Technology Development and Infusion from NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program

NASA's innovative partnerships program (IPP) develops many technologies for NASA's programs and projects through a portfolio of technology investments and partnerships. The investment portfolio includes Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and small business technology transfer (STTR), the IPP seed fund, and NASA's centennial challenges prize program. In the process of technology development and infusion, the transition of technologies from laboratories or testbeds to their application in flight programs is often one of the most challenging steps. Newly developed technologies achieve full success when they are infused into programs and projects, although there are numerous obstacles to achieving infusion. This paper addresses the IPP portfolio for providing technology, the challenges and obstacles to technology infusion, and some of the methods currently being employed by NASA to help address those challenges and obstacles. The paper also presents some examples of IPP technologies infused into high profile programs and projects and draws lessons learned and best practices from those successful examples.


INTRODUCTION
NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) provides needed technology and capabilities for NASA's Mission Directorates, Programs, and Projects through investments and partnerships with Industry, Academia, Government 1 IPP consists of the following program elements, as summarized in Figure   Together these program elements increase NASA's connection to emerging technologies in external communities, enable targeted positioning of NASA's technology portfolio in selected areas, and secure NASA's intellectual property to provide fair access and to support NASA's strategic goals. Technology transfer through dual-use partnerships and licensing also creates many important socio-economic benefits within the broader community [2].
During FY 2006, IPP facilitated many partnerships and agreements, including over 200 partnerships with the private sector, Federal and state government, academia, and other entities for dual use technology development and reimbursable use of NASA facilities, over 50 license agreements with private entities for commercial and quality of life applications of NASA-developed technology, reporting of more than 750 new technologies developed by NASA civil servants and contractors and evaluation of those technologies for patent protection, and more than 400 agreements for commercial application of software developed by NASA.
The general process by which IPP develops and provides technology to meet the needs of NASA's Mission Directorates is provided in Figure 2. IPP investments are intended to complement other Mission Directorate and Field Center efforts, filling important gaps in NASA's technology portfolio. In order to understand ongoing and planned technology investments within NASA and needed technologies, IPP pursues many avenues of communication. IPP has established the position of Chief Technologist , that focuses on agency-wide technology needs and infusion programs. The IPP Director and Mission Directorate (MD) Associate Administrators (AAs) meet on a quarterly basis to discuss Mission Directorate needs and how well they are being addressed by the IPP portfolio. With the restructuring of NASA's SBIR/STTR organization, there are now four dedicated Level III offices, each one assigned specifically to work closely with a Mission Directorate to understand their needs and ensure that SBIR/STTR projects are addressing those needs.
There is active MD participation in the conduct of all IPP technology activities, from key roles in the solicitation development and selection processes for Seed Fund and SBIR/STTR, to determining future Centennial Challenge competitions and revising rules to best address technology needs. IPP has an office at every Field Center, working with local projects to understand their technology needs and communicate to them what IPP can provide. The Field Center offices each include an SBIR Technology Infusion Manager, and all offices provide local infusion, seed fund and partnership support.
There are several sources of technology in the IPP portfolio that have potential for addressing the needs of the Mission Directorates.
These include SBIR/STTR, Centennial Challenges, and the IPP Seed Fund, which will each be addressed in the following sections of this paper. IPP strives to keep abreast of the changes in emphasis within the Agency's technology landscape as they occur. This helps IPP to be more responsive to the needs of the MDs and provide more value through the IPP technology portfolio. As an example, IPP recently aligned its SBIR and Seed Fund topics and sub-topics to reflect the newly reformulated Program and Project Goals of the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. This has led to recent IPP investments supporting advances in technologies related to alternative jet fuels and turbine blade superalloys for improved engine performance and reduced emissions.
There are many challenges associated with infusing technologies into programs and projects. IPP is working to implement best practices and is also developing some new projects to help address those challenges, as discussed in later sections of this paper.

SBIR/STTR
The purposes of the SBIR/STTR programs, as established by law, are to stimulate technological innovation in the private sector; to strengthen the role of small businesses in meeting Federal research and development needs; to increase the commercial application of these research results; and to encourage participation of socially and economically disadvantaged persons and women-owned small businesses [3].
Technological innovation is vital to the performance of the NASA mission and to the Nation's prosperity and security. To be eligible for selection, a proposal must present an innovation that meets the technology needs of NASA programs and projects and has significant potential for successful commercialization. In this context, commercialization encompasses the transition of technology into products and services for NASA mission programs, other Government agencies and non-Government markets.
The largest portion of IPP's technology portfolio comes from small businesses that are funded by NASA's SBIR/STTR programs. SBIR and STTR are competitive programs that provide technology to address NASA's needs. SBIR is for small businesses (less than 500 employees), and STTR requires that small businesses partner with a research institution (e.g. a University or Federal laboratory) with the objective of transferring research from the laboratory to the small business where it can be further developed and put to commercial use. Each year NASA awards several hundred contracts to small businesses and their partners, as summarized in Figure 3.
NASA considers every technology development investment dollar critical to the ultimate success of NASA's mission and strives to ensure that the research topic areas described in this solicitation are in alignment with its Mission Directorate high priorities technology needs. In addition, the solicitation is structured such that SBIR/STTR investments are complementary to other NASA technology investments. NASA'S ultimate objective is to achieve infusion of the technological innovations developed in the SBIR/STTR program into its programs and projects. Phase 1 awards for both SBIR and STTR are feasibility studies for $100k that last 6 months for SBIR and 12 months for STTR. Phase 2 awards are for technology development and last two years with funding of up to $750k for both SBIR and STTR. SBIR/STTR investments can support about three years of technology development, including Phase 1 and 2 funding. Often, technology development requires more time and much larger investments than can be made by SBIR funds alone. This is where infusion is so important, in that the SBIR portion of a technology development is one of the critical links in the overall chain of events necessary for developing a technology.  Th re have b e een notable successes from this program, with to some of NASA's highest profile missions and directly contributing to their success.

technologies being infused in
A few examples will be provided here, to illustrate how SBIR technologies are making important contributions. The twin Mars Exploration Rovers, still amazingly conducting science long after their planned mission life, are using 3 specific SBIR-developed technologies as shown in Figure 4.
Maxwell Technologies of San Diego, California, fabricated and tested an ASCII chip with single event latch up protection technology. Their innovation enables the use of commercial chip technology in space missions, providing higher performance at a lower cost. For the Mars rovers, the application was high-performance memory modules and analog-to-digital converters in the power systems and communications electronics. Yardney Technical Products of Pawtucket, Connecticut, developed lithium-ion batteries with specific energy density of >100Wh/kg, volumetric energy density of 240 Wh/l, and long cycle life. Subsequently, they won a large Air Force/NASA contract to develop batteries for space applications, and supplied the lithium-ion battery packs for the rovers. Starsys Research of Boulder, Colorado, developed paraffin based heat switches that function autonomously and are used to control the radiator for the electronics package on the rovers [5].
ASCII chip for memory modules and analog-todigital converters.
Lithium-ion batteries for battery packs.
Heat switches to control radiator for electronics package.
ASCII chip for memory modules and analog-todigital converters.
Lithium-ion batteries for battery packs.
Heat switches to control radiator for electronics package. SBIR technologies are also making important contributions to the next Mars rover mission -M Campbell, California, developed a small-format carbon nanotube field emission cathode (CNTFE) X-ray tube for the CheMin instrument on MSL. While a tungsten cathode was ultimately baselined for the flight tube, the form, fit, and function of the flight tube was derived from this SBIR. InXitu, Inc., of Mountain View, California, developed a powder handling device for X-ray Diffraction Analysis based on piezoelectrically-induced sample motion, and a miniature X-ray tube having a grounded cathode configuration is being developed to enable a further 2-fold reduction in the size of CheMin prototype instruments.
Wireless sensors developed with SBIR funding are now placed in the leading edge of the Space Shu objects during ascent, as shown in Figure 6. The Enhanced Wide-Band Micro-Miniature Tri-Axial Accelerometer Unit (EWB MicroTAU) system is a wireless, high-speed, synchronized data acquisition network for dynamic acceleration sensing, recording, and processing applications [6]. Use of this system as a wing leading edge impact monitoring system was first flown in NASA's Return to Flight mission, STS-114 in July 2005. The general term SBIR wireless technology is Sensor Control and Acquisition Telecommunications (SCAT) wireless instrumentation systems. SCAT systems have also been used for multiple applications on the International Space Station (ISS) such as wireless vehicle health monitoring, wireless instrumentation and data recording, and for instrumentation of flight tests for developmental vehicles. Another example of how SBIR has played a critical role in technology development is the maturation of Phenol Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) heatshield materi invented at NASA Ames in 1993, as shown in Figure 7. PICA was a very promising material but only small specimens (~ 0.1 m) of PICA had been produced at the time of its invention. It was being considered as an enabling technology for the Stardust mission, but required the production of a much larger piece (~ 1.0 m). Available flight proven heatshield materials (e.g. carbon-phenolic) were too heavy to use for the Stardust sample return capsule, which needed to be very mass efficient. In 1994, PICA was selected by Lockheed Martin for the re-entry heatshield on Stardust.   [7]. Technologies which are currently being funded are searchable on the SBIR/STTR website [8], and the interface for this searchable database is shown in Figure 8. The IPP Seed Fund has been established as a annual process to enhance NASA's ability to eet mission technology goals by providing ddress barriers and initiate cost-shared, joint-development partnerships. The hared partnerships with industry, academia, research institutions, national laboratories, and other ent is also posted to the FedBizOpps website. Responses to the

SEED FUND
m seed funding to a IPP Seed Fund is used to provide 'seed' funding to enable larger partnerships and development efforts to occur and will encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the leveraging of funding, resources, and expertise from non-NASA partners, NASA Programs and Projects and NASA Centers.
The IPP Office at NASA HQ provides an annual Seed Fund Call for Proposals to NASA Centers, soliciting proposals for cost-s Government agencies for joint development of technology that is of Mission interest to NASA.
The Call is developed in coordination with all Mission Directorates, and distributed to all Field Centers. In order to solicit external interest for partnerships an announcem Call must be from NASA personnel participating as a Partnership Manager (PM) in the Center IPP Office; with proposals including both an internal NASA Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) and an External Co-PI.
Proposed projects should be one year in duration and must include one or more non-NASA partners who are willing to provide cost-sharing at a level equal to or greater than the IPP funding provided to the project. Acceptable costnology spectrum of tech from the IPP Seed Fund.
Proposals are evaluat teria which include: ity; and leveraging of resources. The review process begins at each of NASA's 10 Field roviding a total of $62.2 million for the advancement of critical technologies and sharing from the partner includes actual dollars applied directly to the project, in-kind considerations such as workforce labor and the use of unique and dedicated facilities and testbeds. Such leveraging of non-NASA resources also helps ensure successful application of the technology, because the partners have 'skin in the game' as stakeholders. The technology landscape covered by the successful proposals embraces the needs of all four Mission Directorates, as summarized in Figure 9 below.  through test and demonstration (ground or space). TRL 9 Actual system "flight proven" through successful mission op Planne technology advancement resulting from the 200 nd awards is illustrated in Figure 10. The number o seed fu 2006 Seed Fund projects at each TRL is shown in the blu me of the award, and the one year seed fund project.

Technology Spectrum
Delaware [11]. The habitat, as shown in Figure 11, will be put through its paces as a component of the McMurdo Station in Antarctica from January 2008 through February 2009. Using reports from explorers braving this harsh environment and data collected from habitat sensors, designers will evaluate the concept of using inflatable structures to support future explorers on the moon or Mars. There are several technology demonstrations planned for Seed Fund projects, in addition to the inflatable habitat demonstration previously discussed. A summary of some of the notable demonstrations planned for the coming year is provided below in Figure 13.

CENTENNIAL CHALLENGES
Centennial Challenges is NASA's program of prize contests to stimulate innovation and competition in solar system exploration and ongoing NASA mission areas. By making awards based on actual achievements, instead of proposals, Centennial Challenges seeks novel solutions to NASA's mission challenges from non-traditional sources of innovation in academia, industry and the public. Current Centennial Challenges competitions are listed in Table 2   Peter Homer of Bangor, Maine, was the first recipient of Centennial Challenges prize money when he won the Astronaut Glove Challenge (Figure 14). The New York Times Magazine ran a cover story about Centennial Challenges, featuring Peter Homer's capture of the Astronaut Glove Competition [13]. Homer's glove technology relates to the pressure-containing inner layers. Among the potential benefits of the winning glove design are that it requires less torque to bend than the Phase 6 glove design currently in operational use; therefore, it may be less fatiguing to use. In addition, the finger joint flexes at a predictable repeatable location allowing each finger to be patterned to the individual astronaut's unique hand dimensions. Homer's next steps are to continue refinement of the glove design to further reduce bending torque (hand fatigue), improve sizing and fit, refine manufacturing processes, investigate the potential for applying finger joint technology to other mobility joints of the space suit, and explore ways to incorporate glove innovation into layers of the space suit. Since winning the Astronaut Glove Challenge, Homer has been hired as a consultant to Orbital Outfitters, a firm commercially developing a pressurized space suit for suborbital space flyers.
Hamilton Sunstrand and ILC Dover, the current manufacturers of NASA's spacesuits, were actively involved in sponsoring the competition and provided much of the test equipment. One of NASA's foremost spacesuit experts from JSC was also in attendance and quite impressed.

Exploration Systems
While innovations from the competition haven't yet been infused, discussions are underway. Potential uses for NASA human space missions include: launch and re-entry safety/survival suits; suits for on-orbit extra vehicular activity (EVA); suits for planetary and lunar surface operations; and high pressure (zero pre-breathe) spacesuits (since the greater joint flexibility can allow for higher suit pressures).
The Lunar Lander Challenge has had two years of competitions in conjunction with the X-Prize cup although the prize has yet to be won.  Other competitions have been very successful at advancing knowledge and driving innovations as well, although prize money has not yet been won. An example is the Regolith Excavation Challenge that took place in a 4m by 4m 'sandbox' with 6 tons of JSC-1a lunar regolith simulant. This was the first time ever that this amount of lunar regolith simulant was used, leading one of NASA's experts who was present at the competition to state that he learned more in two days 'playing in this sandbox of JSC-1a' than he has in two years reading and studying about regolith properties.

OBSTACLES
The biggest obstacle to technology infusion is the perceived risk by program/project managers (or their systems engineers) of adopting a new technology. They like to have technologies with flight heritage and don't want to take on any more risk than they feel they have to. If the benefits of 6 by their completed a procurement to select a commercial service provider for parabolic aircraft flight to simulate multiple gravity envi the contract to the Zero Gravity Corporat 2, 2008. IPP is their Programs and Projects.
ut a number of practices that if followed, will increase the ments.
2) Cultivate interest with customer as technology is being develop of milestones and demonstrations. Recognize that technology priorities on as the technolare of ents that must occur to lead to success-a new technology don't clearly outweigh the risks in the mind of a decision-maker, than that technology will likely not be infused. If additional development is required, then cost and/or schedule can be other obstacles. Projects generally desire technologies to be at least TRL preliminary design review (PDR). IPP is doing several things to address these obstacles. A key element of achieving TRL 6 is demonstrating a technology in the relevant environment, including the gravity environmentfrom microgravity to lunar or Martian gravity levels. Space technology development can stall at the mid-technology readiness levels due to lack of opportunities to test prototypes in relevant environments. In addition, limited testing opportunities often have high associated costs or require lengthy waits.
NASA just ronments, awarding ion on January working with NASA's Strategic Capability Assets Program (SCAP) and the Glenn Research Center (GRC), to use this IDIQ contract for parabolic aircraft services to initiate a new activity -Facilitated Access to the Space environment for Technology development and training (FAST). FAST will provide more opportunities for reducing risk and advancing TRLs by providing partnership opportunities to demonstrate technologies in these environments [14].
FAST will purchase services through this new procurement mechanism and provide partnership opportunities aimed at reducing risk by advancing needed space technologies to higher technology readiness levels (TRL). This will demonstrate the business model for purchasing services commercially, and advance technology readiness for NASA's research and technology needs. The objective is to provide advanced technologies with risk levels that enable more infusion, meeting the priorities of NASA's Mission Directorates and

BEST PRACTICES
The key to successful infusion is satisfying the technology user, a.k.a. customer or decision-maker, that the benefits of infusing a new technology or innovation outweigh any additional cost or risk. Someone will need to make a decision at some point that yes, this technology is something that will be infused. This discussion of best practices will refer to that person as 'customer.' There is no standard recipe for infusion success, b likelihood of infusion. Not all must necessarily be followed, but the more the better.

1) Develop a technology that is needed.
Communicate with the customer in order to understand their needs and how your technology might address those needs better than other options. IPP works hard to ensure our portfolio of technologies is integrated with the needs of NASA's Mission Directorates, and complementary to their other technology invest the ed.
Seek to have 'skin in the game' from the customer, as this validates that they are, in fact, interested. IPP seeks to do this through the Seed Fund, and has started a new Phase 2E feature in SBIR, to encourage cost-sharing from the Mission Directorates.
Communicate with customers as the technology is being developed, keeping them apprised and needs can be dynamic and keep abreast of changes in their needs.
3) Develop an infusion plan early, and keep updating it as the technology matures.
Actively consider and plan for infusi ogy is being developed, not as an afterthought once it has been successfully demonstrated. Throwing the technology ball over the fence and hoping that someone on the other side will catch it is not a good strategy for infusion. This infusion plan should include funding options for the duration of development and demonstration needed. In the case of most IPP projects, they limited duration and the IPP funding is but one link in a longer chain of ev ful infusion. SBIR/STTR funding is 3 years, Seed Fund is 1 year. Technology development is typically a much longer process and it should be thought of as such and planned for with that in mind. Understand the technology as part of the system it may be infused into, and be prepar understanding.
Communicate understanding of the issues of importance to the customer or technology user, as they deliberate on which technologies to infuse. To the extent possible, anticipate their There is a common theme to all the items listed abovemunications. Without co usion -it is that simple. To communicate effectively, re are several things that should be understood. In order be successful at infusing technology, the technology eloper must understand the issues and concerns of the hnology user -typically a project manager or systems ineer conducting tradeoff analyses of multiple candidate hnologies for various systems and subsystems. In order understand the issues facing these decision makers, the re knowledgeable the individual or organization seeking infuse a particular technology is, the greater the likeliod of successful infusion. The technology must be good, t if its attributes are not effectively communicated, it may er be infused.
To put a technology in the best position for infusion, it is desirable that there be certain levels of knowledge relative he key issues on the minds of decision-makers -related performance, sc marized below are indicative of the types of questions ically asked by decision-makers, and while not all must know, the more that are known the more likely that ceptions of risk can be reduced and infusion may occur Performance • What impact will this technology have on the overall performance for the system (e.g., power savings, mass savings, higher resolution, increased Isp, etc.)? Can the benefits be quantified? • Has (or will) this performance improvement been demonstrated? If a demonstration is planned, invite decision-makers to the demonstration.

SUMMARY
is seeking to add value to NASA's Mission Directorat nd their programs and projects, through technology ev lopment and infusion to meet mission needs. IPP's nology portfolio provides ben ou ces. There is a track record of success, with a few ples of the m PP is aggressively pursuing better integration and more sion. IPP is also working to better identify priority nvestments and partnership opportunities. IPP has a highly ed cated workforce at each of the 10 Field Centers. They working hard to build even stronger connections to rams and projects to better understand needs, gthen working relationships, and increase infusion.