Space Life-Support Tech Transfer: TRL Gate Pipeline (2D)

Terrestrial Market

Pipeline Controls

R&D funding rate 10 $M/yr

Gate rigor (validation strictness) 10

Simulation speed 1.0×

Live Readouts

Avg. TRL (active)

1.0

Gate pass P

Cumulative R&D spend

$0.0M

Spun-off value (NPV)

$0.0M

How it works

Every space technology destined for terrestrial spinoff climbs nine Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 1 "basic principles" → TRL 9 "flight proven, ready to license"). At each of the 8 gates between levels, the probability of passing is modelled as a logistic function of the funding-to-rigor ratio:

P(pass) = 1 / (1 + e^(-k · (F/R − 1)))
  F = R&D funding rate ($M/yr)
  R = gate rigor (validation strictness)
  k = 1.4  (gate sharpness constant)

A module that fails a gate absorbs the sunk cost of that attempt and drops back one TRL (a redesign cycle) rather than vanishing — this mirrors how real ECLSS hardware (e.g. ISS water-recovery distillation units) gets re-qualified after a failed test campaign. A module that clears TRL 9 "spins off": its net present value is the terrestrial market's licensing value minus the cumulative R&D sunk into it:

NPV_spinoff = MarketValue(selected market) − CumulativeCost(module)

R&D funding rate — raises F, raising every gate-pass probability and pipeline throughput.
Gate rigor — raises R; higher rigor lowers pass probability but (in reality) the ones that do pass are more flight-reliable.
Terrestrial market — each of the three markets pays a different licensing value for the same underlying hardware class, so the same funding strategy can be NPV-positive for one and negative for another.

The strip chart at the bottom of the lane view traces average active TRL over time, so you can see how a funding or rigor change reshapes the whole pipeline's climb rate rather than just one module's fate.

Module climbing gates Gate passed Gate failed (setback)

Space Life-Support Technology Transfer: TRL Gate Pipeline (2D)