Applying TRIZ Tools to Space Policy and Strategy: A Framework for Professional Reports

Introduction

TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) ↗ is a comprehensive methodology and set of tools developed to tackle complex problems and promote innovation. While originally created for engineering and technical design, with some creativity these tools can be adapted to other domains, including space strategy and policy. This document provides an in-depth analysis of key TRIZ principles designed to define drafts of outlines and content for professional reports concerning space strategies and policies.

1. Strategic, Technical, and Physical Contradictions

Understanding Contradictions in TRIZ and Their Extension to Space Policy

Contradictions lie at the heart of the TRIZ methodology. In classical TRIZ, contradictions are divided into two main categories: technical contradictions and physical contradictions. These categories form the foundation of one of the most accessible and powerful TRIZ tools: the Contradiction Matrix ↗ .

The Contradiction Matrix is among the easiest TRIZ tools to use for problem-solving. The matrix itself, along with the 40 Inventive Principles it references, is in the public domain and available to all practitioners for solving contradictions. The classical matrix consists of 39 improving and worsening features ↗ that capture the parameters typically involved in technical systems. When a contradiction is identified—where improving one feature worsens another—the matrix suggests which of the 40 Inventive Principles have historically been most successful in resolving similar contradictions.

The Three Types of Contradictions in Space Policy Context

Technical Contradictions (Classical TRIZ)

Technical contradictions occur when improving one characteristic of a system leads to the degradation of another. In engineering contexts, this might involve improving a material’s strength at the cost of increased weight. The classical TRIZ Contradiction Matrix provides systematic guidance for resolving these contradictions through the application of inventive principles.

In space policy contexts, technical contradictions manifest in similar ways: improving mission capability may increase cost; enhancing safety systems may reduce payload capacity; increasing satellite lifespan may complicate end-of-mission disposal.

Physical Contradictions (Classical TRIZ)

Physical contradictions involve situations where a characteristic must exist in two opposite states to satisfy system requirements. For example, a component must be both rigid for structural integrity and flexible for adaptability—a seemingly impossible requirement that TRIZ addresses through principles such as separation in time, space, or condition.

In policy terms, physical contradictions appear when a single policy element must simultaneously exhibit contradictory properties: a regulation must be both strict to ensure compliance and flexible to accommodate innovation; a space program must be both transparent for international cooperation and confidential for national security.

Strategic Contradictions (Extension for Policy Application)

Strategic contradictions—introduced in this framework—represent a novel extension of TRIZ to the policy domain. These occur when high-level policy objectives, institutional goals, or strategic priorities conflict with available resources, political realities, regulatory frameworks, or operational constraints.

Strategic contradictions are particularly relevant in space policy where:

• National interests may conflict with international cooperation ↗ requirements
• Long-term exploration ambitions must be balanced against annual budget cycles
• Commercial innovation objectives may tension with safety and environmental regulations
• Rapid technology development timelines conflict with deliberate policy formulation processes

While technical and physical contradictions can often be addressed through the classical 39-parameter Contradiction Matrix, strategic contradictions require a broader interpretation of the “improving” and “worsening” features to encompass policy objectives, stakeholder interests, resource constraints, and institutional frameworks.

2. Inventive Principles

The 40 inventive principles ↗ of TRIZ are general suggestions for overcoming contradictions, used to find creative solutions to problems. These principles can be adapted to space strategies and policies to resolve dilemmas or improve processes. Let’s analyze some inventive principles that can be reinterpreted to build content for reports dedicated to space strategies.

Examples of Inventive Principles Applicable to Space Policies

Segmentation

Description of the principle: Divide a system or problem into smaller or more manageable parts.

Application in space context: Segmentation can refer to subdividing space missions into multiple phases or modular components. For example, a lunar exploration program could be segmented into various separate missions, such as preliminary orbits, robotic landers, and finally human missions.

Metaphor: Think of segmentation as “assembling a space puzzle,” where each piece is a small part of a larger plan.

Use in report outline: A report could explore how mission segmentation allows risk reduction, cost distribution, and improvement of long-term planning effectiveness.

Dynamization

Description of the principle: Make a system adaptable or flexible to respond to changing conditions.

Application in space context: A dynamic space policy could include guidelines that adapt to technological progress or geopolitical changes. For example, plans for modular space station construction that can be expanded or modified based on future needs.

Metaphor: Visualize dynamization as a “docking system,” where new modules can be added to or removed from a space station.

Use in report outline: The report could explore the importance of flexibility in space strategies, with examples of missions that had to adapt to new constraints or opportunities.

Preliminary Action

Description of the principle: Anticipate and address problems before they occur.

Application in space context: Plan safety measures to prevent space pollution, or implement planetary defense strategies to protect Earth from potentially dangerous objects. An example could be building early detection systems for asteroids.

Metaphor: Think of preliminary action as “installing bumpers” in space to absorb the impact of unforeseen problems.

Use in report outline: The report could address the importance of advance planning, illustrating how prevention can reduce costs and risks in the long term.

Inversion Principle

Description of the principle: Flip the problem or solution, changing perspective.

Application in space context: Instead of sending humans into deep space, send robots that prepare the environment for human arrival (for example, building habitats on Mars before astronauts arrive).

Metaphor: Inversion can be seen as “changing the telescope’s viewpoint,” looking at the problem from a completely new perspective.

Use in report outline: The report could explore how “flipping expectations” has led to innovations in space exploration, such as the growing use of robotics.

Color (or Appearance) Change

Description of the principle: Alter the external appearance of a system to modify its function or performance.

Application in space context: Change a satellite’s albedo (reflectivity) to reduce solar heat absorption or use materials that change color to monitor extreme environmental conditions in space.

Metaphor: See color change as a “camouflage change,” adapting the satellite or shuttle to respond to environmental conditions.

Use in report outline: A report could address innovations in advanced materials for space exploration, including examples of technologies that leverage color change to respond to technical challenges.

Separation in Time or Space

Description of the principle: If desired characteristics cannot coexist, separate them in time or space.

Application in space context: For example, instead of launching all mission components at the same time, send them sequentially to assemble a more complex system in orbit.

Metaphor: Separation in time can be viewed as “unpacking the journey,” subdividing a long space voyage into shorter, more achievable stages.

Use in report outline: Discuss how the strategy of separating missions over time has enabled overcoming technological and logistical limits.

Structuring a Report Using Inventive Principles

When writing a report on space strategies, inventive principles can be used as guidelines for content structure:

1. Introduction: Present the challenge or contradiction that must be resolved. For example, the dilemma between technological innovation and regulatory restrictions.

2. Exploration of applicable TRIZ principles: Discuss how one or more inventive principles can be used to resolve the challenge.

3. Case studies or real examples: Connect each principle to a concrete example of space strategy or historical mission that has applied a similar approach.

4. Implications and future strategies: Suggest how these principles might guide future space policies or technological innovation.

5. Conclusion: Summarize the importance of applying inventive principles in the context of space policies and strategies.

Creating Connections with the Reader

To make reports accessible and engaging, use simple metaphors and similes that make complex concepts understandable. For example, comparing segmentation to “dividing a mission like a staged journey” helps convey the concept of space mission phases intuitively.

In summary, TRIZ inventive principles can be powerful tools for addressing the complexities of space policies, offering new perspectives and solutions for resolving strategic and design dilemmas.

3. Contradiction Matrix

The Role of the Contradiction Matrix in Space Policy Analysis

When applying TRIZ to space strategies and policies:

1. For technical contradictions: Use the classical 39-feature matrix directly when addressing engineering or technical aspects of space missions
2. For physical contradictions: Identify the dual requirements and apply separation principles (time, space, condition, system level)
3. For strategic contradictions: Adapt the matrix framework by defining policy-relevant “features” such as budget allocation, international collaboration level, regulatory stringency, innovation pace, and security requirements

The 40 Inventive Principles remain applicable across all three contradiction types, though their interpretation must be contextualized for strategic and policy applications. For instance:

• Segmentation (Principle 1) might mean phasing a mission into modules (technical), creating tiered regulations (strategic), or establishing different operational protocols for different scenarios (physical)
• Preliminary Action (Principle 10) could involve advance positioning of resources (technical), establishing policy frameworks before crises emerge (strategic), or pre-activating safety systems (physical)

Integration of Contradiction Types in Space Policy Reports

When developing professional reports on space strategies and policies, practitioners should:

1. Identify which type(s) of contradiction are present in the challenge being addressed
2. Use the appropriate analytical framework: classical matrix for technical contradictions, separation principles for physical contradictions, adapted strategic framework for policy contradictions
3. Apply relevant Inventive Principles drawn from the 40 standard principles, interpreting them appropriately for the contradiction type
4. Synthesize solutions that may resolve contradictions at multiple levels simultaneously

This integrated approach, combining classical TRIZ with the strategic contradiction extension, provides a comprehensive framework for addressing the multi-layered challenges inherent in space policy development.

Application to Space Strategies and Policies

Within space policy contexts, strategic, technical, and physical contradictions can be reinterpreted to address strategic trade-offs. Here are key areas where contradictions emerge:

Budget versus Ambition

Description of the contradiction: Increasing ambition for more ambitious space missions (Mars exploration, lunar base construction) requires greater investment. However, with limited resources, increasing the budget for these initiatives could reduce availability of funds for other critical sectors.

Possible solution (using TRIZ): Segment initiatives into phases or micro-missions that allow cost distribution over an extended period, or leverage public-private partnerships to share the financial burden.

National Security versus International Cooperation

Description of the contradiction: National security requires certain confidentiality and control over advanced space technologies, while international cooperation ↗ demands openness and information sharing.

Possible solution (using TRIZ): Utilize the “segregation” principle to create separate missions or projects—one focused on security and another on international cooperation—ensuring that only non-sensitive information is shared with foreign partners.

Technological Innovation versus Regulatory Norms

Description of the contradiction: Technological innovation in the space sector requires freedom for experimentation, while existing regulations may limit this freedom for safety or ethical reasons.

Possible solution (using TRIZ): Apply the “preliminary distance” principle to experiment with innovative technologies in controlled and isolated environments before large-scale implementation, thus reducing associated risk.

Commercial Accessibility versus Space Environment Protection

Description of the contradiction: Growing commercial access to space, such as launching private satellites, can increase space debris ↗ and collision risk. However, limiting access could hinder innovation and economic growth.

Possible solution (using TRIZ): Introduce norms for “segmentation” of space into regulated and less-regulated areas, or establish “time windows” when satellite traffic is permitted to reduce the density of objects in orbit.

Metaphor: The “Payload” of Ideas

An effective way to represent these contradictions is using the “payload” metaphor. Just as in a space mission the payload must be carefully balanced to maximize mission efficiency, in policy strategies one must balance “ideas” (ambitions, objectives, innovations) with “resources” (budget, regulations, available technologies).

Exploring trade-offs and solutions: Just as a spacecraft can adapt payload to achieve specific objectives (such as more scientific instruments or more fuel for a longer mission), space policies must also adapt their priorities to meet the needs of the moment, continually evaluating contradictions and balancing various factors.

Using Contradictions to Define Report Outlines

When developing content for professional reports, contradictions can be used to structure documents that explore trade-offs and challenges in space policies:

1. Identification of the Key Contradiction: Start the report by describing a specific contradiction in space policy contexts. For example, the conflict between rapid innovation and regulations that must ensure safety.

2. Exploration of Solutions Based on Inventive Principles: Discuss which TRIZ principles can be used to overcome the contradiction. For each principle, explain how it could be applied in a space context and provide concrete examples.

3. Use metaphors and similes to make concepts more accessible: The payload metaphor, for example, could be a common thread throughout the report, helping readers better understand the challenges of balancing space policies.

4. Propose case studies and concrete scenarios: Discussing real space missions or space policy programs that have faced similar contradictions and how they were resolved (or could be resolved) can provide practical examples.

5. Suggestions for the Future: Conclude with proposals on how future space policies could be designed to avoid or more efficiently resolve similar contradictions, using a TRIZ approach.

By analyzing and using contradictions and TRIZ solutions, one can create a compelling narrative that makes strategic challenges in the space sector comprehensible and proposes possible innovative strategies to address them.

Example Report Structure Using the Contradiction Matrix

Title: “Balancing Ambition and Reality: Resolving Contradictions in Space Policies with TRIZ”

1. Introduction: The Challenge of Contradictions in Space Policies

   • Introduction to the concept of contradictions in space strategies, such as the balance between budget and ambition.

2. Description of the TRIZ Contradiction Matrix

   • Brief explanation of how the matrix works and its applicability outside engineering.

3. Case Study: Limited Budget versus Ambitious Missions

   • Detailed analysis of the contradiction between limited resources and long-term space ambitions.
   • Discussion of TRIZ principles that can be applied to resolve this contradiction (segmentation, use of local resources, dynamization).

4. A New Approach to Mission Planning

   • Proposals for making space strategies more flexible using TRIZ principles.

5. Conclusion: A New “Constellation” of Solutions

   • Summary of main ideas and encouragement to explore the TRIZ approach to address future challenges.

4. Ideal Final Result (IFR)

The Ideal Final Result (IFR) ↗ is a fundamental concept in TRIZ methodology, representing the scenario in which the system solves the problem optimally, with minimal resource waste, without introducing new complications. In essence, the IFR is the best possible result that could be obtained without modifying the system or introducing new elements. This principle helps focus the search for solutions on ideas that maximize efficiency and minimize costs or impact.

Application of IFR to Space Strategies and Policies

When discussing space strategies and policies, the IFR can be reinterpreted as an ideal vision in which policies achieve their objectives in the most efficient way possible, with minimal use of financial, technological, and organizational resources. Here’s how it can be applied:

Optimization of Space Missions

Description of the IFR: Achieve mission objectives (exploration, scientific research, technological development) with the minimum number of launches, minimizing construction, maintenance, and operation costs.

Practical examples: Using approaches such as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) to reduce the need to bring supplies from Earth, or developing advanced propulsion technologies that reduce travel times.

Reduction of Space Pollution

Description of the IFR: Minimize space debris by generating the least possible waste and ensuring that every object launched into space can be effectively disposed of or reused.

Practical examples: Implement automatic de-orbiting technologies for end-of-life satellites, or use recyclable materials and innovative disposal solutions.

Space Accessibility for All

Description of the IFR: Ensure that space is accessible to all nations, not only those with large space budgets, through international cooperation and shared use of resources.

Practical examples: Create international consortia for satellite launching or share space infrastructures such as the International Space Station to reduce overall costs.

Maximizing Return on Investment in Research and Development

Description of the IFR: Obtain the maximum scientific and technological benefit from space missions with minimal investment, avoiding duplication and leveraging synergies between various projects.

Practical examples: Promote joint research programs between universities and space agencies, and use shared platforms for experimentation in orbit.

Metaphor: The “Optimal Orbit” of Decisions

The IFR can be represented with the “optimal orbit” metaphor. Just as a space shuttle must follow a precise orbit to maximize fuel efficiency and reach its objectives, space policies must follow a strategic path that minimizes waste and resources. The idea is that there exists an “ideal path” that allows obtaining the maximum result with minimum effort, and the IFR serves to define and trace this path.

Using the IFR to Structure Report Outlines

When using the IFR to develop content, a report outline can follow these steps:

1. Presentation of the IFR Concept: Explain what the Ideal Final Result is and how it can be applied to improve efficiency in space policies.

2. Describe a Specific Problem: Identify a challenge in the space sector, such as reducing space pollution or space accessibility for less developed nations.

3. Define the IFR for That Problem: Explain what the ideal solution would be that resolves the problem with minimal resource use and without introducing new problems.

4. Explore Related Solutions and Technologies: Discuss technologies or strategies that could approach the IFR, presenting concrete examples of programs or innovations working toward that objective.

5. Analysis of Implications for Future Strategies: Reflect on how space policies could be oriented to approach the IFR, for example by promoting sustainable innovation or encouraging international collaboration.

6. Conclusion: The Optimal Orbit for Space Policies: Summarize key points and invite reflection on how adopting an IFR-oriented mentality can transform space policies and strategies.

Example Report Structure Using the IFR

Title: “Reaching the Optimal Orbit: How IFR Can Guide Space Strategies”

1. Introduction: Evolution of Space Policies and the Need for Optimization

   • Brief overview on the evolution of space strategies and the importance of seeking more efficient solutions.

2. What Is the IFR and Why Is It Relevant?

   • Detailed explanation of the Ideal Final Result concept, with practical examples.

3. Case Study: Reduction of Space Pollution

   • Analysis of the challenge related to space debris and how it could be resolved by aiming for an IFR that minimizes waste.

4. Current Technologies and Emerging Solutions

   • Exploration of current innovations approaching the IFR, such as the use of satellites with automatic de-orbiting systems.

5. Perspectives for the Future: Creating IFR-Based Strategies

   • Reflections on how future policies could be modeled to approach the IFR.

6. Conclusion: The Optimal Orbit as the Objective of Space Policies

   • Synthesis of the importance of the IFR and encouragement to use this approach to address challenges.

Creating Connections with the Reader Using Metaphors and Similes

Using the “optimal orbit” metaphor makes the IFR concept more tangible, helping readers imagine an ideal path that allows reaching space objectives in the most efficient way possible. This type of metaphor makes content more engaging and accessible, even for those without technical or scientific background.

In summary, the IFR is a powerful tool for guiding the definition of optimal space strategies, allowing focus on the most efficient and least costly solutions. Using this concept to structure reports can help create content that explores sector challenges and proposes innovative visions for the future of space policies.

5. Resource Analysis

Resource analysis is one of the fundamental concepts of the TRIZ methodology and concerns the identification and utilization of existing resources in a system to solve a problem without introducing new elements or additional costs. Resources can be material, energy, informational, or even temporal, and the objective is to exploit them fully to achieve significant system improvement.

Application of Resource Analysis to Space Strategies and Policies

In the context of space policies and strategies, resource analysis can be used to identify and maximize the use of already available resources, such as existing technologies, infrastructure, expertise, international collaborations, and scientific data, in order to achieve objectives with minimal economic impact and greater sustainability.

Examples of Resource Application in the Space Context

Use of In-Situ Resources (ISRU) ↗

Description: Exploit resources available at the destination location, such as ice on Mars or the Moon to produce water, oxygen, and fuel.

Benefits: Reduce the quantity of supplies to transport from Earth, lowering mission costs and increasing autonomy of space operations.

Implications for policies: Space strategies should incentivize the development and integration of ISRU technologies to make them a central pillar of future exploration missions.

Reuse of Space Infrastructure

Description: Utilize existing infrastructure such as the International Space Station (ISS) or reusable rockets ↗ to reduce launch costs and the need for new structure construction.

Benefits: Allow economic and material resource savings, extending the useful life of already operational infrastructure.

Implications for policies: Space policies can promote the reuse of space vehicles, modules, and research instruments, incentivizing the adoption of technological solutions designed to be reusable.

International Collaboration as a Resource

Description: Leverage the expertise, funds, and technologies of international partners to develop joint space programs.

Benefits: Share costs and improve mission efficiency through common use of resources, such as satellite data, launch infrastructure, and monitoring stations.

Implications for policies: International cooperation can be formalized as part of space strategies, creating consortia that share both resources and benefits.

Utilization of Existing Satellite Data

Description: Valorize data already collected by satellites to improve weather forecasts, monitor climate change, or manage natural resources.

Benefits: Avoid duplication of efforts by launching new satellites to collect similar data while improving analysis precision.

Implications for policies: Space policies should incentivize the sharing and reuse of data among different agencies and organizations to increase investment effectiveness.

Metaphor: The “Orbital Economy” of Resources

Resource analysis can be compared to an orbital economy where every available resource is exploited to the maximum, like a space station that uses every molecule of water and every gram of material. In this way, a systematic and efficient approach is promoted that allows optimal use of what is already present, just as a spacecraft must manage its resources with extreme attention.

Using Resource Analysis to Structure Report Outlines

When using resource analysis to develop content, a report outline can follow these steps:

1. Introduction to the Resource Analysis Concept: Explain what resource analysis is and how it can be applied to improve efficiency and reduce costs in space policies.

2. Description of a Specific Challenge: Identify a problem or opportunity in the space sector where resource analysis could make a difference, such as the use of in-situ resources in lunar missions.

3. Identification of Available Resources: List already existing resources that could be exploited to solve the problem, such as technologies, collaborations, data, and infrastructure.

4. Proposals for Utilization of Identified Resources: Explain how these resources could be used to improve space strategies or policies, presenting concrete examples.

5. Analysis of Long-Term Implications: Discuss the long-term benefits of adopting a resource analysis-based approach, such as increased sustainability and reduced overall costs.

6. Conclusion: “Orbital Economy” and Sustainability of Space Policies: Summarize the importance of effective resource use and encourage a systematic and holistic approach to space strategies.

Example Report Structure Using Resource Analysis

Title: “Maximizing Resources in Space Policies: Toward a Sustainable Approach with TRIZ Resource Analysis”

1. Introduction: The Challenge of Resources in Space

   • Overview on the importance of optimizing resource use in space missions and policies.

2. What Is Resource Analysis?

   • Explanation of the concept and its advantages for planning and implementing space missions.

3. Case Study: Use of In-Situ Resources for Lunar Missions

   • Analysis of how the use of resources present on the Moon can make missions more economical and efficient.

4. Reuse of Space Infrastructure: An Opportunity for Sustainability

   • Discussion on the potential of reusing existing space infrastructure and reusable technologies.

5. International Collaboration as a Key Resource

   • Exploration of how cooperation between nations can reduce costs and improve mission efficiency.

6. Conclusion: “Orbital Economy” and the Future of Space Policies

   • Synthesis of points addressed and proposal of a resource management model that favors sustainability and efficiency.

Creating Connections with the Reader Using Metaphors and Similes

Using the “orbital economy” metaphor makes the importance of maximizing use of available resources more understandable. Comparing space resource management to that of a closed and self-managed economy helps explain the need for a holistic and careful approach, making the concept more accessible even to a non-expert audience.

In summary, resource analysis represents a powerful tool for developing sustainable and efficient space strategies. Using this concept to structure reports allows offering practical and concrete insights on how to address space sector challenges and promote innovation without increasing costs.

6. Substance-Field Analysis (Su-Field Analysis)

Substance-Field Analysis (Su-Field Analysis) ↗ is a TRIZ technique used to model and solve complex technical problems by identifying interactions between substances (physical components) and fields (energies) in a system. This technique focuses on optimizing relationships between system elements, seeking to improve performance or eliminate unwanted effects by adding or modifying existing interactions.

Application of Su-Field Analysis to Space Strategies and Policies

In the context of space policies, Su-Field analysis can be applied to improve the efficiency of space technologies and solve specific technical problems, such as optimizing materials used in space vehicles or energy management in missions. It can also be used to analyze interactions between different actors and resources within a space program, improving cooperation and resource distribution.

Examples of Su-Field Analysis Application in the Space Context

Optimization of Interactions Between Materials and Energy

Case: Improve heat dissipation in space vehicles to prevent overheating.

Su-Field Application: Identify the materials and energy fields involved (e.g., vehicle surface material and thermal field), then modify the system by adding a new field (such as a radiation cooling system) or replacing the material with one of greater thermal conductivity.

Management of Electromagnetic Fields in Space Communications

Case: Minimize electromagnetic interference in satellite communication systems.

Su-Field Application: Analyze the substances (antennas, satellites) and fields (electromagnetic waves) involved, and introduce solutions such as advanced shielding or filters to modify interactions and reduce interference.

Optimization of Cooperation Between International Actors

Case: Improve the effectiveness of international space programs by sharing resources and expertise.

Su-Field Application: Analyze interactions between different space entities (substances) and information or resource flows (fields), and propose improvements such as standardized agreements or digital platforms that facilitate information exchange.

Efficiency in Energy Use in Propulsion Systems

Case: Optimize fuel use in rockets to reduce costs and increase mission range.

Su-Field Application: Study the substances (propellant and engine components) and involved fields (chemical or thermodynamic field), seeking ways to improve energy reactions, such as introducing additives in fuel or using new catalysts.

Metaphor: “Space Alchemy” - Transforming Elements to Improve Performance

Su-Field analysis can be compared to alchemy, where the transformation and combination of elements lead to the creation of something new and more valuable. In this context, “substances” and “fields” are the fundamental building blocks with which to construct more efficient and innovative solutions. Just as alchemists sought to transform lead into gold, Su-Field analysis seeks to transform problematic systems into optimal solutions.

Using Su-Field Analysis to Structure Report Outlines

When applying Su-Field analysis to develop content, a report outline can follow these steps:

1. Introduction to Su-Field Analysis: Explain what “substances” and “fields” represent in the TRIZ context and how Su-Field analysis can be used to solve complex problems.

2. Description of a Specific Problem in the Space Sector: Present a concrete problem or challenge concerning space missions or resource management.

3. Analysis of Interactions Between Substances and Fields: Map the substances and fields involved in the problem, explaining how their interactions affect the overall system.

4. Proposal of Modifications or Improvements of Interactions: Present solutions that modify or optimize interactions between substances and fields, for example by introducing new technologies or materials.

5. Discussion of Implications for Space Policies: Examine how suggested solutions could influence space policies and program management.

6. Conclusion: The “Transmutation” of Space Problems Through Su-Field Analysis: Summarize the advantages of applying the technique and encourage adoption of a systematic approach in solving space problems.

Example Report Structure Using Su-Field Analysis

Title: “The Alchemy of Space Solutions: Solving Complex Problems with Su-Field Analysis”

1. Introduction: The Power of Su-Field Analysis in Space Missions

   • Describe the importance of understanding interactions in space systems to find more efficient solutions.

2. What Is Su-Field Analysis?

   • Explain the concept of substances and fields and how this technique can be used to solve technical and strategic problems.

3. Case Study: Optimization of Heat Management in Space Vehicles

   • Analyze a specific challenge and use Su-Field analysis to identify possible improvements.

4. Proposals for Solutions Based on Interaction Analysis:

   • Explore various solutions that modify interactions between substances and fields to improve system performance.

5. Policy Implications: How Su-Field Analysis Can Guide Space Regulations

   • Discuss how this technique can influence future policies and guidelines for space missions.

6. Conclusion: Applying Space Alchemy to Achieve Extraordinary Solutions

   • Summarize the benefits of Su-Field analysis and encourage its use to address space challenges creatively.

Creating Connections with the Reader Using Metaphors and Similes

The “space alchemy” metaphor conveys the idea that Su-Field analysis is not just a technical process, but an ingenious form of transformation that requires creativity and expertise to solve complex problems. This analogy facilitates concept understanding and shows readers that even the most complicated problems can be solved with the right approach.

In summary, Substance-Field analysis offers an effective methodology for improving space system performance and addressing complex technical challenges. Using this technique to structure reports allows exploring in detail how to optimize interactions in systems and propose innovative solutions that can positively influence space strategies and policies.

7. ARIZ Method (Algorithm for Inventive Problem Solving)

The ARIZ Method ↗ is one of the main TRIZ tools, considered as a structured algorithm for inventive problem solving. It is a step-by-step process that guides the user in analyzing a problem, identifying key contradictions, and searching for innovative solutions. ARIZ is particularly useful for addressing complex problems that seem unsolvable using conventional approaches.

Application of the ARIZ Method to Space Strategies and Policies

In space policies, the ARIZ Method can be used to address challenges that require creative and unconventional solutions, such as optimizing space mission costs, resolving security-related problems, or managing risks associated with space explorations. ARIZ allows decomposing complex problems into more manageable sub-problems and addressing the intrinsic contradictions that often hinder progress.

Examples of ARIZ Method Application in the Space Context

Reduction of Launch Costs Without Compromising Safety

Problem: Space launches are extremely expensive, but cost reduction can increase risks.

ARIZ Application: Analyze key contradictions (cost vs. safety) and seek solutions that allow maintaining or improving safety while reducing costs through innovations such as the use of alternative materials, rocket recovery technologies, or reusable launch systems.

Improvement of Space Vehicle Resistance to Orbital Debris

Problem: Space debris represents a growing threat to space vehicle safety.

ARIZ Application: Identify main contradictions (protection vs. vehicle weight) and develop solutions that reduce debris impact without adding excessive weight, such as new materials with self-repairing properties or adaptive shielding systems.

Optimization of Long-Term Missions in Deep Space

Problem: Long-duration missions in deep space require systems that are highly autonomous and resistant.

ARIZ Application: Examine contradictions related to system autonomy and resistance (e.g., system complexity vs. need for reduced maintenance) and propose innovations such as artificial intelligence systems for self-diagnosis and repair or 3D printing technologies for onboard component production.

Metaphor: “The Space Detective” - Solving Complex Problems with a Systematic Approach

The ARIZ Method can be compared to a detective solving a complex case by examining all evidence and seeking to identify the hidden culprit (the key contradiction) causing problems. Each ARIZ step is like an investigation phase, gradually leading to the discovery of unexpected new solutions. This metaphor conveys the idea that ARIZ is a rigorous yet creative process that allows unlocking “hidden” solutions behind apparent difficulties.

Using the ARIZ Method to Structure Report Outlines

Using the ARIZ Method to structure reports can follow this outline:

1. Introduction to the ARIZ Method: Explain what the ARIZ Method is and how it can be used to solve apparently unsolvable problems in the space sector.

2. Presentation of a Complex Problem in the Space Sector: Describe a concrete problem or challenge, such as space debris management or optimization of life support systems for Mars missions.

3. Step-by-Step Application of the ARIZ Method: Follow the various ARIZ steps to analyze the problem, identify contradictions, and propose solutions, showing how this process can lead to innovative results.

4. Discussion of Innovative Solutions Derived from Analysis: Explore solutions found through ARIZ, evaluating their pros and cons and explaining why they are more effective than traditional approaches.

5. Implications for Space Policies: Consider how using ARIZ can influence political and strategic decisions in the space sector, promoting a more systematic approach to problem solving.

6. Conclusion: The Space Detective - Solving Complex Problems with the ARIZ Method: Summarize the benefits of the ARIZ Method and encourage its use as a tool to address technical and strategic challenges in space.

Example Report Structure Using the ARIZ Method

Title: “The ARIZ Method: Solving Space Challenges with a Systematic Approach”

1. Introduction: The ARIZ Method and Problem Solving in Space

   • Explain how the ARIZ Method can be a powerful tool for solving complex problems in space missions.

2. What Is ARIZ and How Does It Work?

   • Provide an overview of ARIZ main steps and its application in problem solving.

3. Case Study: Reduction of Launch Costs Without Compromising Safety

   • Analyze a specific problem and demonstrate how ARIZ can be used to find innovative solutions.

4. Application of ARIZ Steps to the Case Study:

   • Show how each phase of the method leads to a deeper understanding of the problem and more effective solutions.

5. Policy Implications: How to Incorporate the ARIZ Method into Space Strategies

   • Discuss how ARIZ could be used to improve resource management policies and mission planning.

6. Conclusion: A New Tool to Address Space Policy Challenges

   • Summarize the advantages of ARIZ and encourage adoption of this approach in space policies and strategies.

Creating Connections with the Reader Using Metaphors and Similes

The “space detective” metaphor helps visualize ARIZ as an investigative process seeking to discover the deep cause of a problem. In this way, readers can better understand the value of a systematic approach to problem solving, recognizing that it is not only about identifying the right solution, but also following a process that leads to true understanding of challenges.

In summary, the ARIZ Method is an effective tool for addressing and solving complex problems in space policies, offering a step-by-step approach to finding innovative solutions. Structuring reports around this method allows showing how to address apparently unsolvable problems creatively and systematically, improving the quality of decisions and strategies in the space sector.

8. TRIZ 9 Windows Technique (System Operator)

Understanding the 9 Windows Framework in TRIZ

The 9 Windows Technique ↗ , also known as the System Operator or Multi-Screen Thinking, is one of TRIZ’s most versatile analytical tools for comprehensive system understanding. This technique creates a 3x3 matrix that examines systems across two fundamental dimensions: temporal evolution (past, present, future) and system hierarchy (subsystem, system, supersystem). Originally developed by Genrich Altshuller as part of the TRIZ methodology, it provides a structured approach to break through psychological inertia and discover innovative solutions by forcing consideration of multiple perspectives simultaneously.

The power of the 9 Windows lies in its ability to reveal hidden resources, identify evolutionary patterns, and uncover opportunities that remain invisible when focusing solely on the immediate problem. The technique has proven valuable beyond its engineering origins ↗ , finding applications in strategic planning, marketing management, organizational development, and leadership training.

Application of 9 Windows to Space Strategies and Policies

In the context of space policies and strategies, the 9 Windows Technique offers a powerful framework for understanding the complex evolution of space programs, technologies, and governance structures. Unlike traditional linear planning approaches, it enables policy makers to simultaneously consider how past decisions influence present capabilities, how current systems operate within broader contexts, and how today’s choices will shape future space domain evolution.

The technique is particularly valuable for space policy because it addresses the multi-generational nature of space programs, where missions planned today may not launch for a decade, and infrastructure developed now must serve needs that will emerge over multiple decades.

The 9 Windows Matrix for Space Policy Analysis

Strategic Applications in Space Policy Context

Resource Allocation and Budget Planning

Past-Present-Future Analysis: By examining budget patterns across time dimensions, policy makers can identify funding cycles, understand how past investments created current capabilities, and project how today’s allocations will enable future missions ↗ . For instance, investments in reusable launch technology in the past decade now enable lower-cost access to space, which in turn allows planning for more ambitious future missions.

System Level Integration: Understanding how subsystem investments (component technologies) aggregate into system capabilities (complete missions) that contribute to supersystem objectives (national space strategy) helps optimize resource allocation across different program elements.

Technology Roadmapping and Innovation Planning

Temporal Evolution Tracking: The 9 Windows reveals technology maturation pathways, showing how experimental subsystem technologies become operational system components and eventually enable supersystem transformations. This is crucial for identifying when to transition from research to development to operational deployment.

Cross-Level Innovation Transfer: The technique helps identify how innovations at one system level can cascade through other levels ↗ . For example, miniaturization advances at the subsystem level enabled CubeSats at the system level, which transformed the supersystem by democratizing space access.

International Cooperation and Competition Analysis

Historical Context Integration: Understanding how past cooperation frameworks (like ISS partnerships) evolved into current collaborative structures informs future multilateral space initiatives. The technique reveals patterns in how bilateral agreements scale to multilateral frameworks.

Multi-Level Stakeholder Mapping: Different system levels involve different stakeholders—component suppliers at subsystem level, mission operators at system level, and treaty negotiators at supersystem level. The 9 Windows helps coordinate these diverse interests across time.

Integration with Space Policy Dimensions

As noted in the companion framework on 5dimensions© in Space, the temporal aspect of the 9 Windows complements rather than duplicates dimensional analysis. While the 5dimensions framework treats time as a persistence dimension focusing on identity and continuity, the 9 Windows explicitly maps evolutionary trajectories and transformation patterns. This dual approach provides both structural understanding (through dimensional analysis) and dynamic understanding (through temporal evolution).

The synthesis reveals that space policy must simultaneously address:

• Inherited constraints from past decisions (historical window)
• Current operational realities (present window)
• Future capability requirements (future window)

All while managing interactions across subsystem technologies, system missions, and supersystem governance.

Metaphor: The “Orbital Telescope” - Viewing Space Policy Across Time and Scale

The 9 Windows Technique can be visualized as an orbital telescope with multiple lenses that can simultaneously focus on different distances and timeframes. Just as astronomers use different instruments to observe various wavelengths and distances, policy makers use the 9 Windows to observe their domain across multiple scales and temporal horizons. This “orbital telescope” reveals:

• Near-field details (subsystem components and immediate challenges)
• Mid-range patterns (system-level operations and current programs)
• Far-field context (supersystem dynamics and long-term evolution)

Each observation informs the others, creating a comprehensive understanding that transcends any single viewpoint.

Practical Implementation for Strategic Planning

Organizations and teams can use the 9 Windows to evaluate the immediate and future impact of decisions and changes, creating systems and procedures to anticipate problems before they occur ASQ ↗ Mikecardus ↗ . In space policy contexts, this manifests as:

Step-by-Step Application Process

1. Define the Central System: Place the current space policy challenge or program in the center box
2. Map Temporal Evolution: Identify relevant past events, current state, and future objectives
3. Analyze System Levels: Examine subsystem components, peer systems, and supersystem context
4. Identify Patterns and Resources: Look for evolutionary trends, available resources, and emerging opportunities
5. Generate Solutions: Use insights from all nine windows to develop comprehensive strategies
6. Validate Across Windows: Ensure proposed solutions work across all time horizons and system levels

Using 9 Windows to Structure Policy Reports

Example Report Structure: “Multi-Horizon Space Strategy Development”

Title: “From Heritage to Horizon: A 9 Windows Analysis of National Space Capabilities”

1. Introduction: The Need for Multi-Dimensional Strategic Thinking
   • Explain the limitations of linear planning in complex space programs
   • Introduce the 9 Windows as a comprehensive analytical framework
2. Historical Foundation (Past Column Analysis)
   • Heritage systems and their continuing influence
   • Lessons learned from previous programs
   • Technological and political path dependencies
3. Current Capability Assessment (Present Column Analysis)
   • Operational systems and active programs
   • Current stakeholder landscape
   • Immediate challenges and opportunities
4. Future Vision Development (Future Column Analysis)
   • Emerging requirements and opportunities
   • Technology maturation projections
   • Evolution of international space governance
5. Cross-Level Integration (Row Analysis)
   • Subsystem technology trends and innovations
   • System-level capability development
   • Supersystem governance evolution
6. Strategic Synthesis: Navigating the Nine Windows
   • Integration points across time and scale
   • Critical decision nodes and timing
   • Resource optimization strategies
7. Implementation Roadmap
   • Near-term actions informed by long-term vision
   • System-level milestones aligned with supersystem objectives
   • Feedback mechanisms for adaptive planning
8. Conclusion: The Orbital Telescope Advantage
   • Benefits of multi-dimensional strategic thinking
   • Call to action for comprehensive policy development

Creating Dynamic Policy Narratives

The 9 Windows Technique helps organizations stay open to new ideas by exploring issues from different angles and dimensions. For space policy reports, this translates into narratives that:

• Connect past investments to future capabilities, showing return on investment across decades
• Link subsystem innovations to supersystem transformations, demonstrating how small advances enable large changes
• Reveal hidden interdependencies between seemingly unrelated programs or technologies
• Identify windows of opportunity where multiple favorable conditions align across different windows

Overcoming Psychological Inertia in Space Policy

Psychological inertia—the tendency to remain trapped in familiar thinking patterns—represents a significant barrier to innovation in policy development ↗ . The 9 Windows Technique systematically defeats this inertia by forcing consideration of:

• Alternative timeframes: Moving beyond current budget cycles to consider generational impacts
• Different system levels: Escaping the trap of focusing solely on immediate system concerns
• Historical patterns: Learning from past successes and failures rather than repeatedly “reinventing the wheel”
• Emergent possibilities: Identifying future opportunities not visible from present-focused analysis

Advanced Applications for Space Strategy

Scenario Planning and Risk Management

By populating each window with different scenario assumptions, policy makers can stress-test strategies across multiple futures and system configurations. This reveals vulnerabilities that might only manifest under specific combinations of temporal and system-level conditions.

Innovation Ecosystem Development

The technique can map innovation pathways, showing how research investments flow through the windows to become operational capabilities. This helps identify where to place innovation investments for maximum impact across the space domain.

Stakeholder Alignment and Communication

Different stakeholders naturally focus on different windows—engineers on subsystem technologies, program managers on system delivery, policy makers on supersystem governance. The 9 Windows provides a common framework for integration and mutual understanding.

Temporal-Spatial Integration for Comprehensive Space Strategy

The 9 Windows Technique offers space policy professionals a structured methodology for comprehensive strategic analysis that transcends traditional planning limitations. By systematically examining the space domain across both temporal evolution and system hierarchy, it reveals opportunities, resources, and solutions invisible to single-perspective analysis.

When combined with other TRIZ tools and frameworks like the 5dimensions© ↘ approach, the 9 Windows enables a level of strategic sophistication essential for navigating the complexity of modern space policy. It transforms fragmented, reactive planning into integrated, proactive strategy development—turning the challenge of multi-generational, multi-stakeholder space programs into a structured opportunity for systematic innovation and strategic advantage.

The “orbital telescope” of the 9 Windows ensures that space policies are informed by history, grounded in present realities, and oriented toward future possibilities—all while maintaining awareness of how subsystem innovations enable system capabilities that transform the supersystem of human space activity.

Conclusion

The application of TRIZ tools to space strategies and policies offers a powerful and systematic framework for addressing the complex challenges facing the sector. From managing strategic contradictions to optimizing resources, from Su-Field analysis to the structured approach of ARIZ, these methodologies provide professional report writers with concrete tools for:

• Identifying and resolving contradictions between competing objectives without resorting to compromises
• Applying inventive principles to find innovative solutions to strategic dilemmas
• Optimizing resource use through systematic analysis of available assets
• Improving system interactions through substance-field modeling
• Solving complex problems with structured algorithmic approaches

By adopting TRIZ principles, space policy professionals can develop more efficient, sustainable, and innovative strategies that balance ambition with reality, national security with international cooperation, and technological innovation with regulatory frameworks.

The metaphors and practical examples provided throughout this framework—from the “payload of ideas” to the “orbital economy,” from “space alchemy” to the “space detective”—serve to make these sophisticated concepts accessible and actionable for report development and strategic planning in the space sector.

Future Applications: As the space sector continues to evolve with increasing commercial activity, international collaboration, and technological advancement, the systematic application of TRIZ tools will become increasingly valuable for navigating the complex trade-offs and opportunities that define modern space policy and strategy.