From idea to orbit, part II: how missions mature and where Lun fits

Posted on October 2025 – by Inés Picone

Hi again, I’m Inés Picone, co-founder of Lun. In my first post we walked through the big milestones from idea to orbit. Today I want to go one level deeper: how the industry measures concept maturity, how a real mission flows through NASA-style phases, and (because I love sharing what we are building) where Lun helps.

A common language for readiness: concept maturity levels (CMLs)

Concept maturity levels (CMLs) give teams a shared way to express how well defined a mission concept is (different from TRLs, which focus on technology readiness). CMLs help you communicate where the concept stands, make decisions explicit (assumptions, drivers, risks, trades), and identify what is missing before the next gate. In plain terms, CMLs are a decision quality checklist ahead of major reviews, especially PDR, so you do not end up discovering the concept while you are supposed to be designing it.

The NASA lifecycle: from pre-phase A to operations

NASA structures flight projects into phases with formal gate reviews:

• Pre-phase A: concept studies. Explore mission value and feasible trade space.
• Phase A: concept and technology development. Converge on a baseline and reduce key risks.
• Phase B: preliminary design. Architecture and interfaces solidify, prepare for PDR.
• Phase C/D: final design, build and test. Detailed design, manufacturing, integration, verification, qualification.
• Phase E: operations. Commissioning and mission ops.

Centers like the Mission Design Center (MDC) at NASA Ames run early concurrent design sessions, where systems, mechanical, thermal, power, AOCS, payload and operations review the same board to test feasibility, cost and schedule before committing big resources. It is a great model for small sat teams too.

How CMLs and phases connect

• Pre-phase A to phase A. Explore the trade space and progress CML toward a defendable concept baseline.
• Phase B. You are in preliminary design and reviews (SRR and PDR) lock scope with less uncertainty.
• Phase C/D. You build and test and you do not want to find layout surprises here.
• Phase E. You fly.

CMLs clarify what ready to pass the gate actually means for everyone.

A recurring pain: early rework from internal layout

In small and microsat programs, lots of iteration appears when mass and CG envelopes, clearances and keep outs, or thermal and power realities show up late. That triggers loops across mechanical, AOCS, thermal and power just when timelines get tight (pre PDR or pre CDR). It is common and costly.

Where Lun fits (today, without overpromising)

Lun is building an early stage design tool to generate a first pass internal layout and run first order checks such as mass and CG envelope, thermal and power proxies, and clearances and keep outs, so teams can catch obvious issues earlier and avoid unnecessary iteration.

• When to use it. Pre phase A through phase B (before and around PDR), aligned with CML progression.
• How we operate today. Controlled beta (limited users, rate limited, auditable usage), no sensitive or export controlled data, human in the loop.
• What it is not. A replacement for detailed analysis or qualification. It is an early warning layer to arrive at gates better prepared.

Starting a mission study: practical habits that help

• Define a value frame early. Measurable objectives, key constraints, and design drivers (mass, power, cost, schedule). Decide which CML you need to achieve before the next gate.
• Do concurrent design early. Align systems, mechanical, thermal, power and AOCS on the same facts. It saves weeks.
• Freeze critical assumptions explicitly. Boundary temperatures, average and peak power and dissipation, CG envelopes, keep outs.
• Leave decision evidence. CMLs are about what you chose and why. That lowers friction at SRR and PDR.

Space is hard. Frameworks like CMLs and the NASA lifecycle reduce uncertainty, and tools like Lun help teams surface risks earlier so PDR and CDR are less painful. If you are willing to share how your team structures early trade studies (or what consistently trips you up), I would love to read it and learn together.

← Back to blog