Detailed Definitions and Guidance for Application of Technology Readiness Levels

Moorhouse, David J.

doi:10.2514/2.2916

Cited by 53 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(45) in the system of equations (42) (46) which has to be solved to determine the hovering distance d. Fig. 13 shows the total impulse provided by both, the Low Thrust and the Gravity Tug methods.…”

Section: Fig 12 Geometric Diagram Of the Gravity Tug And Asteroid Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicriteria Comparison Among Several Mitigation Strategies for Dangerous Near-Earth Objects

Sanchez

Colombo

Vasile

et al. 2009

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/15828/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the

show abstract

Section: Fig 12 Geometric Diagram Of the Gravity Tug And Asteroid Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicriteria Comparison Among Several Mitigation Strategies for Dangerous Near-Earth Objects

Sanchez

Colombo

Vasile

et al. 2009

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conversely, at TRL 1 the technology is considered to be still in the realm of scientific investigation, and there is no guarantee that the principles observed can be developed into a feasible system. TRLs can therefore be used to imply a risk distribution around the predicted cost of a scheme as discussed by Moorhouse [9].…”

Section: B Technology Readiness Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilizing a Risk-Based Systems Approach in the Due Diligence Process for Renewable Energy Generation

Wilson

Rowley

Watson

2011

IEEE Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Moorhouses Risk Versus TRL Metric A 9-level metric mapping risk progression analogous to technology maturity progression. The TRL descriptions are tailored specifically toward UAV (Moorehouse 2002in Azizian et al 2009). Advancement Degree of Difficulty (AD 2 ) Leveraging the concept of R&D 3 , the AD 2 augments TRLs by assessing the difficulty of advancing a technology from its current level to a desired level on a 9-tier scale (Bilbro 2002(Bilbro , 2006(Bilbro , 2007 The R&D 3 is a 5-level scale intended to supplement the TRL by conveying the degree of difficulty involved in proceeding from the current TRL state to desired level, with 5 being very difficult and 1 being least difficult to mature the technology (Mankins 2002).…”

Section: Technology Assessment Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual role of TRLs and MRLs in technology management.

Fernández¹

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) have been used extensively from the 1970s, especially in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Their application was recommended by the General Accounting Office in 1999 to be used for major Department of Defense acquisition projects. Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) have been proposed for improving the way manufacturing risks and readiness are identified; they were introduced to the defense community in 2005, but have not been used as broadly as TRLs. Originally TRLs were used to assess the readiness of a single technology. With the emergence of more complex systems and system of systems, it has been increasingly recognized that TRLs have limitations, especially when considering integration of complex systems. Therefore, it is important to use TRLs in the correct context. Details on TRLs and MRLs are reported in this paper. More recent indices to establish a better understanding of the integrated readiness state of systems are presented. Newer readiness indices, System Readiness Levels (SRLs) and Integration Readiness Levels, are discussed and their limitations and advantages are presented, along with an example of computing SRLs. It is proposed that a modified SRL be considered that explicitly includes the MRLs and a modification of the TRLs to include the Integrated Technology Index (ITI) and/or the Advancement Degree of Difficulty index proposed by NASA. Finally, the use of indices to perform technology assessments are placed into the overall context of technology management, recognizing that factors to transition and manage technology include cost, schedule, manufacturability, integration readiness, and technology maturity. 4This page is intentionally left blank.5

show abstract

Detailed Definitions and Guidance for Application of Technology Readiness Levels

Cited by 53 publications

References 0 publications

Multicriteria Comparison Among Several Mitigation Strategies for Dangerous Near-Earth Objects

Multicriteria Comparison Among Several Mitigation Strategies for Dangerous Near-Earth Objects

Utilizing a Risk-Based Systems Approach in the Due Diligence Process for Renewable Energy Generation

Contextual role of TRLs and MRLs in technology management.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About