Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Review of NASA's An Assessment of NASA;s Aeronautics Technology Programs Committee for the Review of NASA's Revolutionize Aviation Program Aeronautics and Space Engineering Boarcl Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the com- mittee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. NASW 99037 and 03009 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number: 0-309-091 19-5 (Book) International Standard Book Number: 0-309-52929-8 (PDF) Available in limited supply from the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, 500 Fifth St., N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 334-2858. Additional copies available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth St., N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area). Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. l .~, - , .. . . !, , .; The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering pro- grams aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www. nationa l-academies.org
COMMITTEE FOR THE REVIEW OF NASA'S REVOLUTIONIZE AVIATION PROGRAM JOHN M. KLINEBERG, Chair, Space Systems/Loral (retired), Redwoocl City, California RICHARD ABBOTT, Lockheed Martin, Palmdale, California WALTER S. COLEMAN, Regional Airline Association (retired), McLean, Virginia ROBERT HILB, United Parcel Service, Louisville, Kentucky S. MICHAEL HUDSON, Rolls-Royce North America (retired), Indianapolis RAYMOND LaFREY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington LOURDES Q. MAURICE, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. THEODORE H. OKIISHI, Iowa State University, Ames TOD PALM, Northrop Grumman, E1 Segundo, California EDUARDO S. ALAS, University of Central Florida, Orlando THOMAS SHERIDAN (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (emeritus), Cambridge EDMOND L. SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired), Valparaiso, Indiana ALFRED G. STRIZ, University of Oklahoma, Norman (from 01/03/2003 to 09/09/2003) FRANK F. TUNG, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (retired), Boston THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, Northrop Grumman, Bethpage, New York DEBRA WINCHESTER, Raytheon, Marlborough, Massachusetts PANEL ON THE VEHICLE SYSTEMS PROGRAM (VSP) THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, Panel Chair, Northrop Grumman, Bethpage, New York MARK BALAS, University of Colorado, Boulder ROBERT GOETZ, Lockheed Martin (retired), Friendswood, Texas S. MICHAEL HUDSON, Rolls-Royce North America (retired), Indianapolis STEVEN IDEN, Lockheed Martin, Fort Worth, Texas SHEILA KIA, General Motors, Warren, Michigan GARY KOOPMANN, Pennsylvania State University, University Park HARRY LIPSITT, Wright State University (emeritus), Yellow Springs, Ohio LOURDES Q. MAURICE, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. DUANE McRUER (NAE), Systems Technology, Inc., Manhattan Beach, California THEODORE H. OKIISHI, Iowa State University, Ames TOD PALM, Northrop Grumman, E1 Segundo, California ALFRED G. STRIZ, University of Oklahoma, Norman (from 01/01/2003 to 09/09/2003) MAHLON WILSON, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico J. MITCHELL WOLFF, Wright State University, Dayton MICHAEL ZYDA, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California NOTE: The committee name reflects the name of the program before it was changed to Aeronautics Technology Programs. IV
PANEL ON THE AIRSPACE SYSTEMS PROGRAM (ASP) .\ .. . . ~ FRANK F. TUNG, Panel Chair, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (retired), Boston CHARLES AALFS, Federal Aviation Administration (retired), Menifee, California YAAKOV BAR-SHALOM, University of Connecticut, Storrs BARRY BERSON, Lockheed Martin, Palmdale, California WALTER COLEMAN, Regional Airline Association (retired), McLean, Virginia WILLIAM DUNLAY, Leigh Fisher Associates, Tiburon, California ANGELA GITTENS, Miami-Dade International Airport, Miami, Florida ROBERT HILB, United Parcel Service, Louisville, Kentucky R. B OWEN LOFTIN, Old Dominion University, Suffolk, Virginia J. DAVID POWELL, Stanford University (emeritus), Stanford, California EDUARDO SALAS, University of Central Florida, Orlando DEBRA WINCHESTER, Raytheon, Marlborough, Massachusetts PANEL ON THE AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAM (AvSP) THOMAS SHERIDAN (NAE), Panel Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (emeritus), Cambridge RICHARD ABBOTT, Lockheed Martin, Palmdale, California JAMES DANAHER, National Transportation Safety Board (retired), Alexandria, Virginia VALERIE GAWRON, Veridian Engineering, Buffalo RONALD HESS, University of California, Davis ADIB KANAFANI (NAE), University of California, Berkeley DAVID KOHLMAN, Engineering Systems, Inc., Colorado Springs RAYMOND LaFREY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington JOHN McCARTHY, Naval Research Laboratory (retired), Palm Desert, California EDMOND L. SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired), Valparaiso, Indiana Committee and Pane! Staff MAUREEN MELLODY, Study Director ALAN ANGLEMAN, Senior Program Officer DOUGLAS BENNETT, Program Officer JENNIFER PINKERMAN, Research Associate GEORGE LEVIN, Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board KARA BATH, Senior Project Assistant ANNA FARRAR, Financial Associate v
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD WILLIAM W. HOOVER, Chair, U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia RUZENA K. BAJCSY (NAE/IOM), University of California, Berkeley JAMES (MICKY) BLACKWELL, Lockheed Martin (retired), Marietta, Georgia EDWARD BOLEN, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C. ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, Aviation Safety Consultant, Catlett, Virginia SUSAN M. COUGHLIN, Aviation Safety Alliance, Washington, D.C. ROBERT L. CRIPPEN, Thiokol Propulsion (retired), Palm Beach Gardens, Florida DONALD L. CROMER, U.S. Air Force (retired) and Hughes Space and Communications (retired), Fallbrook, California JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland RICHARD GOLASZEWSKI, GRA Incorporated, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania S. MICHAEL HUDSON, Rolls-Royce North America (retired), Indianapolis JOHN L. JUNKINS (NAE), Texas A&M University, College Station JOHN M. KLINEBERG, Space Systems/Loral (retired), Redwood City, California ILAN M. KROO, Stanford University, Stanford, California JOHN K. LAUBER, Airbus North America, Inc., Washington, D.C. GEORGE K. MUELLNER, The Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MALCOLM O'NEILL, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland CYNTHIA SAMUELSON, Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia KATHRYN C. THORNTON, University of Virginia, Charlottesville HANSEL E. TOOKES II, Raytheon International (retired), Falls Church, Virginia ROBERT W. WALKER, Wexler and Walker Public Policy Associates, Washington, D.C. DIANNE S. (WILEY) PALMER, The Boeing Company, Washington, D.C. THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, Northrop Grumman, Bethpage, New York GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director vi
Preface The National Research Council (NRC) of the Na- tional Academies was asked by NASA and the Office of Management and Budget to perform an assessment of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise. The first such review, which began in early 2002, examined Pio- neering Revolutionary Technology (now known as Mission and Science Measurement Technology). The assessment presented here, of the Aeronautics Tech- nology Programs, began in early 2003 and is the sec- ond in the review series. NASA's Aeronautics Technology Programs has five primary objectives: 1. Protect air travelers and the public. Protect the environment. Increase mobility. 4. Support national security. 5. Explore new aerospace missions. The Aeronautics Technology Programs has three components: the Vehicle Systems Program, the Air- space Systems Program, and the Aviation Safety Pro- gram. To conduct this review, the NRC established three panels, one for each of the component programs. The NRC also established a parent committee, consist- ing of the chairman and a subset of members from each Panel. The committee and panels comprised a cross- searchers in the aeronautics field. Biographical infor- mation on the committee and panel members is found in Appendix A. The committee and panels were tasked to conduct a detailed, independent review of the technical quality of the work conducted in the Aeronautics Technology Programs. The detailed statement of task is given in Appendix B. In addition, in a meeting with the chairs of the study, the then Associate Administrator for NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise, Jeremiah Creedon, asked the committee to answer the following four questions: 1. Is the array of activities about right? 2. Is there a good plan to carry out the program? 3. Is the program doing what it set out to do? 4. Is the entire effort connected to the users? The committee and panels agreed to use these four questions as the framework for conducting the review and writing the final report. These questions are ad- dressed in this report at the program, project, sub- project, and task level for the constituent programs the Vehicle Systems Program, the Airspace Systems Program, and the Aviation Safety Program. The NRC also asked the principal investigator of each task within the Aeronautics Technology Programs section of experts from industry, academia, and gov- to complete a questionnaire on the task goals, progress, ernment and included senior-level managers and re- funding, and outcomes. The questionnaires were dis- · . Vl!
. . . Vlll tributed to the panel members before the first meet- ings. Each panel met separately in Washington, D.C., during February and March 2003 to obtain overviews of the NASA programs. The panel members spent March, April, and May 2003 gathering additional in- formation through site visits to the relevant NASA fa- cilities, e-mail exchanges with personnel, and telecon- ferences. The panels then convened in April or May to share information obtained during the site visits, to achieve consensus on findings and recommendations, and to meet again with NASA personnel to obtain ad- ditional program information. Each panel was com- posed of many of the top experts in their fields. They produced a working report and submitter! it to the par- ent committee. The committee met in July 2003 to PREFACE evaluate the panel reports, develop a set of top-level, programwide observations, and arrive at consensus on final findings and recommendations. The panels and the committee based their evaluations on information pro- vided by NASA and on the committee and panel mem- bers' expertise, experience, and knowledge of the tech- nologies and comparable work performed around the world in specific disciplines. A detailed schedule of com- mittee and panel activities is given in Appendix C. This report contains the committee's assessment of the Aeronautics Technology Programs. Chapter 1 presents a top-level assessment, and Chapters 2 through 4 provide the assessments of the Vehicle Systems Pro- gram, the Airspace Systems Program, and the Aviation Safety Program, respectively.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers ..., .,.,j, ~ .. This report has been reviewed in draft form by in- dividuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap- proved by the National Research Council's (NRC's) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this inde- pendent review is to provide candid and critical com- ments that will assist the institution in making its pub- lished report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evi- dence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confi- dential to protect the integrity of the deliberative pro- cess. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Norman Abramson (NAE), Southwest Research Institute, retired, Meyer Benzakein (NAE), GE Aircraft Engines, Susan Coughlin, Aviation Safety Alliance, Earl Dowell (NAE), Duke University, Jeffery Erickson, The Boeing Company, R. John Hansman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, IX Alfred MacRae (NAE), AT&T Laboratories, retired, Gordon McKinzie, United Airlines, retired, Dennis Muilenburg, The Boeing Company, Richard Petersen, NASA, retired, Robert Ravera, RJR Aviation, LLC, and John Sullivan, Purdue University. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom- menclations, nor did they see the final draft of the re- port before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Louis Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies. Appointed by the NRC's Report Review Committee, he was responsible for making certain that an indepen- dent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Respon- sibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TOP-LEVEL ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OF THE VEHICLE SYSTEMS PROGRAM Background, 11 Key Findings and Recommendations, 15 Portfolio, 19 Program Plan, 20 Technical Performance, 21 User Connections, 23 Assessment by Project, 24 Breakthrough Vehicle Technology Project, 24 Quiet Aircraft Technology Project, 31 Twenty-First Century Aircraft Technology Project, 37 Advanced Vehicle Concepts Project, 43 Flight Research Project, 46 Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Project, 49 Propulsion and Power Project, 56 ASSESSMENT OF THE AIRSPACE SYSTEMS PROGRAM Background, 61 Portfolio, 64 Program Plan, 65 Technical Performance, 67 User Connections, 67 Assessment by Project, 68 Advanced Air Transportation Technology Project, 68 Small Aircraft Transportation System Project, 79 Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation Project, 86 Airspace Operations Systems Project, 94 1 6 11 ASSESSMENT OF THE AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAM 101 Background, 101 Portfolio, 104 Program Plan, 105 Technical Performance, 107 User Connections, ~ 07 Assessment by Project, 108 Technical Integration Project, 108 Vehicle Safety Technology Project, 109 Weather Safety Technology Project, 122 System Safety Technology Project, 133 x
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 TOP-LEVEL ASSESSMENT 2 ASSESSMENT OF THE VEHICLE SYSTEMS PROGRAM Background, 9 Program Information, 9 Review Process, 11 Key Findings and Recommendations, 13 Key Issue 1 : Core Competencies, 13 Key Issue 2: Full-Cost Accounting, 13 Key Issue 3: External Advisory Groups, 14 Other General Observations, 14 Portfolio, 15 Program Plan, 16 Technical Performance, 16 User Connections, 18 Assessment by Project, 18 Breakthrough Vehicle Technologies Project (1.0), 18 Quiet Aircraft Technology Project (2.0), 22 Twenty-first Century Aircraft Technology Project (3.0), 27 Advanced Vehicle Concepts Project (4.0), 31 Flight Research Project (5.0), 33 Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Project (6.0), 35 Propulsion and Power Project (7.0), 40 3 ASSESSMENT OF THE AIRSPACE SYSTEMS PROGRAM Background, 43 xl 5 9 43
. . X11 ,, . CONTENTS Program Information, 43 Review Process, 45 Portfolio, 46 Program Plan, 46 Advanced Air Transportation Technologies Project, 46 Small Aircraft Transportation System Project, 47 Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation Project, 47 Airspace Operations Systems Project, 48 Technical Performance, 48 User Connections, 48 Assessment by Project, 49 Advanced Air Transportation Technologies Project, 49 Small Aircraft Transportation System Project, 56 Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation Project, 61 Airspace Operations Systems Project, 66 4 ASSESSMENT OF THE AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAM Background, 71 Program Information, 71 Review Process, 72 Portfolio, 73 Program Plan, 74 Technical Performance, 75 User Connections, 76 Assessment by Project, 76 Technical Integration Project, 76 Vehicle Safety Technology Project, 77 Weather Safety Technology Project, 85 System Safety Technology Project, 93 APPENDIXES A Committee and Panel Member Biographies B Statement of Task C Committee and Pane! Activities D National Research Council Questionnaire E List of Tasks in NASA's Aeronautics Technology Research Portfolio F Abbreviations and Acronyms 71 105 116 119 121 123 129
Tables and Figures TABLES 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 3-1 FIGURES 2-1 2-2 2-3 3-1 4-1 Net Budget for the Vehicle Systems Program, 9 Fifty-one VSP Tasks That Are World Class, 17 VSP Marginal Tasks That Need Improvement, 17 VSP Tasks That Should Be Reevaluated for Restructuring or Cancellation, 17 VSP Tasks Recommended for Cancellation, 18 Net Funding and Direct NASA Staffing Levels for the Airspace Systems Program, 45 NASA Summary of the Goals and General Approach for SATS Operating Capabilities, 57 Net Budget for the Aviation Safety Program, 73 Vehicle Systems Program organization chart showing VSP projects and subprojects as of March 2003, 10 VSP panel review process, 12 NASA technology readiness levels, 23 Airspace Systems Program organization chart, 44 Aviation Safety Program organization chart, 72 . . . x'~`