Proven Technology vs Innovation
Isolate innovative technologies in modular, non-critical subsystems with proven fallback capability before expanding their authority to mission-critical functions.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Space contradiction RMA009 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Business Context
Flight-proven technology reduces uncertainty because its behavior has already been demonstrated in relevant environments. However, exclusive reliance on heritage systems can limit improvements in computing, sensing, communications, propulsion, manufacturing, autonomy, and other rapidly advancing technologies. Introducing innovation can improve mission capability but increases qualification and integration uncertainty.
Space TRIZ Resolution
Innovation should be introduced selectively rather than requiring the entire mission to adopt the same technology maturity level. New technologies can be isolated within modular architectures, introduced first into noncritical functions, operated alongside proven alternatives, or demonstrated incrementally before assuming critical responsibilities.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 1 – Segmentation isolates innovative technologies from established critical functions.
Principle 11 – Beforehand Cushioning preserves fallback capability while new technology is demonstrated.
Principle 15 – Dynamics expands the role of innovative technology as operational confidence increases.
Expected Outcome
Faster technology adoption
Controlled mission risk
Maintained critical-function reliability
Improved long-term spacecraft capability
Decision Indicators
Early indicators include:
Heritage requirements prevent meaningful performance improvements.
New technologies are rejected solely because they lack flight history.
Entire architectures must accept new technology before it can be demonstrated.
Technology obsolescence becomes significant before launch.
Innovation and mission assurance are treated as mutually exclusive objectives.