<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:41902.wais]
NASA'S AERONAUTICS R&D
PROGRAM: STATUS AND ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 1, 2008
__________
Serial No. 1100999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-902 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
DAVID WU, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
MIKE ROSS, Arizona JO BONNER, Alabama
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICHARD OBERMANN Subcommittee Staff Director
PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
ALLEN LI Democratic Professional Staff Member
KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member
ED FEDDEMAN Republican Professional Staff Member
DEVIN BRYANT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
May 1, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Tom Feeney, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Prepared Statement by Representative Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 16
Witnesses:
Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Mr. Carl J. Meade, Co-Chair, Committee for the Assessment of
NASA's Aeronautics Research Program, National Research Council
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 29
Biography.................................................... 33
Mr. Preston A. Henne, Senior Vice President, Programs,
Engineering and Testing, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Biography.................................................... 38
Dr. Ilan Kroo, Professor, Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Stanford University
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 40
Biography.................................................... 42
Discussion
Additional Funding for NASA Aeronautics........................ 42
NASA and NextGen............................................... 43
Research Information........................................... 45
Aviation and the Environment................................... 46
Wind Tunnels................................................... 46
Noise and Aviation............................................. 47
R&D and NextGen................................................ 48
NASA Aeronautics and Technology Demonstration.................. 48
National Research Council Assessment of NASA R&D Activities.... 49
Noise and Aircraft Pollution................................... 51
U.S. R&D and European R&D...................................... 52
Air Traffic Controllers and NextGen............................ 53
NASA's Aviation Safety Program................................. 54
NAOMS/ASIAS.................................................... 55
National Research Council Priorities/UAVs...................... 56
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).......................................... 60
Mr. Carl J. Meade, Co-Chair, Committee for the Assessment of
NASA's Aeronautics Research Program, National Research Council. 64
Mr. Preston A. Henne, Senior Vice President, Programs,
Engineering and Testing, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation...... 68
Dr. Ilan Kroo, Professor, Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Stanford University.............................. 70
NASA'S AERONAUTICS R&D PROGRAM: STATUS AND ISSUES
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NASA's Aeronautics R&D
Program: Status and Issues
thursday, may 1, 2008
10:00 a.m.<ls-thn-eq>0912:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., the House Committee on
Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will
hold a hearing to review NASA's current Aeronautics R&D Program,
examine what needs to be done to make it as relevant as possible to the
Nation's needs, and in particular to examine R&D challenges related to
safety and environmental impacts.
Witnesses
Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include the
following:
Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Carl J. Meade, Co-Chair, Committee for the Assessment of NASA's
Aeronautics Research Program, National Research Council, National
Academies
Preston A. Henne, Senior Vice President, Programs, Engineering and
Test, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Dr. Ilan Kroo, Professor, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Stanford University
Potential Issues
The following are some of the potential issues that might be raised
at the hearing:
<bullet> IWhy is it important for the Federal Government to
invest in aeronautics R&D, and is the current level of
investment adequate?
<bullet> IWhat needs to be done to ensure that NASA's
aeronautics R&D is relevant to the Nation's needs and to
maintain U.S. leadership?
<bullet> IHow can NASA's aeronautics R&D activities be more
rapidly transitioned to the marketplace and to public sector
users?
<bullet> IHow can NASA work most effectively with industry and
the universities to carry out a meaningful aeronautics R&D
program?
<bullet> IWhat are the most important aviation safety issues
facing the Nation, and what is NASA's aeronautics R&D program
doing to address them?
<bullet> IWhat are the most important issues related to
aviation's impact on the environment, e.g., noise, emissions,
and energy consumption, and what is NASA's aeronautics program
doing to address them?
<bullet> IWhat are the most important aeronautics R&D issues
that will need to be addressed if the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) initiative is to succeed, and
what is NASA's role in addressing them?
<bullet> IWhat are the most promising flight regimes for NASA
to investigate and what R&D initiatives would offer the most
promise for such areas as supersonic flight, V/STOL flight, and
so forth?
<bullet> IWhat are the most important challenges to be
addressed if the Nation is to sustain an efficient,
environmentally compatible, and safe aviation system? What
should NASA's role be in addressing those challenges and is
NASA's current aeronautics R&D program able to fill that role?
BACKGROUND
Overview
NASA has long been a major source of the Nation's aeronautical
research and development (R&D), R&D that has found application in both
civil and military systems. However, funding for NASA's aeronautics
program has been in decline for a major portion of the decade, in spite
of recent congressional efforts to reverse that negative trend. In
addition, beginning in late 2005, NASA began restructuring its
aeronautics program to move away from a program that included
technology demonstration projects and R&D that led to greater
technology maturity towards a program focused on more fundamental
research. These changes in NASA's Aeronautics R&D program occur at a
time when the Next Generation Air Transportation System initiative
known as NextGen is ramping up and increased concerns about aviation's
actual and potential impact on the environment are growing.
NextGen is intended to transform the existing air traffic control
system to accommodate projected growth in air passenger and cargo rates
over the next decade. As part of this modernization, NextGen aims to
develop a more efficient and more environmentally friendly national air
transportation system, while maintaining safety. The development of
NextGen is being overseen by the Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO), a joint initiative of the Department of Transportation, NASA,
Commerce, Defense Homeland Security, and the White House OSTP. FAA has
traditionally relied on NASA for a significant portion of the R&D
related to air traffic management as well as research to help address
substantial noise, emissions, efficiency, performance, and safety
challenges that are required to ensure vehicles can support the NextGen
vision.
NASA's capabilities are likely to be needed even more in the years
ahead as worldwide debate intensifies over how to deal with climate
change caused by aviation. Aviation greenhouse gas emissions dominated
the discussions last year at the ICAO Assembly in Montreal. And in late
2007, the European Union continued discussions on how to impose its
emissions trading system on international aviation. R&D will be needed
in several areas to meet the objectives of improving scientific
understanding of the impacts of aviation; accelerating air traffic
management improvements and efficiencies to reduce fuel burn; hastening
the development of promising environmental improvements in aircraft
technology; and exploring alternatives to current greenhouse gas (GHG)-
emitting fuels for aviation.
Promising research is already being conducted by NASA in several of
these areas, including collaborations with industry for research at the
system level on projects such as the X<ls-thn-eq>0948B Blended Wing
with Boeing, Geared Turbo Fan with Pratt & Whitney, and sonic boom
suppression technologies with Gulfstream Aerospace. However, the
declining funding for Aeronautics R&D in NASA's budgets provides a
worrisome backdrop that calls into question the Agency's ability to
meet the expectations of federal and private sector partners. The
assessment of NASA's Aeronautics Research Program just completed by a
Committee established by the National Research Council (NRC) reinforces
concern over NASA's ability to successfully conduct a comprehensive
aeronautics R&D program under the budgets given to NASA's aeronautics
program.
Projecting what the air transportation system will look like and
anticipating how to deal with increased demand, the integration of new
aircraft technology in the National Airspace System, safety issues, and
aviation's effect on the environment will require a responsive
aeronautics R&D program at NASA. However, NASA's Aeronautics Research
Program will be severely challenged in attempting to address those
issues under current budgetary trends.
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
NASA's FY09 budget provides $446.5 million for the Aeronautics
Research Program under the direction of Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate (ARMD). It should be noted that NASA's FY 2009 budget has
been restructured pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2008,
and is now presented in seven accounts. In addition, the budget
estimates presented in the FY 2009 request are in direct program
dollars rather than in the full cost dollars used in previous
Presidential budget requests. From a direct cost perspective,\1\ the
proposed FY09 budget for Aeronautics Research is a decrease of $65.2
million from that appropriated in FY08. This continues a multi-year
trend of declines in the budget requests for NASA's aeronautics
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\<ls-thn-eq>1AAs part of the budget restructuring, NASA shifted
from a full-cost budget, in which each project budget included overhead
costs, to a direct cost budget. All overhead budget estimates are now
consolidated into the Cross Agency Support budget line. NASA has stated
that maintaining a full cost budget with seven appropriations accounts
would be overly complex and inefficient. The direct cost budget shows
program budget estimates that are based entirely on program content.
Individual project managers continue to operate in a full-cost
environment, including management of overhead costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Aeronautics Research Program budget funds:
<bullet> IFundamental Aeronautics. The FY09 request for
Fundamental Aeronautics is $235.4 million, a decrease of $34.5
million from the $269.9 million enacted in FY08. Long-term
research conducted by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program will
be used to provide feasible solutions to the performance and
environmental challenges of future air vehicles. Research
efforts in revolutionary configurations, lighter and stiffer
materials, improved propulsion systems, and advanced concepts
for high-lift and drag reduction all target the efficiency and
environmental compatibility of future air vehicles. NASA's FY09
budget request says that space exploration activities will
benefit from fundamental technology advances that can impact
the Agency's future ability to both access space and survive
the planetary entry, descent, and landing phase of missions to
other planetary surfaces.
<bullet> IAirspace Systems. The FY09 request for Airspace
Systems is $74.6 million, a decrease of $25.5 million from the
$100.1 million enacted in FY08. The Airspace Systems Program is
intended to address the air traffic management research needs
of NextGen in collaboration with the member agencies of the
JPDO. NASA is working with the JPDO as well as other
government, industry, and academic partners to enable the
formation, development, integration, and demonstration of
revolutionary concepts, capabilities, and technologies intended
to allow significant increases in capacity, efficiency, and
flexibility of the National Airspace System.
<bullet> IAviation Safety. The FY09 request for Aviation Safety
is $62.6 million, a decrease of $3.9 million from the $66.5
million enacted in FY08. The program builds on NASA's unique
safety-related research capabilities to improve aircraft safety
for current and future aircraft, and to overcome aircraft
safety technological barriers that would otherwise constrain
the full realization of NextGen. To that end, NASA says that it
is focusing its Aviation Safety Program on developing cutting-
edge technologies to improve the intrinsic safety attributes of
current and future aircraft that will operate in NextGen. For
example, NASA's work on an Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck
will include research into a forward looking sense-and avoid
concept aimed at detecting hazardous icing conditions with
ground-based and on-board sensing technologies, a potentially
significant safety capability for the flying public.
Furthermore, the Aviation Safety Program supports NASA's human
and robotic exploration missions by advancing knowledge, tools,
and technologies in areas relevant to operations in harsh
environments.
<bullet> IAeronautics Test Program. The FY09 request for the
Aeronautics Test Program is $73.9 million, a decrease of $1.2
million from the $75.1 million enacted in FY08. Prior to 2005,
NASA's management approach for major test facilities was for
each NASA Research Center to be fully responsible for their
Center's facilities. NASA believed that this approach limited
the potential ability to pursue Agency-wide approaches and
hampered interaction. In 2006, the Aeronautics Test Program was
developed to establish corporate management of NASA's
aeronautics ground test facilities. This was done, NASA says in
its FY09 budget request, to optimize utilization of the
Agency's wind tunnel and air breathing propulsion test facility
assets for efficiency and cost effectiveness; to sustain and
improve NASA's core capability of wind tunnel and air breathing
propulsion testing; and to ensure a minimum core capability is
maintained.
NASA's out-year projections for the Aeronautics Research in the
President's FY09 budget request show only minor changes in projected
funding levels through 2013. As a point of comparison, NASA Aeronautics
funding was about $1.85 billion (2006 dollars) in 1994--the current
budget request is thus only about 24 percent of that level.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Congressional Direction to Develop a National Aeronautics R&D Policy
and Plan
In the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, Congress reaffirmed the
national commitment to aeronautics research made in the National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 and went on to state that
``Aeronautics research and development remains a core mission of NASA.
NASA is the lead agency for civil aeronautics research.'' The Act also
directed that the government of the United States ``promote aeronautics
research and development that will expand the capacity, ensure the
safety, and increase the efficiency of the Nation's air transportation
system, promote the security of the Nation, protect the environment,
and retain the leadership of the United States in global aviation.''
The Act also directed the development of a national policy to guide the
aeronautics research and development programs of the United States
through 2020. The policy was to include national goals for aeronautics
research and development and describe the role and responsibilities of
each Federal agency that will carry out the policy.
In addition, the Act specified that the national aeronautics
research and development policy describe for NASA (a) the priority
areas of research for aeronautics through fiscal year 2011; (b) the
basis on which and the process by which priorities for ensuing fiscal
years will be selected; (c) the facilities and personnel needed to
carry out the aeronautics program through fiscal year 2011; and (d) the
budget assumptions on which the policy is based.
In developing the national aeronautics research and development
policy, the Act specified consideration of several issues, namely:
<bullet> IThe extent to which NASA should focus on long-term,
high-risk research or more incremental research, and the
expected impact of that decision on the United States economy,
and the ability to achieve environmental and other public goals
related to aeronautics.
<bullet> IThe extent to which NASA should address military and
commercial needs.
<bullet> IHow NASA will coordinate its aeronautics program with
other federal agencies.
<bullet> IThe extent to which NASA will conduct research in-
house, fund university research, and collaborate on industry
research, and the expected impact of that mix of funding on the
supply of United States workers for the aeronautics industry.
In response to the congressional direction, the Bush Administration
released its National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy,
along with its accompanying Executive Order 13419. That policy
established principles and objectives to drive federal aeronautics R&D
activities and guidelines that delineate agency roles and
responsibilities in (a) stable and long-term foundational research; (b)
advanced aircraft systems development; (c) air transportation
management systems; and (d) national research, development, test and
evaluation infrastructure. The Policy also called for an infrastructure
plan for managing critical federal research, development, test and
evaluation (RDT&E) assets.
The National Aeronautics R&D Policy laid out seven key principles
to guide the conduct of the Nation's aeronautics R&D activities through
2020. These principles (with two exceptions discussed later) served as
the framework for the R&D Plan issued in December 2007:
<bullet> IMobility through the air is vital to economic
stability, growth, and security as a nation.
<bullet> IAviation is vital to national security and homeland
defense.
<bullet> IAviation safety is paramount.
<bullet> ISecurity of and within the aeronautics enterprise
must be maintained.
<bullet> IThe United States should continue to possess, rely
on, and develop its world-class aeronautics workforce.
<bullet> IAssuring energy availability and efficiency is
central to the growth of the aeronautics enterprise.
<bullet> IThe environment must be protected while sustaining
growth in air transportation.
For each principle addressed in the plan, the state-of-the-art of
related technologies and systems was provided as well as a set of
fundamental challenges and associated high-priority R&D goals and
supporting objectives for each goal. Objectives are phased over three
time periods: near-term (<5 years), mid-term (5<ls-thn-eq>0910 years),
and far-term (>10 years). Two principles in the Policy are being
addressed in different efforts. Specifically, Aviation security R&D
efforts are coordinated through the National Strategy for Aviation
Security and its supporting plans. Aerospace workforce issues are being
explored by the Aerospace Revitalization Task Force led by the
Department of Labor.
The infrastructure plan called for in the 2005 Authorization Act
has yet to be completed. The R&D Plan issued in December 2007 outlined
future steps in developing the RDT&E infrastructure plan that will
focus on the critical RDT&E assets and capabilities necessary to
support the aeronautics R&D goals and objectives laid forth in this
Plan. The RDT&E infrastructure includes experimental facilities and
computational resources, as well as the cyber-infrastructure that
serves to connect the two. The supplemental infrastructure plan will
also address an approach for constructing, maintaining, modifying, or
terminating assets based on the needs of the broad user community.
Establishing Research Priorities: NRC's Decadal Survey of Civil
Aeronautics
In 2005, NASA contracted with the NRC to develop a consensus
document representing the external (industry and academia) community's
views about what NASA's aeronautics research priorities ought to be.
The Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics was the first decadal survey
ever produced for NASA's aeronautics program. Eighty-five aeronautics
experts from academia, industry, and federal laboratories met and
worked over a one-year period to develop a consensus document. The
report laid out five key areas for research: aerodynamics and
aeroacoustics; propulsion and power; materials and structures;
dynamics, navigation and control, and avionics; and intelligent and
autonomous systems, operations and decision-making, human integrated
systems, networking and communications. Overall, the Decadal Survey
laid out a prioritized list of 51 challenges to address and recommended
that NASA use them as the foundation for its aeronautics program over
the next decade.
The report was the subject of hearings before the House Committee
on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics in
July and September of 2006. At the first of those hearings, then
Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert raised concern over instability in
NASA's aeronautics R&D program, saying that ``NASA's aeronautics
program has, in recent years, been prone to changes in leadership and
program goals and strategies.'' At that same hearing, then Ranking
Democratic Member Mark Udall called for investing in aeronautics R&D,
thereby leading to such important efforts as enhancing the capability
of America's air transportation system and enabling more
environmentally compatible aircraft with significantly lower noise
emissions and energy consumption relative to aircraft currently in
service. He also warned that ``if we don't reverse this budgetary
decline that NASA's aeronautics program is undergoing, we are not going
to have the robust and vital R&D program we need and the [NRC] report
envisions.''
NRC's Assessment of NASA's Aeronautics Research Program
The 2005 NASA Authorization Act directed the NASA Administrator to
enter into an arrangement with the NRC for an assessment of the
Nation's future requirements for fundamental aeronautics research and
whether the Nation will have a skilled research workforce and research
facilities commensurate with those requirements. The assessment was to
include an identification of any projected gaps, and recommendations
for what steps should be taken by the Federal Government to eliminate
those gaps.
The Committee for the Assessment of NASA's Aeronautics Research
Program found that ``even though the NASA aeronautics program has the
technical ability to address each of the highest-priority R&T
challenges from the Decadal Survey individually (through in-house
research and/or partnerships with external research organizations),
ARMD would require a substantial budget increase to address all of the
challenges in a thorough and comprehensive manner.''
The Committee recommended that NASA:
<bullet> IEnsure that ``its research program substantively
advances the state of the art and makes a significant
difference in a time frame of interest to users of the research
results by (1) making a concerted effort to identify the
potential users of ongoing research and how that research
relates to those needs and (2) prioritizing potential research
opportunities according to an accepted set of metrics. In
addition, absent a substantial increase in funding and/or a
substantial reduction in other constraints that NASA faces in
conducting aeronautics research (such as facilities, workforce
composition, and federal policies), NASA, in consultation with
the aeronautics research community and others as appropriate,
should redefine the scope and priorities within the aeronautics
research program to be consistent with available resources and
the priorities identified in (2), above (even if all 51
highest-priority R&T challenges from the Decadal Survey of
Civil Aeronautics are not addressed simultaneously). This would
improve the value of the research that the aeronautics program
is able to perform, and it would make resources available to
facilitate the development of new core competencies and unique
capabilities that may be essential to the Nation and to the
NASA aeronautics program of the future.''
<bullet> IBridge ``the gap between research and application--
and thereby increase the likelihood that this research will be
of value to the intended users.'' Furthermore, the Committee
recommended that NASA, for ``technology intended to enhance the
competitiveness of U.S. industry, establish a more direct link
between NASA and U.S. industry to provide for technology
transfer in a way that does not necessarily include the
immediate, public dissemination of results to potential foreign
competitors.''
<bullet> IDevelop ``a vision describing the role of its
research staff as well as a comprehensive, centralized
strategic plan for workforce integration and implementation
specific to ARMD. The plan should be based on an ARMD-wide
survey of staffing requirements by skill level, coupled with an
availability analysis of NASA civil servants available to
support the NASA aeronautics program. The plan should identify
specific gaps and the time frame in which they should be
addressed NASA should reduce the impact of facility
shortcomings by continuing to assess facilities and mothball or
decommission facilities of lesser importance so that the most
important facilities can be properly sustained.''
The Challenge of Sustaining an Efficient, Environmentally Compatible,
and Safe Aviation System in the Face of Increasing
Demand
As evidenced by frequent reports of flight delays around the
country, the Nation's air transportation system is reaching saturation.
The number of passengers using the system has been climbing steadily.
In 2006, passengers exceeded 750 million; it is likely that between
2012 and 2015, the number of passengers could reach one billion each
year. At that point, the air transportation system will be reaching its
limits. Some models project that the number of passengers could double
or even triple by the year 2025.
In the U.S., the major effort to develop a new air transportation
system falls under the aegis of NextGen. The vision for NextGen is a
system that is based on satellite navigation and control, digital non-
voice communication and advanced networking. Furthermore, NextGen
envisions shifting of decision-making from the ground to the cockpit.
Flight crews will have increased control over their flight trajectories
and ground controllers will become traffic flow managers. The air
transportation system of the future will likely need to accommodate new
flight regimes such as supersonic flight and the emergence of scheduled
vertical and short take-off and landing (V/STOL) airline operations.
Recent aircraft groundings for inspection of wiring bundles remind us
that aviation safety issues associated with existing aircraft will also
continue to need to be addressed.
There has long been a recognition of the need for R&D to minimize
the adverse impacts on the environment, namely in the areas of aircraft
noise around airports, energy consumption, and engine emissions. This
is particularly important in light of the expected growth in air travel
projected in the next decade. Some progress has been achieved in noise
reduction for conventional fixed wing aircraft. FAA cites a decrease
from seven million to half a million people exposed to significant
aircraft noise in the past thirty years, this despite a significant
number of passenger emplanements. Such a reduction was made possible
through the evolution of aircraft powerplants, from the use of
turbojets to more efficient and quieter generations of turbofans which
have benefited from NASA R&D. However, noise remains a significant
issue, particularly around the Nation's busiest airports and more needs
to be done. Noise also has been a significant challenge for civil V/
STOL aircraft.
Airlines and other users of the Nation's air transportation system
are particularly sensitive to the cost of fuel, and R&D to increase
aircraft energy efficiency has been a significant focus of NASA's
aeronautics R&D program at various times. Yet technical or operational
measures to promote energy efficiency have to be considered in the
context of the overall aviation system. As a result, air transportation
is particularly sensitive to requirements that may impact on fuel
efficiency. For example, higher fuel consumption is oftentimes the
result of having to design aircraft capable of meeting airport noise
restrictions. For that reason, there is high interest in future
powerplants that are both quiet and fuel efficient. NASA's Ultra-
Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program was a government-industry
cooperative effort to develop improved engine technologies. NASA's
Space Act Agreement with Pratt & Whitney on the Geared Turbo Fan is a
more recent illustration of NASA's work on this challenging problem.
Concerns about climate change and the impact of the aviation sector
on global warming have spurred a variety of efforts to cut aviation
emissions in the U.S. and overseas. Studies have determined that
airlines contribute worldwide up to three percent of greenhouse gas
emissions. Governmental and private sector organizations have
implemented efforts to reduce aviation-related emissions. In the U.S.,
the focus has been on continued development of NextGen and R&D on
engines. While there is increasing understanding of the impact of
carbon dioxide, the impacts from other emissions are less well known.
The goal is to identify the harmful emissions, accurately measure their
impact, and design appropriate technologies or procedures to mitigate
or eliminate their effects. In Europe, the response has been more
aggressive. To cut aviation emissions, the European Union (EU) has
embarked on an emission trading scheme for its airline industry. This
trading scheme may include U.S. airlines serving Europe and has
generated controversy. U.S. airlines are reported to have said that
forced participation in the European Union's carbon trading plan
violates international treaties. The Air Transport Association, the
trade group for U.S. carriers, is reported to have called the
European's focus on aviation emissions ``out of proportion'' and has
noted the U.S. industry's success with market driven approaches such as
buying more fuel-efficient aircraft, reducing the weight of their
planes, and investigating alternative fuels.
In October 2007, the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), the United Nations body responsible for regulating the aviation
industry, rejected airline participation in Europe's Climate Emissions
Trading System. Instead, ICAO created a group of senior government
officials to recommend what action the body should take on climate
change. Calling for an ``aggressive'' plan of action from the new
group, ICAO is reported to have said that the options to be considered
include voluntary measures, technological advances in both aircraft and
ground-based equipment, more efficient operational measures,
improvements in air traffic management, positive economic incentives,
and market-based measures to achieve reductions in emission of
greenhouse gases.
The European Union is also focusing its aeronautics R&D on
environmental effects. Under the aegis of its Seventh Framework
Programme, the EU's main instrument for funding research over the
period 2007 to 2013, the Union will be conducting research on
developing technologies to reduce the environmental impact of aviation
with the aim of halving the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by air
transport, cutting specific emissions of nitrogen oxides by 80 percent
and halving perceived noise. The research will address green engine
technologies, alternative fuels, novel aircraft/engine configurations,
intelligent low-weight structures, improved aerodynamic efficiency,
airport operations and air traffic management as well as manufacturing
and recycling processes. The ``Clean Sky'' Joint Technology Initiative
will bring together European R&D stakeholders to develop `green' air
vehicle design, engines and systems aimed at minimizing the
environmental impact of future air transport systems. This initiative
establishes a Europe-wide partnership between industry, universities
and research centers, with a total public/private funding of $1.6
billion.
Last year, to better understand governmental, industry, and
international efforts to reduce aviation-related emissions, the House
Science and Technology Committee and the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee asked the Government Accountability Office to
survey those various initiatives, their potential to reduce emissions,
and the competitive impact on U.S. airlines. The Committees are
awaiting GAO's report.
Analyzing Safety Trends--NAOMS and ASIAS
Last September, in a letter denying a press request under the
Freedom of Information Act for the data generated through a survey of
airline pilots about safety incidents conducted under the National
Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS), a NASA official
indicated that the data would not be released because it is ``sensitive
and safety-related, [and] could materially affect the public confidence
in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general
aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey''--a
position subsequently reversed by the NASA Administrator. The survey
was intended to be a forward-looking tool to identify emerging aviation
safety problems. Instead, NASA had decided to stop the NAOMS project--
despite the fact that the project had enjoyed unusual success in
gathering responses from pilots.
NASA subsequently posted redacted responses collected from surveys
of general aviation pilots and airline carrier pilots between April
2001 and December 2004 and a portion of the actual or raw survey
responses collected to ``show the breadth and scope of the pilot
community surveyed and the types of aircraft flown.'' In February of
this year, five Members of the Committee asked the Government
Accountability Office to use the unredacted set of data collected by
the NAOMS project to provide the Committee with an appropriate level of
analysis of the data and verification of the survey methodology. The
Committee is awaiting the results of GAO's analysis.
The value of having another tool to enhance safety, such as NAOMS,
was demonstrated last week. It was reported that the Department of
Transportation's Inspector General found that managers at a Texas
facility had reclassified errors by controllers as mistakes by pilots.
The errors included instances in which controllers allowed aircraft to
get too close to one another and others in which pilots were given
improper or late instructions. FAA officials noted that none of the
errors resulted in crashes but provided no further details. While the
report was not released, the FAA Acting Administrator characterized the
report as ``disturbing.'' The availability of corroborative data from
another source, such as NAOMS, might have provided FAA with an earlier
indication that the reclassifications were not warranted.
NASA currently is working with FAA and the Commercial Aviation
Safety Team (a cooperative government-industry initiative) on the
development of the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing
(ASIAS) system. ASIAS is intended for use by the aviation community to
automatically integrate and analyze large sources of operational flight
data in order to detect and mitigate system-wide anomalies or dangerous
trends before an accident occurs. If ASIAS works as planned, government
and industry stakeholders will be able to query operational data to
automatically identify systemic risks, evaluate identified risks, and
formulate and monitor the effectiveness of safety interventions
targeted at identified risks. However, achieving such capabilities will
not be easy. In addition to the challenge of developing and delivering
new algorithms to automatically detect and identify vulnerabilities,
NASA and its partners will need to develop new methods to automatically
integrate and process large sources of disparate data.
Chairman Udall. Good morning. I would like to welcome our
witnesses to today's hearing, and thank you for your
participation.
Today the Subcommittee continues our oversight of NASA's
major programs by focusing on aeronautics. It is important that
we do so because in many ways, NASA's aeronautics program is
one important answer to the question of what it is that makes
NASA relevant to the Nation's needs.
At the same time, it has become painfully clear that NASA's
aeronautics program has been significantly shortchanged in
recent years when it comes to getting the resources required to
address those national needs. That is unacceptable as far as I
am concerned. NASA has many worthwhile programs underway,
activities that certainly deserve our support. Yet I am hard-
pressed to think of any program at NASA, with the possible
exception of NASA's climate research initiatives, that is more
relevant to our society's needs than NASA's aeronautics
program.
Aviation knits our country together, maintains our economic
vitality, improves the quality of our lives and helps enhance
our national security. Moreover, aviation is a sector that
makes a significant positive contribution to our balance of our
trade and promotes America's competitiveness in the global
economy.
Yet the explosive growth of aviation over the last several
decades has brought its own set of challenges. These include
dealing with the increasing congestion of the Nation's airspace
system, the need to maintain safety in the face of increasing
travel demand and the need to mitigate the negative impacts of
aviation on the environment, whether noise, increasing energy
consumption or harmful emissions.
Now, with respect to emissions, it is clear that an
emerging focus of concern is greenhouse gas emissions that can
contribute to climate change, an area that this committee has
been trying to call attention to over the past year. It is
clear that meeting all those challenges is going to require a
national commitment to cutting-edge research into new
technologies and operational procedures.
We must focus on research that will ensure that the
Nation's air traffic management system will be able to meet
anticipated demand while preserving safety and making the whole
experience a lot more pleasant than it is now for the average
traveler. We also need to focus on developing technologies that
make aircraft much more energy efficient and produce lower
levels of harmful emissions.
In addition, NASA needs to continue to pursue research that
will open up new flight regimes for our utilization, for
example, research that will enable such things as civil
rotorcraft and supersonic aircraft that are environmentally
friendly, safe and that can operate without adverse impacts on
our communities. We need to focus on research that will ensure
that we maintain the high level of safety that we have enjoyed
in our aviation sector.
Indeed, the National Academies completed a Decadal Survey
of Civil Aeronautics several years ago that identified some 51
key technical challenges around which NASA, in close
collaboration with industry and academia, could structure a
compelling and productive aeronautics R&D agenda for the next
decade. That is the good news.
However, as a number of witnesses at today's hearing will
testify, and as past witnesses have also testified, the decline
in NASA's aeronautics funding is making it increasingly
difficult to maintain an aeronautics research program that will
be capable of stepping up to the challenges the Nation's
aviation sector will be facing in the coming decades.
In short, the future relevance of NASA's aeronautics
program is at risk, just when the need for NASA'S research
contributions is greatest. In part, that is because carrying
research to a level of maturity that allows the results to be
transitioned to the users, whether in the public or the private
sector, requires a greater level of investment than the current
Administration has been willing to make. That needs to change.
If promising technologies and operational concepts aren't
matured to the point that they can be transitioned to the users
for future development or implementation, the Nation will never
receive the full benefit of the investment that is made in that
research. That is the challenge we face.
Aeronautics needs to be a priority at NASA. It is as simple
as that. I think the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2005 got it
right when it reaffirmed that ``Aeronautics research remains a
core mission of NASA.''
Our witnesses today will tell us about the ways that NASA
research can contribute to a bright and exciting future for
American aviation. We need to ensure that NASA maintains its
commitment to carrying out that research, and we have a lot to
discuss at today's hearing so at this point I will again thank
our witnesses for your participation, and we very much look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Mark Udall
Good morning. I'd like to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing
and thank you for your participation.
Today, the Subcommittee continues our oversight of NASA's major
programs by focusing on Aeronautics.
It is important that we do so, because in many ways NASA's
aeronautics program is one important answer to the question of what it
is that makes NASA relevant to the Nation's needs.
At the same time, it has become painfully clear that NASA's
aeronautics program has been significantly shortchanged in recent years
when it comes to getting the resources required to address those
national needs.
That's unacceptable as far as I am concerned. NASA has many
worthwhile programs underway--activities that certainly deserve our
support.
Yet I am hard-pressed to think of any program at NASA, with the
possible exception of NASA's climate research initiatives, that is more
relevant to our society's needs than NASA's aeronautics program.
Aviation knits our country together, maintains our economic
vitality, improves the quality of our lives, and helps enhance our
national security.
Moreover, aviation is a sector that makes a significant positive
contribution to our balance of trade--and promotes America's
competitiveness in the global economy.
Yet the explosive growth of aviation over the last several decades
has also brought its own set of challenges.
These include dealing with the increasing congestion of the
Nation's airspace system, the need to maintain safety in the face of
increasing travel demand, and the need to mitigate the negative impacts
of aviation on the environment--whether noise, increasing energy
consumption, or harmful emissions.
And with respect to emissions, it is clear that an emerging focus
of concern is greenhouse gas emissions that can contribute to climate
change, an area that this committee has been trying to call attention
to over the past year.
It is clear that meeting all of those challenges is going to
require a national commitment to cutting-edge research into new
technologies and operational procedures.
We must focus on research that will ensure that the Nation's air
traffic management system will be able to meet anticipated demand while
preserving safety and making the whole experience a lot more pleasant
than it is now for the average traveler.
We also need to focus on developing technologies that can make
aircraft much more energy efficient and produce lower levels of harmful
emissions.
In addition, NASA needs to continue to pursue research that will
open up new flight regimes for our utilization, for example, research
that will enable such things as civil rotorcraft and supersonic
aircraft that are environmentally friendly, safe, and that can operate
without adverse impacts on our communities.
And we need to focus on research that will ensure that we maintain
the high level of safety that we have enjoyed in our aviation sector.
Indeed, the National Academies completed a Decadal Survey of Civil
Aeronautics several years ago that identified some 51 key technical
challenges around which NASA--in close collaboration with industry and
academia--could structure a compelling and productive aeronautics R&D
agenda for the next decade.
That's the good news.
However, as a number of the witnesses at today's hearing will
testify, and as past witnesses have also testified--the decline in
NASA's aeronautics funding is making it increasingly difficult to
maintain an aeronautics research program that will be capable of
stepping up to the challenges the Nation's aviation sector will be
facing in the coming decades.
In short, the future relevance of NASA's aeronautics program is at
risk--just when the need for NASA's research contributions is greatest.
In part that is because carrying research to a level of maturity
that allows the results to be transitioned to the users--whether
private or public sector--requires a greater level of investment than
the current Administration has been willing to make.
That needs to change.
If promising technologies and operational concepts aren't matured
to the point that they can be transitioned to the users for further
development or implementation, the Nation will never receive the full
benefit of the investment that it has made in that research.
That's the challenge we face.
Aeronautics needs to be a priority at NASA. It is as simple as
that.
I think the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 got it right when it
reaffirmed that ``Aeronautics research remains a core mission of
NASA.''
Our witnesses today will tell us about the ways that NASA research
can contribute to a bright and exciting future for American aviation.
We need to ensure that NASA maintains its commitment to carrying
out that research.
We have much to discuss at today's hearing, so at this point I will
again thank our witnesses for your participation, and we look forward
to your testimony.
Chairman Udall. It is with great pleasure I now recognize
the Ranking Member, my partner, Mr. Feeney, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Chairman Udall, for calling today's
hearing and thanks also to our witnesses for taking time away
from their busy schedules to come before us today. I realize
most of you have traveled some distance, carving at least a
day, if not two, out of your week to be here with us and I
appreciate that. Your wisdom and expertise are greatly
appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, there are very few enterprises over the past
100 years that have contributed so powerfully to America's
economy and enhanced our nation's quality of life and our
security than NASA's aeronautics research and development
program. It actually began some 93 years ago with the
establishment of the National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics in 1915. Even though the Wright Brothers had
conducted their first powered flight in 1903, by the beginning
of World War I, the United States lagged behind Europe in
airplane technology. In order to catch up, Congress founded
NACA.
NACA involved into a splendid organization that produced
gems of aeronautical research. In 1958, NACA was folded into
NASA when the latter was created in response to the Sputnik
mission. Exemplary aeronautical research continued. And the
Space Task Force, which drew from the talented base at NACA's
Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, began America's human
space flight program, Project Mercury.
The discoveries and applications that have flowed from NACA
and NASA have spurred a large and vibrant aerospace industry.
As should be expected, this industry and aerospace technology
has evolved over time, especially over the last three decades.
Since the late 1970s, the airline industry has been
deregulated. Manufacturers and carriers have been consolidated.
The airspace has become saturated. Building new runways and
airports has become very difficult and very expensive. The size
and performance of aircraft operating in the system are much
more diverse and environmental performance and efficiency are
driving designs of the next generation of aircraft. The list of
changes goes on.
In the face of these changes, it is fair to ask how healthy
and relevant is NASA's aeronautics program today. Is it
appropriate for the Federal Government to continue to fund
aeronautics research, and if so, where should the line be drawn
between government and industry research responsibilities? Are
NASA's aeronautics researchers pursuing the right questions? Is
the Agency making the most effective use of research funding?
Are the Agency's discoveries and products being adopted by
industry?
Adding further complexity to the discussion is the NextGen
program, of which NASA is a critical partner. Unlike the mixed
results from past efforts to modernize the air traffic control
system, NextGen must succeed. There is no alternative. In the
increasingly competitive global economy, America's advantages
in mobility and logistics cannot be frittered away.
And in an era of increased emphasis on energy and
environmental concerns, I gently point out that NextGen's
efficiencies will produce energy savings and a lessened
environmental footprint as aircraft use more direct routes,
experience less air and ground holds and employ techniques like
Continuous Descent Approach. Improved mobility is
environmentally friendly and economically beneficial.
But if NextGen is to succeed, NASA must develop and
validate technologies to enable more efficient, environmentally
benign and safer aircraft and engines as well as surveillance,
navigation and control infrastructure.
I am hoping the testimony we will receive this morning will
help us reach a broad consensus on how to shape the program to
meet current and future challenges. I am especially anxious to
hear the views of industry and from the National Research
Council about their findings and recommendations contained in
their recently published analysis of NASA's aeronautics
programs. I also want to congratulate Dr. Shin, a longtime NASA
aeronautics researcher, who was recently appointed to head the
Agency's aeronautics directorate.
Aeronautics is not a mature industry. Any number of new
technologies that enable cleaner, quieter, more efficient
aircraft will make a telling difference between success and
failure. We cannot afford to cede our leadership to foreign
suppliers.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the hearing
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Feeney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Tom Feeney
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this morning's hearing. And my
thanks, too, to our witnesses for taking time away from their busy
schedules to appear before us today. I realize most of you have
traveled some distance, carving at least a day--if not two--out of your
work week to be here. Your wisdom and expertise are greatly
appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, there are very few federal enterprises over the past
one hundred years that have contributed so powerfully to America's
economy and enhanced our nation's quality of life--and our security--
than NASA's aeronautics research and development program. It began 93
years ago with the establishment of the National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics (NACA) in 1915. Even though the Wright brothers conducted
the first powered flight in 1903, by the beginning of World War I, the
United States lagged behind Europe in airplane technology. In order to
catch up, Congress founded NACA.
NACA evolved into a splendid organization that produced gems of
aeronautical research. In 1958, NACA was folded into NASA when the
latter was created in response to Sputnik. Exemplary aeronautical
research continued. And the Space Task Force, which drew from the
talent based at NACA's Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, began
America's human space flight program--Project Mercury.
The discoveries and applications that have flowed from NACA and
NASA have spurred a large and vibrant aerospace industry.
As should be expected, this industry and aerospace technology has
evolved over time, especially over the last three decades. Since the
late 1970s, the airline industry has been deregulated; manufacturers
and carriers have consolidated; the airspace has become saturated;
building new runways and airports has become very difficult and
expensive; the size and performance of aircraft operating in the system
are much more diverse; and environmental performance and efficiency are
driving designs of the next generation of aircraft. The list goes on.
In the face of these changes, it's fair to ask how healthy and
relevant is NASA's aeronautics program today? Is it appropriate for the
Federal Government to continue to fund aeronautics research, and if so,
where should the line be drawn between government and industry research
responsibilities? Are NASA's aeronautics researchers pursuing the right
questions? Is the Agency making the most effective use of its research
funding? Are the Agency's discoveries and products being adopted by
industry?
Adding further complexity to the debate is the NextGen program, of
which NASA is a critical partner. Unlike the mixed results from past
efforts to modernize the air traffic control system, NextGen must
succeed. In the increasingly competitive global economy, America's
advantages in mobility and logistics cannot be frittered away.
And in an era of increased emphasis on energy and environmental
concerns, I gently point out that NextGen's efficiencies will produce
energy savings and a lessened environmental footprint as aircraft use
more direct routings, experience less air and ground holds, and employ
techniques like Continuous Descent Approach. Improved mobility is
environmentally friendly and economically beneficial.
But if NextGen is to succeed, NASA must develop and validate
technologies to enable more efficient, environmentally benign, and
safer aircraft and engines, as well as surveillance, navigation and
control infrastructure.
I am hopeful the testimony we'll receive this morning will help us
reach broad consensus on how to shape the program to meet future
challenges. I am especially anxious to hear the views of industry, and
from the National Research Council about their findings and
recommendations contained in their recently published analysis of
NASA's aeronautics program. I also want to congratulate Dr. Jaiwon
Shin, a longtime NASA aeronautics researcher, who was recently
appointed to head the Agency's aeronautics directorate.
Aeronautics is not a mature industry. Any number of new
technologies that enable cleaner, quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft
will make a telling difference between success and failure. We cannot
afford to cede our leadership to foreign suppliers.
Thank you.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Feeney.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing on NASA's
Aeronautics R&D programs. As Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I
am extremely interested in these programs because NASA and FAA
coordinate research for implementation of NextGen. Further, these
programs also lead to further reductions in aviation's environmental
impact. Our Aviation Subcommittee is having a hearing on aviation and
the environment next week where we will delve further into aviation's
environmental impacts, but I want to be clear that aeronautics R&D is a
significant component in assisting the industry in its efforts to
reduce aviation emissions.
A strong aerospace industry will enable the United States to defend
itself, compete in the global marketplace, maintain a highly skilled
workforce, and provide all Americans with the ability to travel safely
and securely anywhere in the world. Continued reductions in the NASA
aeronautics budgets delay our ability to meet the goals of NextGen,
which is expected to reduce congestion and delays in our skies and
produce great efficiencies in our aviation system.
I continue to be troubled that the Bush Administration sees NextGen
as the answers to our congestion in the skies, but does not budget
accordingly to reach that goal. R&D is essential to advancing NextGen
and we cannot lose sight of that.
I welcome our witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
Chairman Udall. I would like to move right to an
introduction of our panel of witnesses. First up, we have Dr.
Jaiwon Shin, who is the new Associate Administrator at NASA for
the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. Congratulations
on your new appointment. Next to Dr. Shin, we have Mr. Carl
Meade, who is appearing today as the Co-Chair of the National
Research Council's Committee for the Assessment of NASA's
Aeronautics Research Program. Welcome to you. Mr. Preston Henne
is the Senior Vice President for Programs, Engineering and
Testing for Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. We are looking
forward to your testimony. There are some exciting things going
on at Gulfstream. And then finally we have Dr. Ilan Kroo, who
is Professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
at Stanford University. Welcome.
I think you all know that spoken testimony is limited to
five minutes each, after which the Members of the Subcommittee
will have five minutes each to ask questions. Dr. Shin, we will
start with you.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAIWON SHIN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Dr. Shin. Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Feeney, thank you
for this opportunity to appear before you today to provide an
update on NASA's aeronautics research program. I will also
address the issues raised by the Subcommittee concerning the
R&D challenges in aeronautics, specifically the Next Generation
Air Transportation System, or NextGen, aviation safety,
aviation environmental impacts and promising new flight
regimes.
As you know, NASA has a long and successful history of
conducting R&D in technologies that have benefited our nation's
aviation community. One such example is the vertical extensions
found on wingtips, which help to improve an aircraft's full
efficiency and cruising range, known as winglets----
Chairman Udall. Dr. Shin, would you pull the microphone a
little closer? We just want to make sure we get your words in
the record. Thank you.
Dr. Shin. Known as winglets, this technology was developed
by NASA during the 1970s and is now found on aircraft of all
types around the world. You should have before you a folder
that depicts some examples of NASA innovation that have made a
difference in the way we safely travel today. NASA's
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, or ARMD, continues
this tradition through its commitment to conducting long-term
cutting-edge research for the benefit of the broad aeronautics
community and in support of NASA's goals for both manned and
robotic space exploration.
I believe that aviation in the United States could be on
the verge of another renaissance. Demand for air travel is
expected to double or even triple in the next two decades,
which will require a revolutionary air transportation system.
In order to realize this new system, a number of significant
challenges must be overcome such as protecting the environment,
ensuring safety, dramatically improving efficiency and
revolutionizing the ways we manage the flow of aircraft. The
aeronautics research that we conduct today will play a vital
role in transforming the air transportation system of tomorrow.
While each of the four programs within ARMD uniquely
address critical challenges, the four programs integrate their
research for a holistic approach to high-level challenges such
as NextGen. I would like to illustrate why this holistic
approach is important by going over the four questions raised
by the Committee.
As for the NextGen R&D issues, I must say that it is
difficult to identify the most critical barrier to NextGen.
While it is easy to consider the air traffic management system
to be the most critical issue, the reality is, we must treat
the entire system as an interrelated enterprise instead of
segregating research into separate areas. To foster this
thinking, ARMD's research programs address issues of air
traffic management, avionics advanced vehicles, safety and
environmental impact. The vast majority of what ARMD does is
directly in line with the NextGen vision that is clearly
supported by national aeronautics R&D policy.
It is a well-known fact that the current U.S. air
transportation system is among the safest modes of
transportation ever. Even as we dramatically transform our air
transportation system, it is imperative that we maintain or
preferably improve on this impressive safety record. ARMD's
Aviation Safety Program is working on development of new
technologies such as new airborne sensors of flight hazards,
methods of controlling aircraft even in upset conditions and
systems capable of monitoring aircraft and airspace to detect
anomalies before they can develop into accidents. Likewise, the
Aviation Safety Program is developing new materials and
structures that can age with great durability and less fatigue
and is establishing a research program in human system
integration and NextGen operations.
I should point out that as the number of flight operations
at many of the largest airports in the Nation continues to
grow, environmental concerns over noise and emissions will
limit the capacity of those airports and therefore limit the
capacity of the entire system. NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics
Program is working to improve the environmental impact of
aviation through green aircraft research initiatives to reduce
noise, local and global emissions and local air quality. We are
also working on advanced vehicle concepts that will satisfy
both forecasted demand and environmental compliance.
Furthermore, the Aviation Systems Program is ensuring that
today's fleet and new generations of vehicles can operate
within the NextGen in a matter minimizing aviation's
environmental impact.
NASA is not fixated on developing new capability in just
one flight regime, and I believe that an ideal situation will
exist when multiple vehicle types exist, each suited for a
particular use, operating in an air transportation system that
is flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of vehicles
without limiting performance. Examples of some of the most
promising concepts include advanced subsonic transonic
transport with nearly half the fuel burn of today's vehicles
and a noise footprint that can be confined to the boundary of
the airport, advanced supersonic transports with low sonic boom
characteristics so that the aircraft may be flown
supersonically over land and advanced rotorcraft that allow
vertical or short takeoff and landing with vastly improved
range and performance and reduced environmental impact, mainly
from noise.
I am pleased to report to you that NASA aeronautics now is
in full execution of a robust fundamental research program that
is well aligned with the national aeronautics R&D policy and
directly supports the development of the NextGen system. ARMD's
commitment to technical excellent with strong partnerships with
industry, academia and other government agencies will ensure
our reputation as the world's premier aeronautics R&D
organization.
I welcome any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jaiwon Shin
Chairman Udall and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today to provide an update on NASA's
aeronautics research program and to address the issues raised by the
Subcommittee concerning the R&D challenges in aeronautics;
specifically, the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen),
promising new flight regimes, aviation safety, and aviation
environmental impacts.
NASA has a long and successful history of conducting research and
development (R&D) in technologies that have benefited our nation's
aviation community. Today, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate (ARMD) continues this tradition through its commitment to
conducting long-term, cutting-edge research for the benefit of the
broad aeronautics community. ARMD has put together a robust research
portfolio that addresses the challenges facing our nation as it
transforms its air transportation system to meet growing capacity
needs. Furthermore, the portfolio ensures aeronautics research and
critical core competencies continue to play a vital role in support of
NASA's goals for both manned and robotic space exploration.
Growth in the air transportation system is vital to the well being
of our nation. In order to realize the revolutionary changes required
to meet forecasted capacity increases, a number of significant
challenges must be overcome such as protecting the environment,
ensuring safety, dramatically improving efficiency and revolutionizing
the ways we manage the flow of aircraft. In the next two decades we
must find ways to make advances that improve aircraft and system
efficiency, reduce aviation's impact on the environment and allow more
people to utilize air travel in ways that are more significant than all
the gains realized over the last three decades. The research ARMD
conducts today to address these issues will play a vital role in
transforming the air transportation system of tomorrow.
ARMD Principles
Every successful organization can point to core principles that
guide its strategic direction. Since the restructuring of NASA's
aeronautics program in 2006, ARMD has been guided by three such core
principles: 1) we will dedicate ourselves to the mastery and
intellectual stewardship of the core competencies of aeronautics for
the Nation in all flight regimes; 2) we will focus our research in
areas that are appropriate to NASA's unique capabilities; and, 3) we
will directly address the fundamental research needs of the NextGen
while working closely with our agency partners in the Joint Planning
and Development Office (JPDO). While the leadership of ARMD has
changed, these principles remain core to our strategic decision-making
process and help to guide the direction of all of our programs. These
principles ensure that NASA is focused on the most appropriate cutting-
edge research to overcome a wide range of aeronautics challenges facing
our nation's future air transportation system and space exploration
missions. Lastly, these principles have helped ARMD structure a robust
aeronautics program that is well aligned with the principles, goals and
objectives of the recent National Aeronautics R&D Policy and Plan.
Program Descriptions
Four programs have been established under ARMD using our guiding
principles: the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, the Aviation Safety
Program, the Airspace Systems. Program and the Aeronautics Test
Program. While each program uniquely addresses critical challenges, the
four programs integrate their research for a holistic approach to high
level challenges such as NextGen. The following are brief descriptions
of each program and how their research supports the broad aeronautic
community.
ARMD's Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) pursues long-term,
cutting-edge research in all flight regimes (from subsonic to
hypersonic) to produce data, knowledge FAP, and design tools that will
be applicable across a broad range of air vehicles. FAT focuses on
creating innovative solutions for the technical challenges of the
future which include 1) increasing performance (including fuel
efficiency, range, speed, payload, take-off and landing distances)
while meeting stringent noise and emissions constraints; 2) alleviating
environmental and congestion/capacity problems through the use of new
aircraft and rotorcraft concepts; 3) improving the speed of air
transportation while maintaining strict standards for performance and
environmental compatibility; and 4) facilitating access to space and
re-entry through planetary atmospheres. FAP research will directly
support the NextGen challenges of overcoming the environmental and
performance barriers to projected increases in capacity. Research in
new aircraft and rotorcraft concepts will also directly support NextGen
goals of better utilization of the airspace.
ARMD's Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) builds upon NASA's unique
research capabilities to improve aircraft safety, and to overcome
safety limits that would otherwise constrain the full realization of
the NextGen system. To meet these safety challenges, AvSP focuses on
developing cutting-edge technologies to improve the intrinsic safety
attributes of current and future aircraft and also on exploring how
NextGen operations can improve upon the existing remarkable safety
record of our current air transportation system. Examples of new
technologies with direct application to NextGen include new sensors and
methods to automatically detect and identify flight hazards, hidden
anomalies or trends in aircraft systems, advanced materials, and flight
control systems resilient in the face of failure and adverse flight
conditions such as weather.
ARMD's Airspace Systems Program (ASP) enables the development of
revolutionary improvements to the national airspace system that allow
sufficient capacity to meet increasing demand for air travel. ASP
focuses on research to incorporate intelligent automation into the
system with balanced roles for people and computers while preserving
the high safety standard. Included in this is the development of
automated aircraft trajectories that are safe, efficient and robust
under a wide variety of traffic conditions. Solutions for enabling
greater capacity at the busiest airports and in dense airspace
integrate uncertainties, such as weather, into air traffic management
decisions. The end result of ASP research is more efficient operations
and reduced flight delays.
ARMD's Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) focuses on the support of
both ground based facilities, such as wind tunnels and aero-propulsion
test facilities, as well as the aircraft and flight test
infrastructure. ATP makes strategic utilization, operations,
maintenance, and investment decisions for major wind tunnels/ground
test facilities at Ames Research Center in California, Glenn Research
Center in Ohio, and Langley Research Center in Virginia, and supports
selected mission support and test bed aircraft at Dryden Flight
Research Center, also in California. ATP ensures the availability of
world-class aeronautics test facilities and test aircraft for the
benefit of the aeronautics community.
Addressing NextGen R&D Issues
Aviation in the United States is facing an exciting possibility for
being on the verge of another renaissance. Demand for air travel is
expected to double or even triple in the next two decades, which will
require a revolutionary new air traffic management system. New
technologies and design capabilities are making it possible to create
entirely new vehicles that look radically different from the familiar
``tube-and-wing'' aircraft that are now so familiar. These new aircraft
will bring remarkable new capabilities that may require entirely new
operational procedures in the airspace. Aeronautics research is crucial
to overcoming the numerous challenges that impede the growth of air
travel. In addition, there is an inherent challenge of improving safety
even as we increase capacity. NASA is focused on addressing these
critical long-term challenges.
It is difficult to identify the ``most critical'' barrier to
NextGen. Thus, one clear focus for NASA is treating the entire system
as an inter-related enterprise, mirroring the National Aeronautics R&D
Policy, instead of segregating research into separate areas. Alignment
with the National Aeronautics R&D Policy helps ensure that NASA is
focused on the most important R&D issues.
NASA understands that the NextGen concept involves much more than
just revolutionizing the air traffic management system; it also
includes the advanced aircraft concepts that will populate the system
over the next several decades. In particular, NASA is focusing on three
generations of vehicles beyond the current generation, ``N,''
represented by the Boeing 787 for the fixed wing subsonic class of
aircraft. Generation ``N+1'' is presumed to enter into service in 2015,
market permitting, and is envisioned to be a tube-and-wing
configuration but equipped with more advanced technologies than
Generation ``N'' aircraft. Generation ``N+2'' will employ revolutionary
concepts to achieve simultaneous gains in fuel burn, noise, and
emissions, with an Initial Operating Concept around 2020. Generation
``N+3'' will follow with much improved performance and reduced
environmental impact.
We must ensure that the airspace in which these aircraft will
operate allows them to make full use of their capabilities.
Simultaneously, we must also ensure that safety is not compromised. Our
system-wide view of the entire air transportation system is reflected
in the recent cross-Program NASA Research Announcement (NRA) topic
entitled: ``Integration of Advanced Concepts and Vehicles into the Next
Generation Air Transportation System.''
To foster this thinking, ARMD's three research programs address
issues of Air Traffic Management (ATM), avionics, advanced vehicles,
safety, and environmental impact. The vast majority of what ARMD does
is directly aligned with the NextGen vision that is clearly supported
by the National Aeronautics R&D Policy. The following examples
illustrate the alignment of ARMD programs with the National Aeronautics
R&D Policy and the NextGen vision:
<bullet> IThe Airspace Systems Program directly addresses the
Policy's first principle of ``mobility through the air'' by
conducting air traffic management research that will develop
concepts, capabilities, and technologies required to meet the
Nation's anticipated growth in airspace operations, both in the
air and on the ground. The Fundamental Aeronautics Program
directly addresses this principle by conducting research that
can enable the development of advanced aircraft systems that
fly with higher performance, lower fuel consumption, and
minimum environmental impact (noise and emissions) at a range
of speeds and from a wide variety of airports.
<bullet> IThe core mission of the Aviation Safety Program
directly addresses the Policy's third principle that states
that aviation safety is paramount.
<bullet> IThe Fundamental Aeronautics Program simultaneously
addresses the Policy's sixth principle of ``assuring energy
availability and efficiency'' and seventh principle of
``protecting the environment'' by conducting research to
improve aircraft performance, increase fuel efficiency,
evaluate alternative fuels, lower emissions (including
particulate matter) and reduce noise. In addition, the Airspace
Systems Program also addresses these two principles by
conducting research to improve efficiency and reduce
environmental impact through better utilization of the
airspace.
Additional examples of specific challenges and the NASA strategy to
address them are provided in the following sections.
Safety Issues Facing the Nation
The current U.S. air transportation system is among the safest
modes of transportation ever. Throughout the implementation of NextGen
it is imperative that we maintain or preferably improve on this
impressive safety record. However, there is no single safety issue upon
which to focus our efforts. Instead, we need to continually analyze for
and predict safety issues as NextGen is implemented.
We do know that there are many complex aspects of NextGen that
present research challenges accepted by all ARMD research programs. For
example, a major challenge will be the proper design, integration, and
use of automation in both ground-based and airborne systems. Meeting
this challenge will require advances in human-machine integration
capabilities, better decision-making through data and knowledge mining
systems, and intelligent systems that adapt to failures and hazardous
flight conditions. Another challenge is the need for improved software
verification and validation techniques to prevent against anomalies
that could propagate across highly integrated systems with unintended
consequences. In addition, new aircraft create challenges for effective
maintenance and continued airworthiness assurance of advanced materials
and lightweight structures when exposed to typical operational hazards
and aging effects.
Consequently, NASA's Aviation Safety Program conducts fundamental
research across its four project areas to address both established and
emerging safety barriers to the full realization of NextGen. For
example, one aspect of the research portfolio is investigating human-
machine integration issues to include the best use of automation. We
also know that a myriad of new aircraft materials will be used, so NASA
is working to predict the long-term aging effects to understand the
fundamental characteristics of advanced materials and aircraft
structures, with the intent to design and mitigate against aging
related hazards. NASA is also looking at mitigating unknown issues that
may develop iii flight by designing intelligent on-board systems that
can respond to and reliably mitigate against failures and flight in
adverse conditions such as icing. Finally, NASA is also researching new
data mining techniques to predict future failures from trends in
current operations. This involves a fundamental shift away from a
forensic approach of trying to understand why an accident occurred to a
prognostic approach to safety that allows unsafe conditions to be
identified before they become tragic. NASA continues to work with the
Commercial Aviation Safety Team and other stakeholders to identify
current and emerging aviation safety issues.
The Impact of Aviation on the Environment
As NextGen evolves to meet the projected growth in demand for air
transportation, NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program is working to
answer two major questions: (1) how will we continue to reduce the
environmental impact of aviation (in terms of noise, local and global
emissions, and local air quality) despite growth? and, (2) what kinds
of advanced vehicles will be required to satisfy both forecasted demand
and environmental compliance? Furthermore, the Airspace Systems Program
is ensuring that today's fleet and new generations of vehicles can
operate within the NextGen in a manner minimizing aviation's
environmental impact. These efforts represent significant investments
in ``green'' aircraft research initiatives being led by NASA ARMD.
As the number of flight operations at many of the largest airports
in the Nation continues to increase, environmental concerns over noise
and emissions will limit the capacity of those airports, and therefore
limit the capacity of the entire system. Concerns over global emissions
(mostly over greenhouse gases) may radically change air transportation
as we know it: without new and innovative aircraft concepts and air
traffic management concepts that can provide unprecedented levels of
performance and environmental compliance, the overall capacity of the
system will be significantly hampered. By 2025, the demand for air
transportation will be satisfied by a variety of classes of aircraft.
The Fundamental Aeronautics Program is developing ``green'' ideas,
technologies, and tools to enable the development of highly efficient
and environmentally friendly aircraft (including subsonic aircraft;
supersonic aircraft; and aircraft with the ability to take-off and land
on short runways, yet cruise efficiently at transonic speeds) and
rotorcraft to meet the performance and environmental requirements that
will be demanded by the public. Below are some specific examples of
NASA's ongoing work to mitigate the environmental (and global climate)
impact of aviation:
1. INASA has set aggressive goals for fuel burn, noise, and
emissions reductions for three generations of vehicles
(referred to as ``N+1, ``N+2,'' and ``N+3'') and is pursuing
technologies that can achieve each of these goals.
2. IAdvancement of hybrid wing-body vehicle (``N+2'')
technologies for low noise, higher performance, and better
engine/airframe integration. These efforts have the potential
of enabling aircraft that, unlike conventional tube-and-wing
aircraft, can simultaneously achieve significantly reduced
noise, emissions, and fuel burn.
3. ISystem-level understanding of laminar flow control
techniques for application in ``N+1'' and ``N+2'' concepts.
Laminar flow technology can significantly decrease the fuel
burn of both conventional and unconventional aircraft and,
therefore accomplish significant CO\ emissions reductions (up
to 50 percent better than the current state-of-the-art).
4. IAggressive weight reduction technologies using advanced
materials and structural concepts for both aircraft and engine
structures with significant reduction of CO\ emissions due to
decreases in fuel burn.
5. IStudies into the necessary technologies and integration
approaches to realize significantly improved gas turbine
engines with higher efficiency (resulting in lower CO\
emissions) and lower NOX emissions.
6. IEfforts to assess the validity and applicability of
biofuels/alternative fuels of various different sources to
aviation applications.
7. IApproaches to improve the viability of both supersonic
transports and advanced rotorcraft in the NextGen incorporating
environmental constraints.
In addition, NASA has recently issued a solicitation for the
``N+3'' generation of advanced vehicles (see http://
www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap) that will have dramatically improved
environmental performance to the point that emissions of CO\ will be
reduced by up to 70 percent and the noise of such aircraft will be
barely noticeable outside airport boundaries.
To facilitate the transition of advanced ideas and technologies
into the aircraft fleet, NASA is partnering with the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) Continuous Low Emissions, Energy and Noise
(CLEEN) program to guide efforts to mature technologies that have
already shown promise to the point where they can be adopted by the
current and future aircraft fleet. This collaboration with the FAA is
only one of the many joint activities that both agencies are pursuing
to ensure that the environmental impact of aviation is significantly
reduced in the presence of net growth.
Finally, NASA actively participates in Aviation Climate Change
Research Initiative (ACCRI) to better understand and assess the global
climate impact of current and future advanced vehicles. In fact, the
``N+3'' solicitation is specifically addressing some of the leading
issues in global climate.
It is widely recognized that 90<ls-thn-eq>0995 percent of the
environmental gains in the current air transportation system have
resulted from improvements in aircraft and aircraft technologies.
NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program is ensuring that, in the future,
dramatic improvements can be derived from the next generation of
aircraft.
New Flight Regimes
NASA is not fixated on developing new capabilities in just one
flight regime, but instead believes that an ideal situation will exist
when multiple vehicle types exist, each suited for a particular use,
operating in an air transportation system that is flexible enough to
accommodate a wide range of vehicles without limiting performance.
Examples of some of the most promising concepts for large improvements
in aviation include:
<bullet> IAdvanced subsonic/transonic transports with nearly
half the fuel burn of current vehicles (and therefore half the
greenhouse gas emissions), a noise footprint that can be
confined to the boundary of the airport, and local emissions
that are far below those encountered today. These gains will
require revolutionary changes in the airframe and propulsion
plant and the way in which they are integrated into a single
system. Alternative sources of energy are likely to play a
significant role in the development of these vehicles.
<bullet> IAdvanced supersonic transports with comparable
performance to their subsonic/transonic counterparts and with
low sonic boom characteristics so that the aircraft may be
allowed to fly supersonically over land. In addition, take-off
and landing noise will be significantly reduced to meet or
exceed Stage 4 requirements.
<bullet> ICruise-Efficient Short Take-Off and Landing (CESTOL)
aircraft that cruise with very high performance and low
environmental impact, yet can take off and land from very short
runways.
<bullet> IAdvanced rotorcraft (large civil tiltrotors and
variable-speed compound concepts) that allow vertical or short
take-off and landing with vastly improved range and performance
and reduced environmental impact (mainly from noise).
Knowledge/Technology Transfer
NASA believes ``knowledge transfer'' is critical and deserves high
priority attention and a concerted effort to ensure it happens in a
timely manner. Emphasizing ``technology transfer'' only drives a
tendency to focus on devices and widgets, rather than on the knowledge
enabling their creation. To ensure broad benefits to the community, the
knowledge that underpins any new technology must be transferred to the
community such that technology can be broadly applied. This
``transfer'' occurs at many levels ranging from the exchange of
fundamental ideas to the adoption of new systems. We have created a
number of mechanisms to enable such an exchange. For example, we have
established technical working groups to engage industry and academic
partners on a regular basis in order to facilitate knowledge transfer.
Space Act Agreements are used to enable NASA to leverage industry's
unique systems-level expertise while enabling industry to quickly
acquire research results.
A new process has been established to help ensure that NASA's
fundamental research can be transitioned for implementation in NextGen
systems and concepts. NASA Aeronautics, the FAA, and the JPDO are
working collaboratively to establish this process, which ensures
research is sufficient and appropriate to enable NextGen. The new
process has top-level commitment from the NASA Associate Administrator
for Aeronautics and the FAA Vice President for Operations Planning
Services, Air Traffic Organization. A coordinating committee that
includes both FAA and NASA representatives oversees four initial
Research Transition Teams (RTT) that are organized around the NextGen
Concept of Operations framework. This framework connects the FAA's
Operational Evolution Partnership elements with NASA research. The JPDO
has an important role in the transfer in which they inform the
Integrated Work Plan as work progresses. The teams are working to plan
near-term R&D transition in areas such as surface management and long-
term transition in areas such as dynamic airspace allocation. With
regards to the initial collaborative RTT activity, more than 35
participants from FAA service units, NASA, MITRE/CAASD, and industry
attended a workshop in Washington, DC in February 2008 to focus on
integration of NASA and FAA research plans, schedules, roadmaps, and
coordinated simulations for near-term NextGen Trajectory Management
objectives.
In April 2008, NASA and FAA program, project, and senior
researchers attended a RTT kick-off workshop focused on Surface ATM
concepts. The primary goal of this RTT is to jointly collaborate on
near- and mid-term objectives to reduce the risk of development of an
Integrated Airport Surface/Arrival/Departure system concept for
NextGen. Furthermore, NASA and FAA personnel are scheduled to conduct
two additional RTT workshops early in the summer of 2008. In a fully
collaborative effort, one workshop will work to define the far-term
NextGen objectives of the dynamic airspace allocation concept, and the
second will contribute to the definition of mid-term NextGen roles,
responsibilities and objectives for the Multi-Sector Planner concept.
Following completion of the four pilot RTT workshops, NASA, FAA,
and JPDO will make improvements to the RTT process based on lessons
learned, and continue the collaboration of researchers and implementers
to ensure that the research needed for NextGen is identified,
conducted, and transitioned.
Building on NASA's Research Heritage
It is important to remember that NASA has a long heritage of
conducting revolutionary research. The following are examples of NASA
research that are making a difference in aviation today.
<bullet> INASA completed the first test of a digital fly-by-
wire system in a modified F<ls-thn-eq>098 Crusader aircraft in
1972. It was the forerunner of the fly-by-wire flight control
systems now used on the Space Shuttle and on today's military
and civilian aircraft to make them safer, more maneuverable and
more efficient.
<bullet> IWinglets are one of the most successful examples of
NASA aeronautical innovation being utilized around the world on
all types of aircraft. Winglets are vertical extensions of
wingtips that improve an aircraft's fuel efficiency and
cruising range.
<bullet> IThe FAA is engaged in national deployment of the
NASA-developed Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) tool. TMA is
now a component of the FAA's Free Flight program to increase
the capacity of the Nation's airspace. The application enables
en route air traffic controllers and traffic management
specialists to develop complete arrival-scheduling plans. These
plans help maximize an airport's use of available capacity by
making early runway assignments for arriving aircraft and
spacing aircraft so that they reach the airport at appropriate
intervals.
<bullet> INASA's work improved aviation safety in hazardous
weather conditions caused by wind-shear. In collaboration with
industry and the FAA, NASA developed and validated on-board
aircraft wind-shear sensors that could detect and measure the
intensity of wind-shear conditions ahead of the aircraft, such
that a pilot could be alerted in time to safely avoid a
hazardous weather condition.
Figure 1 at the end of this testimony depicts some of these
improvements along with others that have made a difference in the way
we safely travel today.
Recent Accomplishments
After undergoing a thorough reformulation period, all of ARMD's
programs are now in full implementation. The most important ``thing''
that these programs generate is knowledge. To validate our
accomplishments and disseminate our results, we have placed a renewed
emphasis on publication in peer-reviewed references and Program
planning accounts for the effort needed to document research results.
While there are too many success stories over the past two years to
list, here are a few examples of recent accomplishments.
<bullet> IIn partnership with Boeing and the Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL), the Fundamental Aeronautics Program
successfully completed several flight tests of a blended wing
body (BWB) aircraft, named X<ls-thn-eq>0948B, which has the
potential to provide increased capacity, increased fuel
efficiency and decreased noise compared to today's aircraft.
The X<ls-thn-eq>0948B was cited as one of the ``Best
Innovations of the Year 2007'' by Time Magazine.
<bullet> IThe Fundamental Aeronautics Program successfully
demonstrated, in partnership with Pratt & Whitney, the
feasibility of a high-efficiency fan design for an ultrahigh
bypass ratio turbofan engine that, in combination with other
technologies, has the potential for achieving significant noise
reduction for aircraft.
<bullet> IThe Aviation Safety Program developed new data-mining
tools to integrate and analyze large quantities of operational
flight data to detect potential systemic problems across a
fleet of aircraft. The ability to automatically detect and
identify hidden anomalies or trends in aircraft systems will
enable corrective action to be taken in a timely manner before
an unsafe situation occurs.
<bullet> IThe Aviation Safety Program designed and built a new
silicon carbide circuit chip that has exceeded 6,000 hours of
continuous operation at 500 degrees Celsius (C) in a laboratory
environment. The highly durable packaging of circuit chips is
being developed to enable extremely functional but physically
small and resilient circuitry that can provide constant engine
health monitoring, even in the harsh conditions in the hot
sections of jet engines.
<bullet> ITo better enable effective decision-making essential
for NextGen, the Airspace Systems Program developed an
aircraft-level flow control model to examine the impact of
constraints (such as ground-delay decisions due to congestion)
on flows into and out of New York area airports. The study
examined variations in the geographical location of
constraints, magnitude of constraints, and flow prioritization
approaches, and found that prioritizing New York flows through
congested sectors is possible without increasing system delays.
<bullet> IThe Airspace Systems Program developed an initial
concept for Airspace Super Density Operations that meets the
multiple objectives of NextGen terminal airspace operations:
significantly increased capacity, robustness to varied and
chaotic weather conditions, reduced environmental impact, and
coordination of arrival and departure operations to/from
multiple proximate airports. Initial assessments of core
elements were conducted including: closely-spaced approach
procedures, continuous descent arrival operations, 4D
trajectory navigation, delegated spacing function and dynamic
routing to avoid adverse weather.
Success Through Partnerships
NASA believes we should be in the leadership position to conduct
fundamental research required to solve all the aeronautics challenges
listed above. However, NASA also believes that we do this in close and
strong partnerships with industry, academia and other government
agencies in order to maximize the research capabilities of the Nation.
Because these partnerships are so important, NASA has put many
mechanisms in place to engage academia and industry, including industry
working groups and technical interchange meetings at the program and
project level, Space Act Agreements for cooperative partnerships with
industry, and the NRA process that provides full and open competition
for the best and most promising research ideas. Cooperative
partnerships with industry consortia can result in a significant
leverage of resources for all partners and can provide opportunities to
test the value of component-technology advances in full system-level
contexts. All research results, whether generated by NASA internally or
by its partners through the NRA, will be openly disseminated through
archival publications and conference proceedings as well as NASA
publications to benefit broad U.S. aeronautics community while ensuring
the dissemination policy is consistent with national security and
foreign policy guidelines.
ARMD is actively using the NRA mechanism to foster collaboration
with academia, industry, and non-profit organizations. The first
Research Opportunities in Aeronautics NRA was released in May 2006 and
since then two more versions have been issued on an annual basis. The
response to the NRA has been tremendous. As of the end of April 2008,
more than 1380 proposals have been received resulting in more than 327
awards. An important aspect of these awards is that they are closely
aligned with the research goals of internal NASA efforts. This results
in a cooperative arrangement that is mutually beneficial to NASA and to
the performing organization. The NRA is based on the principle of full
and open competition and provides an ideal mechanism for bringing the
best ideas from across the Nation to bear on particular problems.
Last year, ARMD established over 30 Space Act Agreements with
different members of the aerospace industry and, in some situations,
with consortia of industrial participants. These collaborative
opportunities have produced very significant research results at the
system level where the expertise of industry and NASA come together to
integrate technologies that can, one day, be incorporated into the
aircraft fleet.
Finally, NASA recognizes the importance of close coordination not
just with industry and academia, but with its partners in other
government agencies as well. For example, NASA and the JPDO have
established quarterly reviews to ensure close coordination, and NASA
participates in all major JPDO planning activities. NASA and the FAA
have developed a joint program plan for the Aviation Safety Information
Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) effort with well defined roles and
responsibilities. NASA and the Department of Defense have signed an MOU
to facilitate the establishment of an integrated national strategy for
the management of their respective aeronautics test facilities. NASA
and the U.S. Air Force have established an Executive Research Council
that meets at least twice a year to ensure close coordination and
collaboration. And lastly, NASA and the Army have signed a Memorandum
of Understanding to coordinate research efforts on rotorcraft.
Conclusion
NASA Aeronautics is now in full execution of a robust fundamental
research program that is well aligned with the National Aeronautics R&D
Policy and directly supports the development of the NextGen system.
NASA Aeronautics pursues long-term, cutting-edge research to address
new challenges in the Nation's air transportation system and to support
the Agency's space exploration vision. ARMD's commitment to technical
excellence with strong partnerships with industry, academia and other
government agencies will ensure our reputation as the world's premier
aeronautics R&D organization.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Shin.
Mr. Meade.
STATEMENT OF MR. CARL J. MEADE, CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF NASA'S AERONAUTICS RESEARCH PROGRAM, NATIONAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Meade. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for inviting me here to testify today. My colleague, Dr.
Donald Richardson, and I are co-chairs of the National Research
Council's Committee for the Assessment of NASA's Aeronautics
Research Program, and it is in that capacity that I appear to
you today. Unless otherwise noted, the views I offer are
strictly those of the Committee and not those of my employer,
Northrop Grumman Corporation.
In addition to responding to the questions posed by the
Subcommittee in its April 17th invitation to appear, which will
be annotated in my written testimony, I would like to make some
general observations.
Our committee evaluated NASA's entire aeronautics
portfolio, both civil and non-civil. However, the majority of
our attention was devoted to the request by Congress to assess
NASA's aeronautics research program against a very specific
benchmark, which was the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics,
published by the NRC in 2006. Therefore, most of our findings
and recommendations are centered around that comparison.
The NASA aeronautics research program does have room for
improvement, both in its direction and its execution. When
assessing NASA's research against the recommendations of the
decadal survey, we found mixed results. Our study found that
NASA's efforts to achieve 20 of the 51 decadal survey
technologies have no significant shortcomings or very minor
shortcomings that are recoverable within the overall project
concept and will substantially advance the state-of-the-art.
Seven of the 51 have major shortcomings that would be difficult
to recover within the current overall project concept. For the
remaining 24 challenges, NASA is effectively addressing some
areas but not others and so the results can best be described
as mixed.
Your subcommittee specifically requested information
regarding safety and environmental challenges. I will try to
summarize those right now. Of the 20 challenges identified with
little or no shortcomings, about half are related to safety or
the environment. The same can be said for the other categories
I just outlined, and this is consistent with the safety and
environmental content of the entire set of 51 technology
challenges, which is about half related to safety and the
environment.
It would be easy to misinterpret our findings as largely
negative. This is not the intent of the Committee, nor would it
be proper interpretation to regard the results of our study as
an indictment of the performance of NASA's Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate. Our committee would like to emphasize that
by and large, we found the ARMD workforce to be both dedicated
and competent.
Having said that, it does not appear that the ARMD has
responded in any significant way to the recommendations of the
decadal survey. Keep in mind, however, that the Decadal Survey
of Civil Aeronautics was the first survey of its kind published
in aeronautics. Consequently, ARMD has no experience in
utilizing decadal surveys, which may help explain why the
directorate did not respond immediately to its publication.
To properly understand our report, it is also important to
keep in mind that the authors of the decadal survey itself were
not bound by budgetary considerations, and this unlike decadal
surveys from other scientific disciplines which we have seen in
the recent past. Therefore, it is not unexpected that the ARMD
would not be able to make progress on all 51 of the technology
challenges contained in the decadal survey. In fact, barring an
increase in funding for this activity, we have recommended that
ARMD redefine its scope and address only the challenges with
the highest priorities where significant, timely progress can
be made in advancing the state of the art.
Aside from the quality of the research conducted by ARMD,
we would stress the need for a cultural change within the
directorate. Indeed, the Committee was most concerned about the
lack of urgency demonstrated by some projects and the tendency
of some researchers to assume that the ultimate consumer of the
fruits of their labor was NASA itself. As one example, one of
ARMD's three operating principles states, and I quote, ``We
will focus our research in areas that are appropriate to NASA's
unique capabilities.'' In my opinion, NASA and the country
would be better served if the principles were revised to
include ``We will mold NASA's unique capabilities to enable
research in the most vital areas.''
I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meade follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl J. Meade
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today. My colleague, Dr. Donald Richardson, and I are Co-
Chairs of the National Research Council's Committee for the Assessment
of NASA's Aeronautics Research Program. I appear here today in my
capacity as Co-Chair of that committee. The views I share with you, are
those of the Committee, not those of my employer, Northrop Grumman
Corporation.
The Subcommittee's April 17, 2008 letter to me requesting this
testimony posed three questions that are addressed below.
1. IWhat were the major findings and recommendations of your recently
completed assessment of NASA's fundamental aeronautics research
program?
Our committee assessed the entirety of NASA's Aeronautics Research
Program and made several recommendations to NASA to improve its ability
to (1) meet the high-priority technology challenges that are identified
in the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics, which was published by the
National Research Council in 2006, (2) address NASA's internal
requirements for aeronautics research (e.g., to support robotic and
human space exploration), and (3) satisfy non-civil aeronautics
research requirements that NASA is addressing in agreement with other
federal agencies and departments. The committee also addressed
workforce expertise and research facilities relevant to the goals of
NASA's Aeronautics research program.
The committee determined that the strategic objectives of the
Decadal Survey are consistent with the key principles of the National
Aeronautics Research and Development Policy (NSTC, 2006) and the
National Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development and Related
Infrastructure (NSTC, 2007). Thus, the recommendations below will also
help achieve the goals of the National Policy and Plan.
Attachment 1 contains the full committee report, NASA Aeronautics
Research--An Assessment (NRC, 2008), available online at <www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record<INF>-</INF>id=12182>.
RESOURCES VERSUS SCOPE OF RESEARCH
NASA supports a great deal of worthwhile research. However, NASA
must determine how to respond to a vast array of worthwhile research
possibilities within the constraints of budget, facilities, workforce
composition, and federal policies. The Decadal Survey of Civil
Aeronautics (NRC, 2006), recommended that NASA use the 51 highest-
priority Research and Technology (R&T) challenges in the Decadal Survey
as the foundation for the future of NASA's civil aeronautics research
program during the next decade. However, the Decadal Survey was
designed to identify the highest-priority R&T challenges without
considering the cost or affordability of meeting the challenges.\1\ As
a result, even though the NASA aeronautics program has the technical
ability to address each of the highest-priority R&T challenges from the
Decadal Survey individually (through in-house research and/or
partnerships with external research organizations), NASA's Aeronautics
Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) would require a substantial budget
increase to address all of the challenges in a thorough and
comprehensive manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\<ls-thn-eq>1AOther decadal surveys that the NRC routinely
produces for NASA in the space sciences consider budgetary factors in
formulating their findings and recommendations, and it may be
worthwhile to follow that model in future decadal surveys for
aeronautics research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to resource limitations, NASA's aeronautics research
program faces many other constraints (in terms of the existing set of
NASA centers, limitations on the ability to transfer staff positions
among centers, and limitations on the ability to compete with the
private sector in terms of financial compensation in some critical
fields), and attempting to address too many research objectives will
severely limit the ability to develop new core competencies and unique
capabilities that may be vital to the future of U.S. aeronautics.
Recommendation. The NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
should ensure that its research program substantively advances the
state-of-the-art and makes a significant difference in a time frame of
interest to users of the research results by (1) making a concerted
effort to identify the potential users of on-going research and how
that research relates to those needs and (2) prioritizing potential
research opportunities according to an accepted set of metrics. In
addition, absent a substantial increase in funding and/or a substantial
reduction in other constraints that NASA faces in conducting
aeronautics research (such as facilities, workforce composition, and
federal policies), NASA, in consultation with the aeronautics research
community and others as appropriate, should redefine the scope and
priorities within the aeronautics research program to be consistent
with available resources and the priorities identified in (2), above
(even if all 51 highest-priority R&T challenges from the Decadal Survey
of Civil Aeronautics are not addressed simultaneously). This would
improve the value of the research that the aeronautics program is able
to perform, and it would make resources available to facilitate the
development of new core competencies and unique capabilities that may
be essential to the Nation and to the NASA aeronautics program of the
future.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS--MEETING THE R&T CHALLENGES
The basic planning documents for most of NASA's research projects
were prepared before the Decadal Survey was published in 2006, and the
NASA research portfolio, as a whole, does not seem to have changed
course in response to the Decadal Survey. Thus, the content of the
Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics appears to not have been a
significant factor in the selection of the research portfolio being
pursued by many of the ARMD's research projects.
NASA is doing a mixed job in responding to the 51 highest-priority
R&T challenges in the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics. In a few
cases, the shortcomings noted by the Committee (both major and minor)
indicate that NASA research plans are poorly conceived and the
resulting research will likely be ineffective. In most cases, however,
shortcomings reflect inconsistencies between NASA project plans and the
Decadal Survey. These inconsistencies are generally the result of NASA
choosing to do little or no work in a particular task area and/or
selecting research goals that fall short of advancing the state-of-the-
art far enough and with enough urgency either to make a substantial
difference in meeting individual R&T challenges or the larger goal of
achieving the strategic objectives of the Decadal Survey of Civil
Aeronautics. However, as noted above, NASA does not have the resources
necessary to address all 51 R&T challenges simultaneously in a thorough
and comprehensive manner, and so (regardless of how the projects plans
were developed) it is inevitable that the plans, as a whole, do not
fully address all the priorities of the Decadal Survey.
WORKFORCE
There are--among NASA, the academic community, and the civilian
aerospace industry--enough skilled research personnel to adequately
support the current aeronautics research programs at NASA and
nationwide, at least for the next decade or so. NASA may experience
some localized problems at some centers, but the requisite intellectual
capacity exists at the various centers and/or in organizations outside
NASA. Thus, NASA should be able to achieve its research goals, for
example, by using NASA Research Announcements or other procurement
mechanisms; through the use of higher, locally competitive salaries in
selected disciplines at some centers; and/or by creating a virtual
workforce that integrates staff from multiple centers with the skills
necessary to address a particular research task. The content of the
NASA aeronautics program, which has a large portfolio of tool
development but little or no opportunities for flight tests, may in
some cases hamper the ability to recruit new staff as compared with the
space exploration program. In addition, there will likely be increased
requirements for specialized or new skill sets. Workforce problems and
inefficiencies can also arise from fluctuations in national aerospace
engineering employment and from uneven funding in particular areas of
endeavor.
Recommendation. To ensure that the NASA aeronautics program has and
will continue to have an adequate supply of trained employees, the
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate should develop a vision
describing the role of its research staff as well as a comprehensive,
centralized strategic plan for workforce integration and implementation
specific to ARMD. The plan should be based on an ARMD-wide survey of
staffing requirements by skill level, coupled with an availability
analysis of NASA civil servants available to support the NASA
aeronautics program. The plan should identify specific gaps and the
time frame in which they should be addressed. It should also define the
role of NASA civil servant researchers vis-a<ls-thn-eq>AE2-vis external
researchers in terms of the following:
<bullet> IDefining, achieving, and maintaining an appropriate
balance between in-house research and external research (by
academia and industry) in each project and task, recognizing
that the appropriate balance will not be the same in all areas.
<bullet> IDefining and addressing issues related to research
involving multi-disciplinary capabilities and system design
(i.e., research at Levels 3 and 4, respectively, as defined by
ARMD).
<bullet> IEnsuring that research projects continue to make
progress when NASA works with outside organizations to obtain
some of the requisite expertise (when that expertise is not
resident in NASA's civil servant workforce).
NASA should use the National Research Council report Building a
Better NASA Workforce (NRC, 2007) as a starting point in developing a
comprehensive ARMD workforce plan.
FACILITIES
NASA has a unique set of aeronautics research facilities that
provide key support to NASA, other federal departments and agencies,
and industry. With very few exceptions, these facilities meet the
relevant needs of existing aeronautics research. NASA also has a
dedicated effort for sustaining large, key facilities and for shutting
down low-priority facilities. However, some small facilities
(particularly in the supersonic regime) are just as important as some
larger facilities and may warrant more support than they currently
receive. In addition, at the current investment rate, widespread
facility degradation will inevitably impact the ability of ARMD
projects and other important national aeronautics research and
development to achieve their goals.
Recommendation. Absent a substantial increase in facility
maintenance and investment funds, NASA should reduce the impact of
facility shortcomings by continuing to assess facilities and mothball
or de-commission facilities of lesser importance so that the most
important facilities can be properly sustained.
2. IYour report stresses the importance of ensuring that NASA's
aeronautics research results are transferred to industry, the FAA, and
other organizations that manufacture, own, and operate key elements of
the air transportation system. What needs to be done to ensure that the
transfer takes place in an efficient and effective manner?
USER CONNECTIONS
NASA civil aeronautics research will provide value to its
stakeholders if and only if the results are ultimately transferred to
industry, to the Federal Aviation Administration, and to the other
organizations that manufacture, own, and operate key elements of the
air transportation system. A closer connection between the managers of
NASA aeronautics research projects and some potential users of NASA
research would ensure that the need to transfer research results to
users is properly considered in project planning and execution, and it
would facilitate the formation of a coordinated set of research goals
and milestones that are timed to meet the future needs of the Nation.
In addition, for technology intended to enhance the competitiveness of
U.S. industry, U.S. leadership would be enhanced by a technology-
transfer process that does not necessarily include the immediate,
public dissemination of results to potential foreign competitors, so
that the U.S. industrial base has a head start in absorbing the fruits
of this research.
Recommendation. The NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
should bridge the gap between research and application--and thereby
increase the likelihood that this research will be of value to the
intended users--as follows:
<bullet> IFoster closer connections between NASA principal
investigators and the potential external and internal users of
their research, which include U.S. industry, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, academia,
and the NASA space program.
<bullet> IImprove research planning to ensure that the results
are likely to be available in time to meet the future needs of
the Nation.
<bullet> IConsistently articulate during the course of project
planning and execution how research results are tied to
capability improvements and how results will be transferred to
users.
<bullet> IFor technology intended to enhance the
competitiveness of U.S. industry, establish a more direct link
between NASA and U.S. industry to provide for technology
transfer in a way that does not necessarily include the
immediate, public dissemination of results to potential foreign
competitors.
As part of the effort to implement this recommendation, NASA should
ensure that the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS/
NextGen) Air Traffic Management (ATM)<ls-thn-eq>09Airportal Project and
the NGATS ATM<ls-thn-eq>09Airspace Project meet the research and
development (R&D) needs defined by the NextGen Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO) for NASA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\<ls-thn-eq>1AThe Next Generation Air Transportation System is
now most commonly abbreviated as NextGen, but the titles of NASA's
related research projects still feature the old acronym, NGATS.
3. IDo you have any recommendations for the Committee to consider as we
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
prepare to draft a NASA reauthorization bill?
NASA has a critical part to play in preserving the role of the
United States as a leader in aeronautics. NASA research facilities and
expertise support research by other federal agencies and industry, and
the results of research conducted and/or sponsored by NASA are embodied
in key elements of the air transportation system, military aviation,
and the U.S. space program. NASA aeronautics research will carry on
this tradition as long as its research is properly prioritized and
research tasks are executed with enough depth and vigor to produce
meaningful results in a timely fashion. Accordingly, the effectiveness
of NASA's aeronautics research would be enhanced by Congressional
direction to implement the high-priority research challenges in the
Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics. Congress may also choose to relax
the constraints that limit the ability of NASA to implement a more
robust aeronautics research program. As noted above, constraints of
particular interest include the budget, facilities, workforce
composition, and related federal policies.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Biography for Carl J. Meade
Mr. Meade is currently the Director of Space Systems at Northrop
Grumman Corporation's Integrated Systems sector in El Segundo,
California. He and his team are responsible for the capture and
execution of various government projects relating to crewed space
flight and non-payload military space vehicles. He was previously
employed at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (aka ``Skunk Works'')
in Palmdale, California where he was responsible for the development of
a portfolio of advanced aerospace vehicles. He also held numerous
positions on the X<ls-thn-eq>0933 program--first as Flight Assurance
Manager, then as Operations Manager, and finally as the Program
Director. Immediately prior to his arrival at Lockheed Martin, Carl was
an Air Force officer on astronaut duty with NASA.
Carl began his aerospace career as a Hughes Fellow at the
California Institute of Technology. After completing his graduate
degree, Carl continued employment at Hughes Aircraft Company as an
electronics design engineer. He was then called to active military duty
and flew tactical fighter aircraft in the U.S. Air Force. He was
selected for test pilot training in 1980 and graduated first in his
class at the USAF Test Pilot School at Edwards AFB.
While assigned to the Air Force Flight Test Center, Carl tested
various fighter aircraft and instructed at the USAF Test Pilot School.
Selected as an astronaut in June 1985, Carl was assigned to the NASA
Johnson Space Center in Houston where he held a variety of technical
and leadership assignments. He flew as an Astronaut on Space Shuttle
missions STS<ls-thn-eq>0938, STS<ls-thn-eq>0950 and STS<ls-thn-eq>0964.
During an untethered space walk on STS<ls-thn-eq>0964, he performed the
first flight-test of a rescue jet-pack and was consequently awarded the
Air Force Distinguished Flying Cross.
Carl has authored several publications and is a member of the
Society of Experimental Test Pilots and the Association of Space
Explorers. He has served as a member of the National Research Council's
committee evaluating the National Aerospace Initiative and also on
committee assessing NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. He
holds an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering from the
University of Texas at Austin, and a graduate degree in the same field
from the California Institute of Technology. During most weekends, you
can find Carl teamed with his wife, Celyna, and sons David, Jacob and
Michael in a futile attempt to convert their patch of Mojave Desert
into a tropical oasis. Between tours of duty in the yard, Carl finds
that the experimental aircraft currently under construction in his shop
provides ample opportunity to consume all remaining free time.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Meade.
Mr. Henne.
STATEMENT OF MR. PRESTON A. HENNE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
PROGRAMS, ENGINEERING AND TESTING, GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE
CORPORATION
Mr. Henne. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for this opportunity to testify before your committee.
My employer, Gulfstream Aerospace, is headquartered in
Savannah, Georgia, with some 9,800 employees. Gulfstream is a
$5 billion annual revenue company that designs, builds and
services premium business aircraft. We have major facilities in
eight states within our continental borders. Gulfstream has a
current product line of seven different models ranging in price
from $14 million to $59 million. Our primary competitors are
Canadian with Bombardier, French with Dassault and Brazilian
with Embraer.
Foreign countries and businesses recognize the huge value
associated with strong aeronautics enterprise. You have
already--both the Members have identified the value of
aeronautics today and I won't delve into that. But foreign
countries recognize and invest in national aeronautics
enterprises. The United States seems to take aeronautics for
granted, often describing it in political circles as a mature
industry, able to fend for itself in terms of continuing R&D
needs. I suspect, however, that we should not be ready to close
the aeronautical patent office.
To give one grand example, successful civil supersonic
transportation is still to be achieved, yet we continually see
decreasing NASA aeronautics R&D budgets. Over the past 10 years
funding in NASA aeronautics research has declined by some 48
percent from over $1 billion to somewhere around $622 million
today. The United States is down to one civil aircraft
manufacturer and doesn't even participate in the regional jet
manufacturing market. Gulfstream used to be alone in the large
cabin business jets. We now have three strong foreign
competitors intent on capturing our market. More importantly,
they are keen on capturing the engine for jobs and economic
growth.
Why is it important for the Federal Government to invest in
aeronautical R&D? The aeronautics enterprise contribution to
jobs, to tax revenues, to favorable balance of trade, as you,
Mr. Chairman, have already mentioned, is massive. The recent
Executive Order establishing a national aeronautics R&D policy
states, ``Continued progress in aeronautics, the science of
flight, is essential to America's economic success.''
Congress in 1958 directed that government-sponsored
aeronautical activities be conducted to contribute materially
to specific objectives including the following: improvement of
the usefulness, performance, speed, safety and efficiency of
aeronautical vehicles and the preservation of the role of the
United States as a leader in aeronautical technology.
The role of federal investment in aeronautics is to advance
U.S. technological leadership, to lead innovation and to
develop advanced aeronautics concepts and technologies. It is
the catalyst for progress.
In the past, NASA aeronautics has served as a great source
of aeronautical R&D efforts. Dr. Shin mentioned some of those.
However, with the ever-decreasing budgets, this pipeline is
drying up. In recent years, even vehicle technology
demonstrations, a vital risk reduction link between basic R&D
and product application, have been terminated. This has been a
substantial blow to maturing aeronautical technologies and for
U.S. companies involved. Clearly, our aeronautics program needs
a revitalization effort to address existing priorities and to
address the insufficient aeronautics research funding.
How do we ensure that it is relevant? The following
considerations are put forth. An understanding that the status
quo with ever-reducing budgets isn't working. NASA aeronautics
needs to work beyond just fundamentals and take a continuing
role in technology demonstration, and the split, the public-
private funding participation, needs to be more balanced in an
equitable situation.
According to a recent article in a well-respected trade
publication, government versus private expenditures for all
U.S. R&D have virtually reversed themselves in the last 45
years. In 1964, the government funded 64 percent of all R&D. In
2006, industry funded 66 percent, or roughly $220 billion in
R&D funding.
Specifically, NASA's aeronautics budget should be increased
to fund research into NextGen. We have already heard that.
Environment research, we have heard that. In aviation safety,
NASA clearly plays an important role in all of those areas.
In opening new flight regimes, NASA should be leading the
way. Frankly, what more important leadership role can NASA
aeronautics have? As mentioned earlier, we have yet to achieve
successful supersonic civil transportation. To achieve that
really requires improvements in aeronautical technology,
technology demonstrations. This is what NASA aeronautics has
historically excelled in and should continue to excel in. Risk
reduction and barrier removal in R&D focused on new flight
regimes is a strong inducement for commercial growth, job
creation and protecting the national aeronautics leadership
position.
In closing, my recommendations are: that the budget for
NASA aeronautics must increase substantially, the
reestablishment of NASA aeronautics as a vital R&D activity; a
high-priority activity supporting a broad group of U.S.
companies needs to happen; NASA aeronautics procurement
policies need to allow commercial contracting practices; U.S.
Government action to minimize foreign competitor advantages due
to strong financial aid needs to occur; and separation of
aeronautics activity out of the space agency as a means to
implement a strong aeronautics R&D policy needs to be
considered.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to express
these views, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Preston A. Henne
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee:
It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the status of NASA's
Aeronautics program.
By way of introduction, my name is Preston Henne and I am Senior VP
of Programs, Engineering and Test at Gulfstream Aerospace. Gulfstream
headquarters are in Savannah, GA and has roughly 9800 employees.
Gulfstream is a $5B annual revenue company that designs, builds and
services premium business aircraft. Gulfstream proudly has facility
sites in eight states within our continental borders. Our supply chain
is extensive and accounts for supplier employees in literally every
state, producing goods and services in support of our product line.
Gulfstream has a current product line of seven different models ranging
in price from $14M to $59M. Our primary competitors are Canadian
(Bombardier), French (Dassault), and Brazilian (Embraer).
In the 105 years of flight, aeronautics has become integral to the
world's culture. Aeronautical products and services touch nearly
everyone in the world in one way or another. The U.S. leadership in
developing and applying aeronautical technology over the last 100 years
is indisputable. This leadership has provided remarkable commercial
growth and economic opportunity for millions and millions of people in
the U.S. However, this aeronautical leadership and, more importantly,
the opportunities associated with it, are being strongly challenged by
foreign competition in the world market place.
Foreign countries and businesses recognize the huge value
associated with a strong aeronautics enterprise, and are clearly
willing to invest national as well as corporate treasuries to grow it.
The U.S., on the other hand, seems to take the aeronautics enterprise
for granted. It is often described in political circles as a mature
industry and able to fend for itself in terms of continuing R&D needs.
I suspect, however, that we should not be ready to close the
aeronautical patent office. As but one grand example, financially
successful and environmentally acceptable civil supersonic
transportation is still to be achieved. Yet, we see continually
decreasing NASA Aeronautics R&D budgets. To illustrate this point, the
downward federal budget trend of the past decade for this account
continues for the current fiscal year. The President's FY09 request for
aeronautics research represents a 28 percent decline over the
appropriated level of FY08, which in turn was 30 percent lower than the
previous year. Over the last ten years, funding for NASA Aeronautics
research has declined by some 48 percent, from $1.2B in 1999 to $622M
in FY08.
The U.S. is down to one large civil aircraft manufacturer and no
longer even participates in the regional jet market as a manufacturer.
Gulfstream used to be alone in the market for large cabin business
jets. We now have three strong foreign competitors that are intent on
capturing our market. More importantly, they are keen on capturing the
engine for jobs and economic growth.
So, why is it important for the Federal Government to invest in
aeronautics R&D? A strong aeronautics industrial base provides huge
economic value. The aeronautics enterprise contribution to jobs, to tax
revenues, to favorable balance of trade is massive. The recent
Executive Order establishing a National Aeronautics R&D Policy states:
``Continued progress in aeronautics, the science of flight, is
essential to America's economic success . . .'' Congress, in the
original creation of NASA in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958, directs that: ``Government-sponsored aeronautical activities be
conducted to contribute materially to specific objectives, including
the following:
<bullet> Iimprovement of the usefulness, performance, speed,
safety, and efficiency of aeronautical . . . vehicles;
<bullet> Ipreservation of the role of the United States as a
leader in aeronautical . . . technology.''
The role of federal investment in aeronautics is to advance U.S.
technological leadership, to lead innovation, and to develop advanced
aeronautics concepts and technologies. It is the catalyst for progress.
In the past NASA Aeronautics served as a great source of
aeronautical R&D efforts. NASA aeronautical technology has found its
way into the market place in multiple forms and in numerous products.
With ever decreasing budgets, however, this pipeline is drying up. In
recent years, even vehicle technology demonstrations, a vital risk
reduction link between basic R&D and product application, have been
terminated. This has been a substantial blow to maturing aeronautical
technologies and for U.S. companies involved.
Clearly, our nation's aeronautics program needs a revitalization
effort to address our existing priorities and the insufficient
aeronautics research funding.
How do we ensure NASA's aeronautics program is relevant? In making NASA
aeronautics more relevant to our nation's needs, the following
considerations are put forth:
<bullet> IA tacit understanding that the status quo, with ever
reducing budgets, isn't working
<bullet> INASA aeronautics needs to work beyond just
``fundamentals'' and needs to take a continuing role in
technology demonstration
<bullet> IPublic-private funding participation needs to be
balanced along more equitable conditions
As an example, a recent viewpoint article in a well-respected trade
publication stated that government versus private expenditures for all
U.S. R&D have virtually reversed themselves over the past 45 years. In
1964, the government funded 64 percent of all R&D--by 2006, industry
funded some 66 percent of the total, or roughly $220 billion in R&D
funding.
The following points offer some specifics:
<bullet> INextGen Research Needs
NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are coordinating
research to help implement the Next Generation Air Traffic Control
System, known as NextGen, which will use satellite technology to
increase capacity and efficiency within the airspace. Since NextGen is
scheduled for completion by 2020--when air traffic is expected to
double--it is essential that Congress provide NASA with adequate
funding now so that it can meet its research obligations over the next
ten years.
Specifically, NASA's Aeronautics budget should be increased to help
fund research into:
<ls-thn-eq>09 IAirspace management
<ls-thn-eq>09 IReduced separation/vortex wake alleviation
<ls-thn-eq>09 IHigh density arrival technology
<ls-thn-eq>09 IRoles of air traffic controllers, automated
decision-making and conflict resolution
<bullet> IEnvironmental Research Needs
NASA research has produced advances in engine and airframe
performance that have helped reduce emissions and lower noise. These
efforts need to be enhanced and expanded. NASA research should also be
focused around the development of:
<ls-thn-eq>09 IAlternative low carbon life cycle aviation fuels
<ls-thn-eq>09 IMethods to make more efficient use of airspace
that will help reduce emissions, including Continuous Descent
Approaches and improved in-flight re-planning capabilities
<ls-thn-eq>09 INew methods to reduce noise, specifically with
regard to supersonic flights
<bullet> IAviation Safety Research Needs
NASA plays a critical role in developing important safety enhancing
technologies including infrastructure needed for FAA and industry
aircraft certification. Key areas of focus should include complex
hardware and software certification, human/automation interface, and
aircraft separation management.
How can NASA work most effectively with industry and the universities?
To work effectively with industry and universities NASA needs to play
to their strengths and interests. NASA has repeatedly developed
aeronautical technology plans and road maps for high priority research
subjects of national interest. These road maps need to lead to
companies and universities with appropriate interest and expertise.
These roadmaps need to turn into aeronautical R&D Programs up to and
including large scale demonstrations. These programs need to satisfy
both NASA and company or university objectives . . . and they need to
be funded. NASA needs to provide significant funding to assure
innovation, to assure risk reduction, and to assure broad dissemination
of results. In order to enable broad participation of interested
companies, enhanced contracting policies need to admit commercial
practices.
What role should NASA play in opening new flight regimes? On the
question of opening new flight regimes, NASA should be leading the way.
Frankly, what more important leadership role can NASA Aeronautics have?
As I mentioned earlier, we have not yet achieved successful civil
supersonic transportation. Successful in this context means
technically, environmentally, and economically successful. To make the
leap to a substantial transportation speed increase, new environmental
and safety standards are needed. Aeronautical technology improvements
are needed. Technology demonstrations are needed. This is what NASA
Aeronautics has historically excelled in and should continue to excel
in. The risk reduction and barrier removal R&D focused on new flight
regimes is a strong inducement for commercial growth, jobs creation,
and protecting the national aeronautics leadership position.
Recommendations and Closing Remarks
As the Subcommittee continues its very important work in producing
a NASA Reauthorization Bill, I wish to leave you with the following
recommendations:
(1) IThat the budget for NASA's Aeronautics Directorate be
increased for FY09 to $700M--this would constitute nearly an
$80M increase over the approved FY08 level. Further, this
increase would support the 2005 National Academy of Sciences
report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which recommended an
increase by at least ten percent annually to keep America's
economy competitive.
(2) IRe-establishment of NASA Aeronautics as a vital R&D
activity supporting a broad group of U.S. aeronautics
companies.
(3) IEnhance NASA Aeronautics procurement policies to allow
commercial contracting practices.
(4) IU.S. Government action to minimize foreign competitor
advantages due to strong financial aid.
(5) ISeparation of the aeronautics activity out of the space
agency as a means to implement a strong aeronautics R&D policy.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I
thank you for the opportunity to express these views on what we believe
to be important to our future. I look forward to your questions.
Biography for Preston A. Henne
Preston ``Pres'' Henne is Senior Vice President for Programs,
Engineering and Test at Gulfstream. He also is a Vice President of
General Dynamics Corp.
Henne began his aerospace career in 1969 at McDonnell Douglas,
where he managed several advanced programs in aerodynamics and
acoustics for both military and commercial aircraft. Known for his work
in advanced aerodynamic technology, he was responsible for the
aerodynamic design of the wing on the C<ls-thn-eq>0917--considered the
most versatile aircraft in airlift history and winner of the 1994
Collier Trophy for aeronautical achievement. Henne later served as
Chief Design Engineer for the MD<ls-thn-eq>0980 aircraft. In 1991, he
became Vice President and General Manager of the MD<ls-thn-eq>0990
Program at McDonnell Douglas' Long Beach Douglas Aircraft facility,
where he oversaw the aircraft's complete development and certification
process.
Joining Gulfstream in 1994, Henne is credited with the design,
development, test and certification of the Gulfstream V aircraft--which
was awarded the 1997 Collier Trophy. Henne became a Vice President of
General Dynamics in July 1999 when the company acquired Gulfstream. As
Senior Vice President, Programs, Engineering and Test, he is
responsible for Gulfstream's product program management, engineering,
and flight operations. His organization was responsible for the
development of the Gulfstream 550--which was recognized with the
Collier Trophy in 2003.
Henne earned a Bachelor's degree in aeronautical and astronautical
engineering with highest undergraduate honors from the University of
Illinois in 1969 and a Master's degree in engineering from California
State University at Long Beach in 1974. He is a member of the
Innovation Leadership Advisory Board (ILAB) at the University of
Illinois College of Engineering and of the Georgia Tech Research
Corporation Board of Trustees. Henne is a Fellow of the American
Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and a Fellow of the
Royal Aeronautical Society. His awards include the AIAA Engineer of the
Year Award in 1996 and the AIAA Hap Arnold Award in 2001 for excellence
in aeronautical program management. He has been elected to the National
Academy of Engineering in 2004. In 2005 the University of Illinois
recognized Henne with the Alumni Award for Distinguished Service.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Henne.
Dr. Kroo.
STATEMENT OF DR. ILAN KROO, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Dr. Kroo. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on NASA's aeronautics
research program.
I teach at Stanford University and conduct research related
to future aeronautical concepts. My familiarity with NASA's
research program comes from continuing interactions during my
career at Stanford and participation in several studies by the
National Research Council including the Decadal Study of Civil
Aeronautics in 2006.
I will focus my comments on three questions suggested by
the Committee. The first question was, what are the most
important challenges to be addressed if the Nation is to
sustain an efficient, environmentally compatible and safe
aviation system and what should NASA's role be in addressing
these challenges. Well, as noted by my colleagues and the
Chair, the Nation's air transportation system has been a
critical engineer for our economy and quality of life for many
decades. Commercial aircraft have made dramatic improvements in
cost, safety and efficiency over the last 50 years. However,
the growing global demand for air travel and the impact of this
growth on the environment have led us to a critical point in
the evolution of aviation.
Even today, system capacity limitations, the cost of fuel
and local environmental impact are clear problems. It will
certainly not be possible to sustain an acceptable system in
the future without significant technical advances. The greatest
challenge will be to accommodate the anticipated growth in air
travel without increasingly problematic global and local
environmental impact.
This is not just a regulatory problem. It requires long-
term research and development of new technologies spanning
multiple disciplines. In many ways, NASA is ideally positioned
to address these problems. No other agency or industry has the
experience and tools to both study the impact of aviation on
the global environment and to develop technologies that may be
needed in the future aircraft engine, airframes and air traffic
management systems. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the problem
is great and growing, and NASA's aeronautics program is not.
This brings us to the second question. The adverse impact
of aviation on the environment has long been a concern and that
concern has recently expanded to include the impact of aviation
on climate. What are the most promising R&D avenues for
addressing these concerns and what should NASA's R&D priorities
be in this area? Well, in terms of efficiency and environmental
impact, commercial aviation can be considered a real success
story. A few decades ago, fuel usage per passenger mile was
about 70 percent greater than it is today. A flight across the
country in a new 737 now requires only about 29 gallons of
gasoline or kerosene per person, and that is about 80 passenger
miles per gallon. Unfortunately, the trouble is that trillions
of passenger miles are flown each year and that traffic is
expected to double over the next 20 years. So although aviation
currently accounts for two to four percent of human CO\
emissions, its impact on the environment may be much greater in
the future due to this projected growth, pollutants other than
CO\ and the disproportionate effect of emissions at high
altitudes. Local and regional environmental effects such as
airport community and local air quality will also be aggravated
by the projected increase in air travel.
So in order to achieve a sustainable aviation system while
accommodating increasing demand, dramatic improvements in
aircraft efficiency are required. Unfortunately, most of the
easy steps have already been taken and further advances require
research into better modeling and design capabilities, new
configuration concepts, improved flight management systems and
alternative fuels that are well suited to aviation use. Many
uncertainties also remain in the effects of aviation on the
atmosphere, and research is also required to determine just how
to minimize the impact of air travel in the future. Specific
aggressive but rational targets for aircraft noise and
emissions should guide the research priorities for NASA. Goals
such as those described in the National Plan for Aeronautics
R&D published last December are clearly affecting NASA's
research plans, but cutting fuel consumption and noise by 50
percent is very difficult and it is not clear that this can be
achieved with the Agency's current resources.
So what does NASA need to do so that its aeronautics R&D
activities can be effectively transitioned to the public
sector? Well, in the past few years, NASA has done a good job
in defining a strong fundamental research program within
severely limiting budget constraints. It has focused R&D
activities on the kind of fundamental research that will be
important for longer-term solutions, but if the goal is to
actually create a future system that will work, not just write
great research papers, much more is needed. The next step is to
understand how some of the most promising technologies can be
integrated at the system level and transitioned from the lab to
the user. These critical integration and validation projects
will require close collaboration with industry but it is
difficult to see how they can be undertaken with NASA's current
level of investment in aeronautics.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify, and I will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kroo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ilan Kroo
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on NASA's aeronautics research program. My name
is Ilan Kroo. I teach at Stanford University and conduct research
related to future aeronautical concepts. My familiarity with NASA's
research program stems from work as a civil servant at NASA's Ames
Research Center twenty years ago, continuing interactions with NASA
during my research career at Stanford, and participation in several
related studies by the National Research Council, including the Decadal
Survey of Civil Aeronautics in 2006.
I will focus these comments on NASA's role in research to improve
the safety and reduce the environmental impact of our future air
transportation system, addressing questions posed in your letter of
April 17, 2008.
What do you consider to be the most important challenges to be
addressed if the Nation is to sustain an efficient, environmentally
compatible, and safe aviation system? What should NASA's role be in
addressing these challenges?
The Nation's air transportation system has been a critical engine
for our economy and quality of life for many decades. In terms of cost,
safety, and efficiency, commercial aircraft have made dramatic
improvements over the last fifty years. However, the growing global
demand for air travel, the constraints imposed on system capacity, and
the impact of this growth on the environment have led us to a critical
point in the evolution of aviation. Even now, issues with system
capacity, the cost of fuel, and local environmental impact make it
clear that it is not possible to sustain an acceptable system without
significant technical advances. The greatest challenges will be to
accommodate the anticipated two to threefold growth in air travel over
the next twenty to thirty years without increasingly problematic local
and global environmental impact. The growing diversity of air vehicles,
from personal aircraft and light jets to regional jets and very large
aircraft, potentially larger numbers of unmanned aircraft, and even
supersonic aircraft make this challenge even more complex. Since these
long-term issues cannot be solved by regulation alone and require the
development of technologies that span multiple industries, the critical
research is very appropriate for NASA to undertake. In many ways NASA
is uniquely positioned to address some of these problems. No other
agency or industry has the expertise and tools to study the impact of
aviation on the global environment along with technologies that may be
needed for future aircraft engines, airframes, and traffic management
systems. Unfortunately the magnitude of the problem is great and
growing, while NASA's aeronautics program is not.
The adverse impact of aviation on the environment has long been a
concern, and that concern has recently expanded to include the impact
of aviation on climate. What do you consider to be the most promising
R&D avenues for addressing environmental concerns associated with
aviation, and what should NASA's R&D priorities be in this area?
In many ways commercial aviation is a success story in terms of
efficiency and environmental impact. A few decades ago fuel usage per
passenger mile was about 70 percent greater than it is today and the
next generation of aircraft should reduce fuel consumption by 20
percent compared with today's aircraft. A flight across the country in
a Boeing 737<ls-thn-eq>09800 requires only about 29 gallons of fuel per
person (a per-person mileage of about 80 miles per gallon).
However, trillions of passenger-miles are flown each year and
traffic is expected to double over the next twenty years. So, although
aviation currently accounts for only about two to four percent of human
CO\ emissions, its impact on the environment may be much greater in the
future due to this projected growth, pollutants other than CO\, and the
disproportionate effect of emissions deposition at high altitude. In
order to achieve a sustainable aviation system while accommodating
increasing demand, dramatic improvements in aircraft efficiency are
required. Unfortunately, most of the easy steps have been taken and
further improvements require research into better modeling and design
capabilities, new configuration concepts, and alternate fuels that are
well-suited to aviation use. Many uncertainties remain about the
effects of aviation on the atmosphere, and research is required to
determine how to minimize the impact of air travel in the future.
Nearer-term problems, aggravated by increasing demand and alleviated
with some of the technology advances noted above, include local and
regional environmental effects such as airport community noise and
local air quality.
NASA's fundamental research work addresses some of these issues,
but needs to be expanded and focused on the most promising technologies
if it is to contribute in a significant way to solving these problems.
Specific, aggressive, but rational targets for future aircraft noise
and emissions should guide the research priorities for NASA's research.
Challenging goals such as those described in the National Plan for
Aeronautics R&D, published last December are clearly affecting NASA's
research plans, but it is not clear how they can actually be achieved
with the Agency's current resources.
Will it be possible for a Next Generation Air Transportation System
[NextGen] to meet anticipated demand without incurring additional
environmental degradation? If so, how?
Some of the problems with increasing demand are obvious to
travelers today, with flight delays and cancellations affecting the
entire system. The importance of improved air traffic management to
achieve a safe and efficient system, even as demand grows, is very
clear. Perhaps less obvious is the role that future traffic management
systems can play in reducing aviation's environmental footprint.
Exploiting recent advances in reliable precision navigation to guide
aircraft on routes that produce less noise, consume less fuel, or even
to avoid regions with more sensitive atmospheric conditions may
minimize both local and global environmental effects. Increased vehicle
autonomy can enable real-time re-planning and more optimal flight paths
without increasing pilot workload or compromising safety. NASA's
fundamental work in this area is important but needs to progress to the
next steps involving larger scale experiments and validation.
Furthermore, although improved management of traffic is necessary in a
next generation air transportation system, this alone will not be
sufficient to meet the stringent environmental constraints that we
expect in the future. Part of NASA's work in NextGen must be to combine
new vehicle concepts that achieve unprecedented efficiency levels, with
a traffic management system that can properly accommodate legacy
aircraft and advanced designs that may fly at different altitudes and
speeds. This has been recognized within NASA, but must be emphasized.
What does NASA need to do so that its aeronautics R&D activities can be
effectively and more rapidly transitioned to the marketplace or to the
public sector users, as the case may be?
In the past few years NASA has done a good job in defining a
strong, fundamental research program within severely-limiting budget
constraints. It has focused R&D activities on the kind of fundamental
research that will be important for longer-term solutions. The next
step is to understand how some of the most promising technologies can
be integrated at the system level and transitioned from the lab to the
user. These critical integration and validation projects will require
close collaboration with industry and it is difficult to see how they
can be undertaken with NASA's current level of investment in
aeronautics.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify.
Biography for Ilan Kroo
Dr. Ilan Kroo is a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at
Stanford University, where he directs the Aircraft Aerodynamics and
Design Group. He received his Bachelor's degree in Physics from
Stanford in 1978, and continued studies in Aeronautics, leading to a
Ph.D. degree in 1983. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, he was a
Research Scientist in the Advanced Aerodynamic Concepts Branch at
NASA's Ames Research Center in California. Dr. Kroo's research includes
the application of new computational architectures for high-fidelity
optimization and studies of unconventional configurations including new
concepts for efficient subsonic and supersonic aircraft. Dr. Kroo is a
Fellow of the AIAA, received the AIAA Lawrence Sperry Award in 1990,
the Outstanding Teacher Award in 1994, and the Dryden Lectureship in
Research in 2003. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering
and the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board and is Chief Scientist of
the Aerion Corporation.
Discussion
Additional Funding for NASA Aeronautics
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Kroo.
At this point we want to move right to our first round of
questions. I am going to recognize myself for five minutes, and
I want to turn back to our final witness, Dr. Kroo.
Each of you, with the exception of Dr. Shin, who is being a
loyal representative of the Administration, has highlighted the
negative impacts of the declining NASA aeronautics budget. If
NASA's aeronautics program were to be given a higher level of
funding on a sustained basis, not just a one-year infusion of
cash but on a higher baseline funding level, by this Congress
or the next Administration, what would be the most productive
uses for that additional funding? What do you consider to be
the most important priorities to pursue? Maybe we can move from
my right to my left, starting with Dr. Kroo.
Dr. Kroo. Well, as I mentioned, I believe that the issue of
future technologies for reducing environmental impact are some
of the most important areas for NASA to be working on, and if
given a larger budget, NASA needs to proceed from the kind of
fundamental research that they are doing very well to more
research that can be used by the industry to actually achieve
some of the goals that have been stated. So progressing from
fundamental research to integration, system-level research and
validation experiments and research work is a critical aspect
of that.
Chairman Udall. I will move to Mr. Henne. You have
advocated, what, an $80 million or so increase over last year's
approval level. What critical research projects would you
target with that increase? You have to turn your microphone on,
if you would.
Mr. Henne. Sorry. I think you have some goals of the
country with the environmental impact, with NextGen, with
safety, and frankly, those should be the outcomes. What needs
to happen is an investment in advanced technology and advanced
concepts. It is with the vehicles you are going to achieve the
improvements in the environment, the improvements in safety,
the improvement in the ATC operation. It has to come from the
vehicles. And so my look at that would be, we need to do more
in advanced concepts and vehicle technology.
Chairman Udall. Mr. Meade, would you care to comment?
Mr. Meade. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our committee was asked to
specifically concentrate on the decadal survey so with respect
to that framework, I would like to answer that. I think if you
read our report, what you will find is that concentration and
fuel efficiencies and NextGen enablers would be at the top of
the list in addition to all of the safety efforts within the
decadal survey, the 51 challenges, and those safety efforts
come down to basically collision avoidance, wake turbulence and
weather avoidance.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Shin?
Dr. Shin. Well, I couldn't agree more with the other
witnesses' areas that they are pointing out as the current NASA
program clearly indicates that we do address those air traffic
management, safety and environmental impact areas within the
budget that is allocated by the President.
NASA and NextGen
Chairman Udall. Let me move to NextGen, if I might, and I
am not going to get all of these questions tied to NextGen in
but we would have a couple of rounds.
Dr. Shin, speaking of NextGen, are you satisfied that the
connection between the aeronautics R&D and the JPDO's research
and development plan, integrated work plan is clear enough and
is it a level of detail that allows NASA researchers to
establish work priorities that will result in the timely
delivery of NextGen's capabilities?
Dr. Shin. I believe the JPDO has evolved significantly,
both in terms of scope and quality of the documents they have
been generated, and in particular last year all the member
agencies worked very closely along with JPDO to generate
several seminal planning documents. Because the nature of the
work that JPDO is trying to embark and coordinate, it is a
daunting task, trying to revolutionize the Nation's air
transportation system, not just from air traffic management
perspective but as I mentioned in my oral testimony, as a whole
system. It is expected that such documents will take some time
to have necessary depth and accuracy and clarity, so I think
JPDO has been working diligently on that and NASA is heavily
and very proactively participating in the development of all
those documents.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Shin. I am going to return
to this in the next round of questions but at this point I
would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Feeney, for
five minutes.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also was interested
in the progress of NextGen.
Mr. Meade, with respect to the seven areas where you
discovered major deficiencies and the other 24 that have
problems, which of those areas do you think are most critical
that NASA can address within current budget and which do you
think cannot be addressed with reform or changes without
additional funding? Just identify some of the major ones. You
said the priority would be NextGen and then safety and
environment but can you be more specific?
Mr. Meade. I could if I could refer to the study itself.
There were 51 of those----
Mr. Feeney. You have a complicated color chart here.
Mr. Meade. As you might imagine, it was fairly complicated.
Now, I would like to talk a little bit about the seven that we
found major deficiencies. Four of those seven, NASA was not
working on at all. I mean, those were simply omitted from the
portfolio of research for various reasons, probably low
priority or lack of staff or whatever. So that was--that
applied to four of them. The other three----
Mr. Feeney. For example, unmanned aerial vehicles.
Mr. Meade. That is right, for example, and, you know, we
could turn to that color chart that you have and see which ones
are actually not worked on. There are three others that were
poorly managed, probably best described as not advancing the
state of the art for various reasons, and so we would recommend
that those things with the current budget scenario be totally
dropped or revamped, and to get to the basis of your question,
though, Mr. Feeney, I don't think that we are in a position
right now to tell you that this is the top priority and this is
the second priority. As you know, the decadal survey itself
refused to do that and listed the top 51 that they thought was
the most important. I think what we would recommend as a
committee, however, is that a priority scheme be established
and have NASA itself go in and decide which is the most
important ones to work on.
Mr. Feeney. Well, they sort of do that every year when they
propose their budget, I assume.
Mr. Meade. They do, but so far we have not seen any
evidence that they use the decadal survey as any sort of
guiding light.
Mr. Feeney. Mr. Meade, one of the recommendations was that
NASA, and I quote, ``not necessarily include the immediate
public dissemination of results to potential foreign
competitors.'' Mr. Henne, you know, listed three of his. I
suspect there will be more in the future. Why did your group
feel compelled to make this recommendation? Is it consistent
with the practices of other Western governments when they do
research and development? And then maybe we will hear from Mr.
Henne and he may have an opinion on that as well.
Mr. Meade. I think that comment was--the genesis of that
comment began to build in our committee from looking back in
the last 50 years of aviation history, particularly on the 1958
law that brought NASA into existence, where, as a matter of
fact, Mr. Henne, in his testimony, quoted that one of the
purposes of NASA was to make sure that America stayed in the
forefront of aviation. Back then, there were natural inhibitors
to the dissemination of information outside our borders and the
feeling of the Committee was that this----
Mr. Feeney. American cars and airplanes used to be made
entirely in America back then too. That has changed.
Mr. Meade. Used to be, right, and so we had a very large
capability to absorb the fruits of the labor of all this
research ahead of any competition. Well, Tom Friedman was
right, the world is flat, and by the way, there are many
competitors around the globe now that have just--can very
quickly react to the results of that research and so we have to
decide if the American public is paying for this very worthy
research, that the American public gain the benefit of this
research.
Research Information
Mr. Feeney. Well, real quickly, you made a recommendation,
if they find some quantum leap in capabilities, should they
provide it to Mr. Henne's company that would affect, for
example, just the niche that Mr. Henne is in. Should they
provide it to Mr. Henne's company but no foreign companies?
Mr. Meade. I think that is beyond the scope of what our
committee would recommend. However, this is a competitive
atmosphere that everybody operates in.
Mr. Feeney. Mr. Henne, do you have an opinion about that?
Mr. Henne. That is a difficult question. In terms of
transfer of information, you certainly would like to think that
information that is generated by research funded by the U.S.
public advantages U.S. interests first. I mean, that would be a
guiding principle. But in today's global environment where we
have suppliers that are international, we deal with
international sales, that dividing line gets pretty hard to
define in reality and so you would like policies that advantage
U.S. interests. If it becomes crippling, then it doesn't do
anybody any good.
Mr. Feeney. I will have some more questions if we get to a
second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Udall. The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, the Member from
Oregon, Mr. Wu.
Aviation and the Environment
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Kroo, your testimony had some interesting comments
about environmental effects of aviation and I wanted to focus
on a particular environment effect which is not addressed in
your testimony, and that is noise pollution. There is an
interesting article in Aviation Week this week about helicopter
rotor blades which make less noise. When I was either a
freshman or sophomore, we no longer have the benefit of Mr.
Weiner on this committee but he would ask very pointed
questions about the next generation of jet engine technology
that would be more quiet. It is my impression that whether it
is from a research or more likely from a regulatory point of
view, the Europeans have taken the lead in quieter engines. Are
we putting enough research emphasis on noise pollution, in your
view, and can you discuss that for us just a little bit?
Dr. Kroo. Sure. There are two kinds of goals, one that may
be addressed with regulatory issues, which are near-term goals,
and then there are the goals that apply for a longer-term over
the next couple of decades. Certainly some of the near-term
goals can be addressed with regulation and in next generation
designs of airplanes but in the future, rather dramatic changes
in noise of aircraft are possible and are consistent with some
of the other environmental goals so that as airplanes become
more efficient, they don't just require more acoustic treatment
on engines but the engines can actually be smaller. They can
have less jet noise on takeoff and therefore airplanes designed
with the environmental impact in mind can really be
dramatically quieter.
Mr. Wu. That is 20, 30 years out.
Dr. Kroo. So the goal of the European framework research is
to achieve half the noise by 2020, half the average noise. This
is not inconsistent with some of the R&D aeronautics goals that
have been provided quite recently in this country. That would
make a dramatic difference. Having a lot more traffic would
also make a dramatic difference, and we have to figure out how
to accommodate that.
Wind Tunnels
Mr. Wu. Right, cutting the noise in half dramatically
changes the noise footprint on the ground. Let me ask you a
question about the research infrastructure. One of your
colleagues at Stanford was very, very concerned a few years
ago, I believe about the number of wind tunnels available for
research here in the United States. In your view, has that
situation gotten better or worse?
Dr. Kroo. That situation is somewhat better. The Air Force,
for example, has stepped up to fund some of the facilities in
this country such as the national full-scale facility, the 80
by 120 foot wind tunnel located at NASA Ames. There are many
wind tunnels that are continually closing down, being
refurbished only not to be used in this country, and this is a
difficult situation. We still go to Europe to do wind tunnel
testing, and that is a problem.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Henne, do you see going to Europe to use their
wind tunnels as a problem?
Mr. Henne. Let me--that is a fascinating question for me
because we just completed a whole series of development wind
tunnel tests on a new aircraft model, the last one being the
most important, most expensive, and it was done in Europe.
Mr. Wu. Do you see that as a problem?
Mr. Henne. Yes, it is, because you have to believe, you
have to walk out of that tunnel believing that your data is
available to others.
Mr. Wu. Dr. Kroo, would you agree with that assessment?
Dr. Kroo. I think so. I do think that some of the
facilities really are very good in Europe and we should take
advantage of it but it is indeed always a question. I have to
say with respect to keeping some of that data in the United
States and with respect to the previous Member's question, it
is a difficult question. One has to walk that line between----
Mr. Wu. Dr. Kroo, I don't mean to cut you off but I am
going to.
Dr. Kroo. That is fine.
Mr. Wu. Dr. Shin, how did NASA let the situation develop
where Mr. Henne's data is going to be used by folks who didn't
pay for it?
Dr. Shin. To that very specific issue, NASA aeronautics has
established a program called Aeronautics Test Program a few
years ago and----
Mr. Wu. But it doesn't seem to be working.
Dr. Shin. Well, in the past, there has been some issues
with the maintaining and up-keeping the NASA wind tunnels so
that is why we established this program, and we are making good
progress. We are also working with our partners in DOD so----
Mr. Wu. So Dr. Shin, if we hold this hearing again in two
years or in one year, will you have a different answer for Mr.
Henne? Will you have a solution for Mr. Henne?
Dr. Shin. We are certainly working toward that goal
Mr. Wu. Are you working toward it or will you have a
solution for Mr. Henne?
Dr. Shin. We will do our best.
Mr. Wu. Thank you.
Noise and Aviation
Mr. Henne. Mr. Congressman, I wonder if I could make a shot
at the first question you asked, and that was about investment
in noise. I don't believe that we, the United States, are
investing enough in it and I brought two exhibits if you are
interested. One is the CLEEN program, as provided--some
information provided both by the FAA and NASA, and if you read
it, it is a program proposed to spend up to $20 million a year
for four, five years, up to $20 million a year for four or five
years. This is at the same time that the announced program by
the European Commission is $1.6 billion euro for seven years,
which means $2.4 billion on the same subject, and so it is an
order of magnitude larger investment in clean technology that
is being made in Europe compared to the United States, an order
of magnitude.
Mr. Wu. I thank you for calling that to our attention.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
R&D and NextGen
Chairman Udall. Thank you. We will start another round and
the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. I want to pick
back up on NextGen and turn to Mr. Meade. In the area of
advanced communication, navigation and surveillance, your
committee found that NASA's aerospace efforts didn't have
planned research to address their R&D milestones as identified
in the recent decadal survey. Since the NextGen concept seems
to rely extensively on those capabilities being available,
should we be concerned?
Mr. Meade. If I heard your question correctly, Mr.
Chairman, I think we should be concerned. We evaluated the
milestones against what we thought would be a rational program
and found deficiencies in those sensor areas and so NextGen
depends upon those sensors and the integration of those sensors
within the aerospace systems and I would say that that would be
a high-priority item.
NASA Aeronautics and Technology Demonstration
Chairman Udall. Does anybody else care to comment?
Let me move to Mr. Henne then. In your testimony, you state
that NASA aeronautics needs to work beyond just fundamentals
and needs to take a continuing role in technology
demonstration, and then Dr. Kroo, you stated in your testimony
that NASA has focused R&D activities on the kind of fundamental
research that will be important for longer-term solutions. The
next step is to understand how some of the most promising
technologies can be integrated at the system level and
transitioned form the lab to the user. It seems to me that both
of you are saying that NASA needs to be more than fundamental
or basic research if it is to be relevant to the Nation's
needs. Is that correct?
Mr. Henne. That is correct. Those two statements are very
similar in reality. One of the things that seems to have dried
up is large-scale demonstrations of technology. Those are the
things that reduce the risk, that give companies confidence in
fact that the technology is mature enough to take to market,
and when that link is dropped because it is expensive, it costs
a lot to do those kind of demonstrations, when that is dropped,
you have broken the chain. The technology isn't going to
advance. It is going to stay in the lab, it is going to stay in
the office and it will be a small-scale study going on and on
and on and progressing it to the market won't happen.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Kroo, I see you nodding. Would you have
an example as well of opportunities that might be missed----
Dr. Kroo. Well, absolutely, and I think that it is often
tempting to think of these as demonstrations but in fact they
are also experiments. These kind of system-level research
activities let you know what you don't know, and that is very
important in this area.
Chairman Udall. Mr. Meade, Dr. Shin, would you care to
comment?
Mr. Meade. I fully support it. One of the ideas that we
came up with on the Committee was the fact that--or
realizations, I should say, was the fact that there are very
few flight experiments any longer for a couple of reasons.
Everybody is afraid of failure, and once you get in the air,
there is always a chance, particularly as you are advancing the
state of the art, that it won't work, and that somehow is a
negative mark on somebody's career and therefore there is a
tendency to avoid those steps. And there is an intangible
result from actually getting out into the field and flying
something, and that is, you invigorate an entire generation of
people who would like to come study in the avionics field, or I
should say aeronautics field. So there is a tremendous benefit
in making that user connection and also energizing the system.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Shin, I would want to give you an
opportunity to comment.
Dr. Shin. Yes. I do recognize that we do not have large-
scale technology demonstration or validation efforts, as Mr.
Henne pointed out, so that is accurate statement, but I also
like to submit that in current NASA aeronautics portfolio, we
do sizable amount of flight experiments and working with
industry and so those are not in the traditional sense large-
scale, highly integrated flight validation efforts but we do
work, as an example, blended wing body flight experiments that
we are still conducting and also we, as a matter of fact,
worked with Gulfstream on the sonic boom mitigation technology.
That was done through flight experiments as well. So again,
within the budget that has been allocated to us, we do believe
we try to maintain the relevance with industry and also
conducting flight experiments.
Chairman Udall. I hear implied in your comments, though, if
we were able to find more resources, there is certainly more
than you could do in your directorate.
Dr. Shin. I think we are--actually, NASA aeronautics and
aeronautics community as a whole are in a good situation
actually compared to previous years because we do have this
national aeronautics R&D policy and plan that will guide us,
government agency like NASA, to set the right priorities so we
will continue to work within that plan and policy and make sure
that our program is well aligned.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, and the Chair recognizes the
Ranking Member, Mr. Feeney, for five minutes.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you.
National Research Council Assessment of NASA R&D Activities
Dr. Shin, the National Research Council's assessment of
NASA's aeronautics R&D recommended that, and I will quote,
``The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate should ensure
that its research program substantially advances the state of
the art and makes a significant difference in a time frame of
interest to users.'' They go on to recommend that NASA, in
consultation with the aeronautics research community and others
as appropriate, should redefine the scope and priorities within
the aeronautics research program to be consistent with
available resources. So they essentially suggest that there
needs to be some fundamental redefinitions of priorities and
additionally, as Mr. Meade stated earlier, they suggested there
may be a cultural problem with respect to the lack of urgency
and a view towards who the end user is as opposed to NASA using
the technology, the end user. How do you respond to the
National Research Council's assessment and Mr. Meade's
suggestion?
Dr. Shin. I generally agree with the essence of the
recommendation, which points out that NASA aeronautics should
be staying relevant and sort of being up on the U.S. industry
and U.S. aeronautics community, and for the past almost 19
years that I have been with NASA aeronautics, I have always
thought, and my colleagues have always worked to address U.S.
aeronautics community requirements and needs. So if there are
some pockets of areas or groups of researchers who feel that
NASA aeronautics is serving to our own need, that is something
that I must correct and that is not what NASA aeronautics is
all about. We don't produce our own aircraft or we don't serve
to our own outcome. So again, in general, I respect NRC's
observation and recommendation, so if there are cases like
that, we will certainly work to remedy that.
In terms of staying relevant, we are making all efforts
because we invite industry partners to our annual technical
interchange meetings that all three research programs have, and
so far we have had one or two of those such meetings since we
restructured the aeronautics program, and I have gotten--and I
have also participated in some of those meetings, have gotten a
lot of healthy interactions, so tech transfer or knowledge
transfer should happen at all levels, that is my belief, not
just at the end of the rope when everything is culminated to
some large-scale validation. So we have to work with industry
partners and academia up front and all along the technology
development so we actually identify the transition point
jointly rather than NASA decides this is the point that we have
to transfer the technology. So by doing some of these things
and focusing on what we do best, NASA aeronautics does best, I
believe we can make still significant contributions in staying
relevant to U.S. needs.
Mr. Feeney. You just mentioned your academic partners. Dr.
Kroo is here. Also, you know, for example, adjacent to my
district is Embry-Riddle University, which has a keen interest
in aeronautics. What--can you describe NASA's cooperation and
use of academic researchers? Because it appears to me that
would be a place where cutting-edge, futuristic, you know,
research is the norm, and if you want to stay not just current
but ahead of the curve, academia seems to be, you know, an
important part of that whole program.
Dr. Shin. I wholeheartedly agree with your view toward
academia's role in our nation, and to that end, two years ago
we have set aside, not as an afterthought but we set aside $50
million out of our annual budget to bolster and promote and
integrate these cutting-edge ideas and concepts coming from
academia, and the funding vehicle is called NASA Research
Announcement, in short, NRA. NRA is a very flexible procurement
vehicle so it doesn't only allow grants, it could be
cooperative agreements or contract even. The participants are
not only universities but the idea of NRA is exactly what Mr.
Feeney mentioned, to promote and bring out these cutting-edge
ideas and concepts, and I am happy to report for about a year
and a half that we started doing this, we have received over
1,300 proposals and we have awarded over 300 recipients through
NRA process, and the market for the participants is growing and
also spanning not just from academia and also industry. So
today, again, I am happy to report that we have about 30
percent industry participation and 70 percent university in
terms of number of awards, but in terms of funding, 40 percent
industry and 60 percent academia. So one of the gratifying
things through NRA that I have observed is some of these small
universities or universities that we never really thought
traditionally that they would have aeronautics expertise, we
are getting a lot of these non-traditional engineering
powerhouses, if you will, and a lot of good ideas and concepts.
So it is solely based on the quality of the proposal and we are
making good progress and I have been very pleased with the
progress we have been making.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentleman.
I now would like to recognize one of the most active
Members of this subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you. I want to thank our distinguished
Chairman and the Ranking Member for holding this very important
hearing and for your consistent and strong interest in these
matters, and I apologize for being late, gentlemen, I had
another place to be, but I am very interested in this subject.
Noise and Aircraft Pollution
Let me ask Mr. Meade--I have a few questions. I represent a
densely populated region in the most densely populated state in
the country. So aircraft noise and aircraft pollution are
constant concerns for the quality of life of my constituents. I
believe that aeronautics research and development creating
quieter, safer, cleaner aircraft is an important aspect in
dealing with the quality-of-life issues my constituents deal
with on a daily basis. So Mr. Meade, what can this committee do
to help NASA achieve these important goals?
Mr. Meade. Well, I think as far as our committee, from the
NRC is concerned, we would recommend that the decadal survey be
followed with regard to the environmental challenges that they
have already specified and so I think the best and shortest
answer I can give you is, take a look at the decadal survey and
direct NASA to adjust their priorities to respond to those
challenges.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you.
Dr. Shin, are you familiar with this survey that Mr. Meade
has referred to?
Dr. Shin. I am.
Mr. Rothman. And has NASA taken into account the
conclusions of that survey in its budget, in its project
proposals or plans for the coming year?
Dr. Shin. Yes. We have made a very thorough assessment from
decadal survey, and in fact, we submitted our report to
Congress a year and a half ago, as I recall. But in the
environment area, this is one area that NASA aeronautics
program actually has a very strong technology development
effort.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Shin, would you pull the microphone a
little closer again?
Dr. Shin. Yes. I keep doing that. For noise and emissions,
these are the two areas actually we have a very strong
portfolio in fundamental aeronautics program, and we have made
a lot of progress in developing new concepts and also tools
that will allow us to assess or develop new technologies.
U.S. R&D and European R&D
Mr. Rothman. Dr. Shin, if I may, because I only have a
limited amount of time, I was present when Mr. Henne suggested
that there was a large order of magnitude difference between
our investment and the implication being our work in NASA in
those areas as compared with Europe. Can you comment on whether
there is this huge order of magnitude difference in either the
quality of the work, the advancements achieved here in America
versus in Europe?
Dr. Shin. I think recently it is a well-known fact that the
European community is trying to increase the commitment in
their funding in aeronautics research and development. So as
Mr. Henne accurately pointed out, the funding is growing
there----
Mr. Rothman. But in terms of the technology, you know, just
to make a silly analogy, if they were still in the Stone Age
playing with the wheel and figuring out what to do with that,
they would need a lot more investment to catch up to where we
are. Where are they, though, in technology with regards to
reduction in aircraft noise and aircraft emissions relative to
where we are in the United States, and are they going to pull
ahead of us in some dramatic and unacceptable fashion because
of the relatively smaller amount of research dollars that are
included in the President's budget for our country?
Dr. Shin. In short, my assessment is, we are still far
ahead of the Europeans' capabilities and knowledge in
addressing environmental impact. I do believe that. And
Europeans have always copied, if you will, the goals and
objectives that U.S. government agencies and also industry put
out. So that is the one indication that Europeans are trying to
catch up.
Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for two more
questions?
Mr. Henne, do you have a comment on that, Dr. Shin's last
statement?
Mr. Henne. I would say from our assessment of products
coming from Europe versus products in the United States, they
are very competitive. Our most recent engine selection was made
selecting a Rolls Royce engine that is actually made in
Germany, and it is an excellent engine, very low noise. They
are extremely sensitive to low emissions. The engine company
recently made an unsolicited change in the combustor to reduce
emissions further, and we didn't even ask for it.
Mr. Rothman. Dr. Shin, do you have any comment on Mr.
Henne's last comment?
Dr. Shin. Yes. I think the difference in my answer was, I
was talking about R&D capabilities and I think Mr. Henne's
answer was current product line. So that was the difference in
my answer.
Mr. Rothman. But in terms of the way people live
practically, theoretical discussions of advancements in
products are valuable but if they never reach the product line,
they really--they won't help the quality of life as directly as
those investments in product line research and development.
When will we--when will this R&D in aircraft emissions and
other emissions from aircraft that is being conducted by NASA
bear the fruit of better products if, as Mr. Henne says, the
products are now equal?
Dr. Shin. Your observation is valid, and the current U.S.
technologies in noise and emissions reduction started from 10,
20, 30 years ago from NASA's research. So NASA's research has
to put ourselves another 10, 20, 30 years ago ahead of current
technologies and that is what we are doing.
Air Traffic Controllers and NextGen
Mr. Rothman. One final question. I wanted to ask about, Dr.
Shin, NASA's role in aeronautics research and development with
regards to NextGen, and I will ask the question, if experts
from the air traffic control community were consulted as this
system has been developed, in other words, have actual air
traffic controllers, the people in the towers who do this work
every day, been involved in the development of this new air
transportation system?
Dr. Shin. I would like to--if I may, I would like to defer
that question to actually FAA because air traffic controllers
and that association is not part of NASA. My observation has
been that JPDO and FAA have been working closely with air
traffic controllers association and that workforce but I am not
part of that agency so----
Mr. Rothman. No, no, I didn't ask about that. Is your
answer then that NASA has not involved the air traffic
controllers in its research?
Dr. Shin. We do heavily work with FAA and JPDO in air
traffic management technology development.
Mr. Rothman. I meant NASA directly with the air traffic
controllers' expertise. Have you had that direct communication
or do you rely on whatever FAA tells you their conversations
with the air traffic controllers have informed them of?
Dr. Shin. I apologize for not getting your question right
away. We do work with air traffic controllers. In our research
and development, we do use air traffic controllers as
observers, also participants in developing our technologies, so
we do have that close relationship, but in terms of actual
working relationship within FAA, we don't . . . work that way.
Mr. Rothman. Ten seconds. You have been so generous to me.
I just want to make one comment to industry, that I do
believe industry has----
Chairman Udall. Mr. Rothman, why don't we do this? I will
recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, for five
minutes and he can do whatever he would like with that time.
Mr. Melancon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my time
to Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. Oh, you are so kind. Thank you, Mr. Melancon.
I just want to say, I don't take industry off the hook in
terms of its responsibilities to do its own research and
development and pay for it itself. They can't rely on the
government to pay for it all, and while I respect and
appreciate the profit motive and the great work and the great
products made by private industry including great aircraft, you
folks have some of that burden as well and you can't simply say
the feds are not picking up the whole tab, so woe is us, so woe
are us.
Thank you, Mr. Melancon, for yielding, and Mr. Chairman
again for your generosity and your leadership as always.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. I would note that
between the short time that Mr. Melancon yielded to you, the
time you took that you had two- to five-minute blocks and you
used them quite well, and I know I speak on behalf of your
constituents who admire and respect the passion and intensity
with which you bring to discussions of sound pollution and air
pollution, and you have a very compelling case to make because
when we get this right, not only your constituents but
Americans all over the country will benefit for higher quality
of life because this is a problem that concerns all of us. I
hear about it in my district as well. I thank the gentleman
from Louisiana for being so generous as well with his time.
Let me turn back to the panel. The Chairman recognizes
himself for another five minutes.
NASA's Aviation Safety Program
Dr. Shin, I want to ask you what you consider to be the
most promising areas of research at NASA's Aviation Safety
Program that could lead to new capabilities being in sort of
the marketplace in the next five years, even the next 10 years.
Dr. Shin. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are
enjoying the safest system, but we are also changing a lot of--
we will be changing a lot of things in air traffic management
system and also introducing new vehicle concepts. So when you
mix all those things, you don't know what kind of new safety
challenges will be ahead of us. So from a NASA research
perspective, we are trying to be proactive and also forward
looking utilizing the IT advancements in data mining and also
analyzing and processing the data, so we are working with FAA
closely to develop this aviation safety information and sharing
system so automatically we can analyze the data and identify
the precursors before the accident actually happens. So that is
one such area that we are working on and also in projected
highly automated system that we are all anticipating in NextGen
vision, software validation and verification is very important,
so we have to work proactively to develop technologies that can
ensure that all the software and automation are functioning as
designed, so validation and verification is another challenge.
Chairman Udall. Anybody else on the panel care to comment?
Mr. Henne. If I could, Mr. Chairman. Relative to safety,
that is clearly a very high priority for our business, and I
would like to point out one example of just excellent work by
NASA that has led to a real-world improvement in aviation
safety that is just now available, and that deals with
synthetic vision. NASA has been doing synthetic vision work for
years and years, and we some time ago did a joint program with
NASA on a Gulfstream to look at synthetic vision. We flew it
and learned things that were good, learned things that were
bad. When we were done with that flight test experiment in
conjunction with NASA work, we made a decision, it is time to
go to market, let us take it to market. It has now been
certified. It is now going out in our product line and it is a
major advance in aircraft safety, and we are proud that NASA
and we were joined together doing that to actually bring that
to market in the end. So there is a lot of good things that
NASA generates, they are the source of. The trick is to get
that technology developed all the way and take it to market,
and that is one just great example of aviation safety that is
now done. It is available.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Kroo, Mr. Meade, do you have any
comments?
Dr. Kroo. Just to look at the future area of aircraft
safety, one of the academically interesting areas and an area
that NASA is pursuing is the utilization of advances in
autonomous systems and vehicle autonomy in general to both
improve the safety of vehicles and to improve the situational
awareness of pilots. That also creates difficulty if in fact
there are autonomous vehicles operating in the same airspace.
NASA is addressing that problem to some extent. There is a lot
more needed.
NAOMS/ASIAS
Chairman Udall. If I might, Dr. Shin, I would like to turn
back to NASA's handling of the NAOMS aviation survey project,
and as you all know, the Committee has been concerned. We have
a GAO review underway to look at the survey data. I understand,
however, that NASA and the FAA are working on another aviation
safety database activity, and the acronym is ASIAS, I think Ah-
SI-uhs is maybe how it is pronounced, and it involves
significant data mining and the merging of multiple disparate
databases. As you know, the Federal Government doesn't have a
great track record on the development of such large database
management systems. What are NASA and yourselves doing to
ensure that this latest effort stays on track and on budget?
Furthermore, what are the specific objectives, budget and
timetable for the ASIAS project and how are the
responsibilities divided between the FAA and NASA? You could
respond for the record if you would like. I know I just threw a
lot of questions at you.
Dr. Shin. Yes. I just want to respond in real time about
ASIAS, if I may, and the others I would like to provide more
detailed information for the record, with your permission. In
the ASIAS, I think the real positive aspect there, sir, is the
participants and who are actually playing together in this
ASIAS effort. It is not just NASA, it is not just FAA working
in isolation. It is not just airlines holding their
information. The beauty of this system is, airlines are
voluntarily providing their operational data, safety data, and
FAA is in the lead role to make sure that all the
confidentiality and all the other considerations are protected
so that airlines can share their data, and NASA is providing
the necessary technologies so I go back to one of my earlier
comments that the clearer each agency's roles are identified
and understood, I think the better we will be off working
together. So ASIAS is one such case that FAA is the primarily
regulatory agency providing the protection and NASA is the R&D
organization providing necessary technologies, and airlines do
see the value so they are coming to work together.
Chairman Udall. Let the record note that we say the acronym
ASIAS, and if you all do the job you want to do, I think it
won't be a common parlance. It will be an acronym that is only
known to those who track these important efforts. I appreciate
your explanation there, and if you want to add additional
material for the record, the Committee would welcome it.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Feeney, for five minutes.
Mr. Feeney. Well, thank you.
National Research Council Priorities/UAVs
Dr. Shin, the NRC assessment indicated, among other things,
that there are about four areas that have been established as a
priority by the decadal studies that are getting no attention
whatsoever and no work is going on, and I wondered what the
other three were and why they are not a priority but
specifically with respect to the unmanned vehicles, it seems to
me there would be some natural payoffs and that NASA would be
the ideal place to study how we manage unmanned flight and how
it relates to an increasingly crowded airspace. I know there
are a number of federal agencies who have a keen interest in
using unmanned vehicles, probably the private sector as well,
and I wanted to know why, you know, what the reasons are that
NASA has failed to establish a research project and make this a
priority?
Dr. Shin. Yes. I would like to suggest that NASA's current
research portfolio does address UAV-related technologies. We do
not have focus project bearing the UAV in the project name or
title so one might think that we are not addressing UAV-related
technologies, but if we examine all the portfolios that we
have, technology investment, a lot of technologies are
contributing to the UAV community that they need in the future.
So again, from the R&D perspective, we are contributing to UAV
requirements and needs. In fact, I have asked--this is a vague
area because we don't have clear single project addressing UAV.
I can certainly appreciate why external folks may feel that we
are not addressing UAV as diligently or focused way as we
should, so I have directed my program managers to come up with
clear communication and cataloging all the things that the
technology areas that are contributing to UAV, so that is in
work, and when that documentation is completed, I would like to
provide that to Congress for your information.
[The information follows:]
Information for the Record
NASA expects to have the UAV documentation discussed above
completed by the end of August 2008, and the Agency will provide to the
Subcommittee the technology areas that the Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate is contributing to UAVs in that timeframe.
Mr. Feeney. Well, thank you, and I can say that in addition
to the technology, there is an issue about rules and protocols.
The FAA for a long time hasn't really figured out how to manage
UAVs, and that has been a hindrance, I think, in the private
sector because they don't know when or if they are going to be
able to get permission to fly, so to the extent that regulatory
hurdles and technology hurdles are holding back some real
opportunities where we know we have needs.
Mr. Meade, do you want to respond to Dr. Shin's----
Mr. Meade. Yes, sir, I can. The UAV issues with respect to
the decadal study, remember that we have to match up the
milestones that are specified in the decadal study with what
NASA is doing, and if there is not an exact match, well, then
we basically have to say there is not a match, notwithstanding
the fact that NASA is flying a couple of Global Hawks very
recently, I do believe, and some other unmanned vehicles, and
so they are active in that area to help explain a little bit of
the confusion. They simply did not match up with the milestone
specified in the decadal study, so that is where that comes
from. Furthermore, with regard to the large systems analysis
that would be required to integrate a UAV into the airspace and
fly correctly, you know, NASA is very good at doing those sorts
of things but they are not the regulatory agency for deciding
how to fly them in the airspace.
Mr. Feeney. And are you aware of the current status of the
FAA's position as to giving permission or access to airspace
for UAVs?
Mr. Meade. From the Committee's standpoint, no. From my own
personal opinion, the last I heard, it was get above the
controlled airspace, which is 60,000 feet, and fly it out.
Obviously that is a very specialized mission and that is--
basically I am uninformed of any other operations.
Mr. Feeney. But obviously that is having a real deterrent
effect to development and use and experiments with UAVs.
Mr. Meade. Absolutely. If you don't know what the
regulations are going to be, you can't design your system
correctly.
Mr. Feeney. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Udall. I want to thank the Ranking Member for his
participation today, and I think this has been an excellent
hearing. We have covered a lot of ground with a really focused
set of questions and testimony. I want to thank all of you for
your presence here today. I would editorialize that I think we
have confirmed the importance of the aeronautics arm of NASA
and I think we have confirmed the importance of it to our
economy, particularly as we move forward. I think we have
confirmed that we are in some strong competitive environments,
Mr. Henne, but that we have the know-how and the capital and
the potential if we have the right kind of support from NASA.
And this is where I will editorialize: I don't think we
have enough resources. I look forward to working with Mr.
Feeney during the rest of this Congress and with the next
administration, whoever leads it, to find additional resources
for the very, very important that is being done with NASA and
in partnership with the private sector.
Mr. Feeney. I wasn't going to say that I hope the next
administrator is a former aviator, so I won't say that.
Chairman Udall. There would be an element of leverage
there, wouldn't there? But I hope whoever is the next President
understands the importance of the new economy tied to
aeronautics and, I would add, aerospace.
If there are no objections, the record will remain open for
additional statements from the Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask of the witnesses.
We have already received a statement for the record from Mr.
Costello, who also serves as the Chairman of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee's Aviation Subcommittee. Without
objection, so ordered.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
<SKIP PAGES = 000>
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. IIn its report, the National Research Council recommended that NASA
establish a more direct link with the U.S. industry to provide
technology transfer in a way that does not necessarily include the
immediate, public dissemination of results to potential foreign
competitors. This is consistent with the 1958 Space Act establishing
NASA which called for ``the preservation of the United States
preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and
technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.''
How will NASA implement NRC's recommendation?
A1. There are several mechanisms in place to transfer knowledge between
NASA and U.S. Industry. Specifically, non-reimbursable Space Act
Agreements (SAA), NASA Research Announcement awards, and Small Business
Innovative Research projects provide an opportunity to transfer
knowledge. In addition, NASA personnel participating on technical
committees (e.g., Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, Society
of Automotive Engineers, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics forums) inform those groups of latest research findings as
they develop industry-wide standards, guidelines, and recommended
practices for advance technology concepts. NASA Aeronautics Research
projects also sponsor informal working groups with industry
participation (many of whom are SAA partners) in which an open forum is
provided for industry to learn the latest goings on in the project and
for NASA to learn of emerging challenges facing the community.
NASA believes that publishing the results of its research is
important to its mission. Part of NASA's charter in the Space Act
includes the ``widest practical and appropriate dissemination of
information.'' The National Aeronautics R&D Policy also directs NASA to
``provide for the widest practical and appropriate dissemination of
research results, consistent with national security, foreign policy,
and the Office of Management and Budget's Information Quality
Guidelines.'' In addition, many of NASA's research areas (for example
air traffic management research) must be coordinated with other
research and regulatory entities around the globe, given the global
nature of air transportation.
Q2. IThe NRC found that NASA's four research centers focused on
aeronautics, which account for less than one third of NASA's total
civil service workforce, absorbed almost 80 percent of NASA's reduction
in civil service employees. Are there plans to continue this trend or
redress this imbalance in the next five years?
A2. Achieving success and sustaining vibrancy in all of NASA's mission
areas over the next few years is a challenge requiring NASA to draw on
all of its expertise and resources. Mission success will depend on ten
strong, healthy Centers, and the Agency is committed to workforce
management that supports that goal. Workforce planning has been more
effectively integrated into the annual budget process and the
assignment of work to the NASA workforce is supported through a high
level of collaboration between the programs and the Centers. Where
civil service work demand exceeds available workforce at a Center, it
is shifted to Centers where workforce is available. With plans to
assign important space flight development activities in exploration and
science to all of the Centers, NASA does not expect significant
declines at three of the four research Centers. The exception is the
Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC), for which an estimated 6.2
percent reduction is anticipated in the civil service workforce from FY
2007 levels to the estimated FY 2013 levels. However, with significant
work assignments remaining to be made in support of various exploration
programs, NASA is committed to finding a viable, long-term role for
DFRC.
Q3. IThe absence of runway incursion tools is one of the most glaring
omissions in today's air transportation system. What can NASA do to
assist Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in correcting this
deficiency and improve the safety of airport runways?
A3. NASA has been instrumental in developing technologies that can:
sense where aircraft are on the airport; portray where the aircraft are
to the pilot; portray Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearances to the
pilot; and, alert the pilot if he/she deviates from their assigned
flight path, or if a hazardous runway incursion has occurred. This
research complements Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) research,
which has largely focused on technologies to aid the controller and on
airport signage, lighting, and markings. Runway safety is one of the
FAA's highest priorities, as evidenced in their major investments in
Airport Surface Detection Equipment-Model X and Runway Status Lights,
and the Runway Incursion Reduction Program. The benefits of NASA's
developments have been published, and NASA personnel continue to serve
on Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics standards committees to
communicate their findings to industry. The current and planned future
NASA research and development related to runway incursions extends the
previous work by focusing on the implications of NextGen operating
concepts.
On an ongoing basis, NASA can assist the FAA in several ways:
provide technical advice support the FAA in advancing and expediting
the implementation of enabling technologies in system concept as
defined by the past FAA/NASA collaborative efforts; participate in
standards development activities; provide human factors subject matter
expertise to review of FAA-developed mitigations; and continue to
participate in runway safety forums organized by FAA.
Q4. IHow important is NASA's human factors research to NextGen? What
human factors research is NASA planning to do to validate NextGen's
ability to shift decision-making from the ground to the cockpit?
A4. NASA understands the importance of human systems integration
creating an effective and efficient NextGen air transportation system,
and has planned critical Human System Integration research in its
programs. The Airspace Systems and the Aviation Safety Programs
research the evolving role of humans in a more highly automated
national airspace system. Defining the roles and responsibilities
between pilot and controller and between human and automation is an
active area of research in both programs. In addition, understanding
issues involved in assigning the locus of control, whether it be on the
ground (a centralized control concept) or on the flight deck (a
distributed control concept), will be critical to full development of
an efficient concept of operations for NextGen. Research to answer
these fundamental questions is currently being pursued in early stages
of operational concept development and by conducting human-in-the-loop
evaluation studies employing active controllers and pilots. Human
System Integration research is important to the advances in areas of
separation assurance, dynamic airspace configuration, flight deck
situational awareness, and airspace super-density operation.
Q5. IThe Secretary of Transportation tasked the JDPO with developing an
action plan with its partner agencies that would accelerate the
introduction of NextGen capabilities, possibly with a regional
demonstration. What, if any, would NASA's role be?
A5. NASA will continue to address the fundamental research needs for
NextGen by conducting applied research and development for advanced
vehicles, safety and air transportation systems. Fundamental research
includes foundational physics, discipline and multi-discipline studies
and system-level integration. The Fundamental Aeronautics, Aviation
Safety and Airspace Systems Programs conduct this research.
Under the NextGen Acceleration Action Plan, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) will implement several algorithms that were
completed by NASA under the Airspace Systems Program. These algorithms
include aircraft sequencing and scheduling under airport constraints
and surface management. Because the research is complete and the
algorithms have already transitioned to the FAA, NASA will have at most
a limited consulting role for implementation.
NASA's direct contribution to the Action Plan is to accelerate
validation studies that are coordinated with the FAA and the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO) via Research Transition Teams.
In particular, NASA will accelerate validation and demonstration of
methods related to traffic management advisor and surface management.
The NASA and FAA Research Transition Team co-leads have been identified
for both surface and traffic management, and planning workshops are
underway to establish joint roadmaps. In addition, NASA will
collaborate with the FAA to insure that research studies focus on
regions, such as south Florida, that are targeted for FAA demonstration
and implementation. NASA's contribution, which is consistent with our
long-term research role, will enable the FAA to increase the impact on
air transportation system capacity of the initial deployments as
expanded capabilities are proven.
Lastly, the FAA has expressed an interest in accelerating the
implementation of technologies for closely spaced parallel runways.
NASA is reviewing its portfolio in super density operations to
determine if planned studies address the FAA's concept exploration
requirements for closely spaced parallel runways.
Q6. IIn identifying research challenges in NextGen, you cite in your
statement the need for ``improved software verification and validation
techniques to prevent anomalies that could propagate across highly
integrated systems with unintended consequences.'' With the difficulty
both the Federal Government and the private sector experience in
competing for software engineering talent, what strategies will NASA
use to address this issue in a comprehensive way?
A6. NASA's Aviation Safety Program has two approaches for addressing
this issue. First, the Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control project is
developing methods of verifying and validating complex flight software.
Second, the Integrated Vehicle Health Management project is examining
methods of software health management (i.e., on-board monitors that can
identify anomalies in software-driven behavior before they propagate).
NASA's in-house level of effort is relatively small but is being given
additional resources to grow. NASA also is discussing collaborative
research with the National Science Foundation, and has issued several
NASA Research Announcements and Small Business Innovation Research to
involve industry and academia and extend the scale of our research.
Q7. IWhat will be the state of NASA's research in an on-board system to
detect hazardous icing conditions when it is completed? Would this
include validation and operational demonstrations? What do you plan to
hand over to the private sector?
A7. A wide range of icing research is central to NASA's Aviation Safety
Program. Within this program, the Intelligent Integrated Flight Deck
project is developing a range of look-ahead technologies to portray
potential icing conditions to pilots before they enter them. The
technologies, utilizing radiometry and radar, determine the threat
severity and will communicate to the flight deck through the on-board
External Hazards Monitor. The Integrated Vehicle Health Management
project is developing sensors to identify ice accretion on the airframe
and in the engine, allowing pilots to take corrective action before the
accretion becomes severe. The Intelligent Research Aircraft Control
project is examining the underlying physics of ice accretion in jet
engines with the goal of developing propulsion systems that are not
susceptible to icing. This work includes validation in the Icing
Research Tunnel and other ground-based facilities, and flight
validation on NASA's specially instrumented Twin Otter and
S<ls-thn-eq>093 Viking. NASA is widely recognized as a world leader in
the field of aircraft icing. NASA collaborates extensively with the
Federal Aviation Administration and with the private sector (including
through reimbursable work sponsored by industry, and through Space Act
Agreements, NASA Research Announcements and Small Business Innovation
Research; hence transfer of the technology is natural. NASA personnel
also actively contribute to a range of industry working groups and
standards committees to examine further needs for NASA research to
enable successful transition of these technologies to the private
sector. NASA technical publications will also be used.
Q8. IWhat is the current understanding of the effects of space
radiation and solar x-ray events on aircrew and on aircraft systems
including avionics, high frequency communication, and GPS navigation
systems, especially during high latitude polar routes? What specific
issues are not well understood and what, if any, research is being
conducted by NASA to address those gaps? What, if any, interaction does
NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate have with NASA's
Science Mission Directorate, the JPDO, and agencies such as National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the status of
research, models, and data from satellite sensors that may help improve
the prediction and severity of space weather events and their potential
application to civil aviation?
A8. NASA's Aviation Safety Program has examined, and continues to
examine, the impact of high intensity radio frequencies and other
strong sources of radiation, including lightning. NASA's Aeronautics
Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) is not conducting research on the
effects of space radiation and solar x-ray events on either air crew or
aircraft systems; however, NASA's Science Mission Directorate actively
conducts research on space radiation and solar x-ray input into Earth's
geospace environment and co-chairs the interagency National Space
Weather Program. The Science Mission Directorate is the lead NASA
representative on the JPDO Weather Working Group whose goal is to
reduce the adverse impacts of weather on air traffic operations. Space
weather events and their potential application to civil aviation fall
within the scope of the Weather Working Group, and long-range plans
envision space weather data to be incorporated within the net-centric
four-dimensional weather information system. ARMD participates on the
Weather Working Group. Further, ARMD also represents NASA on the
NextGen Executive Weather Panel that includes senior executives from
the Federal Aviation Administration, NOAA and Department of Defense.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Carl J. Meade, Co-Chair, Committee for the Assessment of
NASA's Aeronautics Research Program, National Research Council
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. IMr. Henne recommended in his testimony that NASA's Aeronautics
procurement policies be enhanced to allow commercial contracting
practices. During your review of NASA's aeronautics program, were
contracting difficulties identified by the Principal Investigators the
Committee met with? In your opinion, would the use of commercial
contracting policies, as advocated by Mr. Henne, alleviate these
difficulties?
A1. No Principal Investigator (PI) mentioned difficulties with
contracting as an impediment to their research. I suspect, however,
that such comments would have been thought to be outside the scope of
the Committee's interests and therefore considered irrelevant by the
PIs. It is commonly recognized that the government procurement
practices are structured to be (and be perceived as being) fair and
impartial--at the price of efficiency. Although the government has made
some strides to reduce the bureaucracy associated with ``small''
procurements, my experience shows that there remains a significant
difference in the efficiency between and commercial procurement
practices. Although it is vitally important that the system be
structured to eliminate any potential for abuse, there is a point of
diminishing returns where the effort expended to make a perfect system
is much more costly than one that is agile, flexible and adaptable to
the immediate situation.
Q2. IWith regards to NASA's research facilities, your committee found
that these facilities, with a few exceptions, meet the relevant needs
of existing aeronautics research. However, your committee also noted
that at the current investment rate, widespread facility degradation
will impact the ability of ARMD projects and other important national
aeronautics research and development to achieve their goals.
Consequently, your committee recommended, absent an infusion of
additional funds, that NASA continue to assess facilities and mothball
or decommission facilities of lesser importance so that the most
important facilities can be properly sustained. How serious do you view
the future state of NASA's research facilities? How should your
recommendation on possibly moth-balling or decommissioning facilities
be considered by the RDT&E infrastructure plan currently being
developed in response to the 2005 NASA Authorization Act?
A2. The Committee considers the current status of NASA aeronautics
research facilities, as `minimal.' We endorse NASA's efforts to ensure
that retention/maintenance of facilities carefully aligned with the
research objectives. Furthermore, the requirement to maintain NASA
research infrastructure should be evaluated while considering both DOD
and NASA facilities to eliminate overlap and duplication, if any. To
this end, the NASA Administrator and the have established the National
Partnership for Aeronautical Test (NPAT) alliance. As a result, two
studies of NASA and DOD facilities has been chartered. The first study
was of Transonic Wind Tunnels and was completed in October 2007
(documented in AEDC<ls-thn-eq>09TR<ls-thn-eq>0907<ls-thn-eq>0912.) The
second study is underway and is investigating Supersonic Wind Tunnels.
Additional studies are planned for Subsonic Wind Tunnels and Hypersonic
Wind Tunnels. These studies will gather detailed information on the
government facilities of interest to compare capabilities/conditions of
the facilities. These studies, in addition to the NSTC's ``National
Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development and Related
Infrastructure,'' could be used to determine the national RDT&E
infrastructure that satisfies national aeronautics R&D goals and
objectives. This will drive assessments of which facilities should be
maintained, upgraded, moth-balled or decommissioned. Nevertheless, even
with the optimum investment of funds currently budgeted for NASA's
aeronautics facilities, as time passes it is more and more likely that
facility shortcomings will become a serious impediment to aeronautics
research by NASA and the Nation and/or increase the extent to which
U.S. aeronautics R&D programs must rely on foreign facilities.
Q3. IIn correlating the 51 highest-priority R&T challenges in the
Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics to NASA's research portfolio, your
committee found that over a third reflected inconsistencies between
NASA projects and the Decadal Survey. Can you give us an example of an
area of inconsistency, particularly one resulting from NASA choosing to
do little or no work? Was the reason related to inadequate funding or
something else?
A3. The Committee found that inconsistencies are generally the result
of NASA choosing to do little or no work in a particular task area and/
or selecting research goals that fall short of advancing the state of
the art far enough and with enough urgency either to make a substantial
difference in meeting individual R&T challenges or the larger goal of
achieving the strategic objectives of the Decadal Survey of Civil
Aeronautics. Examples of inconsistencies can be seen by examining
Decadal Survey challenges such as D10 (Safe Operation of Unmanned Air
Vehicles in the National Airspace,) and B3 (Intelligent Engines and
Mechanical Power Systems Capable of Self-Diagnosis and Reconfiguration
Between Shop Visits.) Considering D10; neither the NGATS
ATM<ls-thn-eq>09Airportal Project, NGATS ATM<ls-thn-eq>09Airspace
Project, nor the IRAC Project have planned research to address the
Decadal Survey milestones. Considering B3; although the Subsonic Fixed
Wing and Supersonic Projects are participating in this research area,
their results are unlikely to make a significant difference to the
state-of-the-art; most of the research relevant to this challenge for
these flight regimes is being funded by organizations other than NASA.
However, as noted in the Committee's report, NASA does not have the
resources necessary to address all 51 R&T challenges simultaneously in
a thorough and comprehensive manner, and so it is inevitable that the
project plans, as a whole, do not fully address all the priorities of
the Decadal Survey. Determining how or why ARMD decided which
priorities to pursue--and which to defer--was beyond the scope of our
study, and the Committee was not given adequate information to this
issue.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. IDuring your appearance before our subcommittee, you testified that
aside from the quality of the research conducted by ARMD, we would
stress the need for a cultural change within the directorate. Indeed,
the Committee was most concerned about the lack of urgency demonstrated
by some projects and the tendency of some researchers to assume that
the ultimate consumer of the fruits of their labor was NASA itself. You
then went on to cite one of ARMD's guiding principles as an example of,
perhaps, poor guidance that might drive this mindset. Could you
elaborate further on the need for cultural change? Beyond the lack of
urgency mentioned in your statement, what other attributes did the
Committee find deserving of attention?
A1. The Committee came to recognize that some (but certainly, not all)
PIs exhibited an inwardly focused attitude. We noted also the three
guiding principles published by ARMD:
1. IWe will dedicate ourselves to the mastery and intellectual
stewardship of the core competencies of aeronautics for the
Nation in all flight regimes.
2. IWe will focus our research in areas that are appropriate to
NASA's unique capabilities.
3. IWe will directly address the fundamental research needs of
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) in
partnership with the member agencies of the Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO).
Considering the above principles--particularly the first two--it
may not be surprising that several contact with other stakeholders and
have evidently failed to benchmark their objectives and progress
against external research(ers). Consequently, the Committee recommends
that NASA focus on ensuring better ties between its research and the
intended users of its research. Specifically, ARMD should ensure that
its research program substantively advances the state of the art and
makes a significant difference in a time frame of interest to users of
the research results by (1) making a concerted effort to identify the
potential users of ongoing research and how that research relates to
their needs and (2) prioritizing potential research opportunities
according to an accepted set of metrics. Furthermore, ARMD should
bridge the gap between research and application--and thereby increase
the likelihood that this research will be of value to the intended
users--as follows:
<bullet> IFoster closer connections between NASA principal
investigators and the potential external and internal users of
their research, which include U.S. industry, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, academia,
and the NASA space exploration program.
<bullet> IImprove research planning to ensure that the results
are likely to be available in time to meet the future needs of
the Nation. Consistently articulate during the course of
project planning and execution how research results are tied to
capability improvements and how results will be transferred to
users.
Implementing the above actions will require the flexibility to
assign personnel possessing the right scientific talent to the right
job at the right time. The current personnel practices of the NASA
Centers inhibit flexibility. The inability to reassign personnel with
ease as the situation dictates will inevitably result in organizational
behavior that matches its goals to the personnel on hand, rather than
the preferable alternative: choosing the most worthwhile goals and then
staffing with the correct personnel to achieve those goals.
Q2. IAssuming that ARMD's budget profile does not change substantially
in the near-term, given a choice between continuing its current
approach of foundational research across a broad swath of research
topics versus funding periodic large-scale demonstration flights at the
expense of limiting research to a smaller set of projects and
activities, which option would you find more attractive, and why?
A2. In the short-term, a narrowly scoped ARMD research program that
includes flight demonstration projects will be most valuable. However,
reducing the scope of NASA's research will cause long-term harm by
eliminating the basic research that would provide the foundation for
applied research in the future. The ``best'' approach is a matter of
philosophy and expectation. If one expects the ARMD budget to one day
be restored to historic levels (allowing NASA to conduct meaningful
research on a wide variety of aeronautical disciplines and
applications) then it makes sense for NASA to continue a broadly-scoped
program of foundational research. This would conserve core competencies
until that brighter day arrives, even though it means that NASA would
be unlikely to make significant contributions to solving the critical
aeronautics issues of today. On the other hand, if one believes that
the current retrenchment in the NASA aeronautics budget is likely to
continue indefinitely, then NASA would be better served by making the
hard choices to reduce the scope of its research and focus its
resources on areas where it can make significant contributions.
Regardless of the approach taken, the Committee emphasizes that all
aeronautics research must eventually be validated in flight. Government
flight demonstration are important because in many cases flight
demonstrations are beyond the economic viability of the commercial
sector. This is particularly true with breakthrough technologies that
have the highest potential payoff--and the highest risk of failure. Re-
establishing major flight demonstration projects under NASA sponsorship
has the added benefit of encouraging and inspiring our young people to
consider a career in aerospace engineering.
Q3. IDuring the hearing, it was suggested that ARMD research findings
initially not be broadly disseminated in order to provide domestic
companies an opportunity to capitalize on new discoveries. Do you agree
with this concept?
a. IIf such a policy were implemented, what effects would it
have on domestic companies' ability to do business with foreign
partners and customers? Would it imperil business relationships
and collaborations?
b. IHow does NASA's current policy compare with that of other
foreign governments who underwrite aeronautics research and
development? Do they publicly disseminate new discoveries?
A3. It is essential to understand the very limited nature of the
recommendation that the Committee is making with regard to foreign
dissemination of research results. In particular, I agree with the
Senior Vice President Henne's statement during the hearing, that if
NASA policy regarding the dissemination of research results ``becomes
crippling, it doesn't do anyone any good.'' However, the U.S. aerospace
industry competes on an international scale. In the Internet world of
today, when research results are made public, they are available
instantaneously to domestic and foreign competitors alike. Foreign
competitors are often more agile (due to various reasons such as less
burdensome regulatory environment, etc.) and can react more quickly to
incorporate research results into marketable products. The Committee
recommends that NASA establish a process that would allow the American
taxpayer, as underwriters of NASA research, to have an opportunity to
benefit from the research products before making them available for
off-shore production. recommendation would provide additional
inducements for industry and academia to partner with NASA, without
creating any new requirements that would discourage such partnering. In
particular, the Committee recommends that NASA establish a mechanism
U.S. commercial sector researchers could use, at their sole discretion,
to limit the dissemination of research they conduct with NASA. Such a
mechanism would not inhibit academic researchers, who generally want to
publish the results of their research and who are staffed with many
foreign nationals. Neither would it inhibit industry researchers from
publicly disseminating the results of their research when they believe
it is beneficial to do so. But if a U.S. company and NASA would benefit
from cooperative research with NASA, having the option to limit
dissemination of its research results to foreign competitors for a
period of time might make that company more inclined to partner with
NASA in that research, to the benefit of NASA, the U.S. aeronautics
industry and the public in general. Framed in this way, such a policy
would not inhibit a domestic company's ability to do business with
foreign partners and competitors since the limitation on public/foreign
dissemination could be waived at the discretion of the U.S. company
conducting the research.
The Committee did not investigate the policies of any foreign
governments. Although I do not know the details, it is my belief that
most foreign governments restrict the world-wide dissemination of their
aeronautics research.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Preston A. Henne, Senior Vice President, Programs,
Engineering and Testing, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. IIn your statement, you indicate that financially successful and
environmentally acceptable civil supersonic transportation is still to
be achieved. What are the challenges associated with civil supersonic
transportation and what role should NASA's R&D play in addressing them?
A1. The challenges are many, but environmentally acceptable
implementation is essential to financial success. This requires
mitigation of the sonic boom which we all know significantly hampered
Concorde operations, as well as adaptability to new engine technologies
which reduce harmful emissions. A research aircraft must be developed
and flown over land to demonstrate the sonic boom mitigation
technologies, and through that, provide the technical database for
justifying a change in current supersonic flight regulations.
NASA, in partnership with industry, has the enterprise to engage
such a plan for our country, and prove out the resultant capability
through a large-scale, ``relevant,'' low-boom flight research program.
This program would provide both a focal point and transition
opportunity for various NASA R&D pipelines and conclude with an
exploration of community response to low-boom, supersonic flight over
land.
Q2. II understand that Gulfstream Aerospace and NASA have had a
successful partnership in testing the Quiet SpikeTM concept in flight,
an extendable telescopic boom that helps suppress sonic booms. How well
did that research collaboration work? Are there any ``lessons learned''
that you think should be applied to NASA's interactions with industry
in the future?
A2. It worked very well. The Gulfstream team provided the idea and the
hardware, and NASA provided the flight test platform and flight test
expertise. Gulfstream and NASA concluded the Quiet SpikeTM flight test
program with an extremely successful industry-government partnership.
It was not without its share of challenges. In the end, the success
came from a small, experienced, and highly-motivated team being fully
integrated into NASA's research environment with frequent open
communication and an aggressive technical goal.
Q3. IAt present, commercial supersonic flight over the U.S. is
prohibited due to sonic boom concerns. What needs to happen for that
prohibition to be removed, and what role should NASA play? Are there
other research areas related to commercial supersonic flight that NASA
should be involved in?
A3. The prohibition needs to be converted to a rational rule that
manufacturers can use for design and to show compliance with. This
regulatory change needs to occur in the ICAO/CAEP international
environment for setting accepted international standards. This process,
while started, is in need of real flight data indicating feasibility.
As stated above, flight demonstration of a low-boom aircraft that
achieves an ``acceptable'' acoustic signature at the ground would
greatly facilitate removal of the supersonic prohibition and
establishment of a new standard. The flight vehicle proves the physics
and validates that shaping technologies eliminate the environmental and
social acceptability concerns associated with the sonic boom.
Ideally, NASA would fully fund such a program. However, a more
financially practical approach for NASA would be to engage in a
supportive and collaborative effort with industry in the development
and test of the experimental low-boom vehicle. NASA can also be
involved at a more detailed level sharing its expertise and resources
with industry partners in research areas such as propulsion, aircraft
structure, flight controls, aerodynamic modeling to name only a few. In
parallel, NASA should also be tasked with preparing for flight research
by developing and demonstrating a capability for monitoring community
response using telemetry and instrumentation to correlate what's being
heard with Internet-based social surveys that enable broad data
collection and analysis.
Q4. IIn your statement, you recommend that NASA Aeronautics procurement
policies be enhanced to allow commercial contracting practices. Can you
provide some more details on what you see as the problem and why the
use of commercial contracting practices might be an answer at NASA?
A4. Traditional NASA contracting imposes restrictive government cost
accounting standards under FAR Part 15. This requirement is non-typical
for commercial entities such as Gulfstream and discourages
partnerships. In addition, restrictive data rights clauses further
deter participation in research efforts for fear of losing competitive
advantage and key intellectual property necessary for market
transition.
In contrast to restrictive cost accounting, FAR Part 12 includes
existing commercial terms which can provide NASA with adequate
contractual protection under research contracts. Also, less restrictive
data rights provisions would likely encourage otherwise reluctant
commercial firms to support NASA technology development programs. The
allowance or provision for these established commercial policies could
substantially increase the pool of capable R&D resources NASA has
available to support its programs.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. IAssuming that ARMD's budget profile doesn't not change
substantially in the near-term, given a choice between continuing its
current approach of foundational research across a broad swath of
research topics versus funding periodic large-scale demonstration
flights at the expense of limiting research to a smaller set of
projects and activities, which option would you find more attractive,
and why?
A1. The latter option is more attractive and is a critical mechanism
for NASA to fully realize its Aeronautics mission. Periodic large-scale
demonstration by NASA Aeronautics has a proven record for lowering
technology risk to a level where industry is able to assist with the
completion of the maturation process. When properly planned for and
executed, large-scale demonstrations result in flying laboratories of
exceptional value, national facilities that can provide tremendous
research capability extending far beyond the initial test mission and
period of performance.
Q2. IDuring the hearing, it was suggested that ARMD research findings
initially not be broadly disseminated in order to provide domestic
companies an opportunity to capitalize on new discoveries. Do you agree
with this concept?
a. IIf such a policy were implemented, what effects would it
have on domestic companies' ability to do business with foreign
partners and customers? Would it imperil business relationships
and collaborations?
b. IHow does NASA's current policy compare with that of other
foreign governments who underwrite aeronautics research and
development? Do they publicly disseminate new discoveries?
A2. We agree in concept, that U.S. Government funded research should
benefit domestic companies. This is consistent with NASA's original
charter. Various NASA programs in the past have had levels of
restricted dissemination depending on the program.
If such a dissemination policy were implemented, we do not believe
there would have to be a negative impact on the aeronautics industry's
ability to work with foreign entities--partners, suppliers and/or
customers. Meaningful collaboration could still occur, however, U.S.
industry would clearly be in a stronger position, given knowledge of
government supported technology research activities. The policy will
likely need to include an approval process to disclose based upon
commercial potential for the U.S.-based entity.
Foreign governments often restrict the publication of new
discoveries developed with government funding. While the practice
varies considerably, foreign governments appreciate the value of the
aeronautical enterprise and their investment in it. They do introduce
protective measures to benefit their national interests.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ilan Kroo, Professor, Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Stanford University
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. IYou note in your prepared statement that the anticipated growth in
air travel is a tremendous challenge, made even more difficult and
complex by the insertion of potentially larger numbers of unmanned
aircraft and even supersonic aircraft. How does the inclusion of
unmanned and supersonic aircraft in the national airspace impact on
safety? What research is needed to properly account for the future
assimilation of disparate aircraft flying at different regimes in the
national airspace? Is NASA doing or planning to do that?
A1. At the moment, unmanned and supersonic aircraft are not significant
issues affecting the capacity or safety of the airspace system. But we
anticipate that with additional applications for more-autonomous
aircraft in the future and with the possibility of small civil
supersonic aircraft, the wide speed and altitude range of this diverse
set of air vehicles could become problematic--especially with our
current approach to air traffic management. Rather than stifling
innovation in this country by banning new types of flight vehicles,
research is needed on how such aircraft may be accommodated in a next
generation air traffic system. NASA is doing some research in this area
as part of the aeronautics program and through the JPDO, but more
extensive cooperative work with DOD and FAA needs to be undertaken,
particularly for improved autonomous sense-and-avoid capabilities and
more flexible, adaptive approaches to air traffic scheduling and
control.
Q2. II note that you have spent some time in NASA as a researcher.
Granted this was 20 years ago, but can you provide your views on how
the in-house researcher role has changed over the years? In particular,
do you agree with the concern expressed in the recent NRC report
assessing NASA's aeronautics program regarding research time being
taken away from in-house NASA personnel to monitor the performance of
outside entities?
A2. Despite NASA's declining budget for aeronautics over the past
decade, the Agency still manages to contribute in an important way to
research advances in aeronautics. The role of NASA researchers has
indeed changed greatly over the past twenty years, mostly due to three
factors:
a. IChanges in the way in which facilities are charged and
closing of many smaller experimental facilities makes it much
more difficult for researchers to use these facilities
themselves. When I was a researcher at NASA's Ames Research
Center, we tested several new, in-house designs in the wind
tunnels at Ames. This happens very infrequently now as the
larger projects and industry pay for the facilities and NASA
researchers support those tests.
b. IThere has been a rather inconsistent relationship with
industry and academia over the past twenty years. In the 1990's
many of NASA's aeronautics projects were associated with a
smaller number of large industry programs, while an emphasis on
more fundamental work over the past two to three years has
allowed universities and small companies to play a greater
role. As a result, NASA researchers' involvement in externally
funded research has changed and it will surely take some time
to adapt to these changes.
c. IThe decrease in the number of experienced, aeronautics-
oriented, civil servants at NASA does mean that a larger
fraction of these peoples' time is spent monitoring the
external research funded by NASA. Although the total amount of
external research funding has not changed dramatically in ARMD,
the larger number of smaller contracts and the shrinking
internal research budget and staff does place increased demands
on researchers' time, especially in some of the project areas.
Q3. IIn characterizing the need to address the environmental problems
facing aviation, you state that while NASA's fundamental research work
addresses some of the issues, the work needs to be expanded and focused
on the most promising technologies if it is to contribute in a
significant way to solving these problems. Could you please elaborate a
bit on that statement--what technologies do you think are worth
focusing on, and how should NASA proceed? Because of the uncertainty
associated with how aviation emissions will be dealt with worldwide,
how would you respond to the concern that we may be honing in on
solutions without a clear idea of the problem?
A3. NASA has recently adopted some challenging environmental goals for
future aircraft, and these may help to provide a focus for fundamental
research in various fields of aeronautics. However, a large array of
technologies may be said to contribute in some way to these goals and a
clear approach to prioritization is needed. The NRC Decadal Survey of
Civil Aeronautics identified a large number of technologies that will
likely be important in the development of future aircraft with more
stringent environmental constraints, but it did not make specific
recommendations regarding prioritization in light of the budgetary
constraints under which NASA is operating. NASA seems to be doing a
good job of identifying some of the most promising research over the
last couple of years, but the problem is great and the scope of NASA's
aeronautics research is very limited.
Although many aspects of aircraft emissions' impact on the global
environment remain uncertain, and the international community's
approach to regulation or economic incentives is not completely
formulated, many of the technologies important for future aircraft are
not so uncertain. The benefits of improved fuel efficiency include, not
just lower CO\ emissions, but reduced fuel cost, greater independence
from foreign suppliers, and improved performance for both civil and
military aircraft. It is important to better understand the
relationship between aircraft emissions at altitude and atmospheric
changes, but there is little chance that research enabling reduced
noise and greater efficiency will be honing in on the wrong solution.
Q4. IIn your opinion, is NASA's research on environmental issues too
focused on NextGen or is it broad enough to address the issues that are
percolating globally?
A4. NextGen as broadly defined, covers almost any aspect of a next
generation air transportation system. However, as NASA's work on
NextGen proceeds, areas of emphasis must be identified and it appears
that air traffic control/capacity expansion will likely form the heart
of NASA work on NextGen. This is certainly an important research area
because near-term changes to ATC are needed to maintain safety, while
permitting future capacity increases. But it is important not to assume
that the development of new and efficient ATC system will solve the
problems of a next generation aviation system. Appending environmental
and efficiency concerns to a program that starts with traffic
management may dilute the program to the point that no concern is
properly addressed. I believe that NASA's research and technology
development work should address specific environmental objectives along
with the goal of increasing system capacity. It is not clear that this
should be confined to NextGen or the JPDO.
Q5. ISome of your research suggests that reduced aircraft emissions and
noise can be achieved along with greater fuel efficiency by developing
new types of aircraft that would operate at slower cruising speeds.
Based on the apparent benefits of such new aircraft, have any
manufacturers voiced interest in bringing such aircraft to the
marketplace? What reaction would you expect from the flying public?
A5. Aircraft manufacturers are actively considering a range of possible
options, particularly for the next generation of small, medium range
aircraft that may replace the A320 and 737. To an aircraft designer the
difference between Mach 0.8 and Mach 0.75 is enormous. To a passenger
on a flight from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. the difference is
about 15 minutes.
Most current aircraft were designed when fuel cost $0.25 to $0.75
per gallon and contributed less than 15 percent to the overall cost of
a flight. With fuel costs now approaching 50 percent of total costs for
some carriers, the airlines are already slowing down the existing fleet
to save fuel. Re-designing aircraft with a greater emphasis on fuel
efficiency, may not just help the environment, but might very well
reduce the cost of flying in the future.
Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney
Q1. IAssuming that ARMD's budget profile does not change substantially
in the near-term, given a choice between continuing its current
approach of fundamental research across a broad swath of research
topics versus funding periodic large-scale demonstration flights at the
expense of limiting research to a smaller set of projects and
activities, which option would you find more attractive, and why?
A1. This should not be a black and white choice. In fact, NASA's swings
in emphasis from large scale projects to more basic research and back
again over the years has made it very difficult for outside researchers
to be able to count on NASA support and collaboration for the kind of
long-term research that NASA should be doing. Instead, like any wise
investor, NASA should have a balanced portfolio, with a sustained basic
research agenda, that allows the Agency to identify promising but
longer-term technologies, and a small number of larger scale
experiments that can allow industry to better assess when some of these
ideas are worth pursuing in the private sector. This is a difficult
line to walk, especially in an era of declining resources for
aeronautics, but it is necessary in order that NASA's research be both
forward-thinking and relevant.
Q2. IDuring the hearing, it was suggested that ARMD research findings
initially not be broadly disseminated in order to provide domestic
companies an opportunity to capitalize on new discoveries. Do you agree
with this concept?
a. IIf such a policy were implemented, what effects would it
have on domestic companies' ability to do business with foreign
partners and customers? Would it imperil business relationships
and collaborations?
b. IHow does NASA's current policy compare with that of other
foreign governments who underwrite aeronautics research and
development? Do they publicly disseminate new discoveries?
A2. I am quite concerned that such a policy would be very difficult to
implement and generally counter-productive; it would prohibit many
university students from working on NASA programs, might restrict
hiring by small companies of excellent researchers who were not
currently U.S. citizens, and discourage collaboration among some of the
top researchers in the world. Clearly, some NASA programs with direct
impact on national security should restrict dissemination of results.
The classification mechanism is well developed and understood by
industry and academia. An intermediate form of classification is much
more problematic. Currently, companies working with NASA may maintain
limited data rights or government-purpose rights in cases that involve
collaborative research and proprietary data. Further limiting
dissemination of NASA research--especially that of a more fundamental
nature, isolates NASA researchers from other experts.
Much of the work done at government-supported aeronautical research
laboratories in Germany (DLR), France (ONERA), and Japan (JAXA) is
broadly disseminated and, along with NASA publications, has formed an
important knowledge base on which our research at Stanford is built.
<all>