NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting 

April 27, 2022 

Virtual Meeting Originated at NASA’s Mary W. Jackson Headquarters Building

Washington, DC 

Welcome and Announcements 

Dr. John-Paul Clarke, committee chair, called the meeting to order. Introductions were 

made and information regarding the purpose and scope of the Committee’s discussions, 

findings, and recommendations were described. Due to travel restrictions and 

complications resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was conducted in a 

hybrid style, with some attendees present at NASA Headquarters and others attending 

virtually. 

NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate FY 2023 Budget Overview 

Mr. Robert Pearce, NASA’s associate administrator for Aeronautics, provided an 

overview of the activities and key drivers included in the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) 

budget. He gave a summary of NASA’s aeronautical programs, projects, missions, and

partnerships. 

He noted that the proposed FY23 budget on Capitol Hill at the time of the meeting 

reflected the numbers of the President’s Budget Request for FY23, and that the

increases proposed for NASA Aeronautics in this request, should it be passed by 

Congress, reasonably cover NASA’s priorities with the rise in inflation. He emphasized

how the bulk of the increases in the budget request go towards the Sustainable Flight 

National Partnership (SFNP) and the Sustainable Flight Demonstrator (SFD). 

Mr. Pearce elaborated on specifics with regards to the SFNP, and summarized NASA’s 

involvement with Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs). He explained how NASA has a 

primary role in the development of vehicle technology to support the future use of SAFs, 

but not in the actual development of SAFs themselves; the FAA and Department of 

Energy (DOE) are tackling that challenge. 

He stated the goal of NASA’s sustainable aviation activities are to reach a 25-30 

percent improvement in energy efficiency for the next generation of single-aisle aircraft, 

followed by the ability to use SAFs. Altogether, this set of activities come together as 

part of the SFNP. Mr. Pearce noted the SFNP is moving fast with these technologies, 

and although he wished it were possible for NASA to move fast on other topics including 

hydrogen fuel, NASA must be strategic in its choices because it doesn’t have the

resources to work on them all. 
 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

Mr. Peter Bunce commented that the aviation industry, with regards to sustainable 

aviation fuels, is looking at hydrogen as an energy option. He noted that the DOE, 

especially, has considered its use and wondered whether NASA could understand what 

DOE’s requirements, timelines, and investments are with regards to the subject. 

Dr. Clarke commented hydrogen is an important part of a suite of options for different 

energy solutions for reaching more sustainable aviation systems. He noted all of them 

must be studied in a systemic way, and it would be good for NASA and the industry to 

understand all the trade-offs involved via system assessments. 

Mr. Jay Dryer added he would encourage NASA to take the systems-level approach 

and not presuppose any solutions, expressing that NASA may run into issues if it 

focuses on one particular technology over another, as well as the importance of trades 

between the technologies. 

Dr. Nicole Key stated the schedule for the SFD seems tight, and from a pragmatic 

perspective, expressed concern for the risk the programs might face given inflation and 

ongoing supply chain issues. She asked whether NASA is considering the current state 

of the economy, especially pertaining to schedules, budgeting, and big testing 

programs. 

Dr. Clarke noted the discussion on the budget brought the X-57 Maxwell to mind. He 

posited that enough time has passed to ask the question “how do we put the ‘expedite’ 

into the X-plane?” He expressed there seems to be a relative non-urgency with Xplanes. He explained how while it’s beneficial NASA is learning much from the process, 

getting planes in the air faster is crucially important. 

Mr. Dryer added there may be a point of diminishing returns on what NASA has been 

able to learn and use to inform other efforts. He suggested that since the timeline is a 

function of the budget, the Committee itself could be of use to NASA – that NASA could 

share with the Committee what comes up in deliberations with the Office of 

Management and Budget or Capitol Hill for its advice and input. He suggested that 

NASA could then, in turn, use said advice and input in further budget deliberations, 

communicating with budget-makers that NASA conferred with its advisory council and 

received certain advice. 

Dr. Clarke added that the broader philosophical point is how the learning curve is a 

function of time, and asked at what point the cost-per-incremental-learning reaches a 

point for NASA to finally take that learning and do something else. He suggested a 

decision framework, so the people involved with the projects understand what each unit 

of incremental learning is in order to ensure value relative to cost. 
 

 

 

 

 

Findings 

• Though much is being learned in the development of X-planes, some projects 

such as the X-57 Maxwell are taking longer than they should. The Committee 

encourages NASA to consider the question of value relative to cost, and whether 

there is a point of diminishing returns. 

• Issues stemming from rising inflation and supply-chain constraints could pose 

risks to program schedules and costs, especially for demonstrators. 

Sustainable Flight National Partnership 

Dr. James Hileman, the FAA’s chief scientific and technical advisor for environment and

energy, and Dr. Rich Wahls, NASA’s strategic technical advisor for the Advanced Air

Vehicles Program, presented an overview of the U.S. Aviation Climate Action Plan and 

the Sustainable Flight National Partnership. 

Dr. Hileman also explained the FAA’s work on SAFs. He noted the challenges of cost

and blending fuels, but explained FAA is working closely with industry to eliminate the 

blending requirement such that airlines could use 100% SAFs. He explained there have 

been successes in reaching more than a 50 percent blend already and emphasized the 

goal of reaching 100 percent SAFs by 2050. 

Dr. Hileman noted how due to U.S. policy, SAFs that contribute at least 50 percent 

noise reduction relative to conventional jet fuel are desirable. He pointed out SAFs can 

potentially improve air quality and contrail emissions, are scalable, and that there is 

broad support within the U.S. and overseas. He also stressed that much work is needed 

to decarbonize aviation, that there is no “silver bullet,” and that many regulatory 

agencies domestically and internationally are working together on the challenge of 

identifying solutions. 

Dr. Hileman stressed it is more difficult to use battery power on larger aircraft such as 

Airbus A380, whose power needs are so immense it can be compared to a modular 

nuclear reactor. So, therefore, large energy-per-mass-volume fuel like jet fuel and other 

similar energy sources fit the bill. 

Dr. Wahls noted the importance of the timeline in research achieving technology 

readiness level 6 (TRL-6) in the late 2020s to meet the 2030-2035 window of 

introducing sustainable technology to the single-aisle market. He noted how NASA 

projects on some of these topics are already out of pre-formulation and are approved 

and working, and how it’s a significant accomplishment how quickly it happened.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Wahls explained how NASA’s SFNP projects exist in swim lanes – meaning that the 

projects research and develop in parallel, independent of other projects. He noted how 

NASA intends to integrate the learnings later in a way similar to model-based 

engineering through systems analysis at a central hub. 

Discussion 

Mr. Michael Dumais explained that based on work occurring in the energy industry and 

the aviation industry in Europe, it may be a foregone conclusion that SAFs are the 

solution. Mr. Dumais reckoned that hydrogen and ammonia and other solutions are 

being significantly examined for use and reinforced the earlier point that given NASA’s 

limited budget, conducting early technology assessments and trade studies on the 

subject would be of high value to ensure NASA has the best roadmap. 

Mr. Natesh Manikoth pointed out that work on SAFs is mostly conducted by the FAA, 

and that FAA may not be able to complete its work without NASA support and vice 

versa. 

Mr. David Silver added that the idea of reaching a 100% SAF blend is a critical nearterm component in showing the goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 is being 

taken seriously. He agreed that NASA does, and should, have a support role to the 

FAA’s primary role in developing SAFs.

Mr. Dumais conveyed the value of working on SAFs but emphasized the risk of being 

leapfrogged by the industry in Europe should NASA and the FAA be blind to potential 

alternate solutions. 

Mr. Dryer expressed it will be important for NASA to make sure that it adjusts, to some 

degree, the criteria or lens that it looks through when trying to deliver something at a 

higher TRL in a given time. He communicated the importance of delivering within that 

timeframe and not just focusing on the highest performance parameters, as well as 

looking at the “-ilities” (i.e., quality, reliability, safety, flexibility, etc.) that can make a 

difference in the next generation of aircraft. He noted this isn’t necessarily the same

lens NASA has looked through for lower-TRL research. 

Mr. Dryer continued to express the desirability of having this balance of lower and 

higher-TRL thinking and emphasized its importance for goals such as single aisle 

replacement in the 2030 timeframe, while also not forgetting the “bread and butter” of 

NASA’s fundamental research, tools, and long-term technology. He stated it isn’t a oneor-the-other decision, rather, it is having both viewpoints simultaneously to have the 

criteria needed to look forward. He reckoned that subjects like data release is 

something NASA will have to look at carefully as it starts working TRL-4 or TRL-5 

technologies into its demonstrator aircraft. 

Mr. Dryer added how having a strong bipartisan message helps reinforce the important 
 

 

effort of not only enabling sustainable aviation by way of the SFD, but also contributing 

to the economic, competitive aspects of helping industry develop technologies. He 

expressed that this holistic message could help with the effort surviving pivots between 

administrations. 

Dr. Clarke posited there should be a greater emphasis or need for a digital thread with 

regards to model-based systems analysis and engineering. He expressed the benefits 

of having a complete chain that helps improve the quality of tools, as well as helps in 

predictions of costs and manufacturing difficulties, as NASA performs the operations of 

manufacturing tools and prototypes. He stated if such a system were to be utilized, now 

is the time to implement it, not five years down the road, and that such a system would 

advance the whole design process and model-based systems engineering. 

Mr. Dryer asked what NASA’s role should be and whether NASA or industry should do

this digital thread. He asked whether a company would design, build, and then continue 

to manufacture it where there is a community, compared to something like model-based 

systems engineering where NASA develops tools, say, to analyze various ports that 

could be incorporated as part of a larger digital thread. 

Dr. Clarke replied that since companies are using NASA tools as part of their design 

and engineering process in addition to their own tools, NASA should be connected in 

the tool chain digital thread so it can benefit from the information gathered downstream. 

He noted how proprietary information doesn’t have to be communicated as part of this 

thread for NASA to learn, for instance, that the manufacturing costs on its tools were 

five percent off versus ten percent off. 

Mr. Dryer pointed out this is already done in NASA’s supersonic flight activities, but on

the subsonic piece, it may be similar to how the Department of Defense does higher 

TRL work and experimentation that feeds into the tools. 

Findings 

• Given the uncertainty of the energy mix of the future, NASA should be cognizant 

of other energy sources besides sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) by way of 

system-level trade studies that would be of high value in cases where the use of 

SAFs is not a foregone conclusion. 

• NASA needs to have a more expansive lens with respect to delivering higher 

TRL products in a constrained timeframe. Delivering in that timeframe, versus 

just focusing on improved performance, is important and better articulates that 

these efforts help address “ilities” and other concerns such as economic growth

and safety – which helps maintain bipartisan support also. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• There is an opportunity for NASA to create digital threads for its higher TRL 

experiments to help improve lower TRL design tools, or to be included in other 

organizations’ digital threads for projects where NASA has contributed tools. The 

Committee believes since the benefit of a digital thread is having a complete 

chain that improves the design of tools, as well as helps in predictions of cost 

and manufacturing difficulties, the time to implement digital threads is now rather 

than later. 

• While there is a focus on a long-term goal of 2050 for net zero aviation 

emissions, it will also be important to establish key steps and measures of 

progress in the short term (within five years) that can be better linked to resource 

needs. The Committee believes that having a balance of both short and long 

timeframes is important to good decision-making and maintaining support for 

programs. 

Future Airspace Vision 

Mr. Akbar Sultan, director of NASA’s Airspace Operations and Safety Program, and Mr. 

Steve Bradford, chief scientist for infrastructure and NextGen development for the FAA, 

presented on the future vision for airspace operations that both NASA Aeronautics and 

the FAA support. Mr. Sultan’s presentation included an overview of the Sky for All 

vision, and Mr. Bradford’s an overview of the NextGen vision. 

Mr. Sultan highlighted how in a diverse airspace including multiple vehicle classes at 

lower altitudes, safety factors and needs will need to increase several orders of 

magnitude compared to current practices. He presented automation as a method to 

offload and assist in a human workload, increase precision for ground-based systems, 

and perform help monitoring risk assessments. 

Mr. Bradford explained NextGen and its specifics, including, but not limited to, upper 

Class E traffic management, system-wide information management, trajectory-based 

option sets, and new capabilities needed to support vehicles while they are on their 

various trajectories. He spoke on the confluence of traditional infrastructure and newer 

shared infrastructure to operationalize new air traffic management systems for 

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), including cloud computing, service-based architectures, 

and local edge devices. He elaborated on the volume of communication required to 

achieve the NextGen vision and new data sharing devices and protocols that can 

enable it. 

Mr. Sultan described how Sky for All is building on work related to the Info-Centric 

National Airspace System (NAS) via integrated system level research that is extensible 

and buildable. He emphasized that NASA is developing capabilities leveraging what has 

been done for the Info-Centric NAS with the key principles of scalability, diversity of 

operations, density, safety, resilience to disruption, and environmental sustainability. Mr. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Sultan explained that a vision roadmap development with the community is in the works 

that largely works on what was learned in NextGen’s own operational improvements. He

noted the Sky for All team is already at work with the community and stakeholders 

through a set of workshops and engagements. 

Mr. Sultan pointed out that architecture needs to be developed for Sky for All, but 

traditionally, the FAA has developed architecture because it owns the enterprise 

architecture and is the implementing agency. He explained how NASA and the FAA are 

closely working together to be able to establish a process and pathway where Sky for 

All’s architecture can be developed. 

Mr. Sultan noted the importance of avoiding point solutions, or “being the hammer 

looking for a nail.” He explained how each iteration of the technology is learning what 

works and what doesn’t, and that the method NASA is following is to learn, iterate, 

improve, and adapt as dynamically as possible in order to align fast-moving capabilities. 

Discussion 

Mr. Silver brought up the idea of having NASA help develop the standards for 

certification in aviation. He noted although the FAA is ultimately responsible for 

approving these standards, there exists an opportunity for NASA to have a role in the 

cooperative areas of certification, with Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) as an example. He 

suggested the current situation seems to be “bring a rock and we’ll tell you whether it’s 

the right one.” Mr. Silver communicated how such a lack of guidance slows things down 

across the board, and NASA can help resolve that. 

Mr. Manikoth stated NASA does a great job demonstrating different possibilities without 

dictating how exactly they should be done, and that industry still does much of the 

innovation. He expressed that there are counter-voices objecting to the FAA’s approach

to standardization, and that the Committee in its deliberations should consider the fact 

that innovation could be stifled by premature standardization. 

Mr. Silver elaborated how the suggestion is less about approved standards than it is 

about the beginning of a standards structure – a framework for consensus-based 

standards bodies to build their conversations while NASA is still working on a project 

itself. It is an opportunity, Mr. Silver explained, for time to be spent valuably. 

Dr. Helen Reed added that evidence of why standards and recommendations are 

reached should be part of the certifications and trade studies that would be conducted. 

Mr. Dryer recognized the strong collaboration between NASA and the FAA, especially 

with regards to air traffic management, and expressed that the collaboration is worthy of 

note. He viewed the synergy in the roles shared between the organizations, and how 

their work comes together, as a strong advantage to having the focus to solve the 

aeronautical challenges the agencies are working on solving together. 
 

Dr. Clarke and Dr. Reed both expressed that the collaboration is refreshing and to be 

encouraged. 

Recommendation 

• Although the primary role of certification and development of standards is the 

FAA’s purview, the Committee recommends, where relevant throughout its 

research portfolio, that NASA should conduct trade studies that support the 

certification process and back-up analyses of why certification criteria are 

recommended the way they are. 

Finding 

• The strong collaboration between NASA and the FAA is encouraging. The 

Committee applauds the synergy between the agencies and encourages NASA 

to continue enhancing the collaboration. 

Public Comments 

A public comments period was offered as required. No public comments were received. 

Conclusion 

The meeting of the Committee was concluded with discussions on the timeline and 

plans for future meetings. 

MEETING ADJOURNED 
Committee Members: 

1. Dr. John-Paul Clarke, Chair 

2. Mr. Peter Bunce 

3. Mr. Jay Dryer 

4. Mr. Michael Dumais 

5. Dr. Nicole Key 

6. Mr. Natesh Manikoth 

7. Ms. Susan Pfingstler 

8. Dr. Helen Reed 

9. Dr. Hassan Shahidi 

10.Mr. David Silver 

NASA: 

11.Steven Clarke 

12.Mary Dijoseph 

13.Shannon Eichorn 

14.Shawn Engelland 

15.Barbara Esker 

16.Dale Hopkins 

17.Sharon Monica Jones 

18.James Kenyon 

19.Paul Krasa 

20.Nateri Madavan 

21.Kate McMurtry 

22.Jon Montgomery 

23.Lee Olson 

24.Robert Pearce 

25.Cheryl Quinn 

26.Irma Rodriguez 

27.Mike Rogers 

28.Naseem Saiyed 

29.Akbar Sultan 

30.Huy Tran 

31.Edgar Waggoner 

32.Rich Wahls 

33.Alicia Wesley 

List of Attendees 

External: 

Collins Aerospace: 

34.Ron Corsetti 

35.Dan Kaplan 

FAA: 

36.Steve Bradford 

37.Jim Hileman 

38.Tiffany Mitchell 

FedWriters (NAC Meeting Support): 

39. John Gould 

No affiliation identified: 

40.Taylor Armentrout 

41.Mary Boiraud 

42.John Borghese 

43.Andrew Farquharson 

44.Charles Fremaux 

45.B. Harvey 

46.James Lochner 

47.Mary T. Lombardo 

48.Stanley Merritt 

49.Andrew Provenza 

50.John Tylko 

51.Yohann