prior to AO release 

Establish an approach to sustain technology capability so that future PSD mission needs can be 

met 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 15 

Although there were many more findings and recommendations compiled in the Appendixes of this 

document, the above actions would significantly improve the chances for successful infusion of these 

technologies and subsequently bear fruit for PSD’s investments. 

An interest in improving technology infusion is not new. Appendix H contains extracts from four 

NASA related references/papers that the study team felt was relevant to this study, and would contribute 

to any steps taken to address its findings and recommendations. Finally, while this RFI was undertaken as 

a separate and stand-alone activity, the Technology Infusion Study findings and recommendations are 

consistent with and augment the Planetary Science Technology Review Panel (PSTRP, circa 2010 to 

2011) (Ref. 6) and TRL Uniformity study findings and recommendations (2013) (Ref. 7). 
 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 17 

Appendix A.—Charter 

A.1 Planetary Science Division Technology Infusion Study, November 16, 2012 

Charter: The Planetary Science Division within the Science Mission Directorate at NASA HQ seeks to 

understand how to better realize a scientific return on spacecraft system technology investment by enabling 

the first use of these technologies through competed mission opportunities. To this end, the PSD is forming 

a team comprised from the Radioisotope Power Systems Program and the In Space Propulsion Technology 

Program staff to execute this study. This team will engage the science and mission communities and seek 

inputs from industry, universities, and other organizations. This team also may seek opinions and analysis 

from consultants and contractors as needed to achieve the objective of this study. 

This team will report to the Program Executives for the Radioisotope Power System Program and the 

In Space Propulsion Technology Program, who will coordinate with Program Executives and Program 

Scientists for the Mars Exploration, Outer Planet Flagship, Discovery and New Frontiers Programs as 

stakeholders in the study objectives. 

A.2 Study Team Plan 

Objective: Primary objective is to provide PSD with recommendations on how to effectively infuse 

new spacecraft systems technologies into future competed missions enabling increased scientific 

discoveries, lower mission cost, or both. This objective can be achieved by answering the following 

questions: 

How can technology efforts be better developed, communicated, and offered to allow for 

implementation into a competitively selected mission? 

 How mature does a new technology need to be before being recognized as viable and ready 

for infusion by the end user? And, what are the barriers to the use of newly developed 

technologies in competed missions? 

 What were the benefits and limitations of the technology incentive methodology used in the 

New Frontiers 3 and Discovery 12 AO’s? 

 How can the technology incentive methodology be improved? 

 How did the DSMCE study impact the evaluation of the ASRG technology in mission 

concept planning and the development of a proposal in response to the Discovery 12 AO? 

How does PSD reduce real and perceived new spacecraft system impact on mission risk? (See 

Figure 1) 

From the end user perspective, are there any other viable options for technology infusion which 

NASA could consider? 

There are two secondary objectives: 

1. Understand Discovery 12 lessons learned from proposers and evaluators regarding the integration 

of the ASRG into mission concepts. 

2. ISP objective understand lessons learned from proposers and evaluators regarding the use of 

NEXT, Aerocapture, and AMBR for Discovery/New Frontiers class missions. What were some 

specific reasons that these incentivized technologies were not proposed in response to the recent 

Discovery/New Frontiers AO’s? 

Approach: The approach is comprised of the following steps: 

1. RFI Phase: In order to maximize our contact with the members of the science and mission 

communities it is recommended that a NASA Headquarters Request for Information (RFI) be 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 18 

released. This RFI will be drafted by the study team and approved by the stakeholders. The RFI 

will request from the science and mission communities input on specific questions, their 

assessment of barriers to technology infusion as related to infusion approach, technology 

readiness, information and documentation, communication, interaction with technology areas, 

costs capped mission areas, risks, system level impacts and implementation, and mission pull at a 

minimum. The RFI will also notify the community that NASA may ask for one-on-one visits 

either virtually or face-to-face. The response time will be set for 45 days. Separately, the study 

team will work with the Discovery and New Frontiers PSs to notify the Discovery 12 and New 

Frontier 3 AO participants that specific lessons learned will be collected through individual 

contact in Phase 3. These targeted interactions will focus on the lessons learned from the recently 

completed Discovery and/or New Frontiers AOs which were unsuccessful in implementing the 

offered and incentivized spacecraft technologies. 

2. Analysis Phase: During this phase the study team will generate common themes across the input 

received and identify any unique responses. This data will be reviewed to determine the contact 

plan. The results of this phase will be shared with the stakeholders prior to any contact with the 

outside community. Consideration will be given to grouping and follow-up with responders by 

organization, proposal teams, principal investigators, and mission managers at a minimum. 

3. Discussion Phase: During this phase individual contact will be made with each of the proposers. 

There will be specific follow-up questions but these discussions will be structured to have a 

dialogue and better understand the community and allow for further understanding of the written 

response. This phase will also allow for the secondary objectives to be met. 

4. Report/Recommendation Phase: This phase will document all information received and will 

abstract the information into recommendations to PSD that will achieve successful 

implementation of offering and utilizing new spacecraft technology in future PSD missions. A 

final report and presentation will be delivered. 

5. Post Main Study Phase: In this phase the study team will share the results of this study with the 

broad science and mission community. This will be executed by arranging with each of the 

assessment groups a time a meeting to present the study and results and obtain feedback. After 

each interaction the study team will provide a short white paper on the communities’ reception 

and feedback to the technology infusion recommendations. 

Timeline: December 2012 through April 2013 for Phase 1 through 4. Post Study Phase 5 is not 

included in the schedule at this time. See notional schedule. 

Deliverables: Deliverables include the final report and presentation describing the findings and 

recommendations, factors considered, top risks and all information provided by the science and mission 

communities. 

Team Membership: Dave Anderson (ISPT), Carl Sandifer (RPSP), Dan Vento (ISPT), and June 

Zakrajsek (RPSP) 

Cost: The majority of the work will be supported using current guideline budget within RPSP and 

ISTP program funds. It is expected that additional funding on the level of $60K (TBR) will be needed to 

support additional travel and WYE support. Travel funds will be better understood in November after 

responses are received from the RFI. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 19 

Appendix B.—Request for Information (RFI) 

B.1 Planetary Science Division Technology Infusion Study—General Information 

Solicitation Number: NNH13ZDA008L 

Posted Date: TBD 

Proposal Due Date: April 19, 2013 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action: No 

Classification Code: A – Research and Development 

Issued By: Science Mission Directorate 

NAICS Code: 541712 

CFDA Number: 43.001 Science 

B.2 Introduction 

The Planetary Science Division (PSD) within the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) at the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters seeks to understand how to better realize a 

scientific return on spacecraft system technology investments. This Request for Information (RFI) will 

provide PSD with recommendations on how to effectively infuse new spacecraft systems technologies 

that it develops into future competed missions, enabling increased scientific discoveries, lower mission 

cost, or both. We are collecting input on how to maximize the return on and benefits from current 

technology investments and thereby improve the prospects of the inclusion of these investments within 

future competed missions’ opportunities. We are requesting from the science and mission communities 

input on specific questions, their assessment of barriers to technology infusion as related to infusion 

approach, technology readiness, information and documentation products, communication, integration 

considerations, interaction with technology development areas, costs capped mission areas, risk 

considerations, system level impacts and implementation, and mission pull. Other volunteered input not 

supporting one of these areas from responders will also be considered. 

To this end, the PSD has formed a team comprised of Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Program 

and In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Program staff to execute this study. This team will engage 

the science and mission communities and seek inputs from industry, universities, and other organizations. 

This team also may seek opinions and analysis from consultants and contractors as needed to achieve the 

objective of this study. 

The most recent PSD Announcements of Opportunities (AOs) have offered the availability of the 

following technologies to the proposers: The Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG), 

aerocapture and aeroshell hardware technologies, the NASA Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion 

propulsion system, and the Advanced Materials Bi-propellant Rocket (AMBR) engine. Specific input on 

the use of these technologies is also being requested. 

Following the collection of the data from this RFI, with agreement from the responder, NASA may 

request one-on-one visits either virtually or face-to-face with the responders. 

B.3 Technology Infusion Study Process 

This study will consist of five phases briefly noted below: 

Data collection Phase: NASA is utilizing the RFI vehicle to collect a broad range of input from 

members of the science and mission communities. This input is requested through the questions contained 

in the attached appendices: 

Appendix A provides the General List of Questions to be addressed by respondents regarding 

technology infusion barriers. It is requested that all respondents address these questions. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 20 

Appendix B provides the list of questions for the In-Space Technology Program 

Appendix C provides the list of questions for the Radioisotope Power Systems Program. Appendix B 

and C can be addressed as determined appropriate by the respondents. 

Appendix D is for reference regarding current targeted technologies and both programs. 

The Assessment team will be contacting respondents, as appropriate, for additional detailed 

discussions during the Discussion Phase. NASA also intends to directly contact and work with known 

proposers from the Discovery 12 AO. 

Analysis Phase: During this phase, the study team will generate common themes across the input 

received and identify any unique responses. The results of this phase will be shared with the PSD 

stakeholders prior to any contact with the outside community. The contact plan, for follow-on discussions 

with responders where considered necessary or requested, will be formulated based on the outcome of the 

activities in this phase. 

Discussion Phase: During this phase, individual contact will be made with select RFI responders. 

There will be specific follow-up questions, but these discussions will be structured to have a dialogue and 

better understand the community and allow for further understanding of the written response. This phase 

will also allow for the technology specific questions to be discussed in greater detail. 

Recommendation Phase: This phase will document all information received and will abstract the 

information into recommendations to PSD management that will identify opportunities to improve 

technology development planning and technology infusion opportunities for future AOs. 

Post Main Study Phase: In this phase, the study team will share the common themes and results of 

this study with the broad science and mission community. It is envisioned that this will occur at 

appropriate planetary assessment group meetings and conferences and will cover the study results and 

seek feedback. 

B.4 RFI Response Details 

RFI responses must include: 

Name of the primary point of contact for the response and business title 

Institution or organization affiliation 

Postal address, E-mail address, and phone number 

Identification of other key individuals who collaborated on the RFI response 

Indication if the responder is willing to be contacted upon NASA’s determination of need for 

further discussion 

Indication if the responder requests to be contacted. NASA will make every effort to contact 

those that indicate the request to be contacted. 

Responses to questions listed in Appendix A at a minimum, and Appendices B and C, as desired. 

Response Submission Requirements: 

The response time has been set for 30 days. 

Responses to this RFI must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, on April 19, 

2013. RFI submissions will be accepted as E-mail attachments only. All responses must be sent to 

carl.e.sandifer@nasa.gov, with “PSD Technology Infusion RFI Response from...” in the subject 

line. 

All files with confidential or proprietary information should be sent via any means of secure file 

transfer. If a secure file transfer system is not available, please contact Carl Sandifer for 

assistance. 

Responses should include references as appropriate. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 21 

Use single-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font. 

Requested file formats are: Microsoft Word (.docx) or Portable Document Format (PDF). 

An E-mail confirmation of receipt from NASA will be sent within a 1-week period to the 

designated point of contact. 

Additional Details: 

Although all comments received will be carefully reviewed and considered for inclusion in any 

possible later action, the initiators of this request make no commitment to include any particular 

recommendations. 

Please do not include any proposal specific information in the response to the RFI, unless the 

description of some mission parameters are necessary to provide the necessary context for a 

response. 

Disclaimer: This RFI is used solely for information planning purposes and does not constitute a 

solicitation. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this RFI are not offers and cannot be 

accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. The Government is under no obligation to issue a 

solicitation or to award any contract on the basis of this RFI. The specific information provided in 

responses to this RFI will not be made public in an effort to protect any propriety company information. 

The RFI evaluation team will use the submitted information to complete the assessment; the results of 

which will be reported out. Nonetheless, respondents should clearly and properly mark any propriety or 

restricted data contained within its submission so it can be identified and protected. Respondents are 

solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this RFI. Responses to this RFI will not 

be returned, and respondents will not be notified of the result of the review. 

Point of Contact for Submission Inquiries: 

Carl E. Sandifer, II 

Radioisotope Power Systems Program 

Carl.E.Sandifer@nasa.gov

216-433-8727 

Point of Contacts for Technical Inquiries: 

David Anderson 

In-Space Propulsion Technology Program 

David.J.Anderson@nasa.gov

216-433-8709 

June F. Zakrajsek 

Radioisotope Power Systems Program 

June.F.Zakrajsek@nasa.gov

216-977-7470 

B.5 RFI Appendix A: Technology Infusion Study Questions 

As mentioned in the Introduction, the primary objective of the PSD Technology Infusion Study, and, 

therefore, this RFI, is to provide PSD with recommendations on how to effectively infuse new spacecraft 

systems technologies which it develops into future competed missions enabling increased scientific 

discoveries, lower mission cost, or both. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 22 

Please respond to the following questions regarding planetary science missions in general and/or the 

most recent New Frontiers and Discovery Announcements of Opportunity (AOs). If you are commenting 

on a specific AO, such as Discovery, please specify that in your response: 

1. What do you perceive are the barriers to new technologies being integrated into mission concepts 

and proposals? What do you recommend to reduce those barriers? 

2. What improvements can NASA implement that can facilitate improved communication regarding 

new technologies, their capabilities, and maturity that would benefit science exploration? 

3. Was the type and amount of information provided regarding the technologies adequate for an AO 

proposal development? What do you suggest to improve the information flow? 

4. What should be the minimum technology maturity level required before a new technology is 

recognized as viable and ready for infusion? How should the maturity level be assessed and by 

whom? What data is required to make this assessment and what can NASA provide to assist in 

the decision making process? Can you provide any examples of when the assessment of maturity 

stopped a proposal from being developed or submitted? 

5. Can you discuss how your company’s decision process to invest in developing an AO proposal 

including a new technology is affected by the technology readiness level? What is recommended 

to reduce the risk and barriers at this phase of the life cycle? 

6. Please discuss the benefits and limitations of the different technology incentivization methods 

previously used in the New Frontiers 3 and Discovery 12 AO’s? How can the technology 

incentivization methodology be improved? 

7. How can NASA reduce real and perceived spacecraft system risks when using new technologies? 

8. From the end user perspective, are there any other viable options for improving technology 

infusion that NASA could consider? 

9. Is NASA working on the right portfolio of technologies to benefit science exploration? What is 

missing and what may not be needed? 

10. How long before the AO release does the community need to understand the incentivization 

method and the technologies being offered? 

11. Please provide any additional comments regarding reducing the barrier of technology infusion. 

B.6 RFI Appendix B: In-Space Propulsion Technology Program Technology Infusion 

Study Questions 

The primary goal of the ISTP is to provide propulsion technologies that enable or enhance science 

exploration. To that end, please answer the following questions for any of the following In-Space 

Propulsion Technologies of interest or relevance to your organization: 

A. NASA Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) 

B. Advanced Materials Bi-propellant Rocket (AMBR) 

C. Aerocapture maneuver, and/or aeroshell hardware technologies (TPS and hot structures) 

D. Hall Effect Electric Propulsion 

1. Is your organization considering using the above technologies for future missions and/or uses? If 

so, for what types of missions and/or uses? Are there any technology gaps to be addressed unique 

to these types of missions? Would conducting a “competed mission capability enhancement” 

study on ISPT products similar to the Discovery Scout Mission Capability Enhancement 

(DSMCE) studies for use of the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) help with the 

understanding and infusion of these technologies, and if so, how? 

2. In your opinion, what minimum level of technology readiness, or other factors, would be required 

for the above technologies to be adopted by an end user for future missions? In addition, 

specifically address, as appropriate: 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 23 

a. Does NEXT need to have a fully TRL6 validated PPU and DCIU before being considered for 

a mission? 

b. What additional development and qualification activities are required to enable AMBR to be 

included into future design concepts and missions? 

c. Do the aerocapture maneuver and related technologies require a flight demo in order to be 

viable to be incorporated into future concepts and designs? 

3. What are the high-risk areas for the above technologies that require further mitigation? 

a. Are the interfaces sufficiently defined and provided for your implementation needs? 

b. What is an acceptable risk tolerance at the proposal stage of the life-cycle? 

c. What data is required to provide risk closure? 

4. Regarding technology incentive approaches for the above technologies: 

a. What are the minimum additional technology development milestones that must be met 

before your organization would consider proposing the above technologies without a cost 

incentive? Please be as specific as possible for individual subsystems. 

b. If the above technologies are not matured further beyond this year, would cost sharing of the 

remaining development be sufficient for adoption of the technology in future proposals? 

What level of cost sharing would allow inclusion into your proposal? 

c. Aside from offering these technologies as GFE, how would the incentivization method 

influence your decision to utilize the technologies listed above? 

d. If these technologies are offered as GFE, do you think there is sufficient maturity to include it 

in an AO response? 

5. Are there other considerations/subsystem technologies/system implications (spacecraft bus or 

mission operations) that may have impacted your decision and/or risk posture regarding the 

infusion of these technologies? Any quantifiable feedback would be appreciated. For example: 

a. NEXT: Operations cost, increased solar array cost, operational complexity, etc... 

b. AMBR: Increased thermal interface concerns, decreased feed system pressure margin, 

operational complexity, etc... 

c. Aerocapture: Increased packaging complexity, cruise science opportunities, lack of expertise, 

etc... 

6. Please discuss the following alternative technology considerations. 

a. Is Aerocapture enabling for mission(s) under consideration by your organization, or do you 

have an alternative/preferred orbit capture option? What is this method and why is it 

preferred? Are the potential benefits of Aerocapture sufficiently defined and advertised, for 

you to be able to assess its influence on your mission? Are the potential benefits of new 

aeroshell materials sufficiently defined and advertised for you to be able to assess their 

influence on your mission? 

b. If you evaluated the AMBR engine, did you down select to an alternative due to cost, risk, 

performance, etc.? If there were other factors, please identify and describe those factors. 

c. Would you recommend another higher priority electric propulsion capability investment for 

Discovery and New Frontiers class missions other than NEXT? Specifically, if a ~4 kWclass Hall electric propulsion system for planetary missions would be available for the next 

Discovery AO (> TRL 6 by PDR), would it be proposed for mission(s) under consideration? 

What science mission needs would this system capability address? 

7. Please discuss the impact the four ISPT technologies could have on achieving NASA’s science 

goals and objectives 

a. How much mission pull is there for the technology and for what types of missions are they 

considered enabling or enhancing? 

b. Does this change with the customer (i.e. NASA SMD, NASA non-SMD, DOD, 

Commercial)? 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 24 

8. What can be repurposed from the existing ISPT program? For example, much of the thermal 

protection system (TPS) work from Aerocapture may be used for other entry vehicle purposes 

(EDL, EEV, or probes)? 

9. Are ISPT’s existing analytical tools (Low Thrust Trajectory Tools (LTTT), Multi-mission 

Systems Analysis for Planetary Entry (M-SAPE), Propulsion Sizing Tool, etc...), sufficient for 

end user needs? 

Other Spacecraft Technology Questions 

1. What spacecraft bus technologies would be of the most interest to the planetary science mission 

community? 

2. Are there cost effective spacecraft bus technologies that can be adapted from commercial or DoD 

applications? 

3. Do you have any suggestions of other customers for spacecraft bus technologies relevant to 

NASA planetary missions? 

B.1 RFI Appendix C: Radioisotope Power Systems Program Technology Infusion Study 

Questions 

1. What considerations contributed to your decision to use an ASRG in your proposal? Please 

include availability of ASRG information in your answer. Was the ASRG information in the 

Discovery Program Library available early enough for your development cycle and/or schedule? 

2. How did the Discovery Scout Mission Capability Enhancement (DSMCE) studies impact the 

evaluation of the ASRG technology in mission concept planning and the development of a 

proposal in response to the Discovery 12 AO? 

3. Please comment on the AO library as the repository of ASRG AO information: the information 

data structure used, data updates, the ease of finding information sought, and the consistency of 

information. Did the Discovery Program Library contain sufficient detail into the more salient 

aspects of the ASRG? 

4. The Discovery Program Office, RPS Program Office, ASRG Project Office, Department of 

Energy, and Launch Approval Engineering were all involved in the proposal process. What 

interaction did you have with each of these groups? How useful were these interactions? Were 

the frequency, timing and interchange of information sufficient? What suggestions would you 

have to improve these interactions? 

5. Did the Advance Stirling Radioisotope Generator Information Summary (July 7, 2010), Updated 

July 30, 2010; The ASRG User ICD (June 9, 2010), updated July 19, 2011; and CDRL 7, ASRG 

System Specification (July 19, 2011) provide sufficient detailed technical insight into the ASRG 

design for your team? Please discuss these documents usefulness, clarity, level of detail, 

comprehensiveness, consistency and any issues you identified. What suggestions would you have 

to improve these documents? 

6. Please comment on the adequacy of the models and supporting documentation provided. What 

additional models or improvement to the supporting documentation would you have found 

helpful? 

7. Please comment specifically on the considerations and challenges encountered due to the unique 

aspects of using a radioisotope-based system. Specifically consider NEPA and Nuclear Launch 

Safety as well as integration and operational aspects. Please discuss the process used to educate 

your team in these areas. Also discuss the sufficiency, clarity, and usefulness of the information 

provided and the process used to convey this information. What, if any, suggestions do you have 

to improve the interchange and information? 

8. Would you enumerate items, issues, and opportunities for improvement that would have 

enhanced your interactions with the ASRG Program/Project Team? Please identify areas where 

we could have made your proposal better, or your proposal generation process more efficient. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 25 

9. Please provide any additional feedback, positive or negative, that will help NASA improve future 

AO solicitations and processes involving radioisotope systems. 

10. What was your general, overall assessment of your interactions with the ASRG Program/Project 

Team? What did you learn from this experience and what do you suggest for the future? 

11. Please comment on any perceived or actual impacts resulting from the ASRG being designed in 

parallel to the AO process. Does this approach provide demonstrative or substantial benefits, 

including risk reduction? How mature does the ASRG technology need to be before being 

recognized as viable and ready for infusion by the end user? What suggestions would you have 

to improve this situation? 

B.2 RFI Appendix D: References and In-Space Propulsion Technology Program 

Technology Descriptions 

B.2.1 References 

ISPT Web Site 

http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SSPO/ISPTProg/

RPS Website 

http://rps.nasa.gov 

Discovery Program Library 

http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/dpl.html

New Frontiers Program Library 

http://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NFPL.html

NEXT Phase 2 Closeout Documentation and NEXT TRL Assessment (can be provided upon request) 

B.2.2 Technology Descriptions 

NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) 

The NEXT Ion Propulsion System (IPS) is an advanced 7-kW electrostatic xenon ion-thruster 

propulsion system developed for deep-space applications. The NEXT system development consists of a 

thruster, power processing unit (PPU) propellant management system (PMS), gimbal, and a digital 

control interface unit (DCIU) simulator. The thruster operates over an input power range of 0.5 to 6.9 kW, 

produces a maximum specific impulse of 4190 s, a thrust range of 26 to 236 mN, and a maximum thruster 

efficiency of 71 percent. In an on-going long duration test, the thruster has demonstrated over >800 kg of 

xenon throughput, >45,000 hr, and >30 mN-s of total impulse. The PPU operates from 0.65 to 7.2 kW 

and an input voltage range of 80 to 160 V with a peak efficiency of 95 percent. The PMS provides the 

necessary xenon flows for operating the thruster. The gimbal provides the mechanical actuation authority 

needed to maintain thruster pointing through the spacecraft center of mass. The individual components 

have been tested in performance and appropriate environment and integrated into system-level 

demonstrations. 

The incentive provided by SMD in the last Discovery AO was the following: 

Use of NEXT IPS components including the ion thruster, power processing unit, propellant 

management system, digital control interface unit and gimbal. 

The ion thruster and power-processing unit were critical components for the NEXT IPS. The 

NEXT thruster is manufactured by Aerojet, and the NEXT PPU is being developed by L-3 

Communications. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 26 

Alternate propellant management system (Aerojet), DCIUs, and gimbals were acceptable. 

Advanced Materials Bipropellant Rocket (AMBR) Engine 

The AMBR (Advanced Materials Bipropellant Rocket) is a chemical rocket that has developed and 

applied an improved material processing technique to the iridium/rhenium rocket chamber manufacturing. 

The result was a high performance (high specific impulse), higher thruster radiation, cooled rocket engine 

that fits the same physical envelope as the R-4D rocket engine and operates on NTO/N2H4 propellants. 

The rocket demonstrated a thrust of 140 lbf, a maximum specific impulse of 333 s, when operated with an 

inlet pressure of 250 psia and an oxidizer-to-fuel ratio of 1.1. The test campaign included baseline hot-fire 

testing, shock and vibration testing, post-environmental performance testing, and long-duration testing. 

The testing duration totaled more than 9100 s, including 89 restarts and a single burn duration of 2700 s. 

The incentive provided by SMD in the last Discovery AO was the following: 

Use of the AMBR engine, which consists of injector, combustion chamber, and nozzle hardware. 

AMBR is manufactured by Aerojet. 

Given the intent of demonstrating the AMBR materials processing technique, the combustion 

chamber would need to be fabricated using the demonstrated iridium/rhenium El-form fabrication 

process. 

Alternate injector designs and alternate fuel/oxidizer combination (MMH/NTO) were acceptable. 

Aerocapture 

Aerocapture is the use of aerodynamic forces to slow an approaching vehicle and put it into a closed 

orbit about a planet. In contrast to aerobraking, aerocapture occurs in a single atmospheric pass, so orbit 

establishment is immediate. By accomplishing over 95 percent of the orbit insertion delta-V with drag, 

aerocapture saves significant propellant mass, allowing the use of smaller, more inexpensive launch 

vehicles, faster trip times, or increased payloads. The heating and aerodynamic loads on the spacecraft 

require that a heatshield, like that used for entry, descent and landing (EDL), be used for protection. The 

heatshield must also provide the aerodynamic shape required for autonomously controlling the vehicle to 

a specified target altitude upon exit, after which the heatshield is ejected and adjustments can be made to 

achieve the final orbit. 

The incentives provided by SMD in the last Discovery AO were the following: 

Use of the aerocapture maneuver (guidance algorithm); flight software exists and could be 

provided by Ball Aerospace 

High-temperature aeroshell structure and TPS from ATK-Composite Optics and Applied 

Research Associates, Inc. 

Carbon-Carbon rib-stiffened hot structure aeroshell from Lockheed Martin Space Systems 

 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 27 

Appendix C.—Background 

C.1 Technology Development and Needs for Planetary Science Missions 

Missions carried out for the Planetary Science Division (PSD) of NASA’s Science Mission 

Directorate (SMD) seek to answer important science questions about our Solar System. In 2006, the Solar 

System Exploration (SSE) Roadmap (Ref. 2) identified technology development needs for Solar System 

exploration. The Roadmap described technology investment priorities are guided by the requirements 

established in mission and system studies. And that NASA should strive to maximize the payoff from its 

technology investments, either by enabling individual missions or by enhancing classes of missions with 

creative solutions to the general limitations on power, communications, and mass. It was further noted, 

that the breadth of technology needs for Solar System exploration calls for an aggressive and efficient 

technology development strategy, including acquisition of applicable technologies developed elsewhere 

in NASA, as well as in the government and commercial sectors. 

The Roadmap discussed that certain technologies are of such a mission-critical nature that spaceflight 

validation is considered a prudent step prior to their actual use. The Roadmap highlighted that this could 

be done in two ways: on dedicated technology demonstration missions within the New Millennium 

Program, or by using other Solar System exploration missions as a platform for their validation. The 

purpose of the New Millennium Program (NMP) missions was to provide opportunities to validate 

technologies of a broad system nature, such as solar electric propulsion (flight–proven on the Deep Space 

1 mission) or aerocapture. NMP also provided opportunities to validate sets of individual component 

technologies. The Roadmap noted that other technologies could be appropriate for validation on actual 

science missions in a non–mission–critical role. A point was made that early flight validation can ensure 

that the benefits of new technologies can be made available to future missions in a prudent and cost–

effective manner. In 2007, a decision was made to conclude NMP, and it is no longer an avenue for flight 

validation. 

The Roadmap described transportation and power technologies as highest priority (new developments 

are required for all or most roadmap missions). According to the SSE Roadmap, the highest priority 

propulsion technologies are electric propulsion and aerocapture, and the highest priority power 

technologies are radioisotope power systems with higher conversion efficiencies. The SSE Roadmap 

specifically states that “Aerocapture technologies could enable two proposed Flagship missions, and solar 

electric propulsion could be strongly enhancing for most missions. These technologies provide rapid 

access, or increased mass, to the outer Solar System” (Ref. 2). RPS, electric propulsion and aerocapture 

are suited for enabling significant science return for the outer planetary destinations under investigation. 

In March 2011, the Planetary Science Decadal Survey (Ref. 3) was released and made many 

references to PSD technologies that were initiated in the previous decade such as radioisotope power 

systems like the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG), aerocapture, NEXT, an advanced 

chemical rocket engine called AMBR, as well as advancements made in the areas of astrodynamics, 

mission trajectory and planning tools. The Decadal Survey validated the technology investments ISPT 

and RPS programs have been making over the last 10 years, and it provides guidance for future 

technology investments. 

The Decadal Survey noted that any planetary spacecraft, regardless of its specific destination, must 

cope with the fundamental challenges of traveling long distances from the Earth and Sun, surviving and 

operating over the resulting long mission duration, and operating without real-time control from Earth and 

with limited data streams. To address these challenges, the Decadal Survey identified multi-mission 

technology needs. The Decadal Survey Committee supported NASA developing a multi-mission 

technology investment program that will “preserve its focus on fundamental system capabilities rather 

than solely on individual technology tasks.” For example, the Decadal highlighted the NEXT system 

development as an example of this “integrated approach” of “advancement of solar electric propulsion 

systems to enable wide variety of new missions throughout the solar system.” The Decadal Survey made 

a recommendation for “making similar equivalent systems investments” in advanced solar array 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 28 

technology and aerocapture. The Decadal Survey also discussed the importance of developing those 

system technologies to TRL 6. The Decadal specifically mentioned that: 

Investing in these system capabilities will yield a quantum leap in our ability to explore the 

planets and especially the outer solar system and small bodies. 

Perhaps more importantly, the availability of these systems is imperative in order for NASA to 

meet its solar system exploration objectives within reasonable budgetary constraints. 

One recommendation from the Decadal Survey Committee was for “a balanced mix of Discovery, 

New Frontiers, and Flagship missions, enabling both a steady stream of new discoveries and the 

capability to address larger challenges like sample return missions and outer planet exploration.” These 

broad mission needs would in turn require a balanced set of multi-mission technologies and integrated 

system capabilities. The Committee acknowledges that a “robust Discovery and New Frontiers Program 

would be substantially enhanced by such a commitment to multi-mission technologies.” The in-space 

propulsion and RPS power technologies are applicable, and potentially enabling, for future NASA 

Discovery, New Frontiers, and sample return missions currently under consideration, as well as having 

broad applicability to potential Flagship missions. 

The Decadal Survey also recommended the following features for a technology program that would 

meet future mission needs: 

The future of planetary science depends on a well-conceived, robust, stable technology 

investment program. 

Early investment in key technologies reduces the cost risk of complex projects, allowing them to 

be initiated with reduced uncertainty regarding their eventual total costs 

Continued success depends upon strategic investments to enable the future missions that have the 

greatest potential for discovery 

The technology program should be targeted toward the planetary missions that NASA intends to 

fly, and should be competed wherever possible. 

This reconstituted technology element should aggregate related but presently uncoordinated 

NASA technology activities that support planetary exploration, 

 Tasks should be reprioritized and rebalanced to ensure that they contribute to the mission and 

science goals expressed in the Planetary Decadal report. 

To properly complement the flight mission program, the Planetary Science Division’s technology 

program should accept the responsibility (with the required funding) to continue the development 

of the most important technology items through TRL 6. 

The Decadal Survey stated as future mission objectives evolve, meeting these future challenges 

would require continued advances in several technology categories, including the following: 

Reduced mass and power requirements for spacecraft and their subsystems; 

Improved communications yielding higher data rates; 

Increased spacecraft autonomy; 

More efficient power and propulsion for all phases of the missions; 

More robust spacecraft for survival in extreme environments; 

New and improved sensors, instruments, and sampling systems; and of course 

Mission and trajectory design and optimization. 

The Decadal Survey encourages technology infusion to enable more challenging mission 

requirements in the future. While expanding its investments in generic multi-mission technologies, NASA 

should encourage the intelligent use of new technologies in its competed missions. NASA should also put 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 29 

mechanisms in place to ensure that new capabilities are properly transferred to the scientific community 

for application to competed missions. To enable or significantly enhance PSD’s future planetary science 

missions, the In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) and the Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) 

programs are developing critical propulsion, RPS power, entry vehicle, and other spacecraft and platform 

subsystem technologies. 

C.2 Discovery and Scout Mission Capabilities Expansion (DSMCE) Studies 

In 2007 the Planetary Science Division released a new opportunity that looked for innovative 

Discovery and Mars Scout mission concepts. The Discovery and Scout Mission Capabilities Expansion 

(DSMCE) call solicited mission concept proposals for low cost planetary missions that require a nuclear 

power source such as the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) currently under 

development by NASA. The DSMCE program was intended to foster the formation of mission design 

teams, beginning the discussion of necessary engineering trades, and discovering the breadth of missions 

never before possible without the addition of the ASRG technology to the Discovery and/or Scout 

programs. Mission design assistance for mission concepts was offered by NASA during the six month 

studies. Full details and mission concept parameters were available in the solicitation. Curt Niebur wrote 

a white paper called “Opening up the Box: ASRG Missions in the Discovery Program” where he noted 

that the DMSCE studies presents NASA with more mature, higher quality mission concepts from which 

to choose. (http://lcpm9.jhuapl.edu/abstracts/028.pdf). 

The 2007 DSMCE ROSES Solicitation (NNH07ZDA001N-DSMCE) can be found at 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId={01B70287-331E25C2-B95F-6C80E03A1AF3}&path=past. 

The following website covers the DSMCE selections: 

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/march_08_meeting/presentations/dudzinski.pdf.

C.3 Mission Applicability of Propulsion, Power, and Entry Vehicle Technologies 

The Decadal Survey also identified a set of Discovery, New Frontiers, and Flagship class missions, 

and identified the technology needs for many of them. The study team assessed the propulsion, power, 

and entry vehicle technology needs for these Decadal set of missions and displayed the applicability in 

Table C.1. The spacecraft bus technologies which PSD has been developing for the last 12 years are 

applicable to 36 of the 47 identified missions contained in the Decadal Survey. A large number of 

additional mission studies have been completed and many proposed or yet to be proposed mission 

concepts are being considered which utilize these PSD developed technologies. The study team has 

compiled a more complete listing of mission studies that have been performed from a search of open 

source references. 

PSD strongly emphasizes developing technology products for NASA flight missions that will be 

ultimately manufactured by industry and made equally available to all potential users for missions and 

proposals. The focus is on the development of new enabling technologies that cannot be reasonably 

achieved within the cost or schedule constraints of mission development timelines. Since 2001 PSD has 

been developing in-space propulsion and RPS power technologies that will enable and/or benefit near and 

mid-term NASA robotic science missions by significantly reducing cost, mass, risk, and/or travel times, 

or increase mission capabilities to reach more distant or challenging destinations. The PSD developed 

technologies will help deliver spacecraft to PSD’s future destinations of interest. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 30 

TABLE C.1.—INFUSION TECH APPLICABILITY TO DECADAL SURVEY MISSIONS 

New 

Frontiers 

7 missions 

Flagship 

2013-2022 

5 missions 

Deferred 

High 

Priority 

>2023 

6 missions 

Other 

Missions 

and Tech 

Studies 

Considered 

14 missions 

Discovery 

Decadal 

Candidates 

13 missions 

Other 

Flagship 

2 missions 

Technology 

Total All 

Missions 

Panels 

Applicable Critical Applicable Critical Applicable Critical Applicable Critical Applicable Critical Applicable Critical Applicable Critical Primitive Bodies Inner Planets Mars Giant Planets/Satellites R&T Development 

Propulsion 

SEP (NEXT, Hall, REP) a4 2 1 0 2 0 9 4 a8 b 0 b 24 6 X X X 

High Impulse Chem (AMBR) 4 3 3 0 2 0 3 2 3 b 2 b 17 5 X X 

Trajectory Tools (SEP) 3 1 3 0 3 2 9 4 6 b 1 b 25 7 X X 

Entry Vehicle Technologies 

Aerocapture 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 0 b 0 b 7 6 X X 

TPS/Entry Probes/EEV's 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 a4 b 1 b 14 4 X X 

Power 

RPS (ASRG, MMRTG) 5 1 3 2 3 1 5 3 c3 b,c 1 b 20 7 X X X 

Photovoltaics 3 2 2 1 1 0 3 1 6 b 1 b 16 4 X X X 

 

Applicable 7 4 5 8 10 2 36 

Critical 7 3 4 8 b b 22 

Missions Identified in Decadal 7 5 6 14 13 2 47 a NOTE: There were two New Frontiers proposals with NEXT, and three NEXT and two Aerocapture/TPS related proposals for Discovery 12. b NOTE: Due to the open competition of Discovery missions, Criticality for Discovery-class missions was not highlighted in the Decadal. 

SEP and Trajectory Tools Critical to small body, high delta-V, and outer planet Missions, TPS/Entry Probes/EEV's Critical to probes, hostile enviro landers, 

and sample return missions, and RPS/ASRG Critical to outer Solar System and Venus surface missions. Applicability could be a measure of need/use. c

 NOTE: There were nine ASRG missions identified in the DSMCE AO. There were seven Discovery 12 proposals with ASRG and 2 were selected for Phase A 

studies. 

The NASA uses a system for rating where in the development cycle any particular technology 

resides. This system, called the Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and the current TRL scale and 

descriptions can be found in NPR 7123.1B (Ref. 8). The ISPT and RPS programs aim to develop 

technologies in the mid TRL range (TRL 3 to 6+), and which have a reasonable chance of reaching 

maturity in 4 to 6 years, and reduce risk sufficiently for mission infusion. 

C.4 Providing Incentives to Infuse NASA-Developed Technology 

NASA recognizes that it would be desirable to fly new technologies in order to enable scientific 

investigations or to enhance an investigation's science return. Discovery and New Frontiers missions 

potentially provide opportunities to infuse advanced technologies developed by NASA and thereby advance 

NASA’s technology base and enable a broader set of future missions. The 2006 Solar System Exploration 

Roadmap (available in the respective Discovery or New Frontiers Program Libraries) identifies technology 

development needs for solar system exploration and states that NASA will strive to maximize the payoff 

from its technology investments, either by enabling individual missions or by enhancing classes of missions 

with creative solutions. The Roadmap identifies transportation technologies as a “highest priority” and notes 

that solar electric propulsion could be “strongly enhancing” for most missions. 

In order to maximize the payoff from its technology investments, NASA provided incentives to 

encourage the infusion of ASRG, the NEXT or the AMBR engines, or aerocapture technologies into 

mission proposals in response to the Discovery 12 AO in 2010 (Ref. 5), and provided incentives to 

encourage the use of NEXT and AMBR in the New Frontiers 3 AO in 2009 (Ref. 4). Proposers were offered 

the option of selecting one (or none) of these specific technologies for insertion into their missions. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 31 

C.5 2010 Discovery 12 Announcement of Opportunity 

SMD’s In–Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) program has developed several technologies that are 

nearing TRL 6 and that are, therefore, potentially applicable to Discovery missions (Ref. 5). Three of 

these technologies are: 1) the NEXT ion propulsion system, 2) the Advanced Material Bi-propellant 

Rocket (AMBR), and 3) aerocapture. ISPT investments in electric propulsion technologies have included 

completing NEXT, a 0.6 to 7 kW throttleable gridded ion propulsion system. ISPT investments in 

chemical propulsion have included a high-temperature storable bi-propellant rocket engine providing 

higher performance for lower cost than current state-of-the-art high performance rocket engines. ISPT 

investments in aerocapture have completed the development of a family of efficient thermal protection 

system (TPS) materials and structures; models for aerothermal effects; engineering atmospheric models 

which include Titan, Neptune, Mars, and Venus; guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) algorithms 

for blunt-body rigid aeroshells; and will complete GN&C hardware in the loop ground testing. 

For the ISPT developed technologies, the incentives reflected NASA’s willingness to share in the 

flight development costs of the proposed advanced technology, up to a maximum amount depending on 

which technology is proposed: 

For missions that utilize NEXT, the cap on the PI-Managed Mission Cost will be raised by $19M 

(FY 2010); 

For missions that utilize AMBR, the cap on the PI-Managed Mission Cost will be raised by $5M 

(FY 2010); 

For lander missions that propose to use aerocapture, the cap on the PI-Managed Mission Cost will 

be raised by $10M (FY 2010). 

For orbiter missions that propose to use aerocapture, the cap will be raised by $20M (FY2010). 

To qualify for an infusion incentive, a proposed mission must meet minimum demonstration 

requirements for its chosen technology. Those requirements were contained in the document In- Space 

Propulsion Technologies Minimum Demonstration Requirements located in the Program Library. Proposers 

were responsible for the required NEXT, AMBR, or aerocapture flight hardware development and 

integration, including the flight hardware development schedule. In order to continue improving its product 

development approach and ensure its future products are ready to transition to flight development, the ISPT 

program asked to monitor the NEXT, AMBR, or aerocapture flight hardware development; receive IV&V 

test results; flight development lessons learned, and performance data during flight. 

SMD’s Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) program, in collaboration with the Department of Energy 

(DOE), is developing the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG). DOE had contracted with 

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company and Orbital Sciences Corporation for the development, 

fabrication, and testing of the ASRG. The specifications, qualification schedule, and interface control 

document describing the ASRG were provided in the Program Library. Proposers could have elected to 

use up to two ASRGs only if use of a radioisotope power system enables their investigation (both 

Baseline and Threshold Science Missions). Satisfying this enabling attribute meant that the science goals 

to be achieved by the proposed mission cannot be accomplished reasonably with a nonnuclear power 

system. NASA would have provided two fueled and fully qualified ASRGs (valued at $54M FY 2010) as 

Government Furnished Equipment at no cost to the proposer. The units would have been available for 

integration at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center no earlier than March 2014. Investigations could have 

chosen to use one ASRG as a flight unit and the other as a flight spare or to use both ASRGs as flight 

units. The ASRG qualification unit may not be used as a flight spare. The use of radioisotope power 

systems will entail considerations of range and nuclear launch safety requirements in spacecraft and 

mission design. 

The Discovery 12 AO (Ref. 5) provided guidelines for infusion of NASA-developed technologies. 

NASA SMD assumes the responsibility for maturing these technologies to TRL-6. Therefore, proposals 

that include utilization of one of these NASA-developed technologies were not required to include a 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 32 

maturation plan for them. Proposals will, however, be required to include a plan for the infusion of these 

technologies. However, as these are technology development projects, NASA was not able to guarantee 

the anticipated performance under conditions different than those for which they have been designed and 

tested. It was the responsibility of selected proposers to assess any risk inherent in application of these 

technologies beyond the design envelope. The application and scope of any proposed use of NASAdeveloped technology was evaluated for appropriateness and conformance to the guidelines presented in 

the AO. The implementation feasibility and risk of the proposed use of NASA-developed technology will 

be evaluated against the factors in this section. All proposers will receive feedback, if applicable, on their 

proposed use of NASA-developed technology. Any PI considering the use of either of these technologies, 

and requiring further information, was afforded the opportunity to contact the respective technology point 

of contact (POC) at NASA’s Glenn Research Center. 

C.6 2009 New Frontiers 3 Announcement of Opportunity 

NEXT and AMBR were also incentivized in the 2009 New Frontiers AO. (Ref. 4) The technology 

incentivization process was very similar to what was in the Discovery 12 AO, (Ref. 5) but differed in the 

following manner. Proposers were offered the option of selecting one (or neither) of these two specific 

technologies for insertion into their missions. With the incentives, NASA would share in the flight 

development costs of the proposed advanced technology, up to a maximum amount depending on which 

technology is proposed. For missions that utilize NEXT, the cap on the PI-Managed Mission Cost will be 

raised by $15M (FY 2009); for missions that utilize AMBR, the cap on the PI-Managed Mission Cost will 

be raised by $5M (FY 2009). 

Table C.2 provides a high-level ISPT assessment of potential NEXT and AMBR applicability to 

candidate New Frontiers missions. 

TABLE C.2.—POTENTIAL NEXT AND AMBR APPLICABILITY TO NEW FRONTIERS MISSIONS 

Candidate New Frontiers Missions NEXT Applicability AMBR Applicability 

South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return Limited applicability Limited applicability 

Venus In Situ Explorer Limited applicability Limited applicability 

Comet Surface Sample Return High degree of applicability High degree of applicability for some mission designs 

Network Science Limited applicability Likely not applicable 

Trojan/ Centaur Reconnaissance Limited applicability Likely not applicable 

Asteroid Sample Return High degree of applicability High degree of applicability for some mission designs 

Io Observer Applicable Applicable 

Ganymede Observer Applicable Applicable 

 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 33 

Appendix D.—Findings 

D.1 Findings Development Process 

D.2 General Findings 

The findings are organized into the themes developed by the PSTRP into Strategic, Process/Structure, 

Resource, and Culture/Communication. Each theme is divided into subcategories. The findings 

statements are listed under the corresponding categories identified by the team. The findings were 

originally organized generally by context but listed arbitrarily and given a numbers solely for 

identification. The identification number in green in the first column has a letter associated with the 

number is to identify the technology such as General Findings (F), NEXT (N), Hall (H), AMBR (M), 

Aerocapture (C), ASRG (A). The last column refers to the corresponding issue identified in the PSTRP 

Final Report which is found in Appendix F. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 34 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 35 

D.3 Infusion Technologies: NEXT 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 36 

D.4 Infusion Technologies: Hall Effect Thruster 

D.5 Infusion Technologies: AMBR Thruster 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 37 

D.6 Infusion Technologies: Aerocapture 

D.7 Infusion Technologies: ASRG Technology 

NASA/TM—2014-218308 39 

Appendix E.—Recommendations 

The Recommendation are from two sources, recommendations from the RFI Respondents listed under 

ID as “R#” and recommendations made by the Tech Infusion Study Team listed under ID as “T#” in 

Table E.1. The references under the “Support Findings” column are found in Appendix D of the 

Technology Infusion Study, and Appendixes F and G if preceded by “PI” or “PS”. 

Key

Direct Direct linkage to a Tech Infusion, PSTRP, or TRL uniformity Finding/Observation/Issue 

Indirect Indirect relationship, supportive linkage, or Findings of insufficiency linked to a Finding that it needs to be completed 

Tech Infusion F-General A-ASRG C-Aerocapture N-Next H-Hall M-AMBR 

PI ## Planetary Science Technology Review Panel (PSTRP) Observation/Issue; Area #..., Appendix F 

PS M# Planetary Science Technology Review Panel (PSTRP) Major Recommendation: #..., Appendix G 

TRL-U PSD TRL Uniformity Study (Ref. 7) 

TABLE E.1.—RECOMMENDATIONS 

 ID Recommendation Wording How Details Supporting Findings 

 R# - RFI Respondent, T# - Team-based Direct Indirect 

II. Process/Structure - AO Strategies for Tech Infusion 

 R2 (R2) PSD through the AOs should 

establish/designate missions that mandate 

the use of infusion technologies 

* (R8) Determine the science missions that 

would benefit significantly from infusion 

technologies 

F9, F12 F2 

 R1 (R1) Incentives approach for technologies 

considered for infusion must address the 

completion of system-level development 

work (from TRL 6 to flight infusion) and 

address accommodation costs/impacts 

* (T9) Any technology being considered for 

incentivization must have an assessment of 

readiness and associated risk. 

*Qualify a new technology to DRM 

requirements, then re-qualify as necessary to 

Mission specific requirements when known 

* (T8) Evaluate accommodation of technologies 

considered for infusion to mitigate barriers in 

the AO incentive approach (cost, risk, 

knowledge, etc...). See (R7) for accommodation 

cost determination step. 

F10, F21 F11, F26 

 T5 (T5) PSD should present the incentive 

approach for the use technologies 

considered for infusion approximately 9 to 

12 months prior to AO release to establish 

common understanding for SOMA, industry 

and mission implementers, and technology 

developers 

a. Documentation validating TRL 6 of any 

technology considered for infusion should be 

released 6 to 9 months prior to AO release 

b. Incentive approaches should address 

maturation of the technology from TRL 6 to 

flight implementation 

F12, F13, 

F14 

F11 

 T3 (T3) To achieve more Decadal Survey 

science goals, PSD should increase the risk 

and cost that it is willing to accept regarding 

the use of technologies considered for 

infusion in future mission AO's. 

* PSD should determine its threshold regarding 

GFE versus cost sharing incentive limits for 

each infusion technology (including 

accommodation costs/impacts) 

* The user community wants PSD to provide 

technologies as GFE and cover accommodation 

costs/impacts thru ATLO and Ops 

F3, F4, F5, 

F8 

PI-C4 

F2 

N8, N9, H7, 

H8, M7, 

M8, C5, C6, 

A2 

II. Process/Structure - Technology Development and Implementation 

Technology Development and Systems Engineering 

 R7 (R7) Determine accommodation 

costs/burdens associated with new 

technology adoption factor into future 

missions 

Account for accommodation costs/burdens in R2 F10, F21 

N11 

F12 

N7 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 40 

TABLE E.1.—RECOMMENDATIONS 

 ID Recommendation Wording How Details Supporting Findings 

 R# - RFI Respondent, T# - Team-based Direct Indirect 

 T4 (T4) Establish approach to sustain 

technology capability so that future PSD 

mission needs can be met 

* Develop PSD unique requirements to meet 

mission needs, and identify if technology needs 

are PSD unique 

* Evaluate use or modification of commercial 

products to meet PSD unique mission 

requirements 

* Develop PSD unique technologies with 

industry (transferring the technology out of 

PSD) to open the possibility of commercial 

flight opportunities 

* Commercialization/"Multiple-use" should be 

considered at the beginning of technology 

development for risk reduction and establishing 

flight heritage 

F7 

N5, H6 

 

 T2 (T2) The use of mission capability 

enhancement studies should be expanded to 

improve both the understanding of mission 

requirements and the constraints associated 

with implementing new technologies 

 F20 

N10, A4 

F7 

Technology Readiness and TRL Evaluation 

 R4 (R4) Implement a defined, transparent, and 

independent process for validating and 

documenting that a technology being 

considered for infusion has achieved TRL 6 

(or more) 9-months (or more) prior to AO 

release 

* (R5) A technology to be considered for 

infusion should be at a system-level TRL 6 

nominally 6-18 months prior to AO release.* 

(R11) Improve and maintain documentation for 

technologies being considered for infusion to 

ensure necessary information is available to 

interested parties* Establish independent body 

to conduct TRL determination 

F12, F14, 

F16, F18, 

F19, F23, 

F24 

PS-M6, PSM7, TRL-U 

all recs 

A8, A9 

 T1 (T1) Complete development and 

qualification of the current infusion 

technologies (ASRG, NEXT, etc...) to 

alleviate risks and meet the needs of future 

PSD missions 

* (T10) Finish technologies with a flight 

demonstration by any means to establish flight 

heritage 

-- (e.g., mandate the infusion technologies on an 

AO, funds for ride shares, re-establish New 

Millennium for NASA developed technologies, 

or negotiate TDM opportunities) 

* (T6) Qualify to a set Decadal Survey DRM's 

and/or generic requirements from mission user 

need derived by holding a User Community 

TIM and/or vet through a Technology Advisory 

Panel 

F9, F12, F15, 

F17 

N4, H4, M2, 

M3, C1, A6 

F26 

N1, N3, H1, 

H3, H5, 

M1, M5 

IV. Culture/Communication

 R10 (R10) Improve and ensure robust 

communication opportunities between 

technology developer, mission manager, 

and proposing communities to encourage 

better understanding of technologies 

considered for infusion 

* (R6) Ensure a representative POC or subject 

matter expert is available with authority to 

communicate and advise interested parties to 

ensure technologies considered for infusion are 

used properly to maximal benefit 

* (E13) NASA should ensure that all interested 

parties have fair and equitable access to the 

technologies considered for infusion 

* (T5/E5), (T2/E12), and (T6/E15) are also 

"how’s" for this recommendation 

F23, F24, 

F25 

A5 

PS-M8 

A7 

PS-M9 

 T6 (T6) Establish a customer advisory board 

to advise PSD on technology needs, 

performance requirements, and evaluation 

approaches to ensure level playing field for 

all parties 

(T8) Institute evaluation processes to avoid 

placing barriers to infusion of new technologies 

in the AO process 

F7 

PS-M3, PSM4 

PS-M8 

F2, F4 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 41 

TABLE E.1.—RECOMMENDATIONS 

 ID Recommendation Wording How Details Supporting Findings 

 R# - RFI Respondent, T# - Team-based Direct Indirect 

 R3 (R3) Develop partnerships with other 

organizations to broaden interest, appeal, 

and create sustaining support for 

technologies considered for infusion 

* (T11) Establish agreements to maximize cost 

sharing opportunities within the Agency (SMD, 

STMD, HEOMD) 

* (T12) Foster and maintain partnerships for 

advocacy between technology developers and 

users 

F7, F6 

PS-M5 

A7 

III. Resources 

 R9 (R9) Imperative that PSD complete 

technology development of the infusion 

technologies (ASRG, NEXT, etc...) to 

guarantee adoption into missions 

* Provide sufficient and sustained resources to 

mature new/infusion technologies to TRL 6 by 

AO release* To ensure satisfactory development 

of infusion technologies, shorter development 

timescales will improve infusion with mission 

opportunities* Establish dedicated PSD 

spacecraft component technology program to 

assist future infusion activities, and provide 

sufficient resources to sustain PSD unique 

technical expertise/knowledge and facilities in 

NASA, industry, and academia 

F1, N4, H4, 

A1, 

PS-M10, 

PI-R1, 

PI-R2 

N1, N3, H1, 

H3, H5, 

M6, A3 

I. Strategic 

 T7 (T7) Provide resources to enable successful 

technology infusion and being a "smart 

buyer" for PSD unique/critical mission 

needs 

* Establish dedicated PSD spacecraft component 

technology program to assist future infusion 

activities, and provide sufficient resources to 

sustain PSD unique technical 

expertise/knowledge and facilities in NASA, 

industry, and academia 

F2, F3, N2, 

C4 

PS-M11, 

PS-M2 

PI-R1, 

PI-R2, 

PI-C5 

N6 

 
 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 43 

Appendix F.—PSTR Major Technology Development Observations/Issues 

Inputs to the PSTR team were collected and placed into four categories. The four categories include 

strategic, process/structure, resources, and culture/communication. Table F.1 lists the issues by category. 

The issues are listed in priority order by category. The priorities were generated by the panel considering 

the opinions and discussions that occurred within the larger PSTR team. No attempt was made to 

prioritize one category above another (Ref. 6). 

TABLE F.1—PSTR MAJOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATIONS/ISSUES 

Issue Number Technology Development Observation/Issue 

Strategy 

S-1 No overall strategy or accountable manager 

S-2 No clear path for technology maturation from TRL 0-9 

S-3 Limited engagement of other NASA OCT, ESMD, and ESD technologists 

S-4 Technology should be perceived as more than just hardware development 

S-5 Efforts by external stakeholders are not worked into PSD strategy 

Process/Structure 

P-1 Programs are not consistent and do not have clearly defined processes 

P-2 Technology managers are overloaded and often oversee flight projects 

P-3 Inconsistent and inaccurate TRL and heritage assessments 

P-4 Limited processes that encourage interaction between stakeholders 

Resources 

R-1 Technology budgets are unpredictable 

R-2 Technology budgets are insufficient 

R-3 Inadequate leveraging of other’s investments 

Culture/Communication 

C-1 Technology investments have not yielded all the benefits they could have 

C-2 Inadequate communication (in and out) 

C-3 Projects are too risk averse to new technology 

C-4 Tenuous commitment by top management 

C-5 Need to better sustain capabilities 
 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 45 

Appendix G.—PSTR Major Recommendations 

Suggestions for the resolution of the issues were collected by the PSTR team and the inputs from the 

PSTR team were used by the civil servant members of the panel to generate draft recommendations. The 

draft recommendations were sent back out to the full PSTR team and the science, technology, and mission 

communities for additional feedback. The civil servants then generated the final recommendations 

(Table G.1). The result of the process is a set of 11 major recommendations grouped into the same 

categories as the issues, with an added category for management (Ref. 6). 

TABLE G.1.—PSTR MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS 

Major Recommendation 

Management

MR-1) Establish a dedicated Director position with overall responsibility for PSD technology

MR-2) Establish a small supporting program office

Strategy

MR-3) Develop a comprehensive strategy for PSD technology

MR-4) Strategically allocate resources (guidelines are provided by PSTR)

MR-5) Actively pursue a strategy of leveraging opportunities within and outside NASA

Process

MR-6) Develop a more consistent and accurate TRL assessment process

MR-7) Develop clear, transparent, and consistent decision and review processes 

MR-8) Develop a more structured and rigorous process to create interactions between technologists, scientists and missions

Culture and Communication

MR-9) Develop an overall communication plan and technology database 

MR-10) Foster a culture that advocates for and defends technology 

Resources

MR-11) Dedicate stable funding at the higher end of the decadal suggested range - 8 percent 
 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 47 

Appendix H.–Summary of Four NASA Technology Infusion Studies/Papers 

An interest in improving technology infusion is not new. Below are extracts from four NASA related 

references/papers that the study team felt were relevant to this study. The four references are listed below: 

Reference 1, “Technology Infusion for Space-Flight Programs” by Andrew Shapiro, 2004 

Reference 9, “Technology Infusion Planning within the Exploration Technology Development 

Program” by David C. Beals, 2007 

Reference 10, “A Fast Technology Infusion Model for Aerospace Organizations” by Andrew A. 

Shapiro, Harald Schone, David E. Brinza, 2007 

Reference 11, “Technology Transition a Model for Infusion and Commercialization” by Vernotto C. 

McMillan, 2006 

H.1 Definition of Tech Infusion 

Andrew Shapiro, of JPL, in a 2004 paper defined technology infusion as the pathway by which 

technologies, previously unused by space flight programs, move from their current status onto space flight 

missions. The technology can be several generations old, the state-of-the-art or anything that is deemed 

useful to the accomplishment of NASA space missions. Shapiro also noted that there is a development 

“gap” between laboratory bench research and development (R&D) and flight-ready systems (Ref. 1). 

H.2 Technology Infusion Challenges 

Shapiro described that programs are generally inclined to fund technology infusion tasks when they 

have little choice and it can be clearly demonstrated that the new technology under investigation is one of 

very few viable paths to mission success. He noted that under the current approach that Programs have no 

direct incentive to test technologies that are not on their most conservative paths. The objective of most 

Programs is to reduce risk to their program and curb their costs, and that the adaptation of new 

technologies is perceived to increase risk and increase costs. There may be some indirect incentives for 

including technologies with possible benefit to the program; however, without a strong motivation, the 

programs have no reason to consider anything new. Shapiro noted that technologies have worked in past 

programs tend to be favored because the project designers are familiar with them and are not taking any 

risks by using them (Ref. 1). 

David Beals, of LaRC, described the Exploration Technology development Program (ETDP) in his 

2007 paper as being comprised of a portfolio of advanced technology development projects. And that, a 

key aspect of the ETDP is the integration of the technology projects with mission design, architecture 

definition, flight system requirements and risks, and insuring the direct traceability of the technology 

products to flight applications. The ETDP projects are provided funding to the Technology Readiness 

Level (TRL) 6 level, i.e. the system has been tested on the ground and demonstrated performance 

functionality. However, Beals noted that the funding is insufficient to carry the investments made in the 

technology development phase through engineering and flight qualification, and that this situation has 

been endemic in prior technology programs; interesting and useful technology is funded without a defined 

plan to carry the projects through the development necessary to be incorporated into a flight project 

(Ref. 9). 

Beals described that the key criteria for new technology insertion is cost/benefit, i.e., will the 

cost/schedule impacts of a new technology be commensurate with the benefit over the baseline approach? 

The benefits can be made clear by the linkage to performance and functionality requirement 

enhancements, but what is usually left out is assessing the technology from a systems Life Cycle Cost 

(LCC) point of view. This requires that the system and flight element have a configuration controlled 

LCC estimate (Ref. 9). 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 48 

Beals articulated that criteria need to be defined for technology acceptance, and that the criteria are 

likely to include (Ref. 9): 

Benefit to the flight element: what performance/functionality/operational advantages does the 

new technology have over the baseline system and are these advantages significant enough to 

warrant inclusion? 

Cost of infusion: what is the cost to the project for changing from the baseline system to the new 

technology? 

System LCC: does the new technology reduce the LCC and is this reduction significant enough to 

warrant inclusion? This potentially involves assessments of operations and maintenance over the 

life of the vehicle/project – these cost assessments are notoriously difficult to verify. 

Risk to the system: does inclusion of the new technology reduce or increase system risk or system 

safety? Vital to this assessment is the development of a risk assessment that can be seamlessly 

incorporated with the flight elements. 

Schedule: is the flight element’s production schedule helped or impeded by the inclusion of the 

new technology? 

Readiness: Does the new technology project meet the PDR exit criteria? 

Beals noted that a systematic approach and the coordination of both the technology and flight 

program offices will be required in order to assure that technology development projects are used by 

future flight programs. By introducing the “flight-like” rigor into the technology project management and 

meeting the informational needs according the flight project’s schedule, there is a greater likelihood that 

the technology products will be incorporated and will be able to demonstrate contribution to the mission’s 

goals and objectives (Ref. 9) 

Andrew Shapiro, Harald Schone, and David Brinza’s 2007 paper articulated that one of the 

difficulties encountered for spaceflight qualification methods is that there are no standard space 

environments. Missions to Mars are substantially different from earth orbiting or lunar missions. 

Additionally, Mars orbiting missions are significantly different from Mars roving missions. Although the 

environments are substantially different, a number of factors are very similar. Typically, launch vibration 

and shock loads are similar. Often general reliability requirements are also related. In an attempt to focus 

on the similarities between missions, they described a concept developed by Cornford and Gibbel of a 

two sigma environment or one in which captures about 95 percent of the space qualification requirements 

(two standard deviations above and below an “average” environment). This two sigma strategy would 

allow a particular technology to be evaluated by the majority of common spaceflight test methods 

removing the bulk of the risk for any individual mission. The individual missions would then only need to 

perform a small number of tests that pertain to that mission’s specific environment (Ref. 10). 

Shapiro, et al, noted that most hardware is developed because it either improves the state of the art or 

it provides the satellite operator with a new capability. However since the performance is the primary 

motivator for the technology development effort, little to no investments are made in optimizing or 

assessing the manufacturability and reliability aspects of the new product. Addressing the reliability and 

manufacturability at the end of the hardware development process carries the risk factors that, for 

example, the design approach or the materials used are ill suited for the space environment, expensive to 

implement, or incompatible with the spacecraft operational requirements not related to parametric 

performance of the new technology. Obviously, any significant change at the end of the development 

cycle to accommodate technology infusion is expensive and results in significant delays. Instead, 

designing the technology with reliability and manufacturability in mind can significantly improve the 

chance of technology insertion at a reasonable cost and schedule. For this reason, we have chosen TRL 4 

as the latest starting point for the infusion process. We have as a goal to identify the root cause, or 

physics, of the failure to provide the technology developer with the insight to mitigate the potential failure 

mode (Ref. 10). 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 49 

H.3 Steps/Activities/Processes/Models to Improve Technology Infusion 

Shapiro’s 2004 paper discussed an infusion process where a particular technology should have several 

baseline requirements fulfilled to be seriously considered for infusion into flight programs. The following 

requirements need to be met before consideration, or funding to meet these requirements needs to be 

identified (Ref. 10). 

A clearly identified advantage the technology offers 

Significant reliability data 

Some production history (commercial or military) 

More than one qualified vendor 

Any additional testing for the particular space environment 

Multiple targeted NASA programs that will clearly benefit 

Vern McMillan, of MSFC, in his 2006 paper described a model that would advance the TRL to an 

acceptable level for Program and Industry to afford large investments toward either commercializing or 

infusion into the program. The model identified the following four elements necessary for successful 

adoption (Ref. 11): 

a. Mission Directorate (MD) Technology Need (this element is the most important element because 

if there is no technology solution required, there is no need to pursue the development. 

b. Local Program Manager (Level 2) Buy In or Concurrence. This element is equally important 

because it is the program which is funded by the Mission Directorate to execute the overall effort. 

This manager must provide written support as well as put resources into the effort. This assures 

value added and increases the probability of acceptance of the technology if development is 

successful. 

c. External Partner involvement via leverages resources, innovative ideas, and capabilities. This 

entity will be key to the commercialization aspects of the effort. 

d. Agency IPPO / Technology Transfer Organization involvement. This element is essential to the 

facilitation, strategy development, commercialization planning, and seed funding aspects of the 

effort. 

McMillan discussed a new technology infusion strategy that would involve three paradigm shifts, 

which should now viewed as part of a 360 degree cycle that would provide a continuous return on 

investment (Ref. 11). 

First would be to now recognize the MD Program as the primary customer. 

Second, would be to begin with the end in mind. 

And third would be no longer viewing infusion and commercialization as two opposite ends of 

the spectrum. 

McMillan described a review of several projects and the associated factors revealed that they all 

contained the following same four elements (Ref. 11): 

A primary NASA mission directorate program technical need. This was an imperative to the 

project success. The MD program needed solutions to their technology gaps in order for the 

program to succeed. 

A commercial partner that collaborated in the development and put forth a major investment of 

their own resources for the purpose of being the commercial supplier of the technology. This was 

a commitment by the commercial partner and was needed for the successful completion of the 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 50 

project. It also ensured that NASA would have a commercial provider should the technology 

prove successful. 

A local NASA program manager with enough interest in the project and outcome that they 

invested program resources into the collaboration and followed the developments through 

fruition. This afforded the MD program to truly pay attention to the developments and learn real 

time if those developments would impact the critical path of the mission. 

And finally, a technology transfer organization providing seed fund investment, 

commercialization planning strategy, and project facilitation throughout the project life. This was 

clearly essential to bringing the collaborative elements together. 

Beals described ETDP’s Technology Infusion Plan as providing a framework by which the 

technology projects will work with the flight element customer to develop a defined plan to incorporate 

the technology product into a flight element. The framework will not be prescriptive since each project is 

unique. In the case where a flight element has defined requirements and identified risks, the infusion 

strategy should be straightforward. In many cases, however, the targeted flight element is still under study 

and cannot provide clearly defined requirements or risks; these cases will require more of a process for 

developing an infusion plan. In all cases, a mature infusion plan will have common agreements and 

understanding that will allow both the technology provider and flight element customer to know the 

performance, cost, schedule, and risks of incorporating the technology products into the flight element 

(Ref. 9). 

Beals discussed that technology infusion needs to be viewed as part of a system design and 

engineering process, and that the elements of this process include (Ref. 9): 

Design Reference Mission (DRM) and Design Reference Architectures (DRM and DRA) 

Capability requirements and needs 

Flight element performance requirements 

Flight element schedule 

System and Flight element Life Cycle Cost (LCC) 

Flight element risks 

Capability requirements to technology project definition and assessment 

Technology project development 

Technology project to engineering development transition 

Engineering development 

Flight qualification testing 

Technology insertion final assessment, including flight element entry acceptance criteria 

Beals said that the recommended technology infusion process starts with Design Reference Missions 

(DRMs) and Design Reference Architectures (DRAs). It logically flows from these to capability 

assessments and investment recommendations, illustrated as follows: 

DRMs/DRAs 

Identification of capability needs and requirements 

Capability assessment that includes the known technologies which make up the capability 

Integrated analysis of the capability assessments which results in an investment portfolio, 

investment recommendations, and integrated development roadmaps 

Iterative feedback of these recommendations to the DRM/DRA designer 

Beals discussed how this hierarchy establishes capability and technology traceability to mission 

needs, the ability of each capability and supporting technology to meet requirements, and serves as a 

reference source for testing design assumptions (Ref. 9). 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 51 

Shapiro, Schone, and Brinza described the JPL “Technology Infusion Maturity Assessment” (TIMA) 

process. They noted that this process would be used to clarify the definition of the mission requirements, 

identify and address early difficulties resulting from mission architecture decisions, and gauge capabilities 

of competing technologies. JPL’s TIMA Process evolved from the Fast Technology Infusion initiative 

that exploited previously developed JPL process to assist in technology infusion, and are now using the 

process to help speed up the infusion process (Ref. 10). 

Shapiro, et al, described the TIMA process as being constructed to address several of the recurring 

obstacles to successful technology infusion, specifically: 

1. Customer (mission) requirements for using the technology were either miscommunicated, 

misunderstood, or under-defined, 

2. The technology was deemed non-flightworthy in its current state of development (i.e., the 

technology was subsequently rejected because of some unforeseen engineering issues), and 

3. Other nearly equivalent commercially-available technologies could possibly replace NASAdeveloped technologies. 

The net result of these obstacles was that disappointingly few of the promising technologies emerging 

from the research laboratory stage as proof-of-concepts mature to actual use (Ref. 10). 

The TIMA process takes the form of a series of facilitated group sessions in which participants 

provide information pertinent to the infusion of the specific technology being considered. Customdeveloped software supports the TIMA process, enabling on-the-fly capture of information, supporting 

the combination of the gathered information, providing reasoning over that combination, and offering 

visualizations to help convey status of the information and its combination to the participants. Shapiro, et 

al, summarized the TIMA process as follows (Ref. 10): 

Identify the customer requirements that the technology needs to meet before designers and managers 

will have adequate confidence to infuse the technology into a flight project. Assess the relative 

importance of those requirements by ascribing numerical weights to them in proportion to their estimated 

importance. 

Determine the potential, relevant failure modes of the technology. Assess how the impact of each 

failure mode can affect the requirements by ascribing a numerical proportion of requirement lost were 

that failure mode to occur. 

Identify all the options available to prevent, diminish, or detect and correct (before actual use) failure 

modes. TIMA refers to the range of such options as PACTs, shorthand for Preventative measures, 

Analysis, process Controls, and Tests (PACTs). Assess the effectiveness of each PACT against each 

failure mode, by ascribing a numerical proportion of the reduction in the failure mode’s likelihood or 

impact (depending on the type of PACT) application of the PACT will realize. Also, estimate the costs 

(dollars, schedule, etc.) of each PACT as part of an engineering model fabrication and test program for 

the technology in question. 
NASA/TM—2014-218308 52 

References 

1. Andrew Shapiro, “Technology Infusion for Space-Flight Programs,” 2004 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 

Paper 1249, March 2004 

2. “2006 Solar System Exploration Roadmap for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate,” September 2006. 

3. Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022,” The National Academies Press, 

URL: http://www.nap/edu, 2011 

4. New Frontiers Program Library Web site http://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NFPL.html

5. Discovery Program Library Web site http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/dpl.html

6. Tibor Kremic, et al., “The Planetary Science Technology Review Panel Final Report,” July 29 2011, 

http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/PlanetaryScience/

7. Pat Beauchamp, and Chet Borden, “How to provide a uniform TRL assessment across NASA and 

broader community,” a presentation to the SMD PE Forum on November 2, 2013 

8. NPR 7123.1B, Appendix B, TRL Scale 

9. David Beals, “Technology Infusion Planning within the Exploration Technology Development 

Program,” 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Paper 1108, March 2007 

10. Andrew Shapiro, Harald Schone, David Brinza, Henry Garrett, and Martin Feather, “A Fast Technology 

Infusion Model for Aerospace Organizations,” 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Paper 1607, March 

2007 

11. Vernotto McMillan, “Technology Transition a Model for Infusion and Commercialization,” IAC-06-

E5.1.04, Marshal Space Flight Center