Skip to content

Document Availability by Program

Last updated: 2026-04-05

Summary

Document availability varies dramatically by program and is not aggregable via TechPort API — must be sampled manually. NIAC is the only program with near-universal document coverage. GCD is nearly zero due to batch record dominance. STRG shows high count but mostly boilerplate. For Phase 2 substance reading, NIAC and SBIR/STTR are the best targets; FO is usable for older cohorts.

Methodology

Document availability is measured by libraryItemCount field returned from techport_get_project batch calls (n=20 per program). A project "has documents" if libraryItemCount > 0 in the batch response (field is omitted if zero). Cannot be directly aggregated via techport_portfolio_aggregate — no such filter field exists.

Caveat: Batch mode returns libraryItemCount but not item types. To distinguish substantive documents (PDFs, journal articles) from boilerplate (project website link + photo), full project records must be inspected individually.

Availability by Program

Program Completed Sample n Items > 0 Est. Rate Item Quality
NIAC 314 20 20/20 ~100% NIAC Phase reports (1-6 items); substantive
SBIR/STTR 12,139 20 7/20 ~35% Mixed; closeout reports and patents
FO 357 20 3/20 ~15% Cohort effect (see below)
GCD 394 20 1/20 ~5% Dominated by batch records; see GCD page
STRG 907 20 18/20 ~90% count, ~5-30% substantive Old cohort boilerplate; newer cohort has journal DOIs

Queries used: techport_get_project(project_ids=[...], fields=["libraryItemCount", ...]) | 2026-04-05

Program Detail

NIAC

  • Best coverage in TechPort. Every sampled completed project has library items.
  • Item counts: 1-6 per project (median ~2).
  • Types: NIAC Phase I/II final study reports, briefing decks, concept art. These are the primary substantive documents in TechPort.
  • Phase 2 priority: NIAC documents are the richest source of technology substance in TechPort. 327 total projects × ~95% doc coverage = ~310 documentable projects.

SBIR/STTR

  • ~35% document coverage in the sample (7/20).
  • Item types vary: some have technical closeout reports, some have journal articles, some have patents.
  • At 12,139 completed projects × 35% ≈ ~4,250 projects with documents.
  • Phase 2 priority: High volume compensates for moderate rate. SBIR closeout reports are often the only place technology performance data lives.

FO (Flight Opportunities)

  • Cohort effect: Only older projects (91xxx, 106xxx range, ~2015-2020) show documents. Newer projects (145xxx, 155xxx, 158xxx, ~2021-present) universally show zero items in the batch.
  • Of the 3 with docs: 106616 (6 items, cryogenic coating dev), 91427 (1 item, avionics), 91329 (2 items, satcomm).
  • Hypothesis: FO changed document filing practices post-2020, or newer projects haven't been processed into the library yet. Confidence: speculative (needs investigation of a few newer FO full records).
  • Phase 2 priority: Older FO cohort (pre-2021) is useful; recent cohort probably not.

GCD

  • Effectively zero document availability due to batch records.
  • In the sample of 20 most-recent completed GCD projects: 19 were 183xxx-184xxx batch records with 0 items. Only exception: CubeRover (116386, pre-batch) with 3 items.
  • The older GCD portfolio (pre-183xxx) likely has better coverage — CubeRover, CubeRover-adjacent projects, GCD flagship projects. Needs a separate sample of older GCD IDs.
  • Phase 2 priority: Low overall. If investigating GCD tech substance, filter to pre-batch projects (< 183000).

STRG

  • Near-universal coverage (18/20) by count.
  • Boilerplate problem: Old STRG cohort (4000-range, ~2011-2015) has exactly 2 library items per project = "Project Website" (generic NASA STRG landing page) + 1 project photo. Neither is substantive for technology investigation.
  • Later STRG cohort (88xxx-118xxx, ~2016-2019): some have actual journal article DOI links in addition to or instead of boilerplate.
  • How to identify substantive STRG docs: Single project records show item types. DOI links = substantive; "Project Website" + image = boilerplate.
  • Phase 2 priority: Moderate. Use get_project for specific projects of interest to check for journal links. Don't assume "2 library items" = useful content for old cohort.

Implications for Phase 2

The document reading strategy for Phase 2 should prioritize:

  1. NIAC — highest density of readable technical content. 310+ projects with Phase I/II reports covering speculative but fully-described technology concepts.
  2. SBIR/STTR closeout reports — large volume (~4,250 projects), but need to filter for high-TRL or interesting technology areas since most are routine.
  3. FO flight test reports (older cohort) — actual flight test data from suborbital/parabolic campaigns. High technical specificity.
  4. GCD pre-batch projects — flagship GCD programs (CubeRover, EDL instrumentation, etc.) have detailed reports.

Phase 2 document reading plan: Start with NIAC (concentrated, high-quality), then sample SBIR closeout reports by technology area, then targeted FO/GCD projects by topic.

Open Threads

  • Why do new FO projects (145xxx+) have zero library items? Is this a pipeline delay or a policy change?
  • What's the actual document type breakdown for STRG's "2-item" projects? A single full record check confirms boilerplate, but at what STRG cohort year does this shift to journal articles?
  • CIF and IRAD document availability: not sampled. Given CIF's 26.7% missing TX rate, doc availability may also be poor.

Cross-references