NASA Advisory Council (NAC) 

Aeronautics Committee 

February 28–March 1, 2013
 

NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC
 

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
 

Meeting Minutes 

Participants: 

First Last Organization Role 

Marion Blakey AIA Chair 

John Borghese Rockwell Collins Member 

Mark Anderson Boeing Phantom Works Member 

Mike Bragg University of Illinois Member 

J.P. Clarke Georgia Tech Member 

Mike Francis UTRC Member 

Ilan Kroo Stanford University Member 

John Langford Aurora Flight Sciences Member 

Mark Pearson [PHONE] GE Aviation Member 

Tom Wood Bell Helicopter Member 

Michael Maloney Nat. Research Council Observer 

Jaiwon Shin NASA NASA AA 

Tom Irvine NASA Deputy AA 

Susan Minor NASA Exec. Secretary 

Diane Brown NASA Dir. Resources 

Robert Pearce NASA Dir. Strategy 

Ed Waggoner NASA ISRP Director 

Jay Dryer NASA FAP Director 

Doug Rohn NASA AvSP Director 

Jon Montgomery NASA Integration Director 

Cathy Bahm NASA ISRP Dep. Director 

Lee Olsen NASA FAA Liaison 

George Finelli NASA Langley RCenter 

Alan Angleman Nat. Research Council Observer 

Waseem Naqvi Raytheon Observer 

Fred McKee Observer 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 1 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 28, 2013 

The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m. by chair Marion Blakey. 

ARMD Budget Status by Jaiwon Shin 

Dr. Shin welcomed members and said the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget has been 

submitted to Congress, and includes a reduction to $544 million from $551 million: a 

$7.3 million decrease from the request level. NASA does not intend to furlough civil 

servants. Diane Brown said NASA is operating under a full-cost environment, and will 

be making some adjustments between mission directorates. Dr. Shin pointed out that 

continuing resolutions have “almost become a way of life,” with the looming sequester 

threat leading to a lot of uncertainty. Marion Blakey requested of Dr. Shin to see how 

any potential cuts would be allocated among the Aeronautics Research Mission 

Directorate (ARMD) programs. Ms. Brown reported that any cuts would work out to 1% 

per program, almost across the board. Dr. Shin said that ARMD would have an exciting 

presentation to share with the committee; it is the culmination of a long-term strategy 

developed over three years. 

Discussion About Advisory Groups by Tom Irvine 

Tom Irvine described three entities with clear and distinct purposes that don‟t act totally 

independently from one another. The NAC Aero Committee operates under and 

complies fully with Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) provisions. It‟s the only 

group that looks at current programs and ARMD‟s current portfolio. The National 

Research Council‟s (NRC‟s) Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) has a 

much broader scope, interacting with NASA leadership. They do formulate and execute 

studies, especially in the human spaceflight program. But ASEB studies can be used as 

inputs to the NAC Aero Committee deliberations. 

The Aeronautics Research and Technology Roundtable (ARTR) was formed because 

ARMD needed one place to go for industry inputs. But although it provides a forum for 

dialog, it does not have an advisory function. 

Dr. Shin said the state ARMD would like to get to is for all three groups to have more 

purposeful interactions. Ms. Blakey asked about the size of the three groups. Michael 

Maloney replied that while they don‟t have exact numbers, about 20 people are on the 

ASEB, which covers both aeronautics and space. The Roundtable is about the same 

size. 

Ms. Blakey requested that before the next Aero Committee meeting, she would like the 

names and affiliations of both advisory committees, and to learn the focus the next time 

the ARTR is activated. The Committee then discussed the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) adding some personnel as well to the ARTR. 

NASA Aeronautics Research Future Direction by Robert Pearce 

There are enormous benefits to the U.S. economy from aeronautics, which is why 

ARMD wants to continue to conduct research that makes real impacts in real 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 2 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

communities. Tools are coming up quickly from the laboratory for use every year, 

making their way to operation. 

Dr. Shin said that in response to Aero Committee input, ARMD has been aligning efforts 

to a higher level of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) research. Mr. Pearce pointed out 

that technologies “have their own pace.” Putting them into projects that have a 

beginning, middle and end is a tough thing to make work. Mr. Pearce cited the fact that 

the adoption of electricity took 46 years for 25% of the population, but just seven years 

for the World Wide Web to reach 25% of the population. 

A discussion ensued about how certain countries may be able to leapfrog current 

technologies, and how commercial aviation in China is poised to make a worldwide 

impact. Mr. Mark Anderson cited the experience of Airbus, the source of much derision 

in 1980. It took but two decades for Airbus to create an industry-leading airplane. If 

aircraft become commodities, the United States can‟t compete on the basis of cost and 

will have to compete on the basis of quality. 

A discussion ensued about using the third dimension as an opportunity space for the 

short haul, on the system side, everything from moving goods to moving people. Mr. 

Pearce said the trend toward higher fuel costs will continue indefinitely. Flight research 

is a critical element of technology maturation and any public-private partnership. A 

discussion ensued about Verification and Validation (V&V) and the proper role of 

simulation. Also discussed were safety systems on aircraft, and how mandates from 

Congress have led to the inclusion of at least one such system on airplanes. However, 

an overly strong focus by safety committees may lead to no or far slower certification of 

otherwise useful advances. 

Dr. Mike Francis mentioned that, regarding Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), the 

current [military] requirement is for one operator per airplane in constant contact: that is 

its Achilles heel. A civil system would operate at an intermittent fashion at a higher level. 

Dr. J.P. Clarke mentioned the need to distinguish between intermittent and constant 

contact. 

Mr. Pearce pointed out the need to get a sustainable pathway for high-speed mobility. 

Ms. Blakey asks whether ARMD is taking into account the real-world practical barriers 

to entry. In particular, there are increasing privacy issues near-term regarding UAS. Mr. 

Pearce replied that ARMD is structuring strategy to be sensitive to this. Regarding 

supersonics, the largest hurdle is not to fly overland. Industry responsiveness will 

ultimately drive aeronautics strategy and research. NASA is actively working to lower 

technology barriers and then see what happens, according to Dr. Shin. 

In response to a question from Ms. Blakey on organizing universities around 

groundbreaking research, Mr. Pearce cited the NRA process for bringing in the 

universities, and the potential of consortia. Dr. Mike Bragg mentioned the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), and how the NSF funds creative activities at universities. He 

didn‟t see that in current structure of the NASA Research Announcements (NRAs). 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 3 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Shin said that going forward ARMD would like to have three operating models in 

regards to the universities. One would be discipline-based (what is presently being 

done). Second, on the front end, maybe the NSF model, including a very challenging 

problem statement, yet still quite exploratory and far-out work without an immediate 

payout. Third would be harnessing universities‟ strengths in systems engineering: it may 

not be exactly a center of excellence model, but similar. A discussion ensued about the 

most effective way to encourage innovative ideas and garner first-cut proposals. 

National Research Agenda for Autonomy in Civil Aviation by Robert Pearce 

Mr. Pearce pointed out that integration is really where the hard things lie. A question 

was posed by Mr. John Borghese concerning UAS in the NAS, and addressing 

autonomy as it relates to improving safety. Mr. Pearce pointed out that autonomy is 

highly transformative across the board. It‟s not just a matter of what NASA can do, also 

what the community can do. NASA ARMD is looking broadly to make sure it fully 

understands the state of the art. ARMD also needs to understand the policy issues it will 

be facing and apply research to that. 

A discussion ensued about convincing the FAA the system ARMD is developing is as 

safe as current flight. Mr. Pearce said that ARMD‟s goal is to collaborate closely with the 

FAA. NASA is still looking for tools to understand the system-level effects of complexity 

and apply them in a relevant environment to see the same effects. ARMD is working to 

create a collaborative, virtual space in the NAS to test out UAS. 

A discussion ensued about what to do when things go wrong. Committee members 

pointed out that there needs to be contingency planning at the vehicle level: a layered 

approach, in the air and on the ground, with multiple approaches that are additive. 

Certification may be achieved in that fashion. Further conversation followed about the 

the NRC proposal and its status. 

Dr. Ilan Kroo wondered about what kind of UAS vehicles to include, including their 

classes and weights. Struck by the breadth, Dr. Kroo encouraged NASA to prioritize. 

Mr. Pearce replied that it was an excellent point, and that ARMD is standing up an 

internal planning team. A discussion followed about connectivity and work in the 

classified realm. 

NASA’s Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP) Future Direction by Ed 

Waggoner 

Dr. Waggoner said that ISRP is conducting very focused projects with finite resources 

and a finite life, with new opportunities to invest in new areas to follow. Mr. Borghese 

asks about FAA funding. Dr. Waggoner said that ISRP is closely coupled to other 

ARMD programs research, and plans to support the FAA in helping with UAS in the 

NAS. Budgetary support currently stands at $30 million a year for UAS and $70 million 

annually for Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA). There will be key flight 

demonstrations as UAS in the NAS concludes. 

Dr. Clarke asked about industry partnerships. Dr. Waggoner said that ISRP has 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 4 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

highly coupled partnerships with industry. Cost sharing from industry is $40 million. Dr. 

Shin said that since 2008 ARMD has strengthened programs for technology transfer, 

supporting the [aeronautics] community. On the FAA side, there‟s 3-D PAM, which 

entails the FAA working side by side with ARMD researchers. 

Dr. Waggoner mentioned the cultural shock to researchers who now must meet 

deliverables schedules. It‟s a change in thinking. Although the ERA team gets it, Dr. 

Waggoner doesn‟t know if the UAS in the NAS team yet gets it. Overall, of ISRP‟s 20 

technology packages, eight went forward, one went partially forward and the fate of the 

other 12 is still not clear. Of the eight going forward, ISRP packaged the technologies 

and did a structured assessment on them, discussing the risks and costs. Phase 2 will 

be a three-year effort for all, and a return to Dr. Shin for his final decision. 

Dr. Shin: “Some of you may remember that during the 1990s we had some focused 

programs. They were finite as well. The reason why we emphasized „research‟ in the 

program name is because the focus is research. Projects have a finite lifetime and we 

have to focus on the end goal. When a researcher came in and said I have a better 

idea, I had to say, „No can do.‟ Personally, I learned my lesson. One big drawback was 

the plan was chiseled in stone. We spent a lot of time replanning and re-baselining but 

we couldn‟t adjust. We‟ll fail on some of these. At some point there may be a dead end. 

We are learning even from the process perspective. As a result we have a much 

stronger Phase 2. Now we have to deliver. The pruning process is done.” 

Dr. Clarke cited the Joint Propulsion Laboratory experience of getting a technology 

flight-ready. How do you integrate ideas that have come to the fore in the interim? Dr. 

Shin cited ARMD‟s Fundamental Aeronautics Program. Potential ISRP future projects 

may involve multiple testbeds. 

Dr. John Langford cited the current status of remotely piloted aircraft. Commands go up 

from a remote ground station and the plane flies around. How do you tie that into the 

NAS? “That is the wrong model in two ways: it‟s the 1990s version of a model airplane 

with limited intelligence and the 1950s, 1960s instantiation of the Air Traffic Control 

(ATC) system that needs to take account of NextGen [Next Generation Air 

Transportation System].” Putting 20th century airplanes in a 21st century airspace 

system is much harder [than the reverse]. He cited 2015 as one crucial milestone. 

A discussion among Committee members developed about military vs. civilian UAS. 

According to Dr. Langford, it‟s a question of balance. Dr. Francis says the answer in the 

near term is hybrid. Cites military use of airspace as desired. Regulatory issues remain: 

that‟s where NASA could be especially helpful. A discussion ensued about the proper 

equilibrium. 

Mr. Anderson asked: What is ISRP trying to accomplish in three years? Regarding 

potential ISRP future projects, he understands demonstrators and testbeds, but not 

composites and autonomy research. Dr. Shin replied that is not three or five years of 

more intense research, but the former. The questions Mr. Anderson asks are ones 

ARMD is asking internally. ARMD will address other needs through future projects. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 5 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A discussion followed about the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) and its 

effectiveness. Industry is pushing back about NextGen costs, and there is a timeconsuming regulatory and certification environment. China may have an ATC system 10 

times more efficient than that of the U.S. Spending time on 20th century technology is 

not a good idea. The barriers are regulatory ones, and there is political resistance from 

companies that don‟t want new things to happen. Disruption will happen regardless. 

NASA has a unique role to play throughout. 

Dr. Bragg observed that almost all the UAS safety data is coming out of the military. 

Barriers to introduction will be formidable. Theoretical research is not useful. Some of 

the legislation being introduced on the Hill could be show-stoppers. 

Dr. Shin completely agrees with everything that‟s been said. “If UAS in the NAS project 

at the end of 2016 is all we‟re going to do and then walk away, we‟re not doing what we 

should. It‟s going beyond UAS in the NAS, and going beyond UAS itself [as it is 

currently].” ARMD will support the future direction of autonomy; studies will need to 

focus and there will need to be some sort of master plan. ARMD is looking at that 

project as having a lot of flight-heavy contact. 

A discussion ensued about research centered around low-boom signature and how that 

aurally affects people. Data that ARMD has collected in a controlled environment has 

been a first step. How is success defined by the FAA? There is a need to incorporate 

low-boom signatures on a test vehicle. There is a difference between research success 

and how research results will be accepted by the community. 

Dr. Shin wonders if NASA‟s role should be to have [a supersonic technology 

demonstrator] as NASA‟s objective: “We‟ll open this door and see who comes out of the 

barn. We‟re trying to help with supersonic development .... We are ready to do this 

demonstrator. It‟s truly technically mature enough.” 

Dr. Langford said that NASA should be doing exactly that. “This is a perfect candidate 

for partnership with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). It should a 

demonstrator with civil and military applications. Move the overpressure to something 

that‟s numerically based. That would be a huge success.” 

Mr. Borghese wondered if there was a choice between a blended wing body (BWB) and 

a supersonic technology demonstrator, what the choice would be. Dr. Shin replied that 

for absolute value, BWB or SugarVolt is the higher priority. NASA should be creating 

new capability and opening new markets. 

Public Comments: None 

Committee Deliberations 

Dr. Clarke observed that if there was a capstone program, it may be very useful to help 

propel those programs along, especially UAS in the NAS. Dr. Kroo said that conflating 

UAS in the NAS with autonomy muddles the waters. It‟s important to identify what each 

of them means. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 6 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Shin asserted that when the NRC study committee convenes, he would like to see 

this committee ensure that ARMD is not proscribing this from its perspective. Ms. 

Blakey said she would make the recommendation that the committee include subject 

matter experts from other fields, but the preponderance from aeronautics. 

Mr. Tom Wood worried that general aviation would get squeezed out by too much of a 

focus on autonomy. Dr. Francis replied that uncontrolled airspace is where the problem 

is. It‟s the small aircraft that will take down a Cessna that has everyone concerned. 

A discussion proceeded about the number of pilots decreasing. Autonomy may be the 

salvation of general aviation, which may be going in the direction of mass transit. 

A discussion continued about inclusion of Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast 

(ADS-B). By 2020, commercial aviation will have to have it. 

Dr. Clarke said ARMD has one advantage: Dr. Shin‟s longevity in his post as AA. Dr. 

Francis observed as NASA looks to the future, the agency is very dependent on the 

internal workforce and skill sets. ARMD needs to have a technical plan on that front, 

and an alignment with their personnel. 

MEETING ADJOURNED at 4:26 p.m 

March 1, 2013 

The meeting was called to order at 8:37 a.m. by chair Marion Blakey. A NASA video 

was introduced, with a perspective from a young researcher. Ms. Blakey mentioned the 

schedule for rest of the year: one meeting at the end of July and one in December. The 

meeting in July is intended to immediately precede the NAC meeting Charlie Bolden is 

holding. During the meeting in December the Committee will lay out plans for 2014. 

Report from UAS Subcommittee by John Langford 

The subcommittee has a two-year charter expiring August 2013. One reason that the 

NextGen schedule slips to the right is that strong constituencies don‟t pull to the left. 

There is concern that the UAS in the NAS Project is too focused on only pilot in the loop 

with high data connectivity to the ground. NASA has to wrestle with who the customer 

is. There are many overlapping participants in the process. 

Lower or higher latency of aircraft responding to the controller is one major issue. In the 

case of an off-nominal situation and a human comes in, sometimes humans can make 

things worse, said Dr. Langford, citing the 2009 Air France crash. 

Discussion ensued about flying under instrument flight rules (IFRs), which is subsumed 

in the FAA UAS ConOps assumptions. In terms of Implementation Plan milestones, a 

key question is what is success and its definition. There are a lot of unfunded or not 

supported categories. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 7 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There remains a stovepiped approach. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

procedures have now substantially reduced block speeds. Looking at airplanes as a 

transportation system, security is very important. Questions remain about redundancy 

and data security. 

In response to questions about white papers and what it takes to operate UAS in the 

NAS, Dr. Waggoner said ISRP realized what an incredibly systems problem NextGen 

would be. The Program put together an integrated work plan: “When we got into looking 

at the cost it scared a lot of people ... Folks from industry are very aggressive in terms 

of the dates they want things done by. It‟s going from pie in the sky to the art of the 

possible: what are the minimum things that have to be done to have routine UAS in the 

NAS. It‟s embryonic, but it‟s much farther along than we were three years ago.” 

Dr. Francis observed that the U.S. infrastructure is based on information technology and 

cybersecurity. Dr. Langford agreed that cybersecurity is one of the big frontiers today in 

the private and public space. Dr. Francis said cybersecruity is even more significant 

when it pertains to a machine and affects human safety. 

Dr. Langford said that UAS amplifies the aforementioned: “Solutions are possible and 

sometimes not even all that hard. It‟s an area NASA shouldn‟t shy away from.” 

Dr. Clarke mentioned on board and embedded software. Dr. Langford said that “stuff in 

the glass cockpit is moving so fast you almost want to buy a steam engine.” Mentioning 

iPad use by pilots, he said that‟s where the fastest growth is today: “The uncertified 

stuff, because the technology is moving so fast.” 

A discussion followed about capstone efforts, such as ADS-B in Alaska: something 

where NASA had pulled together a live virtual system with a subsequent demonstration, 

showing how what ARMD developed integrates into the airspace. Dr. Bragg observed 

that Alaska was expensive and required multiple years of planning, with the infusion of a 

lot of federal money and working with the community involved. And the oil industry really 

stepped up. Dr. Langford: “Bingo! That‟s why it was so effective. Simulation and flight 

research: As long as it‟s a compelling demonstration.” 

Dr. Kroo asked about routine access to the NAS. Dr. Langford cited the example of the 

the FAA test beds, where one can experiment with various architectures and systems. 

Dr. Francis said live virtual simulations are one good way to proceed. He cited business 

case analyses that, in one study, show the only mission that‟s financially viable is law 

enforcement. The systems engineering needs to support the system construct. 

Dr. Shin said ARMD is equipped to address the key message. “This is very analagous 

to what we went through with ERA. We have a lot of competing interests. There is a 

cost issue, certainly. And I have to deal with stakeholders in this town who want to make 

sure we‟re made an impact ... NASA can certainly be a catalyst.” 

A discussion ensued about different UAS weight classes. Also discussed was the UAS 

subcommittee recommendation. The Committee would like a definition of what the 

capstone effort would entail. Dr. Shin said that his understanding of the UAS Project 

was that the Subcommittee was all about doing research. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 8 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A discussion arose about the last two bullets of the recommendation. Mr. Anderson 

suggests a recommendation re-wording. Mr. Wood wondered if the [UAS] weight class 

was important for the simulation and whether there should be a weight limit. 

Dr. Waggoner said that ISRP wasn‟t just addressing smaller unmanned aerial vehicles 

(UAVs). ISRP plans to show in a series of experiments how they‟re integrating key UAV 

capabilities. NASA, the JPDO and the FAA may work together on this effort, on a larger 

UAV. Smaller UAS will be under a different rule. 

Dr. Clarke cited holes in what needs to be done on airspace systems side. A discussion 

continued on the rewording of the recommendation and the meaning of “capstone 

demonstrations.” Ms. Blakey commented that the Committee was in agreement with the 

finding and the recommendation. 

ARMD Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) Document by Robert Pearce 

Committee members posed questions about the baseline, what value is being added 

and, if proposed aircraft are built, what is seen on the ground in terms of noise and 

emissions. 

Mr. Pearce said the metrics were derived from the N+2 and the N+3 studies. Mr. 

Borghese asked about the TRLs and what that means to the original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs). Mr. Pearce said that when ARMD gets to integrated systems 

research, there is a lot of discussion with industry partners. At the fundamental level, 

ARMD doesn‟t go to that level of discussion with partners. It‟s different for TRL-5 and 

TRL-6. 

Mr. Borghese: “What type of agreement do you have at what TRL with your transition 

partners?” Mr. Pearce: “It‟s more than serendipity, but it‟s less than getting an 

agreement to implement. There‟s a common understanding of the value of picking it up. 

We‟re not holding industry to build a specific product.” 

Mr. Anderson asserted that the real virtue of NASA rolling out the ERA Project is that 

the simultaneous pursuit of goals can be visualized. Dr. Shin said that ARMD generated 

an idea, a concept, not alone certainly, but working with partners. Industry has to decide 

whether it wants to take it further. It‟s more than numeric TRLs. But ARMD does have to 

generate an effort, because it‟s more than just a report: “While we are setting targets 

and goals, we have to come down to certain concepts.” 

Mr. Borghese ased if the chevrons concept was offered worldwide? Dr. Shin: “I think 

that was the case. Anyone can pick it up. Congress asked, how do you know you made 

a difference? My always answer was there is an intangible benefit from working 

together from the get-go. Some Chinese engineer reading a paper may take five years 

to do it, slower than someone like Boeing who already has tacit knowledge.” 

Mr. Anderson said that he didn‟t know who in Boeing has access to that intellectual 

property. He cited the chart of NASA DNA in aircraft. It‟s not a matter of relative financial 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 9 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

contribution. Industry will [take NASA work], pour money all over it and then discount 

NASA‟s contribution. 

Dr. Shin: “What progress are we making in totality? That was the missing link. And how 

do we make the link between our program goals and objectives and the national 

priorities? ... We need to make sure that we are asking the right questions and not 

barking up the wrong tree. That‟s the contract between programs and projects. Are you 

accomplishing what you said over the period of years for the technical challenges? 

Mr. Borghese asserted that ARMD should have many failures doing research. If not, 

ARMD should be taking on more risk and “in your plan ... ask how you kill things.” Mr. 

Pearce replied that ARMD has to plan for the fact of some turnover. Mr. Borghese: “You 

need to reward the people who fail.” Mr. Pearce replied that it‟s always a tough problem. 

Dr. Shin elaborated: “[Refining workforce allocation] is always the most difficult problem. 

I‟m of the opinion that DARPA has done great. But they don‟t have 30,000 people. 

We‟re doing everything we can, but my hands are tied. My administrator is helping us. 

He‟s asking every mission directorate: What are you going to take off the table? This is 

a mega-problem in NASA. It will not be solving by sheer willpower or by cracking the 

whip. Doing business differently, as challenging as it is, we have to do it.” 

A discussion developed about how best to deploy intellectual assets. ARMD employs 

about 1,300 civil servants and 600 contractors. During the time of a severe hiring 

freeze, ARMD hired onsite contractors, which was not as flexible as one may think. Ms. 

Blakey wondered whether voluntary incentives can be used to trim the workforce. 

Dr. Shin: “Numerous studies have been done, but I‟m not very hopeful. One of the main 

reasons people perceive us to be overly bureaucratic is because we have 10 centers 

spread out across the country with representation in Congress. It‟s highly charged 

politically. These are high-paying jobs at the field centers.” 

Dr. Francis said that ARMD should not do a wholesale change overnight. He cited 

experience at DARPA, where status can be modified over a period of time. “Spread it 

out and it‟s more palatable.” 

Mr. Anderson cited the DoD base realignment and closure (BRAC) as another example: 

“You need to be spooling up expertise that you may not yet have.” Dr. Shin replied that 

center directors are really working hard to bring small but gradual changes. It will take a 

long time and steady effort. Ms. Blakey noted that the ban on NASA layoffs was still in 

place. 

A discussion ensued about the mismatch between staffing and funding levels. A lot of 

hiring now is term employees. There is no guarantee for lifetime employment. New 

hiring at Langley Research Center is maybe 15 people a year. But immediate needs of 

existing projects call for older more experienced staff, which conflicts with centers‟ 

expressed desire to hire younger workers. 

Dr. Langford noted that the reason for the existence of 10 centers is to make it hard to 

kill NASA and make the organization sustainable. It creates a political base for an 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 10 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

organization that otherwise would not have the support. Makes it resilient to short-term 

political impacts. 

A discussion followed about how best to express NASA aeronautics goals: air travel to 

every congressional district and vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) 

aircraft that weren‟t ready technologically in the 1960s. One approach is the DARPA 

model about pulling things off the shelf when the technology is ready. 

Ms. Blakey mentioned the upcoming Committee meeting in July. A discussion ensued 

about overlapping study committees whose work would affect ARMD. A singular voice 

won‟t represent the Aero Committee adequately. The Committee is locked into with the 

July date because of the meeting with Administrator Bolden. 

More discussion about the Recommendation language continued. 

Dr. Langford mentioned DARPA‟s release of an opportunity for a $100 million 

demonstrator that would take off and land vertically. He asked how this will be brought 

into the NASA program. 

Dr. Shin: “We did have a discussion with DARPA about X-planes a few months back. 

We did talk about working together. Since then we haven‟t reconnected. We can 

certainly go back ... But working with DARPA has been difficult. They like to work with 

NASA expertise, but in a very narrow and cherry-picked fashion. For us, it‟s not the type 

of collaboration we want to have, and I don‟t think that‟s the kind of collaboration the 

Committee wants for us.” 

Dr. Francis suggested a new approach to DARPA that would involve a proactive plan to 

spend some NASA money, but to also achieve ARMD program/project goals. 

Volunteers are needed to run interference. There‟s a more compelling case to make 

now with current budget environment. 

Dr. Shin said that he really enjoyed yesterday‟s and this morning‟s discussion: “Please 

let us know if we‟re moving in the right direction in terms of engaging the committee. 

We‟re trying to shape the right future.” 

Ms. Blakey mentioned the approach to the NAC report and was complimentary of 

ARMD‟s Strategic Plan. 

Dr. Francis: “I endorse the approach to establish a strategic direction. The specifics are 

not there yet, but you are in the process of working through them. But I got the sense 

yesterday that we are all pleased with the underlying process.” Dr. Kroo: “Kudos for 

actually doing the strategic plan. It‟s not done yet, but it‟s on its way.” 

Dr. Clarke asks how well ARMD is doing in terms of cross-coupling and synergizing the 

various directorates and the progress that‟s being made. Dr. Shin replies that there are 

some areas that Space Technology is working on that ARMD could coordinate together: 

“We are heading in that direction to solve common problems. Autonomy could be the 

poster child for how we work in our own directorate, to push progress together. I view 

autonomy as the driver.” 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 11 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13 
 

 

 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Public Comments: 

Mr. Waseem Naqvi from Raytheon said that he really enjoyed the top-down approach to 

strategic analysis and defining the future and how to get there. 

MEETING ADJOURNED at 12:06 p.m. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee Meeting Page 12 of 12 

Minutes for 2/28-3/1/13