TX Classification Sunburst

NASA TechPort TX Classification Analysis

Human-Assigned vs. ML-Predicted Technology Taxonomy

20,150 projects | public techport.nasa.gov API | 100% portfolio coverage | TREX ML classifier
March 2026

This analysis was generated using Claude (Anthropic) with live access to NASA's public TechPort database via an MCP server.
All data comes from the public TechPort REST API (techport.nasa.gov) and public web sources — no internal or restricted NASA data was used.

The TechPort MCP server is open-source and accessible at:
nasatechport.alexandervandijk.com/mcp
github.com/tobedetermined/techport-mcp

Alexander van Dijk · agent-techport@alexandervandijk.xyz
1

Context & Objective

The Question

NASA's Technology Taxonomy (TX) is one of the key ways to slice the ~20,000-project TechPort portfolio by technology area. But TX assignment is a judgment call — set by the submitting NASA technologist. The depth and consistency of TX submissions varies across programs, from no TX at all to full 3-level codes. Before using it for portfolio analysis, we need to know: is this field consistent, trustworthy, and useful?

What We Found in the API

TechPort provides a human-assigned TX code for each project — the standard classification used in portfolio reviews and gap analyses.

While exploring the API, we discovered TechPort also exposes TREX — NASA's own ML taxonomy classifier. TREX reads a project's title and description and predicts the most appropriate TX code based purely on technology content, with no knowledge of program context.

Its existence means every project has a potential second opinion on its TX classification — one generated by an ML model rather than human judgment.

What We Did

2

The NASA Technology Taxonomy (TX)

NASA's Space Technology taxonomy organizes all technology development into 17 top-level areas. Revised in 2024, the TX taxonomy replaced the earlier TA (Technology Area) system. TX codes are the standard classification used in TechPort for portfolio tracking, gap analysis, and investment planning.

CodeTechnology Area
TX01Propulsion Systems
TX02Flight Computing & Avionics
TX03Power & Energy Storage
TX04Robotics & Autonomous Systems
TX05Communications & Navigation
TX06Human Health & Life Support
TX07Exploration & In-Situ Resource Utilization
TX08Sensors & Instruments
TX09Entry, Descent & Landing
CodeTechnology Area
TX10Autonomous Systems
TX11Software & Computing
TX12Materials & Structures
TX13Ground & Launch Systems
TX14Thermal Management
TX15Aeronautics
TX16Air Traffic Management
TX17Guidance, Navigation & Control

Note: The prior "TA" (Technology Area) numbering is no longer used. TX was adopted in 2024 with restructured areas and updated sub-classifications.
Reference: https://www.nasa.gov/otps/2024-nasa-technology-taxonomy/

3

Classification: Two Valid Lenses

Human Classification

  • Assigned by NASA technologists and/or PI
  • Best judgment by the person close to the work
  • Varies in depth: some use TX12, others TX12.4.1
  • 816 projects (4.0%) left unclassified entirely

ML Classification (TREX)

  • Analyzes project title + description text
  • Classifies based on ML trained model
  • Always returns 3-level depth (e.g., TX08.1.5)
  • Deterministic: same input = same output
  • 100% coverage — classifies every project
🚀 Both attempt to classify the same thing — the project's technology. The difference is method: human judgment vs. ML model. Where they disagree, the project potentially sits at a taxonomy boundary.
4

The Core Finding

76.3%
Top-level area agreement
(human TX vs ML TX)
23.7%
Top-level area mismatch
816
No human TX at all (4.0%)

Of 19,334 projects with a human-assigned TX (20,150 − 816), the ML agrees on the top-level technology area (e.g., both say TX08) for 76.3%. For 23.7%, the ML sees a different area entirely.

What "mismatch" means in practice: a project classified under one technology area by the human may not show up in portfolio reviews for the area the ML thinks it belongs to. For example, a LiDAR sensor project filed under TX04 (Robotics) won't appear in a TX08 (Sensors) portfolio review — even though the core technology is a sensor.

The disagreements are not random — they follow consistent patterns by technology area and by program, which makes them analyzable.

🚀 76% agreement means TX carries real signal. The 24% mismatch is systematic, not random — which makes it interpretable and correctable.
5

TX08 (Sensors) Is the Taxonomy's Gravity Well

Under ML classification, TX08 gains 987 net projects — more than any other area. The ML sees sensor technology embedded in health monitors, robotic perception, comms hardware, and thermal sensors.

FromTo TX08CountWhat's happening
TX06 (Health)TX08301Biomedical sensors classified by tech identity
TX12 (Materials)TX08136Materials characterization = sensor work
TX05 (Comms)TX08116Comm receivers are sensor technology
TX11 (Software)TX08113Sensor data processing systems
TX14 (Thermal)TX0899Thermal sensors reclassified
TX02 (Computing)TX0893Sensor signal processing
TX04 (Robotics)TX0869Perception sensors for robots
TX09 (EDL)TX0856Navigation/landing sensors
TX07 (Exploration)TX0854In-situ measurement instruments
🚀 A TX08 portfolio review based on human assignments misses ~1,000 relevant projects.
6

Mismatch Rate by Technology Area

TX08 - Sensors
9.4%
TX01 - Propulsion
13.9%
TX03 - Power
15.4%
TX15 - Aeronautics
16.1%
TX09 - EDL
22.7%
TX12 - Materials
24.7%
TX04 - Robotics
27.9%
TX11 - Software
31.6%
TX06 - Human Health
32.0%
TX10 - Autonomous
34.9%
TX14 - Thermal
41.5%
TX13 - Ground
43.3%
TX02 - Computing
56.9%
TX16 - Air Traffic
77.3%

Mismatch %

7

Classification Quality by Program

🚀 Science programs classify best. Center innovation funds classify worst.
ProgramProjectsMatch %Mismatch %Gran. Gap %Null TX
SAT9194.5%5.5%0.0%0
IIP9492.6%7.4%1.1%0
APRA24686.6%13.4%0.0%0
HRP18484.7%15.3%0.0%8
STRG1,10281.9%18.1%0.0%0
SBIR/STTR12,27278.0%22.0%1.5%154
FO43074.8%25.2%0.0%10
GCD46874.2%25.8%2.5%104
NIAC32761.6%38.4%5.4%12
EPSCoR34656.8%43.2%0.0%1
AFRC CIF13940.2%59.8%40.2%37

Science programs (SAT, IIP, APRA): well-defined tech scopes → clean classifications

FO at 74.8% match — mid-range, consistent with its broad technology scope

AFRC CIF: 59.8% mismatch + 40.2% granularity gap — most projects mis- or under-classified

8

Classification Quality by Program

94%
SAT
93%
IIP
13%
87%
APRA
15%
85%
HRP
18%
82%
STRG
22%
78%
SBIR/
STTR
25%
75%
FO
26%
74%
GCD
38%
62%
NIAC
43%
57%
EPSCoR
60%
40%
AFRC
CIF
Portfolio avg. 76.3%
Match % Mismatch %
9

TX Distribution: Major STMD Programs (Human vs. ML)

How each program's technology profile shifts under ML classification. X-axis: TX01–TX17.

SBIR/STTR (12,272)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

GCD (468)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

STRG (1,102)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

FO (430)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Human ML
10

TX Distribution: High-Mismatch Programs

Programs with the highest mismatch rates show the most dramatic shifts. X-axis: TX01–TX17.

NIAC (327, 37% mismatch)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

EPSCoR (346, 43% mismatch)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

AFRC CIF (139, 44% mismatch)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

HRP (184, 15% mismatch)

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

EPSCoR: 70 projects shift TX08→TX11 (human says Sensors, ML says Software/Data Science). AFRC CIF: TX14 nearly disappears, absorbed by TX15 and TX08.

11

Dual View: How the Portfolio Shifts Under ML Classification

Some areas grow significantly, others shrink — revealing where technology is hidden.

AreaHuman-AssignedML-PredictedDeltaShift
TX08 - Sensors4,1275,114+987Absorbs from all areas
TX01 - Propulsion1,8492,170+321Thermal + ATM projects
TX15 - Aeronautics728932+204ATM & flight systems
TX03 - Power1,1351,248+113Fuel cells from other areas
TX07 - Exploration849954+105ISRU & surface ops
TX06 - Health2,3382,072-266Sensors & materials out
TX14 - Thermal981718-263To propulsion & sensors
TX02 - Computing534286-248To sensors & software
TX16 - Air Traffic18166-115To propulsion & aero
TX13 - Ground/Launch386292-94To materials & propulsion
12

Dual View: Human vs. ML Portfolio Distribution

TX01
Propulsion
TX02
Computing
TX03
Power
TX04
Robotics
TX05
Comms
TX06
Health
TX07
Exploration
TX08
Sensors
TX09
EDL
TX10
Autonomous
TX11
Software
TX12
Materials
TX13
Ground
TX14
Thermal
TX15
Aero
TX16
ATM
TX17
GN&C
Human-Assigned ML-Predicted
13

The Granularity Gap: 613 Under-Specified Projects

3.2% of projects are assigned a top-level TX code only (e.g., 'TX12') with no sub-area. The ML provides the missing sub-classification for every one.

What the ML fills in:

Human: TX12 (Materials)

ML: TX12.4.1 (Manufacturing Processes)

Human: TX08 (Sensors)

ML: TX08.1.5 (Lasers)

Human: TX06 (Human Health)

ML: TX06.3.1 (Medical Diagnosis)

Worst granularity gap programs:

ProgramCountGap Rate
MEP1758.6%
AOSP654.5%
AFRC CIF4140.2%
SCaN1135.5%
MSFC CIF4930.1%
MSFC IRAD4429.3%
MCO3125.4%
14

Flight Opportunities

TX Deep Dive

15

Flight Opportunities: TX Deep Dive

FO's 24.7% mismatch rate matches the portfolio average — but the patterns are FO-specific.

430
FO projects
24.7%
Top-level mismatch
(human vs ML TX)
75.3%
Top-level agreement
10
No human TX provided

Top Reclassification Flows in FO

Human TXML TXCountPattern
TX04 (Robotics)TX07 (Exploration)9Lunar tools filed under manipulation → ISRU
TX06 (Health)TX08 (Sensors)5Biomedical instruments → sensor tech
TX09 (EDL)TX08 (Sensors)5Landing sensors → sensor/laser tech
TX05 (Comms)TX08 (Sensors)5Receivers and optical systems → sensors
TX04 (Robotics)TX08 (Sensors)4Perception hardware → sensor tech
TX14 (Thermal)TX01 (Propulsion)3Cryo thermal mgmt → propulsion systems
🚀 Dominant FO pattern: lunar surface tools filed under Robotics (TX04) are reclassified to ISRU (TX07). And sensor technology is undercounted, just like portfolio-wide.

Top FO areas (human): TX06 (81), TX01 (61), TX08 (57), TX09 (42)   |   Top FO areas (ML): TX06 (76), TX08 (69), TX01 (68), TX07 (37)

16

FO: Human vs. ML Technology Area Distribution

61
68
TX01
Propulsion
10
6
TX02
Computing
15
12
TX03
Power
31
19
TX04
Robotics
18
13
TX05
Comms
81
76
TX06
Health
19
37
TX07
Exploration
57
69
TX08
Sensors
42
35
TX09
EDL
TX10
Autonomous
7
6
TX11
Software
28
31
TX12
Materials
3
1
TX13
Ground
21
23
TX14
Thermal
11
12
TX15
Aero
6
TX16
ATM
17
TX17
GN&C
Human-Assigned ML-Predicted

Notable shifts: TX08 (Sensors) gains 12, TX07 (Exploration/ISRU) gains 18, TX04 (Robotics) loses 12

17

FO Examples: Where Human and ML Disagree

Specific FO projects where the classification lens matters:

ProjectHuman TXML TXWhat's happening
LiDAR Hazard Detection (Astrobotic) TX09.4 Vehicle Systems TX08.1.5 Lasers Filed under EDL — but the tech is a laser sensor
Psionic Nav Doppler LiDAR TX09.5 Flight Mech & GN&C TX08.1.5 Lasers Same pattern — precision nav LiDAR = sensor tech
ISRU Pilot Excavator Bucket Drum (UCF) TX04.3.4 Sample Handling TX07.1.1 Resource Exploration Robotic manipulation tool, but the purpose is resource extraction
Dust In-situ Manipulation DIMS (UCF) TX06.1.1 Atmosphere Revit. TX07.2.5 Dust Mitigation Life support classification, but it's lunar dust management
Atmospheric Obs on Commercial RLVs (APL) TX05.2.3 Atmospheric Char. TX08.3.4 Environment Sensors Filed under Comms — ML sees the sensors, not the platform
Two-Phase Pumped Loop (Creare) TX14.2.2 Heat Transport TX01.1.1 Propulsion Sys. Thermal management tech, ML recognizes propulsion application
In each case, both are defensible — but the mismatch means one community misses the project.
18

What This Means for FO Portfolio Reviews

Hidden FO Connections

  • ~106 FO projects (25%) are classified differently by the ML — these sit at taxonomy boundaries
  • FO's LiDAR and navigation sensor work is filed under EDL (TX09) but is relevant to the Sensors (TX08) community
  • Lunar surface tool projects are filed under Robotics (TX04) but are doing ISRU (TX07) work
  • FO biomedical projects are filed under Health (TX06) but involve sensor hardware (TX08)

Practical Implications

  • When reviewing FO's technology portfolio, pull projects by both human TX and ML TX to get the full picture
  • FO projects may be relevant to technology communities beyond the primary TX — especially Sensors (TX08) and ISRU (TX07)
  • FO's 74.8% match rate is solid for a program with broad technology scope — better than NIAC (62%), EPSCoR (57%), and all CIFs

10 FO Projects With No Human TX (ML-predicted TX shown):

IDTitleML TX
12204Physics of Regolith Impacts in Microgravity ExperimentTX07.2.5
94200Additively Manufactured Ceramic Rocket Engine ComponentsTX12.4.1
94199Carbon Nanotube Infused Launch Vehicle StructuresTX12.1.1
94194Enhancement of Nanosat Launch Vehicle Booster Main EngineTX01.1.3
94192LauncherOne Collaborative OpportunityTX14.1.2
94204LauncherOne Small Launch Vehicle Propulsion AdvancementTX01.1.3
94203Propulsion System and Second Stage Structural LoadsTX01.1.3
94193Spyder: A Dedicated CubeSat LauncherTX01.1.5
94196Spyder: Critical Technology Demonstration TestsTX17.5.1
94191Technology Maturation for Air Launched Liquid RocketTX15.1.3
19

Which TX Should You Trust?

The 76% agreement means most of the portfolio is unambiguous. The question is what to do about the 24% where they disagree.

Use ML TX for...

  • "What technology does NASA have in area X?"
  • Portfolio completeness — 100% coverage, full 3-level depth, no gaps
  • Cross-cutting technology discovery — finds hidden sensor projects, ISRU work, etc.
  • Capability gap mapping — matches technology identity to shortfalls

Use Human TX for...

  • "Which program funded this and why?"
  • Organizational accountability — who claimed the work
  • Solicitation tracing — maps back to SBIR subtopics, BAAs
  • Program-level portfolio reviews within a known scope

Use Both for...

  • Finding hidden connections — the 4,587 mismatches are taxonomy boundary projects
  • Investment analysis — where program intent diverges from technology reality
  • Dual-tagging as standard practice for future submissions

The Bottom Line

For technology portfolio analysis — gap mapping, capability assessments, investment prioritization — the ML classification is the more reliable primary lens. It has no coverage gaps, no granularity gaps, and classifies by what the technology IS rather than who funded it. The human TX remains essential context for understanding organizational intent and funding flows.

🚀 Yes, TX is useful for portfolio analysis — especially with dual classification.
20
Full Portfolio TX Sunburst — 20,150 projects, 350 TX codes 21
TX01 Propulsion Systems
TX02 Flight Computing & Avionics
TX03 Aerospace Power & Energy Storage
TX04 Robotic Systems
TX05 Communications, Navigation & OD
TX06 Human Health, Life Support & Habitation
TX07 Exploration Destination Systems
TX08 Sensors & Instruments
TX09 Entry, Descent & Landing
TX10 Autonomous Systems
TX11 Software, Modeling & Simulation
TX12 Materials, Structures & Manufacturing
TX13 Ground, Test & Surface Systems
TX14 Thermal Management Systems
TX15 Flight Vehicle Systems
TX16 Air Traffic Management & Range Tracking
TX17 Guidance, Navigation & Control
FO TX Sunburst — 430 projects, 95 TX codes 22
TX01 Propulsion Systems
TX02 Flight Computing & Avionics
TX03 Aerospace Power & Energy Storage
TX04 Robotic Systems
TX05 Communications, Navigation & OD
TX06 Human Health, Life Support & Habitation
TX07 Exploration Destination Systems
TX08 Sensors & Instruments
TX09 Entry, Descent & Landing
TX10 Autonomous Systems
TX11 Software, Modeling & Simulation
TX12 Materials, Structures & Manufacturing
TX13 Ground, Test & Surface Systems
TX14 Thermal Management Systems
TX15 Flight Vehicle Systems
TX16 Air Traffic Management & Range Tracking
TX17 Guidance, Navigation & Control

Backup: Full TX Taxonomy (TX01–TX02)

TX01: Propulsion Systems (2,178)
TX01.1 Chemical Space Propulsion (760)
  • TX01.1.1 Liquid Rocket Engines (162)
  • TX01.1.2 Solid Rocket Motors (120)
  • TX01.1.3 Hybrid Propulsion (341)
  • TX01.1.4 Cold/Warm Gas Systems (32)
  • TX01.1.5 Monopropellant Systems (77)
  • TX01.1.6 Propellant Storage (11)
  • TX01.1.7 Pressure & Feed Systems (14)
  • TX01.1.8 Combustion Stability (3)
TX01.2 Electric Space Propulsion (565)
  • TX01.2.1 Ion/Gridded Thrusters (137)
  • TX01.2.2 Hall Thrusters (400)
  • TX01.2.3 Pulsed Plasma Thrusters (25)
  • TX01.2.4 Electrospray (3)
TX01.3 Aero Propulsion (568)
  • TX01.3.1 Air-Breathing Propulsion (344)
  • TX01.3.2 Turbomachinery (24)
  • TX01.3.4 Combustors & Nozzles (45)
  • TX01.3.5 Propulsion Control (4)
  • TX01.3.6 Inlets (4)
  • TX01.3.8 Propellant Mgmt (24)
  • TX01.3.9 Electric Propulsion Components (83)
  • TX01.3.10 Nuclear Propulsion (5)
  • TX01.3.11 Green Propellants (31)
  • TX01.3.12 Propulsion Testing (4)
TX01.4 Advanced Propulsion (285)
  • TX01.4.1 Nuclear Thermal (66)
  • TX01.4.2 Solar Sail (11)
  • TX01.4.3 Solar Electric (134)
  • TX01.4.4 Laser/Beam Propulsion (66)
  • TX01.4.7 Tethers (8)
TX02: Flight Computing & Avionics (285)
TX02.1 Avionics Component Technologies (200)
  • TX02.1.1 Processors (20)
  • TX02.1.2 Memory (6)
  • TX02.1.3 FPGAs (36)
  • TX02.1.4 Data Buses (12)
  • TX02.1.5 Single-Board Computers (47)
  • TX02.1.6 Rad-Hard Electronics (48)
  • TX02.1.7 Power Electronics (3)
  • TX02.1.8 Analog/Mixed-Signal (28)
TX02.2 Avionics Systems & Subsystems (64)
  • TX02.2.1 Integrated Avionics (6)
  • TX02.2.2 Flight Software (26)
  • TX02.2.4 Comm Hardware (5)
  • TX02.2.5 CDH (8)
  • TX02.2.6 Instrumentation (8)
  • TX02.2.7 Displays & Controls (4)
  • TX02.2.8 Timing Systems (7)
TX02.3 Avionics Tools, Models & Analyses (21)
  • TX02.3.1 Design Tools (7)
  • TX02.3.2 V&V (10)
  • TX02.3.4 Modeling (4)

ML-predicted TX classifications across 20,150 projects. Counts show projects per sub-area. NASA TechPort taxonomy (17 L1, 94 L2, 384 L3 nodes).

23

Backup: Full TX Taxonomy (TX03–TX04)

TX03: Aerospace Power & Energy Storage (1,248)
TX03.1 Power Generation & Conversion (545)
  • TX03.1.1 Photovoltaic Electrical Power (337)
  • TX03.1.2 Heat Sources (32)
  • TX03.1.3 Static Energy Conversion (11)
  • TX03.1.4 Dynamic Energy Conversion (155)
  • TX03.1.6 Other Advanced Concepts (10)
TX03.2 Energy Storage (402)
  • TX03.2.1 Electrochemical: Batteries (257)
  • TX03.2.2 Electrochemical: Fuel Cells (108)
  • TX03.2.3 Advanced Energy Storage (37)
TX03.3 Power Mgmt & Distribution (301)
  • TX03.3.1 Management and Control (103)
  • TX03.3.2 Distribution and Transmission (26)
  • TX03.3.3 Electrical Power Conversion (139)
  • TX03.3.4 Advanced Electronic Parts (33)
TX04: Robotic Systems (801)
TX04.1 Sensing & Perception (60)
  • TX04.1.1 Sensing for Robotic Systems (11)
  • TX04.1.2 State Estimation (23)
  • TX04.1.3 Onboard Mapping (19)
  • TX04.1.4 Object/Event Recognition (7)
TX04.2 Mobility (347)
  • TX04.2.1 Below-Surface Mobility (22)
  • TX04.2.2 Above-Surface Mobility (19)
  • TX04.2.3 Small-Body/Microgravity (13)
  • TX04.2.4 Surface Mobility (226)
  • TX04.2.5 Robot Navigation (10)
  • TX04.2.6 Collaborative Mobility (57)
TX04.3 Manipulation (179)
  • TX04.3.1 Dexterous Manipulation (52)
  • TX04.3.2 Grappling (45)
  • TX04.3.3 Contact Dynamics (8)
  • TX04.3.4 Sample Acquisition (74)
TX04.4 Human-Robot Interaction (83)
  • TX04.4.1 Multimodal Interaction (67)
  • TX04.4.2 Distributed Collaboration (8)
  • TX04.4.3 Remote Interaction (8)
TX04.5 AR&D (88)
  • TX04.5.1 Relative Nav Sensors (22)
  • TX04.5.2 R&D Algorithms (18)
  • TX04.5.3 RPOC Systems (5)
  • TX04.5.5 Capture Mechanisms (27)
  • TX04.5.6 Robot Control for Capture (8)
  • TX04.5.7 RPOC Modeling & Testing (8)
TX04.6 System Integration (44)
  • TX04.6.1 Modularity & Interfaces (18)
  • TX04.6.2 Modeling & Simulation (16)
  • TX04.6.3 Robot Software (10)

ML-predicted TX classifications across 20,150 projects. Counts show projects per sub-area. NASA TechPort taxonomy (17 L1, 94 L2, 384 L3 nodes).

24

Backup: Full TX Taxonomy (TX05–TX06)

TX05: Comms, Nav & Orbital Debris (913)
TX05.1 Optical Comms (280)
  • TX05.1.1 Free-Space Optical (51)
  • TX05.1.3 Atmospheric Optical (33)
  • TX05.1.4 Optical Terminals (36)
  • TX05.1.6 Optical Ground Stations (153)
  • TX05.1.7 Quantum Comms (7)
TX05.2 RF Comms (295)
  • TX05.2.1 Proximity RF (42)
  • TX05.2.2 Near-Earth RF (69)
  • TX05.2.4 Deep-Space RF (38)
  • TX05.2.6 RF Ground Systems (134)
  • TX05.2.7 Cognitive/Adaptive RF (12)
TX05.3 Internetworking (28)
  • TX05.3.1 Delay-Tolerant Networking (15)
  • TX05.3.3 Space Internet (13)
TX05.4 PNT (95)
  • TX05.4.1 Timekeeping (32)
  • TX05.4.2 Navigation Systems (63)
TX05.5 Revolutionary Concepts (192)
  • TX05.5.1 X-Ray Nav (72)
  • TX05.5.2 Quantum Sensing (108)
  • TX05.5.3 Debris Tracking (12)
TX05.6 Ground-Based OD (23)
  • TX05.6.1 Ground OD Systems (23)
TX06: Human Health, Life Support & Habitation (2,045)
TX06.1 ECLSS & Habitation (557)
  • TX06.1.1 Air Revitalization (176)
  • TX06.1.2 Water Recovery (214)
  • TX06.1.3 Waste Management (86)
  • TX06.1.4 Habitation Systems (81)
TX06.2 EVA Systems (271)
  • TX06.2.1 EVA Suits (105)
  • TX06.2.2 EVA Mobility (100)
  • TX06.2.3 EVA Tools & Interfaces (66)
TX06.3 Human Health & Performance (674)
  • TX06.3.1 Medical Diagnostics (354)
  • TX06.3.2 Exercise & Countermeasures (69)
  • TX06.3.3 Behavioral Health (106)
  • TX06.3.4 Pharmacology (12)
  • TX06.3.5 Food & Nutrition (92)
  • TX06.3.6 Sleep & Circadian (25)
  • TX06.3.7 Microbiome (16)
TX06.4 Monitoring & Safety (257)
  • TX06.4.1 Fire Safety (179)
  • TX06.4.2 Contamination & Toxicology (57)
  • TX06.4.3 Acoustic Monitoring (21)
TX06.5 Radiation (209)
  • TX06.5.1 Space Radiation Monitoring (19)
  • TX06.5.2 SPE Forecasting (15)
  • TX06.5.3 Shielding (112)
  • TX06.5.4 Radiation Risk Models (34)
  • TX06.5.5 Biological Countermeasures (29)
TX06.6 Human Systems Integration (77)
  • TX06.6.1 HSI (77)

ML-predicted TX classifications across 20,150 projects. Counts show projects per sub-area. NASA TechPort taxonomy (17 L1, 94 L2, 384 L3 nodes).

25

Backup: Full TX Taxonomy (TX07–TX08)

TX07: Exploration Destination Systems (941)
TX07.1 ISRU (670)
  • TX07.1.1 O2/Propellant from Regolith (253)
  • TX07.1.2 Water Extraction (55)
  • TX07.1.3 Construction & Manufacturing (339)
  • TX07.1.4 Resource Characterization (23)
TX07.2 Surface Infrastructure (223)
  • TX07.2.1 Habitation (39)
  • TX07.2.2 Surface Power (19)
  • TX07.2.3 Surface Comms (29)
  • TX07.2.4 Dust Mitigation (23)
  • TX07.2.5 Surface Mobility Systems (113)
TX07.3 Mission Operations (48)
  • TX07.3.2 Mission Planning (24)
  • TX07.3.5 Surface EVA Operations (24)
TX08: Sensors & Instruments (5,114)
TX08.1 Remote Sensing Instruments (3,835)
  • TX08.1.1 Passive Optical/UV/Vis (1,467)
  • TX08.1.2 Active Optical/Lidar (67)
  • TX08.1.3 Passive Microwave/RF (457)
  • TX08.1.4 Active Microwave/Radar (680)
  • TX08.1.5 Passive IR (1,107)
  • TX08.1.6 X-Ray/Gamma (57)
TX08.2 Observatories (519)
  • TX08.2.1 Space Telescopes (452)
  • TX08.2.2 Ground Observatories (39)
  • TX08.2.3 Suborbital Platforms (28)
TX08.3 In Situ Instruments (760)
  • TX08.3.1 Chemical Analyzers (237)
  • TX08.3.2 Biological Detectors (82)
  • TX08.3.3 Particle Analyzers (14)
  • TX08.3.4 Geophysical Instruments (384)
  • TX08.3.5 Weather Instruments (10)
  • TX08.3.6 Radiation Detectors (33)

ML-predicted TX classifications across 20,150 projects. Counts show projects per sub-area. NASA TechPort taxonomy (17 L1, 94 L2, 384 L3 nodes).

26

Backup: Full TX Taxonomy (TX09–TX10)

TX09: Entry, Descent & Landing (801)
TX09.1 Aeroassist & Atmospheric Entry (197)
  • TX09.1.1 Rigid Aeroshells (116)
  • TX09.1.2 Deployable Aeroshells (58)
  • TX09.1.3 Inflatable Decelerators (23)
TX09.2 Descent (62)
  • TX09.2.1 Parachute Systems (55)
  • TX09.2.2 Other Descent (7)
TX09.3 Landing (45)
  • TX09.3.1 Landing Systems (45)
TX09.4 Vehicle Systems (497)
  • TX09.4.1 Flight Dynamics (4)
  • TX09.4.4 TPS Materials (28)
  • TX09.4.5 Thermal Protection Systems (349)
  • TX09.4.6 Structural Systems (58)
  • TX09.4.7 GN&C for EDL (58)
TX10: Autonomous Systems (448)
TX10.1 Situational & Self-Awareness (63)
  • TX10.1.1 Health Monitoring (20)
  • TX10.1.2 Fault Detection (24)
  • TX10.1.4 Environment Perception (19)
TX10.2 Reasoning & Acting (341)
  • TX10.2.1 Planning & Scheduling (7)
  • TX10.2.2 Activity Planning (46)
  • TX10.2.3 Contingency Management (23)
  • TX10.2.4 Autonomous GN&C (111)
  • TX10.2.5 Multi-Agent Coordination (57)
  • TX10.2.6 Onboard Autonomy (41)
  • TX10.2.7 V&V of Autonomous Systems (56)
TX10.3 Collaboration & Interaction (18)
  • TX10.3.3 Human-Machine Interaction (8)
  • TX10.3.4 Collaborative Decision (10)
TX10.4 Engineering & Integrity (26)
  • TX10.4.1 Software Assurance (26)

ML-predicted TX classifications across 20,150 projects. Counts show projects per sub-area. NASA TechPort taxonomy (17 L1, 94 L2, 384 L3 nodes).

27

Backup: Full TX Taxonomy (TX11–TX12)

TX11: Software, Modeling, Simulation & Info Processing (954)
TX11.1 Software Development (130)
  • TX11.1.1 Software Frameworks (23)
  • TX11.1.3 Reusable Components (11)
  • TX11.1.4 Process & Methods (21)
  • TX11.1.5 Software V&V (9)
  • TX11.1.7 Open-Source Tools (52)
  • TX11.1.8 DevOps (14)
TX11.2 Modeling (73)
  • TX11.2.1 Physics-Based Models (16)
  • TX11.2.2 Reduced-Order Models (31)
  • TX11.2.4 Data-Driven Models (26)
TX11.3 Simulation (82)
  • TX11.3.3 Integrated Simulation (67)
  • TX11.3.6 Digital Twin (15)
TX11.4 Info Processing & AI (629)
  • TX11.4.1 Data Analytics (25)
  • TX11.4.2 Machine Learning (212)
  • TX11.4.3 NLP (9)
  • TX11.4.4 Computer Vision (370)
  • TX11.4.5 Knowledge Representation (13)
TX11.5 Mission Architecture (40)
  • TX11.5.1 Architecture Frameworks (15)
  • TX11.5.2 Trade Studies (25)
TX12: Materials, Structures & Manufacturing (1,658)
TX12.1 Materials (752)
  • TX12.1.1 Lightweight Structures (354)
  • TX12.1.2 Ceramic & Refractory (77)
  • TX12.1.3 Metals & Alloys (19)
  • TX12.1.4 Adhesives & Sealants (18)
  • TX12.1.5 Polymers & Elastomers (92)
  • TX12.1.6 Composites (106)
  • TX12.1.7 Smart Materials (39)
  • TX12.1.8 Coatings (47)
TX12.2 Structures (149)
  • TX12.2.1 Deployable Structures (64)
  • TX12.2.3 Inflatable Structures (46)
  • TX12.2.5 Structural Health Monitoring (39)
TX12.3 Mechanical Systems (89)
  • TX12.3.1 Mechanisms (52)
  • TX12.3.4 Seals & Bearings (37)
TX12.4 Manufacturing (653)
  • TX12.4.1 Additive Manufacturing (529)
  • TX12.4.2 Joining (45)
  • TX12.4.5 In-Space Manufacturing (79)
TX12.5 Structural Dynamics (15)
  • TX12.5.2 Vibration & Acoustics (15)

ML-predicted TX classifications across 20,150 projects. Counts show projects per sub-area. NASA TechPort taxonomy (17 L1, 94 L2, 384 L3 nodes).

28

Backup: Full TX Taxonomy (TX13–TX14)

TX13: Ground, Test & Surface Systems (182)
TX13.1 Infrastructure Optimization (97)
  • TX13.1.1 Launch Pad Systems (19)
  • TX13.1.2 Range Safety (14)
  • TX13.1.3 Ground Support Equipment (27)
  • TX13.1.6 Cryogenic Ground Systems (20)
  • TX13.1.7 Communications Infrastructure (17)
TX13.2 Test & Qualification (56)
  • TX13.2.1 Environmental Testing (21)
  • TX13.2.5 NDI/NDE (15)
  • TX13.2.6 Structural Testing (20)
TX13.4 Mission Success (29)
  • TX13.4.5 Prognostics (29)
TX14: Thermal Management Systems (665)
TX14.1 Cryogenic Systems (172)
  • TX14.1.1 Passive Cryo-Coolers (42)
  • TX14.1.2 Active Cryo-Coolers (34)
  • TX14.1.3 Cryo-Storage & Transfer (96)
TX14.2 Thermal Control (474)
  • TX14.2.1 Heat Exchangers (19)
  • TX14.2.2 Heat Transport (219)
  • TX14.2.3 Thermal Control Systems (236)
TX14.3 Thermal Protection (19)
  • TX14.3.1 TPS Design & Analysis (19)

ML-predicted TX classifications across 20,150 projects. Counts show projects per sub-area. NASA TechPort taxonomy (17 L1, 94 L2, 384 L3 nodes).

29

Backup: Full TX Taxonomy (TX15–TX17)

TX15: Flight Vehicle Systems (902)
TX15.1 Aerosciences (888)
  • TX15.1.1 Aerodynamics (78)
  • TX15.1.3 Aeroelasticity (166)
  • TX15.1.4 Aeroacoustics (275)
  • TX15.1.5 CFD Methods (119)
  • TX15.1.6 Wind Tunnel Testing (94)
  • TX15.1.7 Flight Testing (56)
  • TX15.1.8 Vehicle Concepts (100)
TX15.2 Flight Mechanics (14)
  • TX15.2.1 Trajectory Optimization (14)
TX16: Air Traffic Mgmt & Range Tracking (64)
TX16.1 Safe Access (7)
TX16.3 Traffic Concepts (32)
TX16.4 Architectures (13)
TX16.5 Range Tracking (8)
TX16.6 Integrated Testing (4)
TX17: Guidance, Navigation & Control (406)
TX17.1 Guidance Algorithms (13)
  • TX17.1.1 Optimal Guidance (13)
TX17.2 Navigation (303)
  • TX17.2.1 Inertial Nav (94)
  • TX17.2.3 Visual/Terrain-Relative Nav (191)
  • TX17.2.6 Celestial Nav (18)
TX17.3 Control (10)
  • TX17.3.4 Precision Pointing (10)
TX17.4 Attitude Estimation (48)
  • TX17.4.3 Star Trackers (48)
TX17.5 GN&C Systems Engineering (32)
  • TX17.5.1 GN&C Architecture (12)
  • TX17.5.2 GN&C Testing (20)

ML-predicted TX classifications across 20,150 projects. Counts show projects per sub-area. NASA TechPort taxonomy (17 L1, 94 L2, 384 L3 nodes).

30
🚀
Agent TechPort
tobedetermined.github.io/agent-techport

Analysis based on NASA's public TechPort database. Project records may not reflect current status, partnerships, or outcomes.

31