# Is there any significant difference between NASA and EU technology readiness levels?

The wikipedia article for technology readiness levels lists the NASA and European Union definitions. I've put these into a table:

Level NASA EU
1 Basic principles observed and reported Basic principles observed
2 Technology concept and/or application formulated Technology concept formulated
3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of concept Experimental proof of concept
4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment Technology validated in lab
5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment Technology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) Technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
7 System prototype demonstration in a space environment System prototype demonstration in operational environment
8 Actual system completed and "flight qualified" through test and demonstration (ground or space) System complete and qualified
9 Actual system "flight proven" through successful mission operations Actual system proven in operational environment (competitive manufacturing in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space)

There are slight differences in wording (this seems to allow TRLs to be used for non-space applications in the EU). Otherwise, are there any significant differences between the NASA and EU definitions of TRLs?

• Yeah, I know the ESA is not quite the EU, but it seemed the most appropriate geographic tag. Aug 17 '21 at 4:53