Skip to content

TRL Distributions

Established: 2026-04-05 | Data snapshot: 2026-04-04

Summary

TRL distributions in TechPort vary dramatically by program and track expected program mandates. STRG (academic grants) clusters at TRL 2-3; FO (flight testing) clusters at TRL 6; NIAC (concept phase) clusters at TRL 2-3; GCD (mid-TRL development) spreads TRL 3-7. SBIR/STTR is broadest. Coverage quality also varies: STRG has the best TRL population (98.7%), GCD the worst among major programs (29.5% unset or meaningless TRL-0).

Portfolio-Wide Distribution

TRL Count % Notes
(none) 4,926 24.4% Not entered
4 4,158 20.6% Modal TRL
3 3,990 19.8%
5 2,213 11.0%
6 1,940 9.6%
2 1,369 6.8%
7 598 3.0%
0 399 2.0% Treat as "not set" (NASA scale starts at 1)
1 277 1.4%
8 188 0.9%
9 94 0.5%

Total missing TRL: ~26.4% (24.4% none + 2.0% TRL-0). High-TRL (7-9) projects are only 4.4% of portfolio.

Query: techport_portfolio_aggregate(group_by="trlCurrent")

TRL by Major Program

STRG (Space Technology Research Grants) — Best Coverage

TRL Count %
3 693 62.9%
2 266 24.1%
4 123 11.2%
(none) 14 1.3%
5 6 0.5%
  • Coverage: 98.7% (only 1.3% missing TRL)
  • Tight cluster at TRL 2-3 is appropriate: academic grants typically span one year, starting from early-stage research
  • Almost no TRL 4+: grants rarely advance past proof-of-concept level while still in STRG
  • Most reliable TRL data in TechPort

Query: techport_portfolio_aggregate(group_by="trlCurrent", filter={"program": "STRG"})

FO (Flight Opportunities) — High TRL Focus

TRL Count %
6 182 41.5%
4 91 20.7%
5 69 15.7%
7 36 8.2%
(none) 27 6.2%
8 13 3.0%
9 8 1.8%
3 8 1.8%
2 5 1.1%
  • Coverage: 93.8% (6.2% missing)
  • Modal TRL 6 fits FO mandate: flight testing technologies in relevant environments to bring them from TRL 4-5 to TRL 6-7
  • High TRL tail (7-9): 13% — some projects are pushing into operational readiness
  • Second-best TRL data quality among major programs

Query: techport_portfolio_aggregate(group_by="trlCurrent", filter={"program": "FO"})

NIAC (NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts) — Concept Phase

TRL Count %
3 135 41.3%
2 117 35.8%
(none) 47 14.4%
1 14 4.3%
4 11 3.4%
5 2 0.6%
0 1 0.3%
  • Coverage: 85.6% (14.7% truly missing, 0.3% TRL-0)
  • TRL 2-3 dominates (77.1%) — exactly right for Phase I/II concept studies
  • TRL 4+ (4%) represents Phase II projects that reached proof-of-concept hardware
  • High data quality for what's there; missing 14-15% is unexplained

Query: techport_portfolio_aggregate(group_by="trlCurrent", filter={"program": "NIAC"})

SBIR/STTR — Broad but Patchy

TRL Count %
(none) 3,767 30.7%
4 2,801 22.8%
3 1,719 14.0%
5 1,469 12.0%
6 1,278 10.4%
7 399 3.3%
0 318 2.6%
2 299 2.4%
8 128 1.0%
1 48 0.4%
9 46 0.4%
  • Coverage: 66.7% (30.7% none + 2.6% TRL-0 = 33.3% missing)
  • Modal TRL 4 — typical for Phase II completions advancing from concept to prototype
  • Broad spread TRL 2-8 reflects the diversity of SBIR Phase I (6-month feasibility) to Phase II (2-year development)
  • High TRL (7-9): 4.7% — some SBIR projects reach operational readiness
  • 33% missing TRL is the major gap — unclear if this is systematic (older records) or random

Query: techport_portfolio_aggregate(group_by="trlCurrent", filter={"program": "SBIR/STTR"})

GCD (Game Changing Development) — Poorest Quality

TRL Count %
5 91 19.4%
6 86 18.4%
0 77 16.5%
4 74 15.8%
(none) 61 13.0%
3 48 10.3%
7 14 3.0%
2 8 1.7%
9 5 1.1%
8 3 0.6%
1 1 0.2%
  • Effective coverage: ~55% (13.0% none + 16.5% TRL-0 = 29.5% missing/meaningless)
  • Among projects with real TRL: centered on TRL 5-6, appropriate for GCD's mid-TRL development mandate
  • TRL-0 (16.5%) is the highest of any major program — likely batch-entered records with no TRL data
  • TRL 9 (5 projects): unusually high for a development program — may reflect projects that matured to operational systems
  • Data quality concern: Large cohort of recently-added records (IDs 183xxx-184xxx, all updated 2026-03-23) have thin data including TRL-0

Query: techport_portfolio_aggregate(group_by="trlCurrent", filter={"program": "GCD"})

Key Findings

TRL data quality correlates with program management style

Programs with standardized reporting requirements (STRG = academic grants with structured reporting, FO = flight test milestones) have better TRL coverage. Programs with more flexible project structures (SBIR Phase I diversity, GCD task diversity) have more gaps.

The TRL 3-4 bulge is real

Portfolio-wide, TRL 3-4 accounts for 40.4% of projects. This reflects the NASA portfolio's concentration in proof-of-concept through prototype phases. Very few projects in TechPort are near operational readiness (TRL 7-9 = 4.4%).

TRL-0 should be treated as missing

399 projects (2.0%) have trlCurrent=0. The NASA TRL scale starts at 1 (basic principles observed). TRL-0 entries are data gaps, not a legitimate TRL. This is confirmed by the tool documentation.

TRL rarely changes after Phase I SBIR

SBIR Phase I projects (6 months) almost always show trlBegin = trlEnd at the same TRL. Phase II projects typically show +1 advancement (e.g., TRL 3→4 or 4→5).

Counter-Queries

  • To falsify "STRG clusters at TRL 3": Query STRG active projects and check TRL — done, confirms TRL 2 (mostly) for active grants
  • To falsify "GCD has worst TRL coverage": Check other programs like IRAD — not yet checked

Confidence

  • Overall distribution: confirmed (direct aggregate query, N=20,152)
  • Program-specific distributions: confirmed (direct aggregate queries per program)
  • "TRL-0 = missing" interpretation: confirmed (per tool documentation, supported by context)

Open Threads

  • IRAD centers: TRL distributions not yet checked — expect similar to GCD (internal projects, mixed reporting)
  • TRL progression rates: how many SBIR projects advance TRL by exactly 1 vs more? (would need sampling)
  • Does TRL correlate with project age/recency?