Technology Readiness Levels

(TRL)

What do they mean and how to

use them

Marco Guglielmi
TEC-SBS

ESTEC 2009 Slide 1

 Outline

 Background
 Definitions
 Technology Readiness Assessment
 Examples
 Conclusion

ESTEC 2009 Slide 2

 TRL Background
 Space systems that depend upon the application of new technologies
inevitably face three major challenges during development:
performance, schedule and budget.

 In this context, therefore, the main objective of technology R&D

programs is to mature technology to substantially reduce the uncertainty
in all three of these dimensions of project management.

 The challenge for project and technology managers is then to be able to

make clear, well-documented assessments of technology readiness and
risks, and to do so at key points in the life cycle of the project or
program.

 The Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) have been recently

introduced in ESA in order to enable discipline-independent
assessments of the maturity of a particular technology and the
consistent comparison of maturity between different types of
technology, all in the context of a specific system, application and
operational environment.

ESTEC 2009 Slide 3

 TRL top level definitions

ESTEC 2009 Slide 4

 Readiness
Definition Explanation
Level
Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research
Basic principles observed
TRL 1 begins to be translated into applied research and
and reported
development. (See Paragraph 4.2)
Once basic principles are observed, practical applications
can be invented and R&D started. Applications are
Technology concept and/or
TRL 2 speculative and may be unproven. For SW, individual
application formulated
algorithms or functions are prototyped. (See Paragraph
4.3).
Active research and development is initiated, including
Analytical and experimental
analytical / laboratory studies to validate predictions
critical function and/or
TRL 3 regarding the technology. For SW, a prototype of the
characteristic proof-of-
integrated critical system is developed. (See Paragraph
concept
4.4)
Component and/or Basic technological components are integrated to
TRL 4 breadboard validation in establish that they will work together. For SW, most
laboratory environment functionality is implemented. (See Paragraph 4.5)
The basic technological components are integrated with
Component and/or reasonably realistic supporting elements so it can be
TRL 5 breadboard validation in tested in a simulated environment. For SW,
relevant environment Implementation of the complete software functionality.
(See Paragraph 4.6)
System/subsystem model or A representative model or prototype system is tested in a
prototype demonstration in a relevant environment. For SW, ready for use in an
TRL 6
relevant environment operational/production context, including user support.
(ground or space) (See Paragraph 4.7)
System prototype A prototype system that is near, or at, the planned
TRL 7 demonstration in a space operational system. For SW, used in IOD or applied to
environment pilot project. (See Paragraph 4.8)
Actual system completed In an actual system, the technology has been proven to
and “flight qualified” work in its final form and under expected conditions. For
TRL 8 through test and SW, ready to be applied in the execution of a real space
demonstration (ground or mission. (See Paragraph 4.9)
space)
Actual system “flight The system incorporating the new technology, or
TRL 9 proven” through successful software, in its final form has been used under actual
mission operations mission conditions. (See Paragraph 4.2.10)

ESTEC 2009 Slide 5

 TRL for Individual Technology
or Complete System?
 From TRL 1 to 4 only a broad range of
applications is identified
 From TRL 5 to 6, the applicability is restricted to a
single family of applications
 TRL 7 is relevant only to IN-ORBIT
demonstration (it may not be required)
 TRL 8 and 9 are applicable to a technology
imbedded in a complete system

THEREFORE: The TRL scale evaluates a given

technology in the context of a specific application,
not by itself!!!!
ESTEC 2009 Slide 6
 TRL for hardware only or also
for software?
 The TRL definitions are applicable to both
hardware and software. We can identify 3 types of
software:

1. Software building block to be reused in a range of

missions, either flight or ground software. This software
is executed in a wider software application context. It
interacts with other software and also with HW
2. Software tools. They run in a stand-alone mode
3. Software that cannot be considered separated from the
HW it runs on, e.g. equipment embedded software.

 The TRL scale shall be applicable only to 1 and 2.

ESTEC 2009 Slide 7

TRL for hardware or software that
has been flying for a long time
 If a given technology has been flying for a long
time with perfect results…. It does not mean that it
is for sure at TRL 9

 The related know-how may not be available any

more (obsolescence)

 Additional R&D may be necessary to achieve the

same performance (actual level TRL 4-5)

ESTEC 2009 Slide 8

 TRL for hardware or software to
be used again in another mission
 If a given technology has been flying with perfect
results…. It does not mean that it is for sure at
TRL 9

 The TRL 9 is valid only for the exact same

application with the exact same requirements

 Additional R&D may be necessary to achieve

TRL9 for different applications or requirements
(actual level TRL 4-5)

ESTEC 2009 Slide 9

 TRL Evaluation
YES YES YES YES
Descripti Requirem Verificati Viability
TRL N-1 on ? ents ? on ? ? TRL N

NO NO NO NO

 Description. A description of the details of the research and development that

has been performed, or the technology that has been advanced. Including
considerations concerning the degree to which actual space qualified materials,
devices, components or tools are used in making the item of technology that
has been tested.
 Requirements. The degree to which a future application of a technology is
known; and in particular whether the characteristics of the application are well
enough defined to judge whether a new technology will be able to meet those
requirements.
 Verification. The environment in which testing of the new technology has
occurred, and the degree to which that environment is similar to, or the same
as the environment in which technology will be used in operations. The degree
of similarity of test articles incorporating the new technology to an actual
systems application. The degree to which required levels of performance are
achieved, and in the needed environment.
 Viability. The prospective future viability of the technology being advanced,
including both technical (risk) and programmatic (effort) viability.
ESTEC 2009 Slide 10
 TRL Assessment (TRA)
TRL Levels TRA Independent Review and Validation Participants
TRL 1-3 The technologists involved in the conduct of the R&D should lead
Review and Validation of TRA results. However, even at this level a
TRA should involve the participation of the management of the
technology development organization.

TRL 4 Independent Review and Validation of TRA results should be led by

management of the technology organization, with the participation of
both the technologists involved and the leadership of prospective
system organizations.

TRL 5 Independent Review and Validation of TRA results should be led

cooperatively by the management of the organization responsible for
development of the technology and by that of the prospective system
application of the new technologies being developed. Technologists
and participants in the system development project (e.g., subsystem
managers) should play significant roles in the conduct of such reviews.

TRL 6-9 Independent Review and Validation of TRA results should be led by
the management of the organization responsible for development of the
prospective system application of the new technologies under
development (or operation for TRL 9). Technologists and participants
in the system development project (e.g., subsystem managers) should
play significant roles in the conduct of such reviews.

ESTEC 2009 Slide 11

 TRL Application Example:

Tuning-less microwave filters

ESTEC 2009 Slide 12

 Tuning-less microwave filters
 In 1990 a group of ESA researchers developed a theory for
the analysis of waveguide discontinuities in terms of
“Multimode Equivalent Networks” (MEN).

 This was a significant step forward with respect to the

“Single Mode Equivalent Networks” available at that time
since it allowed the analysis of much more complex and
realistic waveguide structures.

 Considering “multimode equivalent networks” as a

technology, this corresponds to TRL1.

TRL1: Basic principles observed and reported

ESTEC 2009 Slide 13
 Tuning-less microwave filters
 In 1991, soon after the development of the basic theory, the MEN
were first used to demonstrate the possibility of performing the Full
Wave Electromagnetic analysis and design of simple “inductive
window” microwave filter structures.
 Before the introduction of MEN based EM analysis, microwave
filters of this type were based on the “inductive post” technology and
required significant manual tuning.
 The use of the MEN combined with the inductive window technology
opened the possibility of realising tuning-less microwave filters.
 In terms of TRL, the identification of a possible application leads to
TRL2.

TRL2: Technology concept and/or application formulated

ESTEC 2009 Slide 14
 Tuning-less microwave filters
 Once the possible application was identified, a proof-of-concept
CAD tools based on MEN was developed in 1993.

 This, in turn led to the design and realisation of basic microwave test
structures.

 The electrical simulation of the performance of the test structures

was in perfect agreement with the CAD tools prediction.

 In terms of TRL we are now at TRL 3.

TRL3: Analytical and experimental critical

function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept

ESTEC 2009 Slide 15

 Tuning-less microwave filters

 After the successful experimental proof-of-concept, a number of

more realistic filter structures were realised and measured in the ESA
laboratories using typical specifications for front-end filters of
telecom satellites.

 The filters were manufactured and tested between 1993 and 1994
showing very good agreement between theory and measurements.

 The level reached at this step is therefore TRL4.

TRL4: Component and/or breadboard validation in

laboratory environment

ESTEC 2009 Slide 16

 Tuning-less microwave filters
 At this point the first industrial development contract was awarded
from ESA to a suitable European Space industry for the first
realisation of a prototype microwave filter using the MEN based
CAD tool in a proper industrial environment.
 Standard specifications for on-board microwave filters were used as
a target.
 The hardware was measured electrically with very good results.
Environmental tests were also performed with positive outcome.
 The level reached at this step is TRL5.

TRL5: Component and/or breadboard validation in

relevant environment

ESTEC 2009 Slide 17

 Tuning-less microwave filters
 At this point in time a possible real application emerged within the
ARTEMIS satellite of ESA.
 A small contract was awarded to a suitable space company to design,
manufacture and test an Engineering Qualification Model of a filter using
ARTEMIS specifications.
 The initial designs performed indicated that a “tuning-less” performance
could indeed be obtained with the available manufacturing accuracy.
 Additional thermo-vacuum tests were performed on the hardware
manufactured indicating that perfect compliance with operational
requirements in space was successfully achieved.
 The filter manufactured was tested also within the breadboard of the
payload for which the filter was intended. The results obtained were fully
satisfactory.
 The level reached at this step was therefore TRL6.

TRL6: System/subsystem model or

prototype demonstration in a relevant
environment (Ground or Space)
ESTEC 2009 Slide 18
 Tuning-less microwave filters

 In orbit demonstration was not required for this

type of hardware.

 TRL7 tests were therefore not performed

TRL7: System prototype demonstration in a

space environment

ESTEC 2009 Slide 19

 Tuning-less microwave filters
 At this stage it was decided that the “Inductive
window” technology was mature enough to be
used for the actual ARTEMIS satellite
 A flight model was produced, tested and
qualified successfully.
 The filter was then integrated in the payload, and
the payload was integrated in the satellite itself.
 Tests were performed at satellite level indicating
compliant performance.
 The level reached at this step is therefore TRL8.
TRL8: Actual system completed and “flight qualified”
through test and demonstration (Ground or Flight)
ESTEC 2009 Slide 20
 Tuning-less microwave filters
 In 2001 ARTEMIS was launched and, after an
initial series of problems, it started regular
operations in 2003.
 The payload in which the inductive window filter
was used performed flawlessly.
 The level reached at this stage is TRL9.

TRL9: Actual system “flight

proven” through successful
mission operations

ESTEC 2009 Slide 21

 Tuning-less microwave filters
 It is important to note that although the technology in this example did
reach TRL9, it did so only in the context of the ARTEMIS satellite
application.
 The same technology was proposed some time later for another
application. Initial tests showed that, although for ARTEMIS all
worked without problems, for this new application, the requirements
were so critical that tuning-less manufacturing was not possible.
 In other words, the CAD tool was indeed producing the right results
but the mechanical accuracy needed to avoid tuning was not feasible
(less than 5 microns error was needed).
 In conclusion the applicability of the technology to the new problem
at hand was not demonstrated.
 For the particular case of the inductive filter technology discussed
here, changing application resulted in a change from TRL 9 to TRL
3/4:
 The applicability of the technology needed to be demonstrated again.

ESTEC 2009 Slide 22

 TRL Application Example
(Tuning-less microwave filters)

9
8
7

Basic
6

Development
TRL
4 35

“Multimode ARTEMIS
2

Equivalent Satellite New Application

Network”
1

Theory

1990 1991 2003

ESTEC 2009 Slide 23
 TRL Application Example:

The Tuneable
Frequency Converter (TFC)

ESTEC 2009 Slide 24

 The Tuneable
Frequency Converter (TFC)
 During the developments related to the telecom satellite
Olympus, launched in 1993, it appeared that there was a
problem with the local oscillator unit.
 The problem was related to the use of copper coils that,
subject to vibrations, introduced FM noise
(microphonicity).
 This phenomenon was reported in several occasions
during the development.
 In the context of TRL, this stage corresponds to TRL1.

TRL1: Basic principles observed and reported

ESTEC 2009 Slide 25

 The Tuneable
Frequency Converter (TFC)
 After a number of development activities TRL6 was
successfully reached
 After that, a real application emerged with the satellite
ARTEMIS.
 The next step was the manufacturing and testing of the
Flight Models (FM) for the unit.
 Note that if the ARTEMIS satellite is considered an in
orbit demonstration satellite, then the TFC equipment
would have reached TRL7 only once ARTEMIS was
launched and operated correctly.

TRL7: System prototype demonstration in a space environment

ESTEC 2009 Slide 26

 The Tuneable
Frequency Converter (TFC)
 Some time later, another ESA application opportunity appeared with
the Earth Observation satellite ENVISAT.
 The same technology was fully reused. However, due to the different
requirement, the TRL level went from TRL9 (or TRL7) to TRL4.
 To fully demonstrate the applicability, a new EM unit needed to be
developed. After that, the equipment reached again TRL 9 without
problems.
 Note that if the ENVISAT satellite is considered an operational
satellite, then the TFC technology was used within a truly operational
context. As a consequence the TRL level 9 was indeed reached.

TRL9: Actual system “flight proven” through successful

mission operations
ESTEC 2009 Slide 27
 Conclusion
 As shown today, the TRL are indeed a practical and useful
tool to describe the level of development of a given
technology.
 They can be used in a variety of different situations
including the identification and correction of technical
problems, obsolescence, and the use of the same
technology in other applications.
 ESA has recently developed a TRL Handbook and is
actively supporting the introduction of an ISO standard for
TRL definition and use
 We are therefore confident that the use of the TRL in ESA,
and in the world, will be a significant contribution to the
best practices of space technology research and
development activities.
To download the ESA RTLH see: http://intranet.sso.esa.int/esiComm/Technology_Observatory/SEMDA3XX3RF_0.html

ESTEC 2009 Slide 28