U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–391PDF 2012

SPURRING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND 

COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH 

NASA–DERIVED TECHNOLOGIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2012 

Serial No. 112–95 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, July 12, 2012 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chair, Subcommittee on 

Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Mason Peck, Chief Technologist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Mr. George Beck, Chief Clinical and Technology Officer, Impact Instrumentation, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Mr. Brian Russell, Chief Executive Officer, Zephyr Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Mr. John Vilja, Vice President for Strategy, Innovation and Growth, Pratt 

& Whitney Rocketdyne 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice President, Moog Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 

Discussion 11 

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Mason Peck, Chief Technologist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ................................................................................................................. 68 

Mr. George Beck, Chief Clinical and Technology Officer, Impact Instrumentation, Inc. ................................................................................................................ 73 

Mr. Brian Russell, Chief Executive Officer, Zephyr Technology ......................... 76 

Mr. John Vilja, Vice President for Strategy, Innovation and Growth, Pratt 

& Whitney Rocketdyne ........................................................................................ 78 

Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice President, Moog Inc. ................................................. 86 

(1) 

SPURRING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND 

COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH 

NASA–DERIVED TECHNOLOGIES 

THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven Palazzo 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

RALPH M. HAll, TEXAS 

CHA!RMAN 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, TEXAS 

RANKING MEMBER 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www.sdence.house.gov 

Subcommittee On Space and Aeronautics 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

Technologies 

Thursday, July 12,2012 

10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

Dr. Mason Peck, NASA Chief Technologist 

Mr. George Beck, Chief Clinical and Technology Officer, Impact Instrumentation, Inc. 

Mr. Brian Russell, Chief Executive Officer, Zephyr Technology 

Mr. John Vilja, Vice President for Strategy, Innovation and Growth, Pratt & Whitney 

Rocketdyne 

Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice President, Moog, Inc. 
3 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through 

NASA Derived Technologies 

Thursday, July 12, 2012 

10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

NASA is often considered an incubator for technology development, and history has shown a 

vast array of technologies that owe their start to NASA programs. Despite decades of 

demonstrated success, federal investment in NASA remains essentially flat even as other R&D 

agencies are seeing increases. Furthermore, investment in NASA's technology transfer activities 

has seen a drastic decline in recent years. 

The purpose of this hearing will be to examine the direct economic and societal benefits that 

investments in NASA have generated and highlight those areas where continued investments 

could help stimulate the pipeline for future economic growth. 

Witnesses 

• Dr. Mason Peck, NASA Chief Technologist 

• Mr. George Beck, Chief Clinical and Technology Officer, Impact Instrumentation, Inc. 

• Mr. Brian Russell, Chief Executive Officer, Zephyr Technology 

• Mr. John ViIja, Vice President for Strategy, Innovation and Growth, Pratt & Whitney 

Rocketdyne 

• Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice President, Moog, Inc. 

Background 

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 established NASA as the leading agency for 

aeronautical and space sciences, and specifically directed that the new agency would "provide 

for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities 

and the results thereof."J Since then, NASA has developed innovative technologies that are 

ubiquitous to daily civilian and military life in the United States - and even the world. Besides 

1 http:Uhistory.nasa.gov(spaceact.html 

Page lof6 
4 

being the global leader in advanced aircraft and spacecraft design, NASA technologies have 

paved the way for advances in the medical field, environmental stewardship, and public safety. 

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 and the Federal Technology Transfer 

Act of 1986 also support NASA's technology transfer activities. Each mandate the promotion of 

federally-funded research and technology transfer to the commercial sectors, and state and local 

governments. They also grant authority to Government-owned and Government-operated 

laboratories to enter into cooperative research and development agreements with the private 

sector and with academia. 

On October 28, 2011, President Obama issued a memorandum entitled, "Accelerating 

Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High Growth 

Businesses," requiring all Federal agencies to identify opportunities for, and ~lan transitions to, 

increase the nnmber of technology transfer and commercialization activities. As the chart 

below demonstrates, however, funding for research and development at NASA is barely keeping 

pace with inflation - even as other agencies are reaping the benefits of increased investments. 

Figure 4. R&D ill tlle FY 2013 Budget Reque,t 

DHS 

NISTt 

DOT 

DOE Energy 

NOAA 

DOEOefens.e 

OtherHHS 

USGS 

NSF 

OOESdence 

!!ASA 

EPA 

VA 

NIH 

USDA 

DOD otner 

DOOSil;T 

TOTAL 

-1510 

R&D in the FY 2013 Budget percent rndlge fro'll FY 2012 

18.091 

17.0% 

16.2% 

12.% 

9.6% 

9.3% 

-- _7.6% 

i-- 4.6\\\ 

_2. _2. ~ 

I" .1.4! 

0.2% 

o.m • . 5%. 

.5%. 

-704%_ 

- .1.2~ +-- 5% 15\\\ 

~NOTE:!Xes ncrt~ndooe ,cn:oposedU.1 bill"OI1fJ1 ,.I<md.t:O\"1 W:rq for NlSfR&D. 

So\JCo:!: OMB R&D ddtd. agency ~ ft.stifiG:1t~onsJ and other ~cy doruT:.€rt$, 

@2M2,!.).AS 

31 .• 

35% 

2 bJJJdjwww.whitehouse.gov!the-press-office!2011i10/28!presidential-memorandum-accele'rating-technologytransfer-and-commerciali 

3 MAS Report, Federal Research &Development FY 2013, p. 14 

Page 2 of6 
5 

It should be noted that the FY 2013 budget request for the Space Technology Directorate was 

$699 million, an increase of $125.3 million. The SBIR and STTR programs are required by 

federal law to represent a base percentage of R&D (currently 2.7% for FY 2013). The 

Partnership Development and Strategic Integration Program - central to carrying out the 

agency's technology transfer and commercialization efforts would receive only $29.5 million. 

.Actual E'stimllt! :Sotional 

Budgo! .4.lIthorify (in S millions) ITI0n IT20U tt11?l FYIOU IT201~ IT'11l16 IT211H 

IT 2013 Pn,ident', BndgetRllqllest 4.6.3 57l.7 $;& m.o m.o m.o 699.0 

S3B.l!:ldSTTR 16-1.7 166.7 I'M laB 1&7.2 195J 206.0 

?9Iinm1lips D2:t"' .. 1f.::. StrJ.t~E;ic llitegmioJ. 25.6 Z~l5 29.5' 295 ::95 295 19.5 

Crosscu:tting Sp;!Q T och D~· .. l!Lopme:lj ~~O.4 137.' lllU 2'72.1 266.6 159.7 ::!47"O 

2.wLor3tioll Tectm.olo§:y De'l."i!loptr.'ilI.t HH 129.9 lUll 215.5 215,' 2145 2165 

Office of Chief Technologist 

The Office of Chief Technologist (OCT) manages NASA's Space Technology programs and 

coordinates and tracks all technology investments across the agency. The office is also the 

primary point of contact with other government agencies and outside entities and is responsible 

for managing innovative technology partnerships, technology transfer and commercial activities. 

There are four programs that support the transfer of technology: 

• The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology 

Transfer (STTR) Programs - which apply to all federal departments and agencies were 

established by Congress in 1982 to aid small and disadvantaged businesses to partner 

with federally funded research and developmertt programs. 

• The Crosscutting Space Technology Development Program focuses on developing 

capabilities that advance future space missions. 

• The Exploration Technology Development Progranl focuses on advancing the 

development of technologies to enable human missions. 

• The Partnership Development and Strategic Integration Program provides for the transfer 

and commercialization of NASA-developed technologies, coordinates interagency 

technologies, and manages intellectual property rights. This program also seeks out 

opportunities for partnership with other government agencies and industry. 

While the first three of these programs seek to identify and develop technologies specifically to 

meet agency mission objectives, the fourth program seeks to push NASA-derived technology out 

into the private sector. The Innovative Partnerships Office (IPO), part of the Partnership 

Development and Strategic Integration Program, seeks to promote innovative partnership 

opportunities to commercialize technology that can be transferred from NASA's programs and 

projects. Each NASA Center also has an IPO and a Chief Technologist that work directly with 

OCT. 

It should be noted that the SBIRISTTR programs - while focusing on technologies that can be 

infused into NASA's missions - have consistently yielded spinofftechnoiogies into the private 

Page 3 of6 
6 

sector. As a result, approximately 30% of all spinoff technologies reported by NASA over the 

last decade can be attributed to SBIRISTTR partnerships. 

NASA Inspector General Report on Technology Transfer 

In March 2012, the NASA Inspector General issued an Audit o/NASA 's Process/or Transferring 

Technology to the Government and Private Sector. The report concluded: 

NASA has missed opportunities to transfer technologies from its research and 

development efforts and to maximize partnerships that could provide additional 

resources, and industry and the public have not fully benefited from NASAdeveloped technologies.4 

For example, the primary tracking mechanism for reporting potentially transferrable technologies 

is through New Technology Reports (NTRs). NTRs are submitted by NASA employees and 

contractors who develop new technologies and are reviewed by the IPO and Patent Counsel to 

determine their technical merit. But as the table below highlights, NASA's ability to adequately 

process NTRs and consequently move promising technologies forward has been declining. The 

table notes that despite having over 1,800 NTRs filed in FY 2011, the number of patents filed 

was only 82 (contrasted to FY 2004 when only 585 NTRs were submitted yielding 131 filed 

patents) . 

. 

" 

Cumulative 

:'>TR~ Awniting! Patfllt Tedmology 

CUlllulntin Prepm'ing Application Tramfer 

:'>TRslllldel' Patent under Patent Funding 

Fiscal Year EHlluatioll AEplkatioll Prosecution ~ 1million.l 

2004 585 6 10 131 560.00 

2005 654 6 18 135 $45.30 

]006 725 7 41 127 $38.25 

2007 844 11 81 109 326.60 

2008 1,017 14 140 117 338.10 

2009 L493 16 322 115 $.23.60 

2010 1504 30 296 98 32054 

2011 1,878 34 372 82 320.54 

4 Audit of NASA's Process for Transferring Technology to the Government and Private Sector, IG Report No. IG-12-

013, March 1, 2012, p. Iv 

Page 4 of6 
7 

As demonstrated above, the percentage of NASA's overall budget for technology transfer 

funding has steadily declined. According to the NASA IG: 

Since fiscal year 2004, funding for NASA's technology transfer efforts has 

decreased by 68 percent, from $60 million in 2004 to $19.2 million in FY2012 

[from within the Partnership Development and Strategic Integration funding line]. 

In addition, personnel resources dedicated to the technology transfer effort have 

similarly declined. For example, since FY 2003 the number of patent attorneys at 

the Centers has dropped from 29 to 19 and Headquarters IPO staffhas decreased 

from 13 in FY 2010 to just 2 in FY 2012.5 

The IG provided recommendations to the NASA Chief Technologist to improve NASA's 

technology transfer and commercial efforts. Specifically, the Chief Technologist should: 

• Implement procedures to ensure appropriate personnel are held accountable to the 

[NASA] requirements 

• Provide relevant periodic training to NASA personnel 

• Reassess the allocation of resources for technology transfer 

• Coordinate with the Chief Engineer to ensure NASA Policy Requirements emphasized 

the importance of developing Commercialization Plans 

• Coordinate. with the General Counsel to ensureNTRs are accessible to NASA project 

managers and innovators as appropriate 

The Chief Technologist concurred with the IG recommendations and is currently undergoing 

evaluations and implementing changes to improve the policies governing technology transfer and 

the training necessary to ensure Agency employees and contractors are following procedures to 

maximize effectiveness. 

NASA Spinolfs 

NASA defines a spinoff as "a commercially available product, service or process that takes 

NASA-related technology and brings it to a broader audience.,,6 

Since 1976, NASA has documented successful examples of technology transfer and 

commercialization in its annual SpinojJs publication. Over 1,750 case studies have demonstrated 

the tremendous economic and societal benefits that have been generated in fields as diverse as 

computer technology, manufacturing, health and medicine, public safety, consumer goods, and 

energy conversion and use. 

Examples from the most recent publication, SpinojJs 20]] include: 

• Impact Instrumentation, Inc., West Caldwell, New Jersey. Drawing on the expertise of 

Johnson Space Center space medicine experts under the auspices of a Space Act 

Agreement, Impact Instrumentation Inc. made advances in medical ventilator technology 

51G Report No. IG-12-013, March 1, 2012, p. iii 

6 Spinoff 2010, Forward, p. 7 

Page 50f6 
8 

now incorporated into emergency medical solutions for soldiers and civilians around the 

world. 

• Zephyr Technology, Annapolis, Maryland: Through a Space Act Agreement with Ames 

Research Center, Zephyr Technology worked with NASA physiology experts on motion 

sickness experiments, resulting in improvements to the company's wearable vital-sign 

monitors. Zephyr's monitors are now used to monitor the health and fitness of soldiers, 

first responders, pro athletes, and average consumers looking to get in shape. The 

company sells thousands of its U.S. manufactured NASA-enhanced products each month. 

• Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, California: The Space Shuttle Main Engine 

was designed under contract to NASA by Rocketdyne, now part of Pratt & Whitney 

Rocketdyne (PWR). After working with Marshall Space Flight Center, PWR used its 

rocket engine experience to make clean energy gasification technology with 10-20 

percent lower capital costs and a 10-percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, 

compared to conventional technology. 

NASA's Technology Commercialization Policy 

NASA has established formal procedural requirements for technology commercialization. 

Accordingly, NASA project managers must consider commercialization potential early in the 

project's life cycle and, where appropriate, develop a Technology Commercialization Plan and 

strategy for achieving that potential. The policy outlines considerations for the 

commercialization plan, including pursuing partnerships, cooperative agreements and Space Act 

Agreements. In addition, the policy requires that new technologies and inventions and resulting 

success stories must be reported. 

The policy provides specific and detailed guidance to NASA program and project managers 

related to formulating, approving, implementing, and evaluating their technology 

commercialization activities. Specifically, "NASA managers are challenged to use their expertise 

and apply innovative techniques to ensure that the technological assets (technologies, 

innovations, facilities and expertise) from their activities have maximum commercial 

application. ,,7 

'NASA Procedural Requirements 7500.1, "NASA Technology Commercialization Process w/Change 1 (4/9/04)" 

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg img/N PR 7500 0001 IN PR 7500 '0001 .pdf, p. 9-10 

Page 6of6 
9 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

will come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Spurring 

Economic Growth and Competitiveness through NASA–Derived 

Technologies.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written 

testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witness panel. I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I would like to begin by thanking our witnesses for taking time 

from their busy schedules to appear before us this morning and 

share their insight about the role NASA has played in spurring 

technologies that yield economic growth and keep America at the 

forefront of global technological competitiveness. I realize you and 

your staff devoted considerable time and effort preparing for this 

hearing, and I want you to know that your expertise will help inform this Committee and Congress during the coming months and 

years. 

In the public media, discussions of NASA’s general contributions 

to society are often distilled down to Tang and Teflon. Yet NASAderived technologies have paved the way for innovative advances in 

the medical field, environmental stewardship and public safety. Today’s hearing will only skim the surface in highlighting the direct 

economic and societal benefits investment in NASA has generated. 

Since 1976, NASA has documented well over 1,700 successful examples of technology transfer and commercialization. But despite 

decades of demonstrated success, NASA’s budget has remained essentially flat even as other R&D agencies are seeing increases. Investment in NASA’s technology transfer activities, however, has 

seen a drastic decline in recent years. 

A recent NASA Inspector General audit on NASA’s technology 

and commercialization efforts concluded that NASA has missed opportunities to transfer technologies and that industry and the public have not fully benefited from the NASA-developed technologies. 

The IG found a general lack of awareness among NASA program 

managers about the technology transfer and commercialization 

process and that many personnel did not understand the range of 

technologies that could be considered as technological assets. Furthermore, the report found that the number of patent attorneys 

and dedicated Innovative Partnership Office staff and related funding was insufficient given the technology transfer and commercialization potential. The IG recommended NASA implement a review of the policy process and implement new procedures and 

training requirements to ensure NASA personnel were fully aware 

of the process and their responsibilities. The IG also recommended 

that NASA reassess the allocation of resources for technology 

transfer. This Committee will follow closely NASA’s implementation of these recommendations. 

The IG report took a look at formal NASA processes in place, but 

it begs the question: does technology transfer happen in other, informal ways? And if so, how can NASA best marry entrepreneurs 

with the technologies it has already developed or those that it may 

still need for future missions? Exploring both traditional and nontraditional means for technology transfer to the private sector is 
10 

equally important if we hope to leverage space technology development as an engine for economic growth and U.S. competitiveness. 

Today’s hearing will explore positive examples of partnerships 

between NASA and the private sector yielding American-made 

technologies beneficial to both NASA’s space exploration mission 

and to society as a whole. We will also examine what strategies 

and programs NASA uses to disseminate technology into the private sector and identify the greatest challenges the private sector 

has in working with NASA to more quickly transition ideas into 

new products. 

I look forward to today’s discussion, and wish to again thank our 

witnesses for their presence. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN STEVEN M. PALAZZO

I would like to begin by thanking our witnesses for taking time from their busy 

schedules to appear before us this morning and share their insight about the role 

NASA has played in spurring technologies that yield economic growth and keep 

America at the forefront of global technological competitiveness. I realize you and 

your staff devoted considerable time and effort preparing for this hearing, and I 

want you to know that your expertise will help inform this Committee and Congress 

during the coming months and years. 

In the public media, discussions of NASA’s general contributions to society are 

often distilled down to Tang and Teflon. Yet, NASA-derived technologies have paved 

the way for innovative advances in the medical field, environmental stewardship, 

and public safety. Today’s hearing will only skim the surface in highlighting the direct economic and societal benefits investment in NASA has generated. Since 1976, 

NASA has documented well over 1,700 successful examples of technology transfer 

and commercialization. But despite decades of demonstrated success, NASA’s budget 

has remained essentially flat even as other R&D agencies are seeing increases. Investment in NASA’s technology transfer activities, however, has seen a drastic decline in recent years. 

A recent NASA Inspector General audit on NASA’s technology and commercialization efforts concluded that NASA has missed opportunities to transfer technologies 

and that industry and the public have not fully benefited from NASA-developed 

technologies. The IG found a general lack of awareness among NASA program managers about the technology transfer and commercialization process and that many 

personnel did not understand the range of technologies that could be considered as 

technological assets. Furthermore, the report found that the number of patent attorneys and dedicated Innovative Partnership Office staff—and related funding—was 

insufficient given the technology transfer and commercialzation potential. The IG 

recommended NASA implement a review of the policy process and implement new 

procedures and training requirements to ensure NASA personnel were fully aware 

of the process and their responsibilities. The IG also recommended that NASA reassess the allocation of resources for technology transfer. This Committee will follow 

closely NASA’s implementation of these recommendations. 

The IG report took a look at formal NASA processes in place, but it begs the question—does technology transfer happen in other, informal ways? And if so, how can 

NASA best marry entrepreneurs with the technologies it has already developed or 

those it may still need for future missions? Exploring both traditional and nontraditional means for technology transfer to the private sector is equally important if we 

hope to leverage space technology development as an engine for economic growth 

and U.S. competitiveness. 

Today’s hearing will explore positive examples of partnerships between NASA and 

the private sector yielding American-made technologies beneficial to both NASA’s 

space exploration mission and to society as a whole. We will also examine what 

strategies and programs NASA uses to disseminate technology into the private sector and identify the greatest challenges the private sector has in working with 

NASA to more quickly transition ideas into new products. 

I look forward to today’s discussion, and wish to again thank our witnesses for 

their presence. 
11 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Costello for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for calling the hearing today. I have a brief opening statement which I 

will enter into the record so that we can hear from the witnesses. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:] 

Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing 

on NASA spinoffs. 

NASA technologies produce direct economic and societal benefits for all Americans. Since the agency was established in 1958, technical challenges of NASA’s 

space exploration, space science, and aeronautics missions have led to technological 

advances, unique skills, and scientific knowledge that have contributed to America’s 

capacity for innovation and global competitiveness. 

Mr. Chairman, this hearing serves as an opportunity to educate the public on the 

connection between the federal government’s investments in space and the benefits 

to society. These contributions developed important products, such as satellite radio, 

medical diagnostics and aeronautical advances that have improved the safety, and 

fuel-efficiency performance of both commercial and military aircraft. 

In carrying out its missions and developing these technologies, NASA also has inspired young people to enter educational and career paths in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on what steps can be taken to enhance NASA’s technology transfer and commercialization processes, how to increase 

the impacts of NASA-applied technologies to the economy and society at large, and 

ways to improve NASA’s communication to the public to ensure the societal benefits 

of its technology and R&D are better understood and appreciated. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Costello. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses and 

we will proceed to hear from each of them in order. 

Our first witness is Dr. Mason Peck. Dr. Peck is Chief Technology Officer for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where he serves as the agency’s principal advisor and advocate on matters concerning technology policy and programs. Prior 

to joining NASA, Dr. Peck was Associate Professor in the School of 

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Cornell for eight years. 

He earned his Ph.D. in aerospace engineering at the University of 

California at Los Angeles. Dr. Peck has a broad background in 

aerospace technology, which comes from nearly 20 years in industry and academia. 

Our next witness is Mr. George Beck, Chief Clinical and Technology Officer for Impact Instrumentation Incorporated, where he 

is responsible for the conceptualization and development of new 

critical-care medical devices. He previously worked for Wyle Laboratories at the Johnson Space Center, where he led a team of scientists and engineers on work to develop a new generation of medical equipment for use on the International Space Station and 

space shuttle. 

At this time I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, who will introduce our next witness. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and to our 

Ranking Member. It is a really great privilege to be able to introduce Brian Russell, who is the CEO and founder of Zephyr Technology in Annapolis, Maryland, and just to give you a little bit of 
12 

background, Mr. Russell received his bachelor’s of engineering degree from Auckland University in New Zealand is a subject-matter 

expert in analog and electronics communications and physiology. 

He holds three patents and several more provisional applications 

in the area of physiological sensing using smart fabric sensors. 

Zephyr Technology is headquartered in Annapolis, has investors 

like Motorola, 3M, and investors that understand government and 

business, and employs 35 people at Zephyr and is a global leader 

in the art and science of remote physiological status monitoring, or 

PSM. I am delighted to be able to welcome Brian Russell to the 

Committee today, and know that we are proud, as all of our states 

are, in Maryland the kind of relationship that has developed between the private sector and the public sector and the innovation 

and technology exhibited by Mr. Russell and by Zephyr Technology 

and welcome his testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

Our next witness is Mr. John Vilja, Vice President for Strategy, 

Innovation and Growth at Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne. Mr. 

Vilja has enjoyed a 28-year career with Rocketdyne and was most 

recently the Vice President and Program Manager for the J–2X 

Earth Departure Stage Engine Program for NASA’s Space Launch 

System. He earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering 

from California State University-Northridge and an M.B.A. degree 

from the Anderson Graduate School of Management at the University of California in Los Angeles. 

Our final witness is Mr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice President of 

Moog Incorporated. Dr. Aubrecht has spent the bulk of his 40-year 

career at Moog after having earned his B.S., M.S. and doctorate degrees in mechanical engineering from Cornell University. 

Welcome to you all. As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each. After all witnesses have spoken, Members of Committee will have five minutes each to ask 

questions. 

I now recognize as our first witness, Dr. Mason Peck, for five 

minutes to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MASON PECK, 

CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. PECK. Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Costello and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

on NASA’s technology transfer and commercialization efforts and 

how investments in cutting-edge research and development efforts 

such as those seen through space exploration can benefit the entire 

Nation. 

On a personal note, I am honored to be serving as NASA’s Chief 

Technologist. As the NASA Administrator’s top advisor on technology, I am responsible for a number of things, and that is guiding 

strategic agency investments in technology, facilitating technology 

transfer, partnerships in commercialization activities across the 

agency, advocating externally on behalf of NASA’s R&D programs, 

demonstrating and communicating societal impacts of NASA tech-
13 

nology investments, and overseeing executive management of 

NASA’S Space Technology Program. 

As we seek to achieve our national objectives in human space, exploration, aeronautics and scientific discovery, we share with the 

public the technical advancements we make so that our Nation 

may benefit from these new ideas in other areas such as efficiencies in manufacturing, advanced medical procedures and protocols, increased agricultural yields and cleaner, safer transportation. 

NASA’s innovations also stimulate the growth of our innovation 

economy. Knowledge provided by weather and navigational spacecraft, efficiency improvements in both ground and air transportation, supercomputers, solar- and wind-generated energy, improved biomedical applications including advanced medical imaging 

as well as the protective gear that keeps our military, firefighters 

and police safe, all of these have benefited from our Nation’s investments in aerospace technology. 

NASA provides America with unique capabilities because we 

take on extraordinarily difficult problems in technology and 

science. By taking humans to inhospitable places, we learn key survival skills, and about keeping people healthy when the nearest 

hospital is days away. This translates into benefits like the advanced ultrasound devices created in partnership with NASA: 

Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and the company Epiphan in 

Springfield, New Jersey. Using a portable ultrasound machine, a 

non-physician can, with minimal technical know-how, send medical 

imaging from remote locations for consultation with experts. This 

device is now employed by emergency medical personnel around 

the country, as well as by coaches and sports teams. This is one 

of hundreds of examples of how solving technical problems in aerospace also leads us to invent technologies that make life better 

right here on Earth. It is a single example but it is one of nearly 

2,000 that NASA has collected in its annual spin-off publication 

and I will be glad to provide examples of that publication to you. 

I have also brought with me a couple of other examples of very 

compelling spin-offs—we have got them right here—products derived from NASA technology. So first let me point out this. It is 

called the Rescue Pod. It increases blood flow to the brain and 

heart during CPR. It doubles systolic blood pressure and increases 

survivability. It is used by our armed forces overseas and our EMS 

units around the country. It was designed as an emergency contingency device to regular blood flow of astronauts transitioning from 

the reduced gravity environment of space back to earth’s gravity 

but now it saves lives and it came from space. 

I have to talk about Micro-Bac, and there is a couple samples 

here of sand. Both of them were taken from the Gulf shores are the 

Deepwater Horizon oil-rig spill. One was treated with a solution 

developed by NASA through our SBIR program. That’s the Small 

Business Innovation Research Program. Marshall Space Flight center in Alabama and Micro-Bac International of Round Rock, Texas, 

developed a phototropic cell for water purification in space. Inside 

the cell are millions of photosynthetic bacteria. That formulation is 

now used for the remediation of wastewater systems and waste 

from livestock farms and food manufacturers but strains of that 

same SBIR-derived bacteria also feature microbial solutions that 
14 

treat environmentally damaging oil spills from the dirty sands 

right here to the clean sand that I have got in front of me. 

And then my cell phone. Most of us have one of these. I am holding up a standard smartphone here, and I am not about to tell you 

that NASA invented the cell phone but NASA did bring you the cell 

phone camera right in there. One of our inventors, Eric Fossum out 

of the Jet Propulsion Lab in California, designed and developed 

that CMOS camera on a chip that drove the prices of digital imaging sensors low enough that modern cell phones now have cameraquality capabilities. It is a particularly striking example because 

NASA technology finds its way into our pockets. 

So NASA technology is all around us. It is making our lives better, and we have hundreds of these stories to share. We do this 

through our annual spin-off publication. It is a longstanding NASA 

tradition where the agency publishes a report on some of these annual technology successes. 

Let me move on to talk about NASA’s commitment to tech transfer. We have added technology transfer to the top-level agency-wide 

performance goals that are reported annually to the Office of Management and Budget. We do have room for improvement, though. 

You mentioned the IG report. They concluded that we lack—or 

NASA personnel lack awareness of the agency’s technology transfer 

policy requirements; assets aren’t consistently identified or fully 

understood; innovators lack awareness of new technology reporting 

processes, and new reports are inaccessible. NASA agrees with 

these findings and we are taking advantage of that report to make 

improvements in the program. I have got a number of things I can 

offer here but my time is about up. 

So in closing, let me offer you a couple of final thoughts. We are 

discussing today NASA’s considerable success in tech transfer and 

commercialization but we have to remember that these great spinoffs rely on NASA having an ongoing, robust investment in research and technology. If we don’t create new technologies, we will 

have no new transformational capabilities, new industries, new 

economic growth and jobs or tech transfer as a result of all those. 

This is why continued investment by America in research and technology programs such as NASA’s Space Technology Program is essential. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support and that of the Committee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the 

other Committee Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Peck follows:] 
15 

HOLD FOR RELEASE 

UNTIL PRESENTED 

BY WITNESS 

July 12,2012 

Statement of 

Dr. Mason Peck 

Chief Technologist 

National Aeronautics and Space Admiuistration 

before the 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronantics 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on NASA's 

technology transfer and cormnercialization efforts and how investments in cutting-edge research and 

development endeavors such as those seen through space exploration benefit the entire Nation. With the 

FY 2013 President's budget request for NASA, America is moving forward with an ambitious program of 

space exploration that builds on new technologies as well as proven capabilities as we expand humanity's 

reach into the solar system. While reaching for new heights in space, NASA is creating new jobs right 

here on Earth, especially for the next generation of American scientists and engineers, by supporting 

cutting-cdge innovations in aeronautics and space technology research and development that will help 

fuel the Nation's economy for years to corne. 

On a personal note, I am honored to be at NASA serving as its Chief Technologist. As the NASA 

Administrator's top advisor on technology, I am responsible for guiding strategic Agency investments in 

technology; facilitating technology transfer, partoerships and commercialization activities across the 

Agency; advocating externally on behalf of NASA's R&D programs; demonstrating and cormnunicating 

societal impacts of NASA technology investments; as well as, the executive management of the Space 

Technology Program. 

The National Research Council (NRC) recently released its review of NASA's Space Technology 

Roadmaps, a comprehensive collection of technology strategies and pathways to advance the Nation's 

cnrrent capabilities in space. "Success in executing future NASA space missions will depend on 

advanced technology developments that should already be underway," wrote the NRC. "It has been years 

since NASA has had a vigorous, broad-based program in advanced space technology development, and 

NASA's technology base is largely depleted." The Space Technology Program has been engineered to 

refocus NASA on solving the toughest technological challenges so our Nation can pursue goals currently 

beyond our grasp. 

As requested in your invitation to appear today, my testimony will address NASA technology transfer and 

cormnercialization efforts, which are often referred to as "spinoffs," and how NASA broadly shares its 

research and development to benefit commercial endeavors and the Nation. My testimony will also 

discuss a critically important part of this process-how the Office of the Chief Technologist coordinates 

and prioritizes R&D investment across NASA, and what NASA is doing to address the [mdings cited in 

the Inspector General audit of the Agency's technology transfer activities. 

1 
16 

NASA Research and Technologies Drive the Growing Space Industry 

Since its inception, NASA has been charged by its founding legislation The National Aeronautics and 

Space Act of 1958 to "provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information 

concerning its activities and the results thereof." As we seek to achieve our national objectives in human 

space exploration, aeronautics, and scientific discovery, we create signposts in the form of data and 

research results that serve as pathfinders for subsequent advancements within the aerospace community. 

To give a sense of the magnitude of data available, NASA's Technical Reports Server (NTRS), which 

makes the Agency's technical literature and engineering results available to the public, holds over 

500,000 aerospace-related citations, 200,000 full-text online documents, and 500,000 images and videos. 

Each year over 3.3 million people access NTRS. NTRS content continues to grow as new scientific and 

technical information is created or funded by NASA. The types of information found in the NTRS 

include conference papers, journal articles, meeting papers, patents, research reports, images, movies, and 

technical videos. 

Commercial aerospace enterprise and researchers alike have access to and utilize data and analysis on 

topics such as: aerodynamics, propulsion, aircraft construction, materials, engineering, mathematical and 

computer sciences and so much more. By sharing NASA's fmdings and results, and making available 

NASA expertise to industry, the Agency has enabled airplane manufacturers to find the data they needed 

to build more fuel efficient aircraft. Satellite manufacturers have learned what materials endure in the 

harsh environment of space, thanks to reports from the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) and the 

Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) test beds. In addition, NASA's workforce 

provides technical assistance. By providing companies with support from Agency experts, NASA can 

help solve technical challenges similar to those seen by the Agency. This hands-on support has helped 

companies like SpaceX quickly determine what type of heat shield was required to return cargo safely 

from space. 

NASA Aeronautics Technology 

NASA continues to lay the foundation for the future of flight by exploring new ways to manage air 

traffic, build more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly airplanes, and ensure aviation's outstanding 

safety record. Througb the research we conduct and sponsor with universities and industry, we help to 

develop the technology that enables continuous innovation in aviation. 

NASA-developed technologies are in the DNA of many of the civil and military aircraft the U.S. industry 

has developed and marketed to date. American manufacturers have introduced highly competitive aircraft 

and engines in the last two years. With the introduction of these new products, our Nation's 

manufacturers appear to be well positioned in the large commercial transport market for some time to 

come. However, their success is not assured, and careful attention to aeronautics investment is required 

to maintain American leadership in this area. 

NASA is investing in cutting edge research to accelerate implementation and enhance the capabilities of 

the Nation's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) in partnership with the FAA and 

other Joint Planning and Development Office partners. With our partners, we are investing in critical 

areas of research such as new air traffic management concepts for new fuel-efficient arrival procedures. 

And we are leading the country with a vision and revolutionary capabilities for the Nation's future air 

transportation system, researching concepts and technologies that may provide the foundation for future 

commercial products and services brought to the market. 

We transfer the outcome offundamental and systems-level aeronautics research to the aerospace 

community through dissemination of research results, concepts, and design methods. In some instances, 

companies may build on specific technologies and capabilities developed through NASA research, 

2 
17 

investing their own research and development reSOUrces to take those last steps toward becoming a 

commercialized product. In other instances, NASA provides design methods and understanding used by 

companies in developing new products. By maturing new technologies and validating design methods, 

NASA research can help decrease the risk of incorporating new technologies and systems in aircraft, 

shortening the path through safety certification in the Federal Aviation Administration and speeding the 

transition of new technologies into the fleet. 

Sparking Innovation on Earth 

While not the Agency's primary objective, NASA provides America with unique capabilities simply 

because we take on extraordinarily difficult problems in technology and science. By taking humans to 

inhospitable places, we learn key skills, like keeping people healthy when the nearest hospital is days 

away. Meeting these challenges translates into benefits like the advanced ultrasound devices created in 

partnership with NASA, Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, and the Epiphan company in Springfield, New 

Jersey. Using this portable ultrasound machine, a non-physician can, with minimal technical know-how, 

send medical imaging for consultation with experts. This device is now employed by emergency medical 

personnel around the country, as well as by coaches and sports teams. This example is just one of 

hundreds that show how solving technical problems in aerospace, we are also inventing technologies that 

make life better right here on Earth. 

NASA's investments also stimulate the growth of the innovation economy. Knowledge provided by 

weather and navigational spacecraft, efficiency improvements in both ground and air transportation, super 

computers, solar- and wind-generated energy, the cameras found in many oftoday's cell phones, 

improved biomedical applications including advanced medical imaging and even more nutritious infant 

formula, as well as the protective gear that keeps our military, firefighters and police safe, have all 

benefitted from our nation's investments in aerospace technology. 

We also see benefits of NASA innovation with companies like GreenField Solar, who developed 

PhotoVolt solar cells through cooperation with NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. 

When paired with the StarGen solar concentrator, which tracks and captures the sun's rays throughout the 

day, this system can concentrate sunlight up to 900 times its normal intensity to dramatically boost the 

efficiency of solar panels. Greenfield solar is now generating grid-scale solar power at a lower cost per 

kilowatt-hour than most existing photovoltaic systems. U.S. job opportunities will increase as GreenField 

ramps up its commercialization efforts. This is a single example, but one of nearly 2,000 NASA has 

collected in its annual Spinoff publication. 

While these stories provide a collective and qualitative answer to the question of the benefits of NASA 

technology here on Earth, the question still remains as to the true return on investment of NASA's 

activities. Toward that end, NASA has begun new methods for capturing the impact of secondary use of 

NASA-funded discoveries. A multiplier showing NASA's return on investment is not the goal. Rather, 

NASA is working to supplement the traditional reporting in Spinoffwith quantitative data, and through 

analysis of this data, providing a better understanding and an ongoing measurable record of the societal 

benefits resulting from the Agency's investment in innovation. By surveying firms represented by those 

stories inSpinojJ, NASA has collected quantitative data retrospectively on the numbers of jobs created; 

revenue generated; productivity and efficiency improvements; lives saved; and lives improved as a result 

of NASA technology transfer. 

NASA will collect and standardize reporting of these quantitative benefits each year, as the Spinoffstories 

are collected and developed. While only a subset of all the benefits generated by the Nation's investment 

in space research and technology, this new qualitative framework provides a sustainable and consistent 

3 
18 

source of data from the top technology transfer successes published in Spinoff each year, with the data 

coming directly from the firms that are commercializing NASA technologies. 

To date, the returns have proven impressive. NASA can now say with certainty that technology transfer 

has helped to create thousands of jobs, generated billions of dollars in revenue, and saved hundreds of 

thousands of lives. For example, we consider the worldwide search and rescue system founded thanks to 

NASA innovation. Enabled in part by satellite ground stations developed and constructed by a NASA 

partner, the true value of this spinoff is incalculable-more than 30,000 lives saved, on average more than 

6 a day, from the highly publicized 2010 rescue of teen sailor Abby Sunderland to fishermen, hikers, and 

adventurers around the world. While this type of data represents an important aspect of NASA's efforts 

to document its spinoff successes, it still tells only a part of the exciting, complex, and unique stories of 

the NASA and industry innovators who create these technologies, the partnerships that help deliver them 

to the public, and the individuals and communities who benefit. 

Technology Transfer 

NASA's directional shift toward increased technology development has allowed the agency to energize 

the inventors, engineers and technologists, enlisting their help in bridging the gap from today's NASA to 

that of tomorrow. New technologies will bring improvements in how we explore, navigate and 

understand our universe. They will also represent new opportunities for industry and small businesses 

alike to gain from government funded research and development. Through the work of the NASA 

Innovative Partnership Office(IPO), the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) develops partnerships 

and manages the transfer of NASA-developed technology to industry, connecting NASA's research and 

development to those who can apply it to commercial use. 

IPO works with all NASA Mission Directorates·and Centers to ensure Agency-developed technologies, 

processes, discoveries, and knowledge are available to the private sector. Technology transfer at NASA 

is conducted through various means including public-private partnerships with local, state and regional 

organizations; collaborations and cooperative activities with commercial companies, other Government 

agencies and academic and research institutions for the purpose of developing technologies to both enable 

NASA to meet its mission needs and to contribute to the nation's commercial competitiveness; and 

traditional intellectual property management, such as licensing of patented teclmologies. 

This spring, the NASA Inspector General concluded an audit of NASA's technology transfer activities 

and noted that: 

NASA personnel lack awareness of the agency's technology transfer policy requirements; 

technological assets are not consistently identified or fully understood; 

innovators lack awareness of new technology reporting process; and, 

new technology reports are inaccessible. 

NASA agreed with the findings and is making improvements to its program and process. 

The Agency is rewriting its technology transfer policies to better match current best practices as well as 

address commercialization planning. The new policy will provide a streamlined, broad, flexible approach 

to core technology transfer activities, with an emphasis on coordination of technology transfer offices 

with programs and projects. This increased coordination will assist NASA in best understanding the 

value of identified technological assets. Revised policies will go into effect in 2013, at which time NASA 

will pursue activities to increase internal awareness of these policies. 

4 
19 

To build awareness of the new technology reporting requirements, NASA has launched a series of 

initiatives to increase new invention capture, including the development of an online training module, a 

redesign of the online system for invention disclosure, and an active outreach campaign. 

Building awareness of the new technology reporting and technology transfer processes will improve the 

understanding of what happens when a new technology report is submitted. Additionally, the engagement 

with programs and projects at the early stages of commercialization planning will further help innovators 

to understand what happens when a new technology report is submitted. 

NASA is also considering development of a system, similar to a package delivery tracking system, where 

innovators would log on to the online submission system to see where in the process the disclosure is. 

NASA embraces the challenges of addressing the Inspector General's concerns, as the Agency recognizes 

the importance of this program, not only to NASA, but also the Nation. 

Not only is technology transfer important to NASA, but the President charged all Federal agencies with 

accelerating technology transfer activities' and, thereby, the benefits of Federally-funded research and 

development investments. NASA is strategically positioned to answer that call, building upon a legacy of 

leadership in technology and transfer of space and aeronautics research for public benefit. In response to 

that directive, NASA is in the process of developing a five-year plan to improve its technology transfer 

program activities. Key objectives in the draft plan include the following: 

fill the technology-transfer pipeline through a renewed, Agency-wide emphasis in technology 

research and development; 

• revise the Agency's policies on commercialization to ensure alignment with NASA's current 

focus on technology development and hest practices in technology transfer; 

• build partnerships for technology development, transfer, and mutual benefit; 

• tie the technology-transfer process into all stages of technology development, ensuring that 

formal technology transfer is considered even at the earliest stages, when programs and activities 

are being formulated and acquisitions planned; 

• increase the number of new technologies reported by NASA civil servants and contractors; 

improve licensing processes and outcomes; and, 

• consider other tools and authorities for accelerating licensing of technologies. 

Each ofthese objectives is supported by a series of identified activities and metrics, and the NASA field 

center technology transfer offices are working to develop an implementation plan to move out on these 

activities in FY 2013. 

Additionally, NASA is in the process of supplementing the ~ore Agency technology transfer capabilities 

by restoring resources for technology assessment~, bridge funding, market analysis, and marketing of 

technologies. 

1 Presidential Memorandum -- Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization oj Federal Research in Support of High~Growth 

Businesses hup:l/www,whitehouse.gov/the-press-officel201 I1JOI28Ipresidential-memorandum-accelerating-techno!og;Nransfer..and-commerciali 

5 
20 

NASA has already implemented improvements in communication of its technology transfer efforts 

through the launch of its new Technology Transfer Portal: http://technology.nasa.gov. The portal is an 

Internet-based, one-stop shop for the Agency's intellectual property assets. The site features a searchable, 

categorized database of NASA's patents, a module for reaching out to a NASA technology transfer 

specialist, and articles about past successful commercialization of NASA technology. Historical and realtime data for NASA's technology transfer program also are available at any time. The public can access 

interactive graphs showing how many inventions NASA is reporting, how many of those are patented, 

and how any are licensed to industry for commercial application. 

Other initiatives have been identified and are being implemented to help NASA fulfill its technology 

transfer goal and objectives such as, an automated licensing pilot and a student business plan competition 

built around NASA intellectual property. 

To further demonstrate NASA's commitment to technology transfer, NASA has added technology 

transfer to the top-level, Agency-wide performance goals reported annually to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). For FY 2012 to 2013, One of NASA's five Agency Priority Goals (APGs) is a set of 

key technology transfer metrics. This performance goal emphasizes that NASA is committed to the 

transfer of NASA technologies to industry, academia and other Government agencies to improve the U.S. 

economy and the quality oflife for all Americans. 

Investments in Space Technology Spur Inuovation 

Each NASA mission takes years of planning and development to ensure its success, and every NASA 

mission has been made possible by pushing the technology envelope. If NASA and this Nation are to 

reach the goals set for us by this Congress, we must drive to innovate. The Office of the Chief 

Technologist (OCT) coordinates the Agency's technology programs, one of which is the Space 

Technology Program. This program's mission is advancing technologies and concepts that address 

NASA's needs and contribute to other aerospace and national needs. It is no accident that the same office 

is the home of both technology development and transfer efforts; the two are naturally synergistic. OCT 

identifies development needs across the Agency, prioritizes those needs according to stakeholder input, 

and reduces duplication to ensure that the Agency's resources are used wisely. By coordinating 

technology programs across NASA, OCT facilitates infusion of available and new technology into 

systems that ultimately advance specific human-exploration missions, science missions, and aeronautics 

capabilities. And with the help of the incredible new ideas that are emerging from the Space Technology 

Program, OCT is helping to ensure a robust technology transfer enterprise for the Agency. 

In managing the Space Teclmology Program, OCT employs a portfolio approach, investing in both 

crosscutting and human exploration specific technology needs for the Agency. The broadly relevant 

technologies heing pursued within the Program span a range of discipline areas and teclmology readiness 

levels (TRL) from concept study to flight demonstration, including technology demonstrations conducted 

on the International Space Station. 

Building partnerships for technology development, transfer, and mutual benefit is a key objective of the 

Space Technology Program. NASA's partnership programs are robust, maximizing our resources and 

increasing benefits to the Agency and the Nation as a whole. NASA participates in national technologydevelopment initiatives such as the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the Advanced Manufacturing 

Partnership and the National Robotics Initiative to increase opportunities for collaborative technology 

development. In the latter, four agencies (the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of 

Health, NASA, and the Department of Agriculture) have issued a joint solicitation that will provide up to 

$70 million in research funding for next-generation robotics. This partnership focuses on developing 

6 
21 

robots that work with or beside people to extend or augment human capabilities, taking advantage of the 

different strengths of humans and robots. In addition to investing in the core technology needed for nextgeneration robotics, the initiative will support applications such as robots that can: increase the 

productivity of workers in the manufacturing sector; assist astronauts in complex, hazardous, and 

challenging missions; help scientists accelerate the discovery of new, life-saving drugs; and improve food 

safety by rapidly sensing microbial contamination. 

Space Technology development takes place using NASA centers, academia and industry, and through 

collaboration with other Govermnent agencies and international partners. Investments include both 

competitively awarded and strategically-gnided activities to address long-term Agency technology 

priorities and technology gaps identified within the Agency's space technology roadmaps. Space 

Technology invests in crosscutting technologies that could benefit human exploration, change the way 

science missions are conducted and increase efficiency for American industries. 

The Space Technology theme also includes the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small 

Business Technology Transfer (STIR), which encourage small business owners to provide technical 

innovations. SBIR and STTR continue to support early-stage research and development performed by 

small businesses through competitively awarded contracts. These programs produce innovations for both 

Government and commercial applications. SBIR and STTR provide the high-technology small business 

sector with an opportunity to develop technology for NASA, and commercialize that technology in order 

to provide goods and services that address other national needs based on the products of NASA 

innovation. NASA recently selected 260 SBIR Phase I and 85 SBIR Phase II awards, and 40 STIR 

Phase I and ten STIR Phase II awards. 

In all, NASA's Space Technology Program has already funded roughly 1,000 technology projects and 

engaged thousands of engineers and technologists since its inception in 2011. Several of these projects 

have hardware ready to test and fly in FY 2013 as they mature their technology for infusion into a future 

mission or capability. So far in FY 2012, NASA has selected 48 students for Space Technology Research 

Fellowships. These fellowships allow NASA to engage the next generation of innovators in developing 

promising technologies supportive of NASA 's missions and strategic goals. They join Space 

Technology'S inaugnral class of79 student researchers returning to continue their second year of 

research. On the International Space Station, we have demonstrated precise maneuvers with the robotic 

refueling mission, an effort we co-fund with the Human Exploration and Operations directorate at NASA. 

In additiou, we have been remotely controlling robots on the ISS, including Robonaut, NASA's humanoid 

robot handyman. We have entry, descent and landing sensors riding on board the heat shield of the Mars 

Curiosity Rover waiting to collect data on the Martian atmosphere during entry. We are excited to see 

Curiosity reach its fmal destination on Augnst 6, 2012. 

The Nation's first Space-Based Laboratory-Open for Business 

The International Space Station (ISS) is fully complete. Many consider it to be oue of humanity's 

greatest technological achievements. Its state-of-the-art research facilities support a wide variety of 

research disciplines. Examples include high-energy particle physics; Earth remote sensing and 

geophysics experiments; protein crystallization experiments; human physiology research (including bone 

and muscle research); radiation research; plant and cultivation experiments; combustion research; fluid 

research; materials science experiments; and biological investigations. The three major science 

laboratories aboard the ISS: the U.S. Destiny, European Columbus, and Japanese Kibo facilities, along 

with external test beds, enable astronauts to conduct experiments in the unique, microgravity and ultravacuum environment of LEO, experiments that simply cannot be conducted on Earth. The range of 

research disciplines that ISS supports means that research and development conducted aboard Station 

7 
22 

promises new discoveries not only in areas directly related to NASA's exploration efforts, but in fields 

that have terrestrial applications, as well. 

In the NASA Authorization Act of2010 (P.L. 111-267), Congress directed that the Agency enter into a 

cooperative agreement with a not-for-profit organization to manage the activities of the ISS National 

Laboratory. Last fall, NASA finalized an agreement with the Center for the Advancement of Science in 

Space (CASIS) to manage the portion of the ISS that operates as a U.S. National laboratory. CASIS will 

be located in the Space Life Sciences Laboratory at the NASA Kennedy Space Center. This independent, 

nonprofit, research-management organization will help ensure the Station's unique capabilities are 

available to a broad cross-section of American scientific, technological and industrial communities. 

CASIS will develop and manage a varied research and development portfolio based on U.S. national 

needs for basic and applied research, establish a marketplace to facilitate matching research pathways 

with qualified funding sources, and stimulate future interest in using this national lab for research and 

technology demonstrations and as a platform for science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

education. The goal is to support, promote and accelerate innovations and new discoveries in science, 

engineering and technology that will improve life on Earth. 

In addition to the direct research benefits to be gained by the ISS as a National Laboratory, this innovative 

arrangement also supports NASA's effort to promote the development of a LEO space economy. 

National Lab partners can use the unique microgravity environment of space and the advanced research 

facilities aboard Station to enable investigations that may give them the edge in the global competition to 

develop valuable, high technology products and services. Furthermore, the demand for access to the ISS 

will support the providers of commercial crew and cargo systems. Both of these aspects of the ISS as a 

National Laboratory will help establish and demonstrate the market for research in LEO beyond the 

reqnirements of NASA. 

Conclusion 

America is beginning an exciting new chapter in human space exploration and scientific discovery. 

Revolutionizing aerospace science and taking informed risks, NASA and our Nation remain at the cutting 

edge. 

Whether we are developing needed technologies for space exploration or advancing the nation's 

aeronautics capabilities, great ideas from NASA have a way of spreading to the benefit of everyone. It 

should corne as no surprise, then, that the technologies powering NASA missions are used by pioneering 

individuals to create and improve products and services that benefit life on Earth. Investments in research 

and development enable new missions, stimulate the economy, contribute to the Nation's global 

competitiveness and inspire the Nation's next generation of scientists, engineers and explorers. 

As a professor at Cornell University, I have had the honor of working with talented faculty and students 

who share my passion for space. For most of the past decade, very few of us who have wanted to 

contribute to the Nation's civil space program have had the opportunity to do so. The desire to engage 

with NASA is overwhelming. We see this in the fact that OCT receives many more proposals to its 

solicitations than it can afford to fund. And I have seen it personally, in the hundreds of students who 

have worked with me on two university-built satellite projects. This experience gave them the skills 

needed to step into the engineering workforce prepared to problem solve and innovate. NASA must 

continue to cast a wide net to bring in the best ideas, wherever they may be found. 

A NASA focused on advancing technology helps ensure that high-tech jobs will be available for these 

young people when they complete their studies. And in sponsoring research and development, it will do 

8 
23 

its part to encourage the next generation of aerospace engineers, ensuring that our Nation retains the 

critical capabilities in advanced technology that will ensure its economic competitiveness. 

Our Nation's future economic success is tied to our ability to out-innovate the rest of the world. NASA is 

an important part of this future. America expects boldness from NASA. We are now returning to our 

innovation roots, taking the long-term view of technological advancement that is essential for 

accomplishing our missions. America expects no less. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support, and that of this Subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

9 
24 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Peck. 

I now recognize our next witness, Mr. George Beck, for five minutes to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE BECK, 

CHIEF CLINICAL AND TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, 

IMPACT INSTRUMENTATION, INC. 

Mr. BECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the owners of Impact Instrumentation 

and the employees. We are a small business in New Jersey, and 

this is a unique opportunity for all of us. 

Our relationship with NASA has not been a traditional spin-off. 

It has actually been more of a spin-in. Impact Instrumentation has 

developed and manufactured life-support equipment used by the 

Department of Defense and other government organizations as well 

as civilian care providers for the last 35 years. 

While I was a member of Wyle Laboratories at the Johnson 

Space Center, our group modified an Impact ventilator that was 

currently being used by the military to transport critically ill and 

injured war fighters back and forth from Iraq and Afghanistan. We 

developed the device to answer the needs for space and improve its 

capabilities so that it could work in a bi-directional matter. While 

the modified ventilator was never used in space, its development 

helped identify a method whereby NASA and industry could work 

cooperatively to leverage commercial technology for space. 

Working together, we have developed a number of prototypes for 

advanced life-support devices that replace a suite of therapeutic 

and monitoring equipment. In addition, Impact has completed development of a new ventilator that is deployed with our forces that 

has also been tested by NASA with the anticipation that it would 

replace existing equipment on space station when it is retired. 

That said, our biggest leverage has really been the cultivation of 

a new generation of young engineers and researchers that are 

working at NASA, at Impact or in academic centers or have left to 

start their own small businesses. The Space Act Agreement created 

a government, industry and academic partnership that has allowed 

our group to work on a series of medical challenges, sharing in the 

institutional knowledge and experience of the organizations while 

developing solutions that currently now benefit war fighters, astronauts and civilians, so I look forward to answering any questions 

that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beck follows:] 
25 

Congressional Testimony 12 July 2012 

George Beck Chief Clinical and Technical Officer 

Impact Instrumentation, Inc. West Caldwell, NJ 

1. How did your company partner with NASA and what technologies resulted from that partnership? 

How have you leveraged those technologies into commercial products? 

Response: 

Our relationship with NASA has not been the traditional spin off, it has been more of a spin in. 

Impact Instrumentation, Inc. has developed and manufactured life support equipment that is used 

by the Department of Defense (DOD), other governments and civilian care providers for the last 35 

years. While I was a member of the Wyle laboratories Advanced Projects Group at NASA our group 

modified the Impact ventilator that the military was using to treat and transport critically injured 

warfighters from the battlefield, through in-theater care and back home to the United States. The 

testing and certification that the device needed to meet military specification is very similar to the 

requirements NASA has for equipment used in space. While the modified ventilator was never used 

in space, its development helped identify a method whereby NASA and industry could work 

cooperatively to leverage commercial technology for space. 

I joined Impact and we began a series of projects to develop new technology for the military that 

expanded the level of care for ill or injured patients while at the same time reducing the mass, 

volume and power of these devices. We received funding from the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA), US Army Medical Material Development Agency (USAMMDA) and the 

Office of Naval Research (ONR). Recognizing that these solutions would be useful for both military 

and space applications, we developed a series of noncompensated Space Act Agreements that 

enabled Impact to share technology that we were developing with NASA. This allowed NASA 

engineers access to the technology early enough in its development so that they could identify 

space-specific issues that may require change to the device or its implementation in order to meet 

operation and safety issues unique to the NASA mission. It also allows NASA to be part of the 

device's required Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ISO testing and use these tests as a 

method to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the space device. 

Working together we have developed a number of prototypes of an advance life support device 

that replaces a suite of therapeutic and monitoring equipment. In addition, Impact has completed 

development of a new ventilator that is deployed with our forces and has also been tested by NASA 

with the anticipation that it would replace existing equipment on the space station when it is 

retired. 

That said, the biggest leverage has been the cultivation of a new generation of young engineers 

that are working at NASA, at Impact or who have left the projects to start their own businesses. The 

Space Act Agreement (SAA) created a government, industry and academic partnership that allowed 

our group to work on a series of medical challenges, sharing in the institutional knowledge and 
26 

experience of the organization while developing solutions that benefit the warfighter, astronauts 

and civilians. 

2. What has been the direct economic benefit ofthis investment? What are the other benefits to 

society in general that can be derived from these products? 

Response: 

We have benefited by the addition of NASA and NASA-contracted engineers that have been part 

of the different programs under the SAA. Their labor has contributed to the development and 

testing of equipment we have developed for the DoD and civilian use. In addition, as a small 

business, we have benefited from the association with NASA. Though we have never marketed 

our products with any association with NASA it is known in the military that we work with NASA 

and that has positively affected the standing our company, products and development efforts. 

Societal benefits are difficult to determine but as a group we have authored a number of peerreviewed papers on telemedicine, care of critically ill or injured patients in remote environments 

and dosed-loop control of mechanical ventilation and other therapeutic modalities whereby the 

devices will be able to manage themselves in the absence of a skilled care provider. Devices that 

have been commercialized are smaller, lighter and more capable than commercial devices that, 

is years ago, weighed ten times more than the equipment our military is now using. These 

breakthroughs are benefiting our military and will benefit NASA as the next generation of space 

missions get underway. Civilians around the world have benefited as technology that we've 

shared with NASA has been used to treat earthquake victims in Haiti and is stockpiled for use by 

a number of nations around the world as part of their disaster preparedness programs. 

3. How might future partnerships with NASA enable continued technology developments? 

Response: 

Just as NASA is partnering with commercial aerospace companies to develop its next generation 

space vehicles, it should also partner with other industries to develop capabilities that are 

needed in for both space and terrestrial applications. DOing this: 

1. leverages the resources of both organizations. NASA benefits through direct access 

to emerging technology while the company benefits through access to a talented 

population of engineers and researchers as well as use of the finest collection of test 

and evaluation laboratories in in the world. 

2. Timelines at NASA are improved based on the drive that companies have to 

commercialize technology. 

3. Companies benefit from the health and safety culture that is inherent in sending 

people into space and returning them safely. 
27 

While there certainly can be culture clashes between the NASA and a commercial organization, 

a program that promotes collaboration and partnership leverages the best of both, spurs 

development and deployment of technology, promotes domestic job growth and incubates a 

new group of American engineers and researchers. 

4. What were the greatest challenges working with NASA and what improvement, if any, do you 

recommend that would enhance NASA's ability to more quickly transition their ideas into new 

products? 

Response: 

Our greatest challenge was overcoming the questions as to why would we want to have a 

noncompensated space act agreement. Fortunately, there were people in the Advance Projects 

Group and managers in the NASA Space Medicine Branch office that recognized that working 

together would benefit both groups. NASA would benefit by recognizing that much ofthe 

technology that's needed for its next missions is available commercially and that by working 

with industry costs can be reduced and timelines accelerated. The benefits to industry, whether 

uncompensated or compensated can be significant as our government support development, 

testing and multiuse deployment of new technology. 
28 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Beck. 

I now recognize our next witness, Mr. Brian Russell, for five minutes to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BRIAN RUSSELL, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZEPHYR TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. RUSSELL. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is an 

honor to appear today before you to represent our friends and partners at NASA. Zephyr is a global leader in the art and science of 

remote physiological monitoring, or PSM. That is how we became 

partners with NASA. 

The story of that partnership illustrates the profound benefits of 

NASA funding. That funding spurs and accelerates research, technology and innovation that in partnership we are helping to save 

lives and make people fitter and healthier. 

Zephyr first became involved with NASA in 2008 where William 

Toscano and Patricia Cowlings’ work at the Ames Research Facility, they studied people with motion sickness due to zero gravity, 

fighter pilots and fatigue in airline pilots. They used our BioHarness, which is our comfortable physiological monitoring sensor, to 

measure people’s vital signs including fatigue, EKG and other parameters. We are also working with NASA on PHASER, which is 

a DHS program to save first responders lives. 

Through these studies, Zephyr not only serves the interests of 

NASA, DHS and DOD, they in turn served our needs. We receive 

critical feedback based on decades on their experience that helped 

us incorporate their experience into our design decisions. Those 

products are now making major contributions in several very important areas: sports and fitness, Special Forces and first responders for both training and operations, and perhaps most importantly 

today, mobile health. 

Through TSWG we have partnered with Special Forces in the 

Army and the Navy to create a system to not only train but to 

monitor a person’s safety and health during field missions. Field 

commanders and medics can make more informed time-critical decisions based on if someone is stationery, moving, dehydrated, had 

heat stressed or is actually suffering trauma from an injury. So we 

proving mission readiness, safety and training and extending their 

abilities in dynamic asymmetric warfare. 

Zephyr’s PSM solutions are currently being used in the Olympics 

next month, Major League Baseball, NBA, collegiate sports, and 

even on Formula One racecar drivers. A coach can measure and 

train an athlete to peak performance while preserving his health 

and keeping—sorry—enhancing the athlete’s health. 

A terrific dual use of our technology is to help professionals, hospitals, nursing homes, families and even individuals. Zephyr’s web 

and smartphone system called ZephyrLIFE allows nurses to monitor real-time parameters in a hospital and doctors remotely can 

measure them anywhere in the world. 

This technology is selling now. The availability in large part is 

due to the researchers at NASA. Working with NASA gave us the 

information and feedback we needed to move from the realm of 

science fiction into the mainstream, and Zephyr is giving back. 

NASA was deeply involved with the rescue of the 33 Chilean min-
29 

ers that were trapped 2,000 feet below the ground last year. Because of our experience with NASA, Zephyr was called on for help. 

We provided BioHarnesses, monitoring software and field support. 

Doctors were able to monitor the miners’ wellness for the weeks 

underground to keep them fit and healthy for their rescue while 

monitoring them during the extraction and give them needed immediate medical support once they reached the surface. And now 

Zephyr is sharing all of that data collected during those dramatic 

weeks with NASA. It is the only event in recorded human history 

that mimics the conditions of long-endurance space travel where 

the nearest doctor may be a very, very long way away. 

This brings me to my concluding point. The scientists and legal 

department at NASA understood us. They gave us a simple process 

and brought us in as partners. As a result, Zephyr has improved 

and advanced its products, which are truly dual use—helping doctors, patients, athletes, soldiers, firemen and all of us and our families who want to stay fit and healthy including NASA and its astronauts. The success has let us grow and employ more people. Some 

of those advancements from working with NASA we could have 

predicted but some we couldn’t have imagined when we started. 

So please allow me to finish where I started. Because of this, the 

really basic truth of the testimony is the funding that NASA has 

and the way it has helped us has truly made a difference. Thank 

you. 

Do we have a video to show now or at the end? Okay. So the 

video I would like to show now is the latest release of a sports 

product that is—this is a sports application. We have just delivered 

this to Fort Bragg. 

[Video playback] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russell follows:] 
30 

Lephyr 

technology 

Brian Russell 

Founder & CEO, Zephyr Technology 

Testimony before the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

July 12, 2012 

Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Costello and members of the subcommittee: 

It is an honor to appear before you today to testify on behalf of our friends and 

partners at NASA. 

My name is Brian Russell, and I am CEO and founder of Zephyr Technology. I came 

to the U.S. as an entrepreneur. Zephyr Technology was born nine years ago. Today 

we are an American company, headquartered in nearby Annapolis, Maryland. We 

have investors such as Motorola and 3M and investors that understand government 

business. We employ 35 people. Zephyr is a global leader in the art and science of 

remote Physiological Status Monitoring, or PSM. That's how we became partners 

with NASA. 

The story of that partnership illustrates the profound benefits of NASA funding. That 

funding spurs and accelerates research and technological innovation that not only 

furthers our space program, but saves lives, improves health, bolsters military and 

emergency readiness, gives birth to a wide range of beneficial consumer products 

and, in doing all of that, allows small companies like mine to be competitive, to 

maintain and create jobs in this country and to contribute to the economy. It is 

hardly an overstatement to say that nothing but good - a great deal of good - comes 

from funding NASA programs. 

Zephyr first became involved with NASA in 2008, as part ofWiIIiam Toscano's and 

Patricia Cowlings's work at the Ames Research Center, Physiological Laboratory. 

They study areas including: motion sickness due to zero-gravity and fatigue in 

airline pilots and first responders. Under a Space Act Agreement, NASA partnered 

with Zephyr to remotely measure and interpret physiology. They used our 

comfortable, lightweight BioHarnessTM to collect live physiological data. They also 

used our products for the Department of Homel;md Security's Physiological Health 

Assessment System for Emergency Responders, or PHASER, transmitting live data 

over Motorola radios. I am proud to be an advisory board member for the PHASER 

program, which is working to reduce deaths of first responders. 

Through these studies, Zephyr not only served the interests of NASA, DHS and DOD 

- they, in turn, served our needs. We received critical feedback based on decades of 

experience on design decisions to incorporate into our new products. Those 
31 

Lephyr 

technology 

products are now making major contributions in several important areas sports 

and fitness, Special Forces & First Responder training-and-operations and, perhaps 

most importantly, mobile health. 

Through TSWG we have partnered with U.S. Special Forces in the Army and Navy to 

create a system not only to train, but to monitor a person's safety and health during 

field missions. Field commanders and medics can make fully informed, time-critical 

decisions based on whether someone is stationary, moving, dehydrated, is suffering 

heat stress or is injured. So we are improving their mission readiness, safety in 

training and extending their abilities in dynamic asymmetric warfare. 

Zephyr's PSM solutions are currently being used in major league baseball, the NBA, 

European soccer, collegiate sports, Formula 1, professional tennis and more. A coach 

can measure and train each athlete to peak performance while preserving and 

enhancing the athlete's health. 

A terrific dual use of this technology is for our products to help medical 

professionals, hospitals, nursing homes, families and even individuals. With 

Zephyr's web and smart phone system called ZephyrLIFE, a nurse can monitor, in 

real time, the condition of every patient in a ward, seeing everything from EKG to 

detecting a fall. Doctors can monitor their patients remotely - even if the patient is 

visiting family in Hawaii while the doctor is in his office in Atlanta. And a personal 

passion of mine is wellness, where this technology has taken big data and simplified 

it into a single Health Number from 0 to 10. This type of application will save the 

country by keeping people healthier and then reducing costs if they become sick. 

This technology is selling NOW. The availability in large part is due to the 

researchers at NASA. Working with NASA gave us the information and feedback we 

needed to move from the realm of science fiction to the mainstream. 

And Zephyr is giving back. NASA was deeply involved in the rescue of the 33 

Chilean miners who were trapped 2,000 feet below ground last year. Because of our 

experience with NASA, Zephyr was called on for help. We provided BioHarnesses, 

monitoring software and in-field support personnel. Doctors were able to monitor 

the miners' wellness for the weeks they were trapped, keeping them healthy 

through training regimes and monitoring. During the extraction in the rescue 

capsule, doctors were able to monitor the miners' vital signs - to provide 

immediate medical attention on the surface. This is the model for new healthcare 

where data provides the ability to keep people well and respond quickly when 

needed. 

And now, Zephyr is sharing all of the data collected during those dramatic weeks 

with NASA. It is the only event in recorded human history that mimics the 

conditions of long endurance space travel, where the nearest doctor may be a long 

way away. 
32 

Lephyr 

technology 

This brings me to my concluding point. The scientists and legal department at NASA 

understood us, kept the process simple and brought us in as partners. As a result, 

Zephyr has improved and advanced its products which are truly dual use. Helping 

doctors, patients, athletes, soldiers, firemen and all of us and our families who want 

to stay fit and healthy - including NASA, and its astronauts. This success has let us 

grow and employ more people. Some of those advancements from working with 

NASA we could have predicted. But others, no one could possibly have imagined. 

Our NASA partnership continues to be a straightforward and mutually beneficial 

relationship. 

Please allow me to finish where I started - because this is really the basic truth of 

my testimony today: Nothing but good - and great deal of good - can come from 

funding NASA and its programs. 

Thank you. 
33 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Russell. 

I now recognize our next witness, Mr. John Vilja, for five minutes to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN VILJA, 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR STRATEGY, INNOVATION AND GROWTH, 

PRATT & WHITNEY ROCKETDYNE 

Mr. VILJA. Chairman Palazzo and distinguished Committee 

Members, thanks for taking the time to have some talks on this 

very important subject to our Nation. 

There has been a lot of debate on what the value of NASA is to 

outside of the space world, and of course, everyone mentions the 

Teflons, Tangs, memory foam mattresses, but rocket engines are a 

little more obscure—and you might be wondering exactly what does 

that have to do with anything else but going into space. Well, to 

do that, you really have to understand what is so special about 

these machines, and they are what we call high-energy-density machines, or simply put, they create a lot of energy in a relatively 

small space, and it creates new engineering and multidisciplinary 

skills which are very hard to duplicate anywhere else but they 

have applications across the board. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne 

has been launching satellites, astronauts since the beginning of the 

space program and we are currently launching most of the DOD 

satellites today and we have a long heritage in harnessing this 

really specialty engineering. 

A good example of what one of these machines, this is the space 

shuttle main engine, the RS–25. This is a machine that it takes liquid hydrogen, which is the second coldest liquid in existence, combines it with oxygen, and it produces at about 6,000 degrees Fahrenheit and throws it out at about mach 3, all in the space of about 

a moderate commercial jet engine yet it produces a thrust of 10 747 

jumbo-jet engines. And just pumping the hydrogen has to produce 

70,000 horsepower, and the hydrogen is then used to cool the 

chamber and the nozzle which is directing that steam which is operating well past the boiling point of steel. It would evaporate in 

seconds if we didn’t do this. 

So the amount of different technologies that goes into doing this 

is staggering. It has to control itself 50 times every second just so 

it keeps at the right thrust level and uses the propellants in the 

right combination as it ascends into orbit. 

In developing the space shuttle main engine, what really drove 

advances in material science, combustion modeling, high-speed 

turbo machinery, thermal management, structural assessment, 

safety engineering, advanced manufacturer and rapid health management. By investing in pushing the state-of-the-art, it really created a source of intellectual capital that is unparalleled anywhere 

in the world. As the engine development continued, so did the 

learning. We were able to try new processes. We were able to test 

them out on real machines, and we learned a lot while we were 

doing it. 

These multidisciplinary advances gained from this investment 

enabled us to develop the first commercially developed large rocket 

engine, the RS–68, which today powers the Delta IV launch vehicle. Just recently, the Delta IV launched a national-security pay-
34 

load on June 29th. It is the largest hydrogen engine and we did it 

commercially because there was going to be a large demand in how 

many launches we needed. Well, that demand never materialized. 

In fact, the launch market has been flat for the last several decades, and with new international entrants coming into the market, 

it has become a very difficult place. So a company like us who is 

a commercial company really requires something to expand our 

business so spin-offs are the only place we can go realistically. 

Now, we have a long history of doing this. In the past we have 

commercialized a water-pumping technology, which is based on 

how we pump propellants in a rocket engine. We have spun that 

off. Jet skis are a result of that. And so there is that kind of thing. 

We have also done selective laser centering, making plastic parts, 

3D parts printing. We helped pioneer that in the mid-1990s in 

order to make complex rocket engine parts, but since then we have 

spun off the business to service the rest of industry and so that 

technology is a direct outgrowth. There is other examples such as 

chemical lasers, hydrogen recombiners and flue gas cleaning devices, and those are all basically byproducts of this multidisciplinary skill. 

Today we are taking this expertise and focusing it largely on energy. The energy market is huge and growing. The world has a constant need for energy and we need to get it cheaper and cleaner, 

and so by applying rocket-engine technology, we find that there are 

many opportunities in this area. 

One of the key areas is in solar electric power plants. We are 

building a solar electric power plant outside of the desert in Nevada that stores electricity and then can dispatch the solar electricity at night so we can produce electricity throughout the 

evening. That is a world’s first. The ability to capture the heat of 

a thousand suns in a collector is directly derived from our cooling 

technology experience. We are also working on a gasification device. It is a compact, high-pressure, high-temperature gasification 

device that can take coal, petcoke and biomass and convert it into 

syngas. This syngas is used in chemicals. It can be used to make 

fuel. It can be used to make various other products. Our gassifier 

operates at higher pressures and temperatures so we get a 90 percent reduction in pressures and temperatures, 20 percent reduction 

in plant capital cost, and a 15 to 20 percent reduction in end product cost, all this while giving a 30 percent reduction in water usage 

and a ten percent reduction in CO2 emissions. 

Other technologies that are going along, we are working on a hydrogen generator, a down-hole steam generator so we can go after 

heavy oil production from deep and cold locations, acoustic generators to improve hydraulic fracturing, and a number of other areas 

including very efficient power plants which can increase the efficiency of electricity generation by 30 percent. We are partnering 

with many folks including the DOE and major oil companies in 

doing this. 

It is real important that we have an energy policy or a NASA 

science policy that continues to make the technology that allows us 

to go forward and create spin-offs, and that means we have to keep 

investing in development as well as production as well as coming 

to new technologies. Having production allows you to measure the 
35 

quantified measurement of the technologies and what they can 

mean for you. The development allows you to take these very difficult things and bring them to a point where spin-offs are even 

possible. 

And finally, the advanced technology has to be there so you can 

really push the bounds. There is no commercial case for investigating these commercial bounds because the payback is so uncertain. So the NASA technology is really that seed corn that allows 

you later to go on and do that, and that is really where the NASA 

policy has to be strong and they have to really focus. So we would 

like to ask that NASA continue to have this whole portfolio of 

things. 

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vilja follows:] 
36 

Testimony of 

John Vilja 

Vice-President for Strategy, Innovation & Growth 

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne 

Canoga Park, California 

at a Hearing on 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

Technologies 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

United States House of Representatives 

12 July 2012 
37 

Chairman Palazzo and distinguished members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to address an issue that is of critical importance to our nation, 

the need for continued investment by the nation in advanced space technology and the 

commercial benefits it can provide to adjacent markets. 

There has been an ongoing debate regarding the value of space-derived spinoff 

technologies and capabilities derived from NASA investment. When asked to identify 

products directly created by NASA, most Americans would name Velcro, Tang, and 

memory foam mattresses. There are also a significant number of well documented 

commercial spin-offs in many different areas including medical, transportation and 

communication which are derived from NASA investment. But what about the potential for 

commercial spin-offs derived from NASA's advanced liquid rocket engines like the ones 

produced by our company? This question is best answered by first understanding what is 

so special about these engines. They represent a special class of engineering described as 

high energy density products, or simply put, machines that generate an enormous amount 

of energy in a relatively small space. 

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne has powered U.S. astronauts into orbit since the beginning 

of the U.S. human spaceflight program more than half a century ago, on the Mercury 

and Apollo programs as well as the 3D-year long Space Shuttle program. In addition to 

powering hundreds of people into orbit, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne continues to power 

most DoD space launches, placing security, communication, navigation and weather 

satellites into orbit that are critical to the safety and security of our nation and our allies. 

Leveraging our understanding of how technology operates under the most extreme 

2 
38 

conditions, we are translating our core rocket propulsion knowledge into gamechanging, innovative solutions to tackle some of our world's toughest energy 

challenges. 

The main engines on the space shuttle are a great example of a high energy density 

product. They take liquid hydrogen, the second coldest liquid in existence, and combine it 

with liquid oxygen, and convert them into steam at temperatures of 6000 degrees 

Fahrenheit while being expelled at velocities more than three times the speed of sound, all 

in the space of a moderately sized commercial jet engine. The space shuttle main engine 

produces the thrust of more than ten 747 jetliner engines. In doing so it has to produce the 

70,000 horsepower required just to pump the hydrogen to more than 6000 pounds per 

square inch, which then cools the combustion chamber and nozzle to protect them from the 

exhaust steam which is far beyond the boiling point of steel. To control this powerful 

reaction, the engine adjusts itself fifty times every second to assure it produces the optimal 

amount of thrust, and consumes the right amount of each propellant as the vehicle ascends 

into orbit. 

The development of this amazing machine that would flawlessly power every single space 

shuttle mission required significant advances in the areas of material science, combustion 

modeling, high speed turbo-machinery, thermal management, structural assessment, 

safety engineering, advanced manufacturing, and rapid health management By investing 

in and pushing the state-of-the-art in the initial development of the space shuttle main 

engine, the nation created a level of intellectual capital in each of these key technical 

competencies that is unmatched in the world. As the engine continued development and 

3 
39 

refinement over its decades of service, these skills were further honed, and even more 

modern techniques were developed and anchored against actual measured operating data. 

As the continuous development progressed, so did the learning. 

The multi-disciplinary advances gained from this investment enabled the development of 

the nation's first large commercial rocket engine, the RS-68, which is currently powering the 

Delta IV family of launch vehicles, and most recently propelled a critical national security 

satellite into orbit on June 29th. We developed the RS-68, the world's largest hydrogen 

engine entirely on our own funds. 

The RS-68 project was originally started in response to projections of significant growth in 

space launch demand. This demand never materialized. In addition, flat launch demand 

forecasts and the continual entry of new international and domestic launchers to serve this 

flat market make growth in this market very challenging. 

It has therefore become increasingly important as a commercial space launch provider to 

branch our business out into adjacent markets in order to remain viable and healthy as a 

business. In the past, Rocketdyne has successfully commercialized products such as the 

water jet propulsion systems used in jet skis which were derived directly from rocket engine 

experience. The use of polymer selective laser sintering was pioneered to make complex 

molds for rocket engine parts and then subsequently spun off into a stand-alone business 

servicing the industry at large. There are numerous other examples such as chemical 

lasers, hydrogen recombiners, and flue gas cleaning devices. 

4 
40 

Today, Rocketdyne is very focused on taking our rocket propulsion expertise in materials, 

temperatures, speeds and pressures under extreme conditions, and leveraging this 

knowledge into the energy arena. This is a rapidly growing commercial market that will 

significantly benefit from the introduction of space-derived advanced technologies to 

increase efficiency as well as reduce production costs. 

We are working on the world's first commercial concentrated solar power plant with energy 

storage and dispatching capability allowing electricity generation even in the evening. It's 

being built in the Nevada desert using Rocketdyne's thermal management expertise to 

design the high temperature receiver and mirror tracking software. The ability to handle the 

concentrated heat of a thousand suns is directly derived from our rocket engine expertise. 

We are bringing this to market through an alliance with SolarReserve, a company that 

specializes in commercializing solar power plants. 

Also through the application of our rocket engine experience, we are developing a high 

pressure, high temperature compact gasifier which can more cleanly and efficiently convert 

coal, petcoke, or biomass into syngas, a product that can be used to produce multiple fuels, 

chemicals and electricity. Through the application of our design capabilities we are able to 

provide a 90% reduction in gasifier volume which results in a 20% reduction in plant capital 

cost while yielding a 15% to 20% reduction in end-product cost. All this, while reducing 

water usage by 30% and C02 emissions by 10% over existing gasifiers. When you look at 

the global demand for coal gasification, particularly in developing countries, these are game 

changing numbers. This technology has undergone successful pilot plant testing in Des 

Plaines, Illinois at the Gas Techology Institute and is currently testing a revolutionary dry 

5 
41 

solids pump at the Energy & Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, North 

Dakota. We are partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy, ExxonMobii Research and 

Engineering, and Alberta Innovates to develop this product for market. 

Other, less mature energy technologies currently in work at Rocketdyne include a one-step 

hydrogen generator capable of bringing similar savings to that market as our gasifier 

project, a down-hole steam generator capable of heavy oil production from deep, off-shore 

or extremely cold environment reservoirs, flame assisted water treatment for oil recovery in 

tar sands, an acoustic generator capable of enhancing hydraulic fracturing used in shale 

gas production, and an advanced combustion boiler and high-efficiency turbine capable of 

increasing electric power plant efficiency by 30% while enabling affordable carbon 

sequestration. Additionally, we have started working in concert with the oil industry to apply 

rocket launch derived safety analYSis and practices to greatly reduce the potential safety 

and environmental risk from exploration and production in deep and off-shore oil platforms. 

In addition to the positive benefit to our business in diversifying our commercial portfoliO 

outside of the space market, this diversification also allows us to better serve our launch 

engine customers by spreading our fixed operating costs over a larger market base, thus 

reducing costs for all of our customers, most notably the United States Govemment. 

Each of these technologies have benefited from the learning and development experience 

gained from our work with NASA. There is no commercial analog to push such investment 

since the term of any payback is not clearly understood at the start of the projects. The 

benefit comes from challenging and pushing what we think are our limits and finding ways 

6 
42 

to push those limits even higher and further. By taking on difficult science and exploration 

missions in space, we force ourselves into multi-disciplinary advancement, which in tum 

enables new solutions to some of our toughest challenges here on earth. 

The challenge going forward is to keep NASA focused on their charter of tackling new, big 

challenges. Only through the introduction of new barriers to overcome can we be assured 

of creating those new breakthrough technologies. Current budgetary pressure on NASA 

creates an environment where we limit our future missions to those achievable through 

application of existing technology. While this can be a cost effective approach to reducing 

development cost, it also deprives the nation of many of the capability growth benefits seen 

from past investment. 

The key to best value in our space expenditure is to create challenging goals that use 

solutions to past problems as much as possible while simultaneously working challenges 

where the solution requires technological advancement. A good example of this is in the 

current push for beyond earth orbit human exploration. The launcher harvests past 

developments to create an affordable, near-term heavy launch capability capable of a 

number of never performed space missions. The in-space portions require significant 

advances in planetary landing craft, human radiation shielding, energy conversion, high 

efficiency propulsion, and long-term environmental control and life support systems, just to 

name a few challenges. There are no off-the-shelf answers to these problems. By solving 

them, the nation will gain valuable intellectual property which will be applied to many yet to 

be recognized areas. 

7 
43 

In my invitation letter to speak to this committee, it was asked what issues we in industry 

see in working with NASA, and what recommendations we have to enhance the rapid 

transition of ideas to new commercial products, We would recommend the creation of a 

unified national space policy able to withstand political changes of wind. It must be a policy 

that recognizes the need for stable production combined with concurrent development of 

both new products as well as advanced technologies. These tiers are essential for robust 

technology transfer. Continuous improvement in a stable production environment identifies 

the quantified value of advanced technology. New product development forces the 

application of advanced technologies into practice, enabling them to be applied to adjacent 

products in non-space sectors. Advanced technology development explores and then 

pushes the boundaries of what is possible, spending the time and energy to explore areas 

that could never be examined in the commercial world because of the unquantified return 

on investment required in any commercial business .NASA's partnership with industry in 

each of these three areas enables us to leverage of our nation's precious investment in 

space technology in ways that have tremendous benefit to our nation and our planet. It is 

critical that we avoid the unnecessary reinventing of capabilities that have already existed 

for decades, sandbox studies that don't have an industry partner, and "make work" projects 

for NASA staff that is not otherwise gainfully employed in meaningful work that speaks to 

NASAs true charter. There needs to be a balance to assure the maximum benefit from our 

nation's investment in technology. 

What I have addressed here is only the technology derived from the development of liquid 

rocket engines. While some may wonder if an investment in rocket science has bearing on 

our daily lives, our work provides concrete evidence of world-leading, game changing 

8 
44 

capabilities that can directly affect the quality of life for everyone on the planet through our 

rocket engines and the commercial spin-offs resulting from the Government's investment in 

space technology. We plan to keep them coming. We ask that NASA continues to have the 

opportunity to keep challenging our nation's current capability and continue going beyond 

what we believe is possible today. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee today. I look forward to 

responding to any questions you may have. 

9 
45 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Vilja. 

I now recognize our final witness, Dr. Richard Aubrecht, for five 

minutes to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD AUBRECHT, 

VICE PRESIDENT, MOOG INC. 

Dr. AUBRECHT. Thank you very much for this invitation to testify 

this morning. 

Background on Moog. We are a company that started in western 

New York about 50 years ago. It was actually a spin-off of Cornell 

University at the time. And our core technology we describe as precision motion control. We control flight controls on all sorts of commercial and military aircraft. The same sort of technology is applied on wind turbines, all sorts of power generating. We have been 

a partner with my pal here from Rocketdyne for about 40 years. 

We do the steering. 

So we started working on NASA programs in the Mercury program in the 1950s and continued evolving our technology as 

NASA’s needs evolved, eventually developing very complicated— 

they are four-channel redundant flight controls that were applied 

on the space shuttle. These are for not only steering the rocket engines as it is launched but also the flight control surfaces as the 

shuttle was landing. That formed a core technology for us in doing 

our redundant flight controls. 

So what is different about that? If you look at the NASA missions, some missions at NASA I would call are hard missions. Putting something into space to begin with was a hard mission. What 

is really hard is doing a manned space program. So why is that? 

To begin with, you have obviously people involved with all that. 

What that means is, is that the probability of failure has to be orders of magnitude less than you are willing to stand for when you 

are just trying to launch a satellite. So that is a really, really hard 

problem. And the other aspect of that is, it becomes very public. 

There is lots of press coverage on that. Other satellites are 

launched and you read in the paper two days later a $100 million 

satellite failed to reach orbit. People said oh, so what. If you have 

that happen with a manned space program, it is all over the front 

page that evening. So it is a really hard problem, and I think that 

NASA should focus its efforts in the future on really hard problems, and I will show you why. 

Having developed that sort of technology to begin with entails 

not only developing the hardware but you also have to develop a 

whole series of other processes and technologies to support doing 

that. The systems design analysis and integration capability, the 

design tools, new materials have to be qualified and learn how to 

fabricate them. All kinds of new fabricating and measuring techniques have to be developed and finally you end up with a design. 

The key part about that is that there is a design team that works 

on all of that so it is not just a single person or just a couple of 

people that are doing this creative sort of work. There is a whole 

team that enables doing all of that, and that is what I think is 

really important for NASA to realize, is that the technology that 

you are developing is not just in the drawings and the reports and 

the hardware that is built. 
46 

What is really important is, you are building a capability of a 

team of people who understand how to take on a really, really hard 

problem and as a result of doing that, they develop the confidence 

to be able to take on other really hard problems. So you build this 

culture of innovation in a company that is able to do really hard 

things, and that is what we have done with this. So today we have 

all the flight controls on the F–35 aircraft. We have all the flight 

controls on the new 787 at Boeing. We also won the contract at Airbus on the A–350. This is the first time Airbus has ever gone outside Europe for that scale of a subsystem within the aircraft. 

So East Aurora, New York, has become the global center for redundant flight controls but then we have also taken the same sort 

of technologies and applied it to all sorts of other applications for 

other kinds of launch vehicles, military aircraft, commercial aircraft, business jets, and we also take it and apply it in industrial 

markets—wind turbines, undersea applications of all kinds. So it is 

that core technology that we developed starting with NASA in the 

1950s that has enabled us to move into all these other fields. 

So a couple of key messages with this. It seems to me that NASA 

is really at a key turning point here. What has happened over the 

last 40 years is that the technology for launching things into space 

has become ubiquitous. You see people like Iran and North Korea 

are able to launch satellites. That is not hard anymore. There is 

a lot of people able to do that. What is really hard still is manned 

space, and that will continue to be a very hard problem, and that 

is where NASA ought to focus its efforts. Deep-space programs the 

same way. The technology to do the deep-space probes and also do 

the Mars Rovers and that kind of thing, it is again a really hard 

problem, and those are the sorts of things that NASA can really 

provide the funding to advance the technologies to enable us to repeat what we did starting with the NASA projects in the 1950s. 

We are working on a couple of new projects right now that I 

think are indicative of that sort of thing that NASA could really 

help with. We are developing what are called green propellants. 

Hydrazine that is used for a lot of applications in space is a really 

nasty fluid, and we have been working actually with Swedish space 

in developing green technologies that you can actually take it, it is 

like alcohol. You can spill it on your hands and it won’t hurt you 

at all. And the other is things like small satellites. Professor Peck 

can speak on that a lot more than I can. But that is going to enable 

a lot broader usage of space than previously and NASA is in a position to be able to advance the technologies for doing small satellites 

that commercial people are just never going to do, and to me, that 

is the kind of leadership position that NASA ought to be taking 

and sponsoring these projects and the technologies that can become 

applicable across a wide range of applications. 

I don’t think Moog is unique in that. You know, you have heard 

of some of the other people here. We see the people on either side 

of the systems we have on the NASA programs and have seen what 

some of our other people have done. But the other thing we have 

seen, we are pursuing the new launch vehicles on Constellation 

and Orion and the derivatives of those programs. We won about 

three times what we thought we were going to win five years ago 

on that. So why is that? It is because a lot of the people who used 
47 

to build that hardware have dropped out and are no longer competing. The reason is, they lost their technology teams. They just 

simply didn’t have the capability internally. It wasn’t the will. They 

just didn’t have the assets internally to be able to do the work. 

So one of the things that NASA really needs to think about, and 

I think it is a real challenge for this Committee to think about, is 

to set program goals, very specific goals, very specific timetables, 

very challenging technology targets, and then stay with them and 

fund them consistently. If you don’t fund them consistently, the design teams don’t stay together and you lose the fundamental capability. If there is one message you can take from me today, that is 

the thing you guys ought to really focus on. 

So thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aubrecht follows:] 
48 

MOOG 12 July 2012 

Richard Aubrechtl Ph.D. 

"Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness 

Through NASA Derived Technologies" 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

hearing on the topic of Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

Technology. 

I have worked at Moog Inc., headquartered in East Aurora, NY, for most of my 40 year 

career. Forthe past 17 years I have concentrated on the development of Moog's business and 

technology strategies. In our planning processes I have seen directly the technical capabilities 

developed on NASA projects be applied to many other products and applications. 

Moog has a 40+ year relationship with NASA, beginning with the components supplied 

for the Mercury Program. On Gemini, Apollo and the Shuttle Programs we developed even 

more complex actuation systems to steer the engines on the launch vehicles and the Shuttle's 

flight control surfaces. 

As we have seen over the last 20 years, many countries have the ability to design, build 

and fly rockets. So what is extraordinary about the NASA programs? The manned space 

programs all have really hard problem statements. It is one thing to launch a small satellite in 

low-earth orbit. It is quite another thing to put three astronauts on the top of a Saturn vehicle 

and send them on a mission to land on the moon and return safely. So what makes manned 

space missions a really hard problem? First, the acceptable probabilities for failure are much, 

much smaller than unmanned missions. Second, the launches are fully covered by the 

television news, so the public is very engaged and aware of the successes, and the failures. 

Because manned space vehicles are really hard problems, there are a couple of consequences. 

First, the boundaries of technology will be expanded SO as to provide more reliable lower 

weight and higher performance systems. Second, companies will put their best, brightest, and 

experienced engineers and technologies on the NASA programs. 

The result is the development of many new technical capabilities. At Moog, these 

include: 

• Systems design 

• Simulation and modeling 

• Design tools 

• New materials 

• New fabrication techniques 

• New product designs 

Pagelof4 
49 

MOOG 12 July 2012 

Richard Aubrecht, Ph.D. 

"Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness 

Through NASA Derived Technologies" 

Equally important is the confidence developed by the design team that they can undertake the 

really hard problems, develop new technical capabilities, and succeed. 

At Moog, our NASA experiences in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's enabled us to develop 

the core technologies for fly-by-wire flight control systems. Since the 1980's we have 

continued to evolve these flight control technologies in both commercial and military aircraft as 

well as for all type of space launch vehicles. Today, a Moog led team has all the flight control 

actuation on the F-35 and Moog alone has all the flight control actuation on Boeing's 787 and 

the Airbus A350. in addition, we supply the engine steering controls on many of the launch 

vehicles for commercial and military satellites. The global center for aerospace flight controls is 

now centered in East Aurora, New York with supporting facilities in Salt lake City and the los 

Angeles area. If we had not participated on the NASA project, we would not have had the 

technologies, tools and confidence to undertake these many other projects. 

It is important for the Subcommittee to recognize that the technical know-how is 

embodied in the people on the technical teams. There are technical reports, test results, 

drawings and process descriptions to document the NASA work. However, it is the people, 

their knowledge and experience which enable the technologies to be applied in other project, 

other aircraft as well as non-aerospace applications. 

I do not believe Moog's experience is unique .. \ can see the effect on the providers of 

vehicle elements adjacent to the Moog hardware. Their NASA experiences also caused them to 

expand their boundaries. Although I do not have a studied knowledge of the hundreds of other 

systems on the NASA vehicles, my anecdotal data supports the same conclusion. NASA's really 

hard manned space problem statements push the technology boundaries and has enabled the 

USA to be the world's leading country for aerospace vehicles, products and technologies. 

Why do countries such as China, india and Japan have manned space programs? My 

observation is that they understand the effect manned space programs can have on the 

technical competencies in country. They have seen the NASA model and the effect is has had 

on US industry. They are looking to accelerate the development of hundreds of technologies in 

country. 

At present, NASA is benefiting from Moog's experiences on the F-35, the Boeing 787, 

the Airbus A350, and many other programs, as all these have enabled us to maintain and 

innovate our technical competencies. NASA has funded some study contracts since the Shuttle 

was designed and built, but these are not enough to keep a design and development team 

together to maintain the technologies necessary for manned space vehicles. 

Page2of4 
50 

MOOG 12 July 2012 

Richard Aubrecht, Ph.D. 

"Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness 

Through NASA Derived Technologies" 

The invitation letter posed four questions. The above is a long answer to question 1. 

The following are brief answers to the four questions: 

1. "How has your company's NASA work translated into benefits to your company, to the 

broader economy, and to society? Please provide examples." 

The short answer is that our NASA work enabled is to become the world's leading 

aerospace flight control company. This has led to more business at Boeing, more 

efficient passenger aircraft, better flight controls on military aircraft, and more reliable, 

less expensive launch vehicles. 

2. "What challenges does your company encounter in transitioning its NASA work into 

other business. opportunities? What could be done to address those challenges?" 

We have not had any significant challenges in transitioning our technology developed in 

NASA work to other applications. 

3. "How effective are NASA's technology transfer and commercialization efforts, including 

licensing, and what can be done to enhance them?" 

We at Moog have not licensed any NASA technologies. I read the NASA e-mails about 

technology transfer opportunities so I am aware of the types of technologies being 

offered. 

4. "What policy issues should Congress consider ·to help maximize the economic and 

societal benefits gained from the nation's investments in NASA and the civil space 

program?" 

Congress should insist NASA have clear statements of objectives to be accomplished 

with target dates. I read recently, Professor Steven Squire of Cornell and Chairman of 

the NASA Advisory Council, spoke about the need for clear, concise mission statements. 

I am in full agreement. 

Another policy issue is the need for constant, continuous funding to NASA, to the prime 

contractors and subcontractors such as Moog. As I stated above, the key to advancing 

technology is to have a technology team working on a continuum of projects. The startPage 3 of4 
51 

MOOG 12 July 2012 

Richard Aubrecht, Ph.D. 

"Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness 

Through NASA Derived Technologies" 

stop recent NASA history is not helpful in building technology teams. Circumstances can 

certainly change, but awarding contracts and then canceling them is very costly to the 

overall program and will cause companies to shy away from bidding on NASA work. 

My overall conclusion is that NASA has played a very significant role in the development 

of leading edge technologies. These core technologies and knowledge have enabled much 

economic growth in the USA, not only in aerospace industries but in many other sectors of the 

economy who benefit from the new technologies. The model of NASA investing in really hard 

problems and challenging American companies has enabled the development of many core, 

pre-competitive technologies. This model is an example of where a Federal investment in 

technology development has an enormous impact on the overall economy. 

Page4of4 
52 

Chairman PALAZZO. Dr. Aubrecht, thank you, and I thank the 

panel for their testimony. At this time I am going to yield as much 

time as needed to a very special guest who has joined us. He is a 

Member of the Science, Space and Technology. It is Mr. Ralph Hall 

of Texas, the Chairman of the full Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you very much, and I thank you for 

calling this meeting, and I thank you gentlemen. Is there a lady 

there? I don’t have good eyes. It is probably the one that wrote 

most of your work for the information you gave us, and I will read 

and study that on my airplane going back to Texas today. 

I won’t have any questions, but I will just say that NASA has 

developed a lot of innovative technologies that weren’t supplied and 

what NASA needs to do, as the last gentleman made some suggestions, I think they need to think about how to use the funds that 

they are getting. I think NASA has made some pretty desperate decisions in the last three years. Maybe they felt constrained to, but 

they have thrown money right and left, and when the President 

ran a line through Constellation, he put us on a road to lose our 

space station. I know that is not what this is about. This is about 

new breakthroughs, and we need it, but we need to know how to 

supply those, and Republicans and Democrats, we are very close together on what we have learned and were doing up to the time 

Constellation was cast aside. I am not going to comment on that. 

I think you can tell how I feel about it. 

We have advanced aircraft and spacecraft design and technologies that apply to our national security even and certainly to 

public safety, and if you want to see how we are really treated by 

the appropriators, just look at figure 4 of R&D in fiscal year 2013 

budget request. It goes all the way down to where it looks like we 

have to pitch some money into the budget. I don’t understand the 

bottom part of that out there. But we are not even keeping pace 

with inflation. We are in a desperate situation. The last three 

Presidents did not help us any at all. We have got to pray for this 

President. I pray for him myself but I looked up the other day and 

God was rolling his eyes at me, so I don’t know if that is anything 

that is really going to have any effect or not. 

But I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. Dr. Peck, 

in your testimony you mentioned the magazine that you all put 

out, the spin-off that lists all the success stories through technology 

transfer and partnerships with small businesses, and I just—on 

page—and you all don’t have to go to this, but on page 84, there 

is one such small business that actually is in my district in south 

Mississippi that has partnered with Stennis Space Center. It is 

called Envision. It is a minority woman-owned business. And the 

product—and I am not going to go into the details of the product 

but it is something in our region of the world, emergency response, 

that is just second nature and they developed a product that has 

been used in Hurricane Katrina, Ike, Gustav, and it has also been 

used by the Mississippi National Guard and the EPA most recently 

in helping to track the oil spill from 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. 
53 

My first question is going to be for Dr. Peck. To what extent did 

the individual centers develop partnerships with the private sector? 

What role did the centers play in disseminating technologies available for commercialization and how is that coordinated by NASA 

headquarters? 

Dr. PECK. Well, Congressman, the centers, the field centers of 

NASA, they really are where the tech transfer happens. Headquarters function is one of leadership and coordination and setting 

guidance for the field centers in their implementation of the tech 

transfer policies of the Agency. The individual field centers work 

closely with local businesses but then also companies around the 

country to develop these partnerships. There is a number of mechanisms that we use, but I will say that that is the function that resides at the centers and that is why we have those centers because 

their local expertise is where the strength of NASA’s tech transfer 

program comes from. 

Chairman PALAZZO. What is the appropriate balance between 

Space Technology Program personnel at NASA headquarters and 

the centers when it comes to effective technology transfer? 

Dr. PECK. It is a great question because really the core of the 

Space Technology Program extends beyond tech transfer, but it is 

no accident that the Space Technology Program is where the tech 

transfer function for the Agency really is led. The Space Technology 

Program, as you know, has a broad mission at the Agency of investing in cross-cutting, pioneering technologies that will ensure 

NASA’s future but then also provide the kind of innovation you 

have heard discussed here at the panel today. 

When the Space Technology Program executes on its work, it 

combines directed work, which happens at the centers, with competed work where we look for the best ideas wherever they can be 

found. So there is close to 1,000 projects right now underway 

thanks to the Space Technology Program. Many of them go through 

the SBIR/STTR Program, which again you understand is the Small 

Business Innovation Research and Tech Transfer Research Programs, but a bulk of them also are run through academic institutions in the form of student fellowships and soon faculty support, 

as well as the more traditional contracts that we associate with 

new technology projects at NASA through a number of different 

programs. 

The balance of the personnel extends across NASA. There is two 

issues. There is the issue of what happens within our Innovative 

Partnerships Office (IPO) where the tech transfer function resides, 

and there we try to operate a leading function, but there are in fact 

IPO offices at each center with the responsibility of executing on 

the tech transfer mission. 

In addition to that, though, each center does have a Center Chief 

Technologist and some staff that are meant to advocate for the center’s technology, as well as represent headquarters’ guidance 

throughout their center. So again it is a blend where working together the technology development activity and the tech transfer 

activity have representation at the centers in terms of staff. 

Chairman PALAZZO. All right. Another question for Dr. Peck. In 

your testimony you mentioned the President’s charge to accelerate 

federal technology transfer activities and indicate where NASA has 
54 

included such goals in its strategic planning. However, the funding 

requested for research and development at NASA is barely keeping 

pace with inflation even as other agencies are reaping the benefits 

of increased investments. How do you reconcile the increased focus 

on such activities at the federal level without commensurate funds 

requested for NASA specifically to meet this challenge? 

Dr. PECK. Well, I believe that NASA historically has been very 

successful in its tech transfer efforts. We have a proud history of 

that. In fact, of the 4,700 invention disclosures provided by the 

Federal Government a couple of years ago in 2010, 1,700 came 

from NASA, so close to a third of the total for across the Federal 

Government. Our past success, though, we shouldn’t rest on those 

laurels as you suggest; we should take advantage of the IG report 

and your guidance to really focus our efforts on tech transfer. 

There is a number of things we are doing to respond to the Inspector General’s report on this. For example, we are rewriting the 

technology transfer policies to better match current best practices, 

as well as address commercialization planning. That new policy 

will provide a streamlined, broad, flexible approach, and that increased coordination will help NASA in best understanding the 

value of those innovative technological assets. 

Policy is part of it, also better training for our personnel. Actually being able to focus our efforts on tech transfer requires that 

the folks at NASA who do the work in developing new technologies 

also understand that a commercialization plan is necessary and required. They also need to understand how to submit those so-called 

New Technology Reports, the NTRs, that actually form the basis of 

our database of technologies. 

Fortunately, now, we have a new website, it is technology.NASA.gov. It is an opportunity for us to reach out very efficiently to the technology community and the community of small 

businesses and large businesses who want to partner with NASA. 

There you can find access to all of NASA’s past technologies, as 

well as so-called online partnering tool, which allows for a very 

rapid turnaround connecting inventors at NASA with opportunities 

to commercialize them in the private sector. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Peck. Although I have some 

questions for the other members of the panel, I am going to be 

courteous to my other Members who are here who also have questions. And with the pending votes being called, I will now recognize 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Dr. Peck, we have talked about some examples about technologies that have been discovered by NASA and have been commercialized today. I think Members of this Subcommittee and 

Members of Congress probably know some of the benefits of the 

work that NASA has done, but there is a tremendous challenge, I 

believe, in educating the public as to the benefits. Tell us what 

NASA is doing to improve the public’s understanding of the derived 

technologies and the benefits to the American people and to the 

world. 

Dr. PECK. Well, Congressman Costello, that charge is one of 

OCT’s, the Office of the Chief Technologist. We have a number of 

approaches we take. There is, of course, the spinoff publication we 
55 

have talked about already but also a website, again, spinoff.NASA.gov, where folks can see the full history of spinoffs from 

NASA technology. But it is more than that. Rather than sort of 

passively waiting for folks to come to our website, we actively engage them through social media. NASA Twitter site has hundreds 

of thousands of views and that provides us a way to actively engage the public communicating NASA’s benefits to them. In addition to that, there is a Facebook presence and blogs, a number of 

ways that we actively engage through social media, the public on 

these kinds of issues. 

But more than that, you know, when we talk about NASA, we 

are careful to explain the relevance of what NASA does. So when 

I am talking about new technology, although I like to delve into the 

details a lot, I do my best to remind folks that the technology influences everyone’s lives. Again, it is no accident that the space program undertakes difficult challenges and those difficult challenges 

are the ones that create the innovations and the new ideas that 

drive the Nation’s economy. As Dick Aubrecht explained, those are 

the kinds of ideas that make America unique. In pursuing a space 

program, we undertake these hard problems that motivate our future and provide success for our businesses. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you talk a little bit about what you are doing 

at universities and with teachers? The general public in my opinion, they understand a little bit about the space program. When I 

am home in my district and when I am traveling, I hear a lot from 

constituents about we need additional funding for new roads, 

bridges, highways, for the obvious things that they use in their 

lives, but I rarely have anyone say to me that you need to put more 

money into NASA in order to do research and development because 

they have done all these wonderful things for society. So what are 

you doing at the common level I would say to educate people at a 

young age about the benefits that have been derived from NASA? 

Dr. PECK. Well, NASA’s Office of Education has an extraordinarily success history of outreach to K–12. Within the Space 

Technology Program, we also have a number of educational activities. They are focused on space technology. One is the Space Technology Research Fellows Program, which provides support for college students studying space technology. It is the first time that 

NASA has provided this kind of support for students. On top of 

that, we now also have a Space Technology Research Grants Program that sponsors faculty—similar to the NSF Career Award if 

you are familiar with that program—that now again introduces the 

opportunity, which I did not have when I was starting off at Cornell University, to be able to engage with NASA in research in 

space technology. 

The kind of trickle-down effect that we see by sponsoring students and faculty changes the conversation. It makes NASA very 

present in the lives of our students and it motivates students to 

pursue STEM activities—that is science, technology, engineering, 

and math—because the space program quite simply, is exciting. 

It is also true of aeronautics. We undertake a lot of fantastic 

work here that motivates people of all age but particularly students. So I am proud to say that NASA is the reason why a number of students go into STEM and we can keep that going. 
56 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. I will have further questions later, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Brooks from Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Peck, can you please explain how technologies developed for 

NASA make their way into other seemingly nonrelated products? 

And for example, how was the ultrasound device you cite in your 

testimony a result of NASA research? And was that technology specifically targeted or did it evolve from other research? And do you 

have any other similar examples you can share with us? 

Dr. PECK. Well, Congressman Brooks, the real key to how that 

happens is our active engagement in technology transfer. We have 

a technology transfer process and experts at the NASA centers who 

actively engage with businesses to ensure that NASA technology— 

which is taxpayer-funded, remember—goes to the private sector 

and benefits the American economy. 

In that particular example, there is a number of mechanisms 

whereby tech transfer can happen. It can happen simply because 

a company comes to NASA or we can use our communications techniques to actually seek out companies and find opportunities to 

transfer that technology. I will offer that the tech transfer pipeline 

at NASA is full but we can do better to bring new ideas into that 

pipeline. As the Inspector General’s report suggested, we can be 

doing better to populate that pipeline. But that is just a beginning 

because, as you suggest, part of how we successfully transfer technologies, how we successfully commercialize involves taking from 

that next step. Merely inventing is not enough. We have also got 

to engage with the private sector to do so. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, a follow-up question, how does NASA engage 

with the entrepreneurial community to ensure potential technologies are recognized and taken advantage of? Are there means 

of regular discourse with our Nation’s technology areas such as Silicon Valley or Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, or 

Cummings Research Park in my hometown of Huntsville, Alabama, 

if I could boast for a moment, which is the second-largest research 

park in the United States of America and the fourth-largest research park in the world? 

Dr. PECK. You are absolutely right, sir. NASA actively markets 

its technology to the technical community at large as not just the 

area strictly outside of the field center gates. The technology transfer program has an active technology and marketing and outreach 

campaign. I have described some of the elements of that already. 

There is also NASA Tech Briefs. This is a free monthly publication, 

features over 600 NASA technologies per year. It is also the largest 

circulation engineering periodical in the country. It reaches over 

200,000 people per month. 

NASA brings its technologies to industry-specific conferences, another method that we use. It brings new sensor technologies to optics conferences, our new composites to manufacturing conferences. 

The Agency has also recently started hosting industry-specific 

events like a recent automotive conference in Cleveland to which 

all the U.S. automakers were invited. And that is to showcase technologies and to test facilities that may be of use to that industry. 

And we have also got a pilot program in Colorado to determine if 
57 

regional industrial clusters can benefit from an infusion of NASA 

technologies. 

Some of this work you can read more about at the NASA.gov/ 

OCTeconomicimpacts website, and there is a searchable map where 

you can see how the investment in SBIR program particularly, 

maps to local businesses and what do there. 

Mr. BROOKS. This question is with respect to the other four witnesses, and whoever wants to grab it first can do so. 

How might an entrepreneur view NASA’s technologies differently 

from NASA program managers and innovators? More specifically, 

is this being taken into account when devising better practices for 

dissemination of information? 

Mr. BECK. I can actually echo some of Dr. Peck’s work to give 

a real example of that. The ultrasound work that was done at the 

Johnson Space Center I was actually a part of. And one of the 

things in how these things leverage is the realization and how 

NASA demonstrates its relevancy to the U.S. populous is NASA 

has a mission, and because of that mission, it creates a need. We 

had a need to support our astronaut operators and be able to diagnose illnesses that could occur on orbit. 

As a result of that, given the limitations of orbit, a technology 

was identified using ultrasound to be able to diagnose several of 

the problems that could occur on orbit. Space is unique but it is 

also a construction zone. Well, that becomes very relevant because 

these techniques that were developed in the ultrasound project 

found their way into being used in ERs on a regular basis in a way 

that you can be diagnosed in a bed as opposed to having to go off 

the CAT scan so they can immediately decide whether or not you 

need surgery. And I have personal knowledge of how the techniques that were developed out of the papers that were published 

from that program actually led to use directly by our military so 

that as our special operators, medics fly to save a down pilot or an 

operator that is remotely deployed and injured, when we get them, 

we are able to actually diagnose them in time in flight so that we 

can intervene immediately with a therapeutic intervention. And in 

addition, we can also have the appropriate care ready for them 

when they return. 

So one of the things that NASA has to do in demonstrating this 

is make itself more relevant to the public. That is sometimes difficult. Unless you have a panel like this you don’t hear about how 

something is what one would think as unique as ultrasound in 

space actually has real meaning. The work that was done there 

was published in a series of over 11 peer-reviewed articles in the 

medical literature and has really changed the way we provide prehospital care. No one really knows about that and somehow that 

has to be changed and this Committee offers an opportunity to 

make that known. 

Mr. BROOKS. In that vein, I would like to thank the Chairman 

for calling this particular hearing. I have been a long believer in 

NASA perhaps being the premier Federal Government agency that 

has created technological advances that in turn have made America 

exceptional. And so, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I also thank you, witnesses, for helping to share the insight 

you have been able to share today. 
58 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Clarke from Michigan. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you recognizing me. I represent metropolitan Detroit and I am a Cornell 

grad, too, so I am really happy to be here today, although in a very 

non-STEM area, fine arts, painting. 

To respond to the question posed by my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama, about the development of the advanced 

ultrasound devices, that was also facilitated by a partnership with 

NASA and Henry Ford Health Systems, located in the heart of the 

city of Detroit. And this is what I wanted to underscore is that 

NASA recognizes the value that metro Detroit has to commercialize 

NASA technologies. I appreciate NASA sending out program managers, engineers, and technologists from three NASA centers last 

year. This is something I encouraged, a greater partnership between NASA and companies in metro Detroit. Also your work with 

GM in developing robotics technology has been very fruitful. 

Detroit has huge capabilities. We have the companies that know 

how to build and manufacture the best products and technologies 

that could be sold worldwide. We have got the best-trained people. 

We have got a lot of people who are out of work who are willing 

and eager to work. We also have three great research universities, 

all anchored in the center of Detroit by Wayne State University, 

along with the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. 

Metro Detroit, especially the city, also has the capacity for 

growth. We have a lot of cheap, vacant land so we could build, let’s 

say, a NASA center for advanced manufacturing research and technology, which is something that I would like to ask NASA to consider down the line. 

My point is this: Detroit is ready and open to do business, to do 

business with NASA. How do you think we can create more metro 

Detroit jobs by leveraging NASA-derived technologies? That could 

be to Dr. Peck or to any of the panelists. 

Dr. PECK. Well, if I may, Congressman, I will start with an answer to your question. Let me just mention briefly the returns that 

we see on NASA’s investment in technology and how that impacts 

the country, I mentioned the Spinoff publication a little while ago. 

Spinoff represents a fraction of all the spinoffs that ultimately result from NASA. The companies surveyed represented in Spinoff, 

we received about a 50 percent response rate, and from that subset 

of the subset of all the possible impacts that NASA has had, we 

found that over just the past decade those investments have created 14,000 jobs through NASA spinoffs, over five billion in revenue, and have saved over 400,000 lives. So the impact of working 

with NASA on technologies clearly is felt nationwide. 

I would offer that specifically for Detroit, there is a nearby NASA 

center; that is NASA Glenn Research Center. We have piloted an 

activity there where NASA provides mentorship to local businesses 

and helps solve technical problems with a small number of NASA 

expertise hours total, but still, it is a way for them to take what 

may be a tipping-point technology and turn it into a successful program. It is through the so-called MAGNET program in Cleveland. 

That is the kind of program that we hope to be able to extend 

across the Nation. It has been successful so far. I will offer that in 
59 

the context of Detroit specifically companies that can work with 

your educational institutions and with NASA can form a threelegged stool of success if you like where the expertise from NASA 

and from education and from the manufacturing community can be 

a very powerful combination. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Dr. Peck. What I would like to do is follow up with you and—to see how we can further advance that. You 

know, we can make that partnership happen. There are a lot of 

companies that are ready to do business with NASA. I would like 

to ask one more question. 

And how difficult is it for companies to partner with NASA? 

What barriers do they face in transitioning resulting technologies 

into commercial products? And what improvements if any would 

enhance NASA’s ability to move more quickly the transition of 

their ideas into new products? How can we best make the commercialization process more effective and efficient? 

Mr. VILJA. I think one of the areas that we can really make 

strides on if we continue programs to their fruition. You know, one 

of the things that happens is that you spend a lot of money and 

effort, and then, before you actually have to put a stamp of completion on it, you stop and then you have to reform, make new teams, 

and you really never get out to industry with that. 

A good example was when the Constellation Program was canceled, the Space Launch System took over many of the systems 

that carried on from Constellation. The J–2X engine was one of the 

examples. On its first nozzle, we had a situation where we were 

coming up with a very complex process for making a very difficult 

manifold, and that manifold was made of sheet metal and it just 

wasn’t coming together for us. And so we sat around going, well, 

how are we going to do this? And again in the problem-solving 

fashion that is derived by NASA to actually make something, we 

end up going, you know who is really good at stamping sheet 

metal? Detroit. And we actually went to a company in Detroit and 

they did a great job. They stamped it out in record time and it was 

a real neat situation. But if you don’t continue the project to the 

point where you have to bend metal and join metal and actually 

complete it, you really don’t get the full benefit of things. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you. Yes? 

Chairman PALAZZO. Mr. Clarke, would you like to allow Dr. 

Aubrecht to respond? 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. AUBRECHT. Just coming back to the point that he was making in terms of completing projects, the thing that working on 

NASA programs allows you to do is to complete the program and 

demonstrate something, a capability in space. Once you do that, 

other people are willing to listen to you, but you have to complete 

the project and have something to show for it. And that is what— 

my mentioning in terms of green propellants, we have been struggling for five years now trying to get a program to fly green propellants here in the United States. We have been unsuccessful at 

doing that. Once we do that, we could sell green propellants around 

the world. It would revolutionize the way satellites are kept in 
60 

orbit. But you need the initial flight, and NASA is in the position 

to be able to do that kind of thing. The other commercial guys are 

very cautious about that because of the risk associated with it. 

NASA can undertake the risk, demonstrate it. Once you have that, 

you can take it elsewhere, but you got to complete the project. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Doctor. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Rohrabacher from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for holding this hearing about the green propellant. 

Once it is tested and once it is put to use and proven, will it cost 

more or less than what current—— 

Dr. AUBRECHT. It would cost a lot less handling hydrazine is 

hugely expensive. It is not the cost of the fuel; it is the cost of all 

of the associated support systems that you have to have because 

it is so toxic. It is dramatically less expensive. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So then, what we need to do—and I will wait 

to get the Chairman’s attention—is what we need to do is make 

sure that we provide—Mr. Chairman, his statement about this ultimately being cheaper to go with the green propellant means that 

we need to be involved in this—— 

Dr. AUBRECHT. Um-hum. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —and we need to push this and make sure 

that it doesn’t sit on the shelf. 

Dr. AUBRECHT. Yeah. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And in the end it would be cost-effective for 

us. So thank you for that. 

I would like to ask about your technology—when you were mentioning something that actually creates power at night? 

Mr. VILJA. Yeah, what it is is it is a concentrated solar power 

plant that has a field of about 10,000 mirrors that focuses onto a 

solar receiver that is on top of a 550 foot tower. It gets the intensity of about 1,000 suns on this receiver. It is a pretty hostile environment but not so bad compared to a rocket nozzle, for instance. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It doesn’t sound like, however, that you 

would be getting much energy—— 

Mr. VILJA. Well, we are making—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —for investment of—— 

Mr. VILJA. It is actually fairly cost-competitive and what it allows us to do is we run molten salt through the receiver and that 

molten salt is then put in storage tanks. And now you have a hot 

reservoir source that you can make steam with throughout the 

evening. So you can actually get solar power at night and it actually applies toward base load rather than peaking load. And that 

is a big deal because that is when you start talking about taking 

coal offline. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. I think if any spinoffs that we have in 

the future we are going to find that there is a relationship between 

the energy and what we are developing in space, which leads me 

to Dr. Peck. 

Years ago I was very involved with trying to advocate the development of wireless projection of energy so that we might be able 

to utilize the satellite as a system of transferring energy from one 

place in the Earth to the other or collecting it in space and trans-
61 

ferring it to Earth. Has there been much research on that or is that 

just a forgotten project? 

Dr. PECK. Congressman Rohrabacher, thanks for bringing that 

one up. It is an exciting idea and I am glad to report that there 

are several efforts underway currently at NASA in that particular 

technology. One is through the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts Program, which is part of the Space Technology Program 

within my office. We have a so-called NIAC Phase I study, the 

Solar Power Satellite via Arbitrarily Large Phase Array—that is 

SPS–ALPHA. It focuses a modular approach that would one day 

make a huge orbital platform to be megawatts of wireless power. 

Now, NIAC is known for those very far-out ideas. 

In much more nearer term, we have the Centennial Challenges 

Program. You may remember this is our flagship prize competition 

activity. Prizes have often been recognized as a great innovative 

way to bring in nontraditional offerers and technologists to solve 

hard problems. We offered a prize for beamed power in 2005 to 

2009 looking at how to beam power to a spacecraft that could rise 

through the atmosphere using that kind of power. In fact, one of 

the competitors—LaserMotive, LLC—was awarded $900,000 in the 

2009 challenge because the practical demonstration of power beaming. 

And now, more recently, the game-changing development program, again one of the Space Technology Programs. In 2011, we 

awarded approximately $3 million for concept studies to multiple 

companies for a first-phase study called Ride the Light. There was 

work done by Teledyne Brown Engineering in Huntsville, Alabama; 

Aerojet in Redmond, Washington; ATK in New York; LaserMotive 

in Kent, Washington; and a number of others including JPL Boeing 

and the Aerospace Corporation. These studies show that the cost 

of a phase 2 ground-based demonstration wouldn’t be feasible in 

the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount for space technology, but 

it does provide a path forward for looking into this research in the 

future. 

As you suggest, it is a far-out idea but it has got some promise 

and this is the sort of thing that we pursue through the Space 

Technology Program because where else are you going to do it? You 

know, it has got to be done at NASA. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Most people don’t know we lose a lot of electricity when it goes—when it is transmitted over wires, and come 

to think of it, is there that much loss when we transmit it by beaming it? And that is the type of studies that I would like to see because it might even be cost-effective to transfer it from space to 

earth rather than produce it in Earth and using wires to send it 

thousands of miles away. 

One last thought—and I know I just got a few seconds here—and 

that is we have heard about the sonogram and some of these other 

spinoff technologies. I am very interested—and we have heard a lot 

of questions today—about getting the new things onto the market, 

but if once they are on the market we have private companies that 

are making lots of money off the jobs that they are doing in the 

private sector. Is there a payback for NASA? Is there a—who owns 

the technology? And should we have a system set up so that if 

someone has a sonogram that becomes used all over the world and 
62 

NASA’s technology development was instrumental in developing 

that, who has got the patent and who is going to get the money 

and is NASA going to get anything back? Maybe Dr. Peck or whoever would like to comment on that. 

Dr. PECK. Yes, sir. I will give you a brief response and then 

maybe save some time for others. You know, briefly, a lot of the 

tech transfer activity that we have undertaken at the Agency is 

based on licensing. The licensing fees can come back to the government through that. Part of it goes to the inventor in fact, which 

motivates—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we should have that but is NASA getting anything back? 

Dr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are? 

Dr. PECK. And I will take for the record to provide some details 

on that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That would be very nice. That would be very 

good. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. At this time, we are going to go into a second round of questions. We are going to ask our Members to only 

ask one question just in case votes are called. 

And the first opportunity is going to go to Mr. Russell. I think 

you raised your hand and the question was probably centered 

around what is the greatest barrier your company faced when 

working with NASA on technology transfer projects? What was 

similar to what Mr. Clarke was going to ask you? But we will give 

you an opportunity and we are going to count that as his question. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you. The point I wanted to make was there 

are some softer aspects of the value of NASA, which is critically 

important to small companies like mine. So the fact that NASA is 

using our product allows us to market that fact, which helps NASA 

and the general public get wider awareness. So that fact that, you 

know, NASA has used us because they have solved this problem in 

space for 30 years, that was before people could do remote physiological monitoring due to technology. So when we needed to field 

it onto special operators, we used NASA’s 30-year experience to 

help us solve that problem for a DOD problem. Then they could 

take that technology and use it for the washout program on the Air 

Force and then DHS used that on first responders. 

So I think NASA needs recognition that they are using the advanced technology to help other government departments to solve 

the problem as well. And so then into the general public when our 

monitoring people at home across the country using that technology, it is very cheap and is now helping everybody in the general public not only be well but monitor their chronic disease 

issues. So I think the fact that NASA has gone into government departments who had the next need and then into the general public 

at the consumer level helps NASA. And every time we can tell people where the technology came from, I think that adds a true value 

back to NASA that is not just financial but helps justify why we 

are here today and helps the general public back the funding for 

that next, hopeful that this technology may help in the future. 
63 

Whether it is blue sky or deep space general today, I think those 

are very good examples of how it does come down. And I think that 

that experience bringing to us and helps our scientists solve problems and excites them to build the competencies of the teams that 

have been talked about, as well as get that into Best Buy, I think 

that is a success that helps everybody. 

Chairman PALAZZO. All right. Thank you, Mr. Russell. 

Dr. Aubrecht and Mr. Vilja, both of you mention in your written 

testimonies the need for NASA to maintain a clear vision for the 

future and to continue investing in the hard and challenging technological problems to ensure the United States remains cutting 

edge. Do either of you have recommendations on ways to improve 

NASA’s strategic vision such as—that the United States is consistently pushing the technological envelope? 

Mr. VILJA. Well, I think it is a three-pronged approach. You 

know, first of all, you really do have to have some sort of sustained 

production so that you can really get that. By going to a continuous 

process and proven approach, you really get a draw for what is the 

technology that you can use. 

The second thing is you always have to have a development program going that actually ends up in product. And that is where you 

really introduce new concepts into practice. And after it has been 

introduced into practice you know it is practical; you know it is 

ready for further investment into the commercial spinoff. 

But then you also got to keep that third prong going where you 

are saying, look, what is impossible today? And then start exploring how you make the impossible possible. And that is where you 

really start getting the breakthroughs. Now, they are not always 

practical. You know, power beaming is a hard thing to do. But once 

you start making those initial breakthroughs, then you drive it into 

practice and then you start getting the commercial spinoff. 

So it is really—you have to have a pipeline going and you have 

to stick to that pipeline because if you keep changing it over, you 

don’t ever really get the full benefit of it. 

Dr. AUBRECHT. Yeah, just to extend on that, to me the thing that 

NASA has done well, where it has succeeded, is when it had a very 

clear statement in terms of what the objective was on one page. 

And you need to get NASA on the page, this Committee, the rest 

of the Congress needs to be on that page, and the White House 

needs to be on the same page. And it has to be clear. It doesn’t 

have to be very complicated language. It doesn’t have to be in scientific or engineering terms or whatever, just a very clear objective 

in terms of what you are trying to accomplish. 

The question earlier in terms of engaging the public and how to 

get the public understanding what NASA does. You have to write 

it in terms of what the local newspapers can write articles about 

that and say here is where NASA is going with something. So to 

me it is almost a marketing challenge that you have, but it starts 

with have a very clear, concise statement in terms of what the objective is. And you go back to the manned space program; that is 

what drove that all the way through the ’60s and ’70s, which is 

very clear, continuous, step-by-step here is where we want to go. 

And to me if you did that with all of the rest of the NASA sort of 

projects, you would have the same kind of result. 
64 

Chairman PALAZZO. Dr. Aubrecht, I think you will find complete 

agreement with this Committee on what you just said. 

And at this time, I will recognize Mr. Costello. 

Dr. AUBRECHT. I notice the heads nodding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Vilja, let me ask you. You mentioned at Pratt Whitney what 

you have learned and what your experience has been with rocket 

engines and how it was instrumental in your ability to design a 

rapid-mix injector. And you talked about the—in your gas fire system. Tell me a little bit, if you will, about how this technology, deploying this new technology in commercial systems, how it may 

have a result on emission reduction and greater use of coal gasification technology in energy generation? 

Mr. VILJA. Sure. I mean the thing that really drives anything 

into practice is an economic benefit right off the top. By being 90 

percent smaller than the other alternatives that exist today, you 

get a real benefit in just building the plant in the first place, you 

know, on the order of like 30 percent of building the plant, then 

a 15, 20 percent reduction in the amount of product that you get 

out of it for the product you put in. 

We are also finding that using this technology we are not as susceptible to the grade of coal coming in. We have been talking to a 

lot of users of existing plants. They have to specially blend their 

various coals, and as a rocket guy, had no idea there were that 

many different coals. But there are a lot of different coals and you 

have to make a special blend so the gasifiers don’t have hiccups 

and they can still keep producing. Ours seems to be pretty insensitive to that so you can really start using more different grades of 

coal and still get the same outcome. 

Now, by getting the higher efficiency, you get a ten percent lower 

amount of carbon dioxide that is produced in it and it is coming 

out at a higher pressure, so if you wanted to do carbon sequestration, you have higher pressure to work with and it is much easier 

to do that. 

And then the final benefit is the fact that since we are a dry-feed 

system, we use 30 percent less water. And I think over the course 

of things, water preservation is going to be a very big thing in the 

environmental agenda, and so I think that I am—you know, a lot 

of people talk about the air pollution side but we think water conservation is another part of it that makes it economically very attractive. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We obviously can’t do this now but I will be in 

touch with you later. I am very interested in pursuing some other 

questions with you. 

Mr. VILJA. That would be great. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Clarke. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I have been working to attract new companies to metro Detroit. 

Many of them are startups and virtually all of them are headed up 

by very bright individuals that understand a partnership with 

NASA could be mutually beneficial, yet many of them don’t understand how to work with government. What steps should a new 

startup take if they wanted to start a dialogue with NASA on a future likely partnership? And that is to anyone. 
65 

Mr. RUSSELL. As a very small company and a foreigner, we started actually when we were based in New Zealand before we shifted 

the company wholly to the United States, and so we engaged with 

the end researchers and subject matter experts in NASA that 

wanted to work with us in a mutually beneficial way. And that 

really helped us not have to learn the entire SBIR process nor the 

contracting to begin with. We actually had a value proposition that 

we could come to NASA and they could help us with the process. 

And I think there has been some amazing explanation of the processes that exist. 

So my recommendation would be figure out what you want to do 

first and what problem you want to solve rather than head smack 

into all the bureaucracy that is going to overwhelm you. Because 

once you have the passion inside NASA and your organization, 

they are enthusiastic; they will help solve the other problems for 

you. 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes? 

Mr. VILJA. NASA has also got an active program where we can 

have mentor prote ́ge ́ relationships with new companies, particularly in HUBZones or distressed areas, and we have contract flowdowns where a certain percentage of our entire contract value has 

to go to this kind of a spread. We have had a lot of success on the 

J–2 program. We had a mentor- prote ́ge ́ relationship with several 

HUBZone companies where they actually learn how to do government contracting and we were able to bring them into the supplier 

base. Cain Tubular outside of Chicago had never worked on rocket 

components. They did a great job on some heat exchanger coils for 

us. The company in Detroit who was able to stamp out the panels, 

we think they are going to fall into our supplier base. 

But, the intricacies of government contracting is something they 

are going to have to learn. But these contracts give a great opportunity for them to learn that without having to be overcome by, you 

know, trying to bid on them individually. And by going along with 

these kinds of programs, I think that is a great way for them to 

become part of the NASA supplier base. 

Mr. CLARKE. That is great. So I will reach out to you gentlemen, 

then, regarding some partnerships. 

Dr. PECK. May I add something to that? 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. 

Dr. PECK. Thank you. Just briefly, I mentioned the online 

partnering tool already. It is at technology.NASA.gov. That actually 

allows companies to engage directly with NASA and get 

handholding through the process. It is actually meant to simplify 

the kind of relationship that Mr. Russell explained can be overwhelming. But thanks to our new approach and using a web-based 

interface, we think we are simplifying that. We have even gone further to offer licensing available through the internet, so as a small 

company, if you know that you want to license a technology that 

has been developed for NASA, you can go to the website, click on 

it, and procure it right there and then. 

Mr. CLARKE. That is great. So I know I had one question but you 

actually answered my other questions about licensing. Thank you. 

And I yield my time back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. 
66 

I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee may 

have additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask for you 

to respond to those in writing. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and statements from Members. 

The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(67) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
68 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Mason Peck 

RALPH M. HALL, TEXAS 

CHAIRMAN 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, TEXAS 

RANKING MEMBER 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. Mason Peck 

NASA Chief Teclmologist 

NASA Headquarters 

300 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20024 

Dear Dr. Peck: 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www.science.houS$.gov 

August 16,2012 

On behalf of tbe Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I want to express my appreciation for 

your participation in tbe July 12, 2012 hearing entitled, Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness 

Through NASA Derived Technologies. 

I have attached a verbatim transcript of the hearing for your review. The Committee's rule pertaining to 

the printing of transcripts is as follows: 

The transcripts o/those hearings conducted by the Committee and Subcommittees shall be 

published as a substantially verbatim account a/remarks actually made during the proceedings, 

subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the person 

making the remarks involved. 

Transcript edits, if any, should be submitted no later tban August 31, 2012. If no edits are received by tbe 

above date, I will presume that you have no suggested edits to tbe transcript. 

I am also enclosing questions submitted for tbe record by Members of tbe Committee. These are 

questions that the Members were unable to pursue during the time allotted at tbe hearing, but felt were 

important to addtess as palt of the official record. Please respond to the enclosed questions by August 31, 

2012. 

All transcript edits and responses to the enclosed questions should be submitted to me and directed to tbe 

attention of Ben Schell at ben.schell@mail.house.gov If you have any further questions or concerns, 

please contact Mr. Schell at (202) 225-901l. 

Thank you again for your testimony. 

Sincerely, , 

~~!frL Enclosures: Transcript & Member Questions 
69 

Questions for the Record 

Chairman Steven· Palazzo 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

Technologies 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing 

July 12,2012 

1. Your testimony states that your office is currently reviewing NASA technology transfer 

policies and will be revising them in the coming year. When will you be able to provide us 

with the details of those changes? 

2. Your testimony mentions a series ofintemal initiatives aimed at increasing NASA 

personnel's awareness of the agency's technology transfer policy as a response to the IG's 

findings. Can you please explain to us what these initiatives are and how will you measure 

their effectiveness? 
70 

Questions for the Record 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

Technologies 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing 

July 12,2012 

1. Does NASA receive compensation when it research investment is broadly used as the basis 

of a new product owned by a private company? 

2. Is there payback or benefits for NASA if its technology oecomes widely used throughout the 

world? What about licensing fees? 

3. Who owns the technology, ·patent, or intellectual property rights if a company 

commercializes a product from NASA R&D investment? 

4. Is NASA planning to pursue and demonstrating green propellant in space? If so, what 

propellants and specify the timeline? 
71 

Questions for the Record 

Ranking Member Jerry Costello 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

. Technologies 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing 

July 12, 2012 

1. To what extent can the direct and indirect economic impacts of NASA investments be 

measured? 

2. What has NASA learned over the years, as well as from other Federal R&D agencies, on 

how to successfully transfer technologies to the commercial sector, and how is NASA 

acting on those lessons learned? 

3. To what extent is commercializatiori of NASA technologies enhanced by higher funding 

levels for NASA? What priorities would you address With additional resources? 

4. What performance metrics does NASA use to determine the effectiveness of its 

technology transfer and commercialization activities and individual partnerships, and 

what is the basis for those metrics? 

5. It is not widely known that Zephyr's BioHarnesses monitored miners' wellI).ess during 

the Chilean mine accident. Mr. Russell's prepared statement indicates that Zephyr is 

sharing the data collected during those dramatic weeks with NASA. How will that data 

be useful to NASA and to human exploration specifically? 
72 

Questions for the Record 

Congresswoman Donna Edwards 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

Technologies 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing 

July 12,2012 

1. What is NASA doing to accelerate teclmology transfer and commercialization of its 

research, development, and teclmology consistent with the direction in the President's 

Memorandum on "Accelerating Teclmology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal 

Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses"? When can Congress expect a report 

documenting the agency's progress towards meeting the President's direction? 

2. One of the stated objectives of NASA's Teclmology Transfer Implementation Plan is to 

engage the technology transfer process at all stages of development and to ensure that 

teclmology transfer is considered at the earliest phases of NASA program and acquisition 

planning. What will NASA do, in practice, to meet this objective? 

a. To what extent does meeting this goal require a culture shift and, if so, what is the 

most important thing you are doing to encourage such a shift? 

3. In your prepared statement, you say that NASA is "restoring resources for technology 

assessments, bridge funding, market analysis, and marketing aftechnologies." What is 

the justification for NASA's role in market analysis and the marketing oftechnologies? 
73 

Responses by Mr. George Beck 

Responses To Additional Questions from Chairman Steven Palazzo 

1. How has working with NASA created a new generation of engineers and business owners out of 

the Impact Instrumentation team? Do you have specific examples of how your partnership with 

NASA has expanded the pool of promising new commercial technologies and businesses? 

Response: 

Impact Instrumentation, Inc. is a small business and we have to compete against large 

companies who seek to attract the very best talent. Given this, we have to be creative in how 

we attract and retain employees. Working with NASA enables us to offer a unique opportunity 

to our engineers, contribute to a project that will put a device in space. In its own small way the 

NASA project has helped Impact attract and keep a talented group of engineers and technicians. 

In so doing this same group has also developed new life support equipment that is used by our 

military and civilian care providers. In addition, the knowledge in the aerospace community that 

we are working with NASA has provided a level of validation for our new technology. 

2. Once a product is developed and proven as something NASA could effectively utilize "in the 

field," what is your experience related to getting such a product into the user's hands - how has 

this differed from our experience with other federal agencies, most notably the Department of 

Defense? 

Response: 

Projects take a long time to be completed at NASA. This is primarily due to lack of clear direction 

in the Program. Needs and potential solutions are identified however, the lack of direction 

results in project moving forward only in an administrative way. We have been working with 

NASA for almost 10 years and I suspect we will be working with them for another several years 

before the ventilator is deployed. Our experience with NASA is very different from our 

experience with our Department of Defense (DoD) and the militaries of other countries. The 

DoD typically has a defined sense of mission and as a result projects move to completion and 

fielding much faster. 

This question truly speaks to the future of the manned space program. It is clear that if NASA is 

to have any future and provide a benefit to our nation that it must have its mission defined and 

funded. I believe the current funding is sufficient given the economic challenges our nation 

faces. New leadership is required to work with congress to define manned-space mission 

followed by a reprioritization of the personnel and resources to meet those mission objectives. 

Until then, the manned space program will struggle along and waste money as it moves in fits 

and starts. 
74 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Ranking Member Jerry Costello 

1. Of all the technology transfer and commercialization activities that NASA carries out, which do 

you consider to have been the most important in facilitating your business growth? Why? 

Response: 

As discussed in session, our technology is being spun into NASA as opposed to a traditional spin 

off. Our company develops and manufactures medical equipment for military and commercial 

customers to meet the environmental and operational extremes of prehospital care. We were 

funded by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) to develop a new integrated medical platform for 

battlefield casualty care and transport. Knowing that NASA had similar requirements for such a 

device we subcontracted, using ONR funds as well as our own R&D funds, with NASA's prime 

contractor for space medicine to do some of the prototype development under our direction. 

DOing this lead us to form a Space Act Agreement with NASA which facilitated cooperative 

development. To date the new technology has not been deployed to space but this is more of an 

issue with loss of direction for NASA than the technology which has completed much of the 

testing required for use in space. We are able to say this with confidence in that many of our 

engineers, myself included, worked at NASA and were responsible for developing and clearing 

equipment for use in space on both the shuttle and space station. 

Business growth, in most instances, I don't believe, that businesses will grow based on a 

relationship with NASA. For most organizations, outside of the large contractors that do the buld 

of the work at NASA, working with NASA provides an interesting extension for their existing core 

technology to meet the challenges of space flight. NASA's influence is much more subtle and 

cannot be directly measured in dollars. In our case, an emotionless accounting analysiS of the 

project amounts to a Nl0 ventilator order with some additional nonrecurring engineering funds 

in the context of a small business that sells more than 3,000 ventilators per year. However, the 

project creates an opportunity for our engineers and, at some point, our production personnel 

to work on something that will go into space. This work creates significant excitement which 

improves employee retention and increases the pride that they employees and owners have for 

the company and their work. 

In the larger sense NASA's biggest spin off is and will remain the vision of man, space and 

exploration. Our nation needs this vision; it's what brings our young people to careers in science 

and engineering. Our nation also needs the funding that comes from NASA, the DoD and other 

agencies that support the exploration at the bench in our universities and businesses. NASA 

doesn't create technology; it creates a need for technology and with that, the person or 

organization that rises to meet the challenge. 

2. How might future partnerships with NASA enable continued technology advancements? 

Response: 

The best partnerships and advancements come when the NASA need is an extension of the 

current earth-based use of a technology. NASA's support creates the opportunity for businesses 

to extend their technology to meet the challenge of space and look beyond an immediate focus 
75 

to expand their market share with their existing technology. This leads to new technology that 

can be used in space and terrestrially. 

a. What types of partnerships with NASA, in your view, are the most conducive to 

technology transfer and commercialization? 

Response: 

The best partnerships result when there is a joint need for the end product. In this 

situation both parties do all that they can to develop the end product. 

3. As someone from the private sector, what, in our view, are the biggest barriers to transferring or 

commercializing NASA-derived technologies? 

Response: 

NASA's ever-shifting priorities and mission focus lead to confusion up and down the chain of 

command and as a result even the Simplest updates or changes are constantly reprioritized 

because the mission and/or the collective understanding of the mission changes. In the case of a 

spin off technology the final validation in orbit is delayed and as a result the potential to 

commercialize the technology is delayed. In our case where we are trying to bring something in, 

it leads to meeting after meeting with no follow up because the Program isn't sure what it's 

going to do next. 

The lack of focus and leadership not only effects commercialization it also leads to huge wastes 

of money and effort as prOjects are developed and brought close to completion only to be 

scrapped or "shifted to the right" because the mission goals have changed. This also leads to 

NASA losing its best employees as the frustrating lack of progress, despite sufficient funding in 

most cases, leads people to leave for the private sector. 

4. Have you engaged in technology transfer with other Federal agencies? If so, how does your 

experience with NASA technology transfer compare to you experience with other Federal 

research and development laboratories? 

Response: 

Our company was part of a technology transfer with the DoD where we took a piece of medical 

transport equipment originally developed by an Army medic. We redesigned the device to make 

it manufacturable and then brought it into production and distribution. The Special Medical 

Emergency Evacuation Device (SMEED) is now used by all 4 branches of the military to transport 

critically ill or injured warfighters from the battlefield through the echelons of care and then 

back to the United States. Under the program the Army and SGT Smeed receive a royalty from 

the sale of the device. 
76 

Responses by Mr. Brian Russell 

Zephyr Congressional Committee 

Follow on Questions and Answers Measure Life . .. Anywhere 

19 Sept 2012 

Chairman Steven Palazzo 

1. The legal dept was easy to work with. Most IP issues were 

dealt with on normal commercial basis ( included with in the 

commercial product supplied to NASA) or under the Space Act 

Agreement. Various knowledge was informally exchanged in 

both directions between Zephyr and NASA personnel to 

mutual value. 

2. The product Zephyr supplies to NASA is under normal 

commercial terms. Under the Space Act Agreement Zephyr 

works with NASA to understand research results and sensor 

performance. Defense Customers require a lot more paper 

work and generally need customization. This can lead to 

challenges when the difference in time between design 

changes and procurement can be multiple years. Special 

Forces are more dynamic. 

Ranking Member Jerry Costello 

1. The most value from NASA has come as an informed early 

adopter and requesting changes based on field use in 

experiments - e.g. zero gravity flights, pilot fatigue. 

2. Future technology developments would require funding into 

physiological monitoring which does not seem to be a high 

priority. Possibly bringing NASA in as a subject matter expert 

with other government departments such as DOD would be 

mutually beneficial. 

3. NASA derived technologies are not required by Zephyr to 

date. This is some part is due to the difficulty in accessing 

what is available. Also in the field of Physiological monitoring 

Zephyr has newer technology than NASA as NASA 

developments of custom sensors were dropped in the recent 

past. This is some part shows that the knowledge of the last 

30 years has been shared into the general field and the 

private sector has taken it to larger volume applications 

benefiting all society. Unfortunately any requests from NASA 

for NASA specific changes for space would have to be fully 

funded as the requirements would have no other application. 

It is good to see the space program adopting WiFi and 

Date: 28/09/2012 I © Zephyr Technology 2010 Page 

File Documentl 1 of 2 

This document is confidential and does not constitute a public document. Possession should only be 

under NDA or other relevant confidentiality agreement. This document has been prepared by Zephyr 

Technology Corp and is not to be distributed, copied or reproduced without permission. 
77 

Zephyr Congressional Committee 

Follow on Questions and Answers Measure Ufe, .. Anywhere 

19 Sept 2012 

BlueTooth off the shelf technologies which will assist NASA (as 

DOD is doing) to keep up with COTS technology when 

allowable. 

4. Zephyr has licensed technology from US Army. The 

experience was supported well and very easy. 

5. The process was kept simple from Zephyr's perspective as the 

NASA personnel dealt with all the NASA procedures and 

requirements. 

Date: 28/09/2012 , © Zephyr Technology 2010 Page 

File Documentl 2 of 2 

This document is confidential and does not constitute a public document. Possession should only be 

under NOA or other relevant confidentiality agreement. This document has been prepared by Zephyr 

Technology Corp and is not to be distributed, copied or reproduced without permission. 
78 

Responses by Mr. John Vilja 

Responses to Questions for the Record 

Regarding the Testimony of 

John Vilja 

Vice-President for Strategy, Innovation & Growth 

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne 

Canoga Park, California 

Hearing on 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

Technologies 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing on 12 July 2012 

Reponses provided on 31 August 2012 
79 

Questions from Chairman Palazzo: 

Question 1: At what point did your company recognize the value of the rocket engine 

technology to the energy industry? Where was the connection made? What role, if any, 

has NASA played in that transition? 

Response: The value of rocket engine technology within the energy industry was first 

realized in the late 1970's when Rocketdyne's sister company, Atomics International, was 

working a number of terrestrial and space energy projects. It became apparent that many of 

the complex combustion, heat transfer, and fluid modeling models developed for rocket 

engine design and development were far more advanced than anything being used in the 

energy sector. As the rocket engine driven multi-disciplinary techniques advanced, so did 

the collaboration with the energy portion of the company. The synergy became so clear that 

the rocket and energy segments were combined to create Rocketdyne Propulsion and 

Power in 1984. Following this, several terrestrial technologies were spun off including 

hydrogen recombiners for nuclear power plants and waste heat recovery and 

environmental treatment products. Today, this combination has continued to contribute to 

the space with the electric power system for the International Space Station and the mUltimission radioisotope thermoelectric generator which powers the Mars rover, Curiosity. 

NASA's role in this has been substantial but indirect. By continuing to push the boundaries 

of rocket propulsion, first by helping create the Space Shuttle Main Engine, then follow-up 

technologies such as Space Transportation Main Engine, XRS-2200 Aerospike engine, 

Space Launch Initiative engines RS-83 and RS-84, and even the modernized J-2X 

2 
80 

currently undergoing development testing, NASA has continued to advance the 

understanding of many disciplines crucial to furthering technological bounds. Significant 

increases in understanding have come in the areas of material sciences, thermal 

management, combustion modeling, high speed rotating machinery, and manufacturing 

technology. The key is that NASA was not looking for spin-offs, it was reaching forward to 

conquer new areas of human knowledge and capability. This is the area where they must 

retain their focus in order to be successful. They have neither the expertise nor the 

"bandwidth" to attempt to see how their work applies to terrestrial market applications. 

Question 2: What avenues does Rocketdyne utilize when seeking opportunities to partner 

with NASA on non-traditional technology development activities? 

Response: Currently all NASA commercial partnering with Rocketdyne is in the area of 

space launch and utilization. This is done through cooperative agreements where the 

govemment and industry agree to collaborate on specific tasks which allow access to 

NASA facilities and expertise in exchange for payment or information exchange. This 

avenue is open to use of government assets in support of terrestrial commercial endeavors 

however these are relatively rare since these agreements require significant effort to initiate 

and are often not sufficiently schedule responsive for commercial needs. This situation is 

improving but basic reforms could be useful to provide more efficient commercial utilization 

of these capabilities. 

3 
81 

Questions from Ranking Member Costello: 

Question 1: Of all the technology transfer and commercialization activities that NASA 

carries out, which do you consider to have been the most important in facilitating your 

business growth? Why? 

Response: We do not receive significant benefit from NASA's direct commercialization 

activities. The benefit we see comes more from expanding the nation's understanding of 

our physical world by pushing state of the art across multiple disciplines through their space 

and aeronautical exploration efforts. To better understand this one can compare the 

outcome from a specific technology development against the benefit from pushing a 

broader technology imperative. During the 1990's several new material alloys were 

developed at NASA Research Centers for application in rocket engines. These alloys 

provided improved life characteristics and better strength at high temperatures. They have 

yet to find a use in rocket engines due to the high cost of recertification of new materials 

while they have found little use in commercial industry due to high production costs. 

One can contrast that to the parallel development of computational fluid dynamic analytical 

capability during the same period. By pushing the development and physical anchoring of 

this methodology, the U.S. has achieved world leadership in application throughout multiple 

industries. Today, academia and commercial industry has taken a leading role in the 

advancement of this discipline while NASA still heads the charge in focused areas 

pertaining to NASA challenges. We see similar trends on other disciplines where NASA has 

opened the doors and enabled the nation to benefit. 

4 
82 

Question 2: How might future partnerships with NASA enable continued technology 

advancements? What types of partnerships with NASA, in your view, are the most 

conducive to technology transfer and commercialization? 

Response: The greatest contribution NASA provides for continued technology 

enhancements is in tackling complex, challenging tasks which require the development and 

integration of new tools, techniques, and technologies. These tasks stretch the state-of-theart in many disciplines at the same time while creating innovation through the examination 

of multiple solutions. One example of how this could come from exploration missions to 

Mars is in solving the issues of transit time. Using traditional propulsion it would take 

humans 9 months to make the transit. To solve this problem, the nation must develop 

advanced nuclear thermal or electric propulsion systems and vehicles and must better 

understand cosmic ray shielding systems and more efficient power and life support 

systems. Advances in each of the areas involved will be flowed into industry for use in 

tangential markets. Unfortunately as timelines for tackling these complex challenges are 

delayed, so is the learning that comes from it. 

Question 3: As someone from the private sector, what, in your view, are the biggest 

barriers to transferring or commercializing NASA-derived technologies? 

Response: The biggest challenges we see is in the business side of NASA derived 

technologies. In order to work with NASA, companies must create elaborate accounting 

systems and operating procedures to facilitate Government oversight. These systems are 

effective in creating an environment where the Government can assure its spending is 

done in a prudent fashion and that technical progress is actually what is being reported. 

5 
83 

Unfortunately this has a high overhead cost and few NASA contractors compete well 

against commercial companies with lower overhead rates and more nimble infrastructures. 

The way most organizations solve this is to form a separate entity to commercialize a 

technology. This is effective in that it allows for a commercial infrastructure while enabling 

the inclusion of tangential industry players to facilitate market understanding. Unfortunately, 

this tends to mask the benefits derived from the NASA technology and often hides the true 

benefit of NASA's contribution. 

Question 4: Have you engaged in technology transfer with other Federal agencies? If so, 

how does your experience with NASA technology transfer compare to your experience with 

other Federal research and development laboratories? 

Response: We have worked with several Government agencies outside of NASA in the 

development of new technology with varying degrees of success. Most notable we have 

ongoing efforts with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Department 

of Energy. In each case the root cause of success comes from pushing the state-of-the-art 

to higher levels while maturing the tools to achieve success. Even where the ultimate goal 

wasn't met, there is significant learning which is returned tothe nation as valuable 

intellectual capital. The pursuit of isolated, singular technology is generally a less productive 

approach since there is either success or failure with few tangential benefits added to the 

collective knowledge base. 

The most difficult items to commercialize are those technologies created solely within the 

government agency and offered to industry for commercialization. The challenge here is 

that industry lacks the innate understanding of the technology which causes the 

6 
84 

commercial development to be much more costly. This is often an insurmountable barrier to 

achieve successful commercialization. 

Question 5: Could you please elaborate on your recommendation for the creation of a 

unified national space policy that "recognizes the need for stable production combined with 

concurrent development of both new products as well as advanced technologies?" 

Response: This recommendation is similar to what is being implemented in other nation's 

space programs. It is even more vital for their efforts since they have much smaller space 

budgets than the United States. It is a policy that recognizes the ongoing benefit to the 

nation's knowledge base from the three phases of technology pursuit. 

The base of the approach is to have a stable, ongoing production of an advanced product. 

This creates a basis for continuous process improvement and creates a platform where 

incremental changes can find application and new workers can hone their skills in real 

application. 

The second leg of this policy is to keep an ongoing full-scale development effort going at all 

times. This is the phase where the new technologies of greater maturity are harvested and 

entered into practical service. These technologies are adapted and integrated with other 

facets of the development to complete the maturation process. Commercialization is most 

practical after a new technology has been matured through an integrated full scale 

development effort or after it has been applied to serial production. 

The final leg is in the identification and exploration of new technology. This is the process 

7 
85 

where phenomenology is investigated and potential applications are explored. This usually 

involves the most experienced subject matter experts exploring the limits of human 

understanding. The key in this area is to rapidly recognize "failures", document the new 

found limitation and then quickly move on to the next area of study. Success in these areas 

has a relatively small yield so it is imperative to keep these efforts from become ongoing 

legacy sandbox studies. The successful results of this area are the basis for breakthroughs 

that can open new industries after they have been demonstrated in practical application in 

the aerospace sector. 

8 
86 

Responses by Dr. Richard Aubrecht 

MOOG 

Enst Aurora, NY 14052 

Questions for the Record 

Ranking Member Jerry Costello 

28 August 2012 

Spurring Economic Growth and Competitiveness Through NASA Derived 

Technologies 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing 

July 12,2012 

1. How can NASA best encourage and support the development of both incremental and gamechanging innovations related to launch vehicles and spacecraft so that these technologies will be 

accepted in commercial space applications? 

The commercial space industry is relatively conservative especially in tenns of components llsed on 

the basic satellite bus. Unless significant improvements are possible with a new design relative to the 

perfonnance, durability or cost of a component, satellite builders are reluctant to change from the 

components they have becn using. When now technologies or improved designs are possible, there is 

a role for NASA to provide the tlnancial support and technical collaboration to design, test and fly the 

innovative designs. This enables the component manufacturer to provide the satellite builders with a 

proven design with a history of actual usage in space. These improved designs can also be applied on 

military satellites, and provide similar savings to the DOD. 

2. New innovative materials and fabrication processes could signitlcantly reduce the cost of 

components for NASA and commercial space applications. How can NASA best encourage and 

support the development aud qualification of materials and fabrication processes'! 

The answer to question 2 is similar to the answer to question 1. The difference is that here the design 

might be almost identical. The change is in the materials and process to produce the component. A 

good example of this is the availability of additive manufacturing processes to fabricate metal parts. 

These processes enable parts to be fabricated that weigh 40-50% less than similar parts made with 

traditional metal removal manufacturing processes. Here, as with the answer to question I, NASA 

has a critical role as the lead user that canllot only provide the seed money, but also the guidance, 

experience and new specifications to qualify the new materials or processes for satellite usage. 

Page 1 of2 
87 

Æ 

MOOG 28 August 2012 East Aurora, NY 14052 

For both questions 1 and 2, the designs, materials and processes are technologies that are not only 

applicable to other aerospace applications and even commercial and consumer products. Such 

innovations can make major contributions to America's manufacturing indnstries. 

6. Your prepared statement indicates tbat Congress should insist on cleal' statements of objectives 

with target dates, Can yon elaborate on that point and provide examples· of where NASA 

should be directed to provide such definition? 

At the mission level, NASA needs to have clear statements of objectives with target dates. These 

provide the understanding and guidance to the Congress, the NASA staff, the Administration, and the 

contractors as to what NASA wants to accomplish and the rationale. Perhaps more importantly, these 

statements should be written so the American media and the American public can understand 

NASA's relevance. Without the understanding and support of the American public for the missions, 

NASA cannot expect Congressional support and begins to look like just another jobs progranl. 

At the system or subsystem level, clear statements of objectives with target dates are imp0l1ant to 

advance the technologies discussed in questions I and 2 above. An example is to state its objectives 

and timetables to develop and fly a fleet of small satellites for NASA. Another example is to do the 

same relative for green satellite propellants. 

Currently, a variety of companies are investing their R&D resources in new technologies like these. 

However, for the reasons stated above, such technologies are not likely to be widely used without 

support from government users of satellites, either the DOD or NASA. The advantage NASA has is 

the level.ofteclmical competence to oversee the development, testing and demonstration tlights oftlle 

new technologies. 

Page2of2