Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This material is based upon work supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under contract number 80HQTR22DA003, order number 80HQTR23FA058, and contract number 80HQTR22DA003, order number 80HQTR24FA056. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NASA.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-60403-1
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/29381

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.

The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.

Copyright 2026 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2026. Review of the SBIR and STTR Programs at NASA. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29381.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF THE SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH AND SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAMS AT NASA

MARYANN P. FELDMAN (Co-Chair), Arizona State University

SCOTT STERN (Co-Chair), Massachusetts Institute of Technology

GREGORY W. AUTRY, University of Central Florida

DIANNE CHONG (NAE), Boeing (retired)

JEANNETTE COLYVAS, Northwestern University

ALEXANDRA E. GRADDY-REED, University of Southern California

JORGE GUZMAN, Columbia University

AMOL M. JOSHI, Wake Forest University

SHAWN KANTOR, Florida State University

ROBERT A. LIEBERMAN (NAE), Lumoptix LLC

DAVID W. MILLER (NAE), NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

BHAVEN SAMPAT, Arizona State University

CRAIG J. SCOTT, Morgan State University

STEPHANIE S. SHIPP, Iowa State University

ERIC STALLMER, Voyager Technologies

JANET VERTESI, Princeton University

ANGELINO C. G. VICEISZA, Spelman College

Study Staff

GAIL E. COHEN, Project Director (through May 2026)

RENEE DALY, Senior Program Assistant (through February 2024)

DAVID DIERKSHEIDE, Program Officer

ERIN ROONEY, Senior Program Assistant (November 2023–October 2025)

ALYSSA RUDELIS, Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow (January–May 2024)

EMILY SCHMITZ, Associate Program Officer (July 2024–October 2025)

Consultants

AUSTEN BOROFF, Princeton University

EVAN E. JOHNSON, Arclight Analytics, Principal Consultant

LAUREN LANAHAN, University of Oregon

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by WESLEY L. HARRIS (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and ADAM B. JAFFE, Brandeis University (emeritus). They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

Acknowledgments

The committee would like to express its appreciation for insights, information, experiences, and perspectives provided by invited speakers during the conduct of this study. We recognize the considerable time and effort made by NASA staff, especially those from the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, to help the committee understand the complexity associated with NASA’s programs. NASA staff were responsive and generous with their time in answering the committee’s questions and provided valuable data to aid the committee’s analyses. The committee also thanks Evan Johnson, principal consultant, for invaluable contributions of research and technical assistance in the preparation of this report. Finally, we would particularly like to recognize the leadership of Gail Cohen and the contributions of the National Academies staff, especially David Dierksheide, Erin Rooney, and Emily Schmitz.

Contents

Preface

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Summary

1 Introduction

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES STUDY MANDATE

PROGRAM OPERATIONS

STUDY METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS

ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

2 The NASA SBIR/STTR Programs and the NASA and Space Ecosystem

THE NASA INNOVATION SYSTEM

THE ROLE OF THE SBIR/STTR PROGRAMS IN THE NASA INNOVATION SYSTEM

THE EMERGING COMMERCIAL SPACE SECTOR AND THE NASA SBIR/STTR PROGRAMS

SUMMARY

FINDINGS

3 The Landscape of NASA SBIR/STTR Applicants and Awardees

METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING

PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND PARTICIPATION

NUMBER OF PHASE I APPLICATIONS AND APPLICANTS

DISTRIBUTION OF SBIR/STTR AWARDS ACROSS DIRECTORATES

NEW ENTRANTS TO THE NASA SBIR/STTR PROGRAMS

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF AWARDEES

SUMMARY

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS

4 NASA’s SBIR/STTR Processes

PROGRAM STRUCTURE, MANAGEMENT, AND REORGANIZATION EVOLUTIONS

NASA’S SBIR/STTR APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESSES

OUTREACH TO APPLICANTS AND STAKEHOLDERS

TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION AND COMMERCIALIZATION ASSISTANCE MECHANISMS

SUMMARY

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS

5 STTR Collaborations with Research Institutions

DISTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH INSTITUTION PARTNER TYPES

SUMMARY

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS

6 Outcomes of the NASA SBIR/STTR Programs

MEASURING THE OUTCOMES OF NASA’S SBIR/STTR PROGRAMS

NASA’S SBIR/STTR PROGRAMS AS A GATEWAY TO R&D AND FOLLOW-ON CONTRACTING

SBIR/STTR AND NON-SBIR/STTR CONTRACTING AT NASA: THE LEVERAGE RATIO

NASA SBIR/STTR AND NON-NASA FEDERAL CONTRACTING

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS

EXTERNAL INNOVATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION OUTCOMES

SUMMARY

FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS

References

Appendix A Meeting Agendas

Appendix B Biographies of Committee Members

Appendix C Annex to Chapter 4

Boxes, Figures, and Tables

BOXES

S-1 Complete Set of Findings

S-2 Complete Set of Recommendations

1-1 Statement of Task

2-1 Technology Readiness Levels in the NASA Innovation System

2-2 The SBIR/STTR Programs and the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

2-3 Made In Space (MIS) and the NASA SBIR/STTR Program

3-1 NASA’S TechPort

3-2 NASA’s Technology Taxonomy

4-1 Success Story: Civilian Commercialization Readiness Pilot Program

4-2 Examples of SBIR/STTR Outreach Strategies and Activities

4-3 NASA’s Technology Transition Programs: Two Examples

4-4 Pathways to Transitioning NASA SBIR/STTR–Supported Technologies

4-5 Spin-Off Technology from NASA’s SBIR Awardees: Laser Vision Correction Surgery

FIGURES

2-1 Mapped locations of NASA space centers

2-2 SBIR technology on the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

2-3 First financial deal class over time of PitchBook-reported space technology companies

3-1 Number of Phase I applications to NASA’s SBIR program, by year (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-2 NASA’s SBIR/STTR Phase I success rates (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-3 Number of NASA’s STTR Phase I applications, by year (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-4 NASA’S SBIR/STTR Phase II success rates (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-5 NASA’s SBIR/STTR Phase I award amounts, by year (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-6 NASA’s SBIR/STTR Phase II award amounts, by year (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-7 NASA SBIR Phase I projects, by primary taxonomy area and mission directorate (fiscal years 2015–2022)

3-8 Number of Phase I applications to NASA’s SBIR program, by mission directorate (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-9 Success rate for Phase I applications to NASA’s SBIR program, by mission directorate (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-10 Number of NASA SBIR Phase I awards, by mission directorate (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-11 Distribution of firms, by total number of NASA’s SBIR/STTR Phase I awards received (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-12 Top 25 NASA SBIR/STTR Phase I award recipients (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-13 Locations of NASA space centers and SBIR/STTR awards (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-14 NASA SBIR/STTR vs. venture capital (VC) funding levels per capita, by state (fiscal years 2015–2024)

3-15 NASA SBIR/STTR Phase I and Phase II award rates, by demographic characteristics of business owners (fiscal years 2015–2024)

4-1 Overview of NASA’s SBIR/STTR programs, by phases and opportunities

6-1 Sequencing of NASA engagement: Relative timing of receipt of NASA SBIR/STTR and non-SBIR/STTR funding (fiscal years 2015–2024)

6-2 Ratio of non-SBIR/STTR NASA funding to NASA SBIR/STTR funding for participating firms (fiscal years 2011–2024)

6-3 Total and R&D federal procurement spending on NASA SBIR/STTR recipients over time (fiscal years 2011–2024)

6-4 Comparison of postaward private financing activity for NASA SBIR/STTR awardees and nonawardees

6-5 Average annual patent counts per firm before and after the year of first NASA SBIR/STTR application

TABLES

2-1 Selected Major NASA Initiatives and Their Institutional Significance

2-2 Primary Responsibilities of the NASA Mission Directorates

2-3 Locations and Primary Focus Areas of NASA Centers

2-4 Technology Readiness Level Definitions

3-1 NASA SBIR/STTR Awards (Phases I and II): Counts and Funding Amounts (Fiscal Years 2015–2024)

3-2 Federal SBIR/STTR Award Funding, by Agency (Fiscal Year 2024)

3-3 Required Minimum SBIR/STTR Expenditures for Participating Agencies as a Percentage of Agency Extramural Budgets for Research or Research and Development (Fiscal Years 2015–2024)

3-4 NASA Mission Directorate Descriptions and SBIR Award Data for Fiscal Year 2024

3-5 Technology Readiness Level Definitions

3-6 Average Technology Readiness Level (TRL), by Mission Directorate (Fiscal Years 2015–2022)

3-7 Award History of NASA SBIR/STTR Awardees (Fiscal Years 2015–2024)

3-8 NASA SBIR/STTR Phase I and Phase II Awards, by State (Fiscal Years 2015–2024)

3-9 NASA’s SBIR/STTR Programs: Top States, by Phase I Success Rate

5-1 NASA STTR Partnership Counts, by Partner Type (Fiscal Years 2015–2024): Phases I and II

5-2 Partnership Rates Between HBCUs/MSIs and SED-Owned vs. Non-SED-Owned Small Businesses in NASA’s STTR Program (Fiscal Years 2015–2024): Phases I and II

5-3 Top 20 Research Institution Partners for NASA STTR Phase I and II Awardees (Fiscal Years 2015–2024)

5-4 Research Institution Partners for Woman-Owned NASA STTR Phase I and II Awardees (Fiscal Years 2015–2024)

6-1 Technology Advancement Outcomes: Association Between SBIR/STTR Status and Changes in Technology Readiness Levels

Preface

This report is the result of a request by Congress for an assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As part of evaluations across five federal agencies, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a committee to examine the role of these programs in advancing NASA’s mission and contributing to innovation within the United States.

The SBIR/STTR programs are based on the premise that small and young firms are an important source of novel ideas and have specialized capabilities that can contribute to technological innovation. The SBIR/STTR programs are a central mechanism through which federal agencies engage small businesses in research and development (R&D) activities. At NASA, however, the SBIR/STTR programs operate in a distinctive context. Unlike agencies that rely on large-scale procurement or continuous demand for broadly applicable technologies, NASA’s innovation system is organized around specific missions, each requiring the integration of multiple advanced technologies under conditions of uncertainty. As a result, the role of the agency’s SBIR/STTR programs is closely tied to this mission-driven approach to innovation.

This report provides a detailed examination of the context, operations, and outcomes of the SBIR/STTR programs at NASA. The committee undertook both qualitative and quantitative analyses, including an assessment of program processes and organizational structure, a characterization of the landscape of applicants and awardees, and a set of empirical analyses examining outcomes related to technology advancement, follow-on funding, and external innovation activity. These analyses provide a comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of how the SBIR/STTR programs function within NASA’s broader innovation ecosystem.

Several overarching themes emerged from the committee’s work. First, the NASA SBIR/STTR programs play a central, mission-aligned role in advancing technologies relevant to NASA. The programs are closely integrated with mission directorates and centers, and they support early- and intermediate-stage technology development that supports the agency’s research, development,

and operational needs. A subset of SBIR/STTR-supported technologies is ultimately incorporated into mission systems, while many others contribute as components, subsystems, or enabling technologies within larger architectures. The evidence indicates that NASA continues to invest in these firms through follow-on R&D and contracting activities, reflecting the value of their capabilities within the agency.

Second, the programs operate within a context in which demand for innovation is often limited in scale and highly specific to particular missions. NASA missions typically involve small quantities of highly specialized systems, and procurement is frequently one-off or small batch rather than sustained and large in scale. As a result, the primary contribution of the SBIR/STTR programs is best understood in terms of advancing technologies to integration readiness rather than considered through large procurement outcomes. The use of Technology Readiness Levels, supported by NASA’s Technology Portfolio Management System (TechPort), provides a distinctive and systematic framework for tracking this progress and assessing technology advancement across the agency.

Third, the committee finds that NASA’s SBIR/STTR programs are implemented through a structured and evolving set of processes that have been strengthened by recent organizational changes. The centralization of key program functions, the development of improved data systems, and the introduction of new mechanisms for outreach and topic development have enhanced coordination across mission directorates and centers. While opportunities remain to streamline processes and reduce administrative burden, the overall structure provides a strong foundation for aligning SBIR/STTR activities with NASA’s strategic priorities and for tracking program outcomes.

Fourth, while the programs do contribute to broader innovation and commercialization outcomes, these effects differ in important ways from those observed in other agencies. NASA SBIR/STTR firms do attract follow-on funding from other federal agencies and, in some cases, from private capital. The SBIR/STTR programs are only one of several forces—including scale-oriented entrepreneurial activity, private investment, and large-scale government contracts—shaping the rapidly growing commercial space sector. SBIR/STTR plays a critical complementary role in the growth of the commercial sector, supporting the development of technologies and specialized suppliers that contribute to both NASA missions and emerging commercial applications.

Finally, the committee’s work highlights the importance of data and measurement in assessing the performance of SBIR/STTR and other government investment programs. NASA’s TechPort system represents a distinctive strength, providing a framework for linking technology investments to mission objectives and tracking progress over time. At the same time, limitations in tracking downstream activities—particularly those occurring through subcontracting, supply-chain relationships, or external markets—underscore the need for continued improvement in data integration and accessibility. Strengthening these

capabilities would enhance both program management and the ability to assess outcomes in a systematic manner.

Taken together, the evidence in this report supports the conclusion that NASA’s SBIR/STTR programs are effective mechanisms for engaging small businesses in mission-oriented innovation and for advancing technologies that contribute to the agency’s objectives. At the same time, the distinctive features of NASA’s innovation system—its mission-driven structure, the limited scale of procurement, and its integration within a broader federal and commercial ecosystem—shape both the role of the programs and the metrics appropriate for evaluating their performance.

Maryann P. Feldman, Co-Chair
Scott Stern, Co-Chair
Committee on the Review of the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs at NASA
May 2026

Acronyms and Abbreviations