A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: A Review of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program (2008)

The questionnaire that the Committee to Review NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program used to gather data on the 22 individual projects that form the program contained the following questions.

1. Status of the technology and the quality of the development effort:

   1. What is the description of the technology? What function does it facilitate (i.e., what does the technology allow the system to do)?

   2. What is the development status (technology readiness level [TRL], etc.)?

   3. Are there gaps in the technology development effort within the technology area?

   4. What is the quality of the NASA effort in development, and what are the international benchmarks against which this technology development is compared?

   5. What is the degree of non-NASA development of the technology, and what is the possibility that non-NASA sources will develop a competing or alternative technology that NASA could use?

   6. What is the team involved? Does the team have adequate training, experience, and capabilities? Is the team working in a coordinated manner? Could additional members strengthen the team?

   7. Are appropriate non-NASA entities involved (other national laboratories, universities, industry)?

   8. Are facilities identified adequate to mature the technology?

   9. Are metrics appropriate and in use?

2. Technology development plan:

   10. What is the technology roadmap or plan for development?

   11. What is the projected date by which the technology will become available (e.g., TRL 6)? How does this compare with the timing of the need?

   12. What are the risks in meeting that schedule?

   13. Does the development depend in a critical way on non-NASA outcomes?

   14. What is the projected cost of development (including testing and verification to allow insertion)?

   15. Is there a plan to transition the technology, and an industrial base equipped to absorb the technology and successfully deploy it into working systems?

3. Impact of the technology and the capacity for transitioning to customers:

   16. Does the technology have architectural benefit (i.e., does it enable new design or operational architectures that deliver significant improved capability, lower costs, or operational risks)?

   17. Does the technology have performance benefit (i.e., significantly change the performance, risk, or cost, but not differentiate among architectures)?

   18. Is the technology robust in the face of possible changes to the architecture, and extensible to other exploration class missions, e.g., Mars?

   19. What is the backup plan to high-risk development efforts?