Skip to content

Center Independent Research & Development (IRAD)

Last updated: 2026-04-05

Summary

IRAD is NASA's internal R&D discretionary program, operated at the center level and funded through the Mission Support Directorate (MSD). Ten center sub-programs. Strongly skewed: GSFC IRAD accounts for 66.8% of all IRAD projects in TechPort, suggesting other centers either don't use TechPort for IRAD tracking or entered far fewer records. The IRAD TechPort dataset is effectively a near-complete GSFC IRAD portfolio with sparse representation elsewhere.

Scale and Structure

Metric Value
Total projects 1,284
Status 98.8% Completed, 0.6% Active (8 projects), 0.5% Canceled
Mission directorate MSD (Mission Support Directorate)
Program IDs IRAD parent: 87; sub-programs: 150-159, 92276

Center sub-program breakdown:

Center Count Share
GSFC IRAD 858 66.8%
MSFC IRAD 157 12.2%
JPL IRAD 116 9.0%
KSC IRAD 74 5.8%
LaRC IRAD 26 2.0%
JSC IRAD 21 1.6%
GRC IRAD 20 1.6%
SSC IRAD 10 0.8%
AFRC IRAD 1 0.1%
ARC IRAD 1 0.1%

GSFC dominance is an extreme data quality signal. GSFC (858) vs. JPL (116) vs. ARC (1) — centers of comparable size differ by 100×. This almost certainly reflects TechPort adoption differences, not actual R&D activity differences.

Also note: A-IRAD (Agency IRAD, program ID 92326, parent: Catalyst) is a separate program, not listed here. It likely has different project counts.

TRL Distribution

Query: techport_portfolio_aggregate(group_by="trlCurrent", filter={"responsibleMd": "MSD"}) | n=1,284 | 2026-04-04

TRL Count %
3 371 28.9%
4 277 21.6%
2 229 17.8%
1 118 9.2%
5 110 8.6%
(none) 79 6.2%
6 60 4.7%
7 22 1.7%
9 9 0.7%
8 8 0.6%
0 1 0.1%

Lower TRL than CIF. IRAD clusters more at TRL 1-3 (56%) vs. CIF at TRL 2-5. Consistent with IRAD's internal research mandate — more exploratory, less development-focused. TRL 1 (9.2%) is notably higher than any other program. Missing TRL rate: 6.2% — acceptable quality.

Technology Area Distribution

Query: techport_portfolio_aggregate(group_by="primaryTx", filter={"responsibleMd": "MSD"}) | n=1,284

TX Count % Area
TX08 519 40.4% Sensors and Instruments
TX12 108 8.4% Materials, Structures, Mechanical
TX11 106 8.3% Software, Modeling, Simulation
TX05 94 7.3% Communications and Navigation
TX06 79 6.2% Human Health, Life Support
TX17 51 4.0% Guidance, Navigation, Control
TX01 49 3.8% Launch Propulsion
TX02 48 3.7% Flight Computing and Avionics
TX14 42 3.3% Thermal Management
TX07 39 3.0% Exploration Destination Systems

TX08 dominates at 40.4% — dramatically higher than in any other program (for comparison, TX08 = 13.8% in CIF). This is largely a GSFC artifact: GSFC is an instrument-heavy center (space science instruments, Earth science remote sensing), and the GSFC IRAD portfolio naturally concentrates in detectors, optics, and sensing systems.

Better TX coverage than CIF. Only 2.3% missing TX (the (none) group would appear if present — its absence suggests near-complete coverage). Reliable for TX-filtered searches, but interpret TX08 dominance as GSFC bias, not a global IRAD trait.

Outcome Tracking

Infused_To representation: IRAD programs (labeled by center acronym in search results) contributed approximately 13/110 = 11.8% of sampled Infused_To projects — notably MSFC IRAD (active project #184347), JPL 3, LaRC 2, SSC 2, GRC 2, JSC 2, GSFC 1, ARC 1.

Transitioned_To representation: 1/100 sampled (MSFC IRAD, project #184347, Active, TRL 3). CIF, not IRAD, dominates Transitioned_To.

The contrast between CIF (dominates Transitioned_To) and IRAD (modest presence in both outcome types) may reflect real programmatic differences, data coverage differences, or both.

Query basis: techport_find_projects(outcome_path="Infused_To/Transitioned_To", ...) | 2026-04-05

Notable Characteristics

  • Near-zero active projects: Only 8 active IRAD projects in TechPort. This is consistent with IRAD not being required to use TechPort for current work — the historical record exists but new projects aren't being entered.
  • GSFC TechPort adoption: GSFC apparently made systematic TechPort adoption for IRAD, creating a skewed but self-consistent dataset for GSFC IRAD specifically.
  • Relationship to CIF: CIF (STMD) and IRAD (MSD) are parallel programs — both are center discretionary funds. CIF is more outcome-tracked (Transitioned_To dominance). IRAD appears to have weaker outcome linkage in TechPort.

Open Threads

  • What is in the A-IRAD (Agency IRAD) program? Separate count not retrieved.
  • Are the 8 active IRAD projects recent entries or historical artifacts?
  • GSFC IRAD (858 projects) represents a large, coherent dataset potentially worth a dedicated GSFC IRAD analysis in Phase 2.

Cross-references