NASA Advisory Council (NAC) 

Aeronautics Committee 

July 28, 2015

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 

Summary of Meeting Minutes

[SUBMITTED by JIM SCHULTZ 10-9-15] 

Participants: 

First Last Organization Role 

John Borghese Rockwell Collins Vice Chair 

Dr. Michael Francis United Technologies R Center Member 

Dr. Missy Cummings Duke University Member 

Dr. Lui Sha University of Illinois Member 

Tom Wood Bell Helicopter Member 

Mark Anderson Independent Consultant Member 

Dr. Karen Thole Penn State University Member 

Brenda Mulac NASA ARMD Executive Secretary 

Robert Pearce NASA ARMD Dep. AA Strategy 

Akbar Sultan NASA ARMD Dep. Director, AOSP 

Dr. Shon Grabbe ARC SMART-NAS Manager, SMART-NAS Project 

Doug Rohn NASA ARMD Director, TACP 

Dr. Woodrow Whitlow Cleveland State Univ. 

Co Chair, NRC Low Carbon 

Study 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 1 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, July 28, 2015 

The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m. 

Introductions 

NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Aeronautics Committee Vice Chair Mr. John Borghese 

welcomed members and thanked Ms. Brenda Mulac for assuming executive secretary 

duties. Mr Borghese introduced Dr. Steven Squires as head of the NASA Advisory 

Council. Dr. Squires said the important work takes place at the committee level, and 

extended his great appreciation for the effort being put in. Advice issued by the various 

NAC committees has been streamlined and is now a two-tiered process. Mr. Borghese 

then informed the Committee that Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) 

Associate Administrator Dr. Jaiwon Shin was in attendance at the Unmanned Aerial 

Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) conference at NASA Ames Research 

Center and would not be attending as a result. Mr. Borghese also indicated that Gen. 

Lester Lyles was unable to attend this meeting because of a personal conflict, and 

Committee Chair Marion Blakey had another pressing commitment that prevented her 

attendance. 

Ms. Mulac informed the members the next Aeronautics Committee meeting will be on 

November 12, 2015, and will take place in Washington, D.C. at NASA Headquarters. 

ARMD Deputy Associate Administrator for Strategy Mr. Robert Pearce welcomed the 

Committee and said there is a huge amount of value generated by these meetings. As 

usual, all findings and recommendations will be reviewed. 

Interagency Partnerships by Mr. Akbar Sultan 

Mr. Sultan said that partnerships are an essential part of NASA’s Aeronautics activities. 

Typical entities that are engaged are grouped in three parts: academia, government 

agencies, and industry. NASA ARMD’s role is to leverage, lead and collaborate. He 

pointed out that ARMD’s international partners are government-funded institutions in 

specific countries. Agreements are established with foreign government agencies that 

may bring other partners with them. The government entity is more of a nexus; there are 

no foreign universities engaged. 

Mr. Mark Anderson said that it was an area that gets grayer every day. Partnerships are 

obviously very important to ARMD, but the world keeps changing. Mr. Pearce said that it 

is not just a matter of expertise; it also has to do with assets. ARMD thinks long and 

hard about each partnership: is it really unique? He said that NASA is adopting the 

“leverage, lead and collaborate” model, and will be doing more leveraging outside the 

normal scope. Dr. Michael Francis, citing worldwide activity in unmanned aerial systems 

(UAS), said that the United States is not the leader. 

Mr. Borghese, in citing ARMD’s composites research, wondered what was the right 

word: “lead” or “collaborate?” Mr. Sultan replied that it was some of both. As an 

example, Mr. Sultan pointed out that for work on the Pultruded Rod Stitched Efficient 

Unitized Structure (PRSEUS) “cube,” NASA is leading; for the PRSEUS “box”, it is 

collaborating [with The Boeing Company]. Mr. Pearce then identified several coming 

collaborations in ARMD’s Advanced Composites Project. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 2 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In response to a question posed by Dr. Karen Thole regarding technology readiness 

levels (TRLs), Mr. Sultan said that if one did an average across ARMD, leveraging 

occurs mostly for low TRL research, where as ARMD leads primarily mid-level TRL 

research, and collaborates for high TRL research. Advanced air transportation concepts 

may be in mid-TRL if a proposed collaboration with Airbus goes forward. There are not 

bright lines between each definition. Mr. Pearce said that in terms of NASA’s electric 

propulsion research, battery technology will be leveraging, not leading. TRLs will vary 

depending on the effort. 

Dr. Francis asked about how NASA will mold and shape its future workforce. He said he 

thinks that partnerships would play a huge role. This mechanism is a way to bring in 

new talent. Mr. Pearce said it was a great comment, and ARMD thinks about it often. 

Mr. Tommie Wood asked if the strategy was public. Mr. Pearce said yes and that ARMD 

would make it available to the Committee. Dr. Francis said in terms of partnership 

considerations, information technology is very different than traditional industrial 

systems. It’s really beneficial for NASA to see how two different technology areas can 

be reconciled, especially considering mobile platforms like UAS, which are important to 

leverage. 

Mr. Pearce observed that it takes a good deal of time to get to a traditional X-plane; far 

too long, in fact. A brief discussion then ensued concerning the length of time it takes to 

get prototypes into wind tunnels and to engage in flight tests. Mr. Borghese said that 

one major barrier in partnering is the contract process. Mr. Sultan commented that the 

process may not be inhibiting, but it does take a long time to get contracts and 

partnership agreements in place. Dr. Francis said that ARMD should have the ability to 

execute contracts in weeks, not in months. Mr. Anderson asserted that NASA can bring 

its unique abilities to bear and really change the process. NASA should take great care 

in forming partnerships and choose wisely. The agency employs very clever people who 

work in great facilities. 

Dr. Missy Cummings said that NASA has a responsibility to be involved in unmanned 

aerial vehicles traffic management and provide guidance to partners that may not have 

as much experience. Mr. Pearce said that ARMD is asked to testify in front of Congress 

when unmanned aircraft issues arise. Dr. Cummings said that the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) can’t do UTM; NASA is the only place where this expertise exists. 

There is a clear gap, and NASA should jump in and fill that gap. Small or large UAS 

cannot be commercialized until NASA expertise is fully applied. Dr. Francis said that 

“NASA has a leg up. This UTM initiative is a good one and you need to keep going.” Mr. 

Pearce replied that ARMD is committed to doing just that, and is starting to think about 

how to show the entire integration from ground to flight level. Dr. Francis advised to 

make that process as seamless as possible. 

Dr. Cummings expressed concern that UTM is not given the level of importance by 

NASA that she felt it should and that it requires more resources. Dr. Francis countered 

that ARMD does understand [UTM’s importance]. Mr. Sultan said that UTM is wrapped 

around the broader autonomy scope, and is a core first step toward autonomy. ARMD is 

fully committed to UTM. However, he pointed out that at this stage, the project can only 

absorb a finite amount of resources. Mr. Pearce said that UTM went from idea to funded 

project the fastest he had ever seen: it took less than a year. Dr. Cummings said that in 

her opinion the commercial sector doesn’t see NASA as a serious player and 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 3 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

collaborator in this and that NASA is seen as an impediment to work around. A 

discussion then ensued about the FAA’s role. 

Mr. Borghese said that what ARMD is doing in UTM he believes will be revolutionary. 

Eventually the resources will come together. Mr. Wood then raised an issue about UAS 

noise, ie one drone is relatively quiet but many generate more noise. Dr. Cummings 

said she didn’t think anybody was actively working that issue. 

Dr. Francis said that companies treat their investors as the primary customer. Research 

and development has decreased significantly. When NASA goes into an agreement, it 

should be strategic for both parties. Because it’s about NASA’s future, any proposed 

partnership should get directly to the boards of directors. Companies need to identify 

where things are going in the long haul. Mr. Pearce cited ARMD’s Environmentally 

Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project as a positive experience. However, there was a 

supplier who fell far behind in delivery of a test part. Even though the primary partner 

insisted on delivery, it still took several months. Dr. Francis said that it was the back-ofthe-line mentality as far as research is concerned. Mr. Borghese suggested that 

ARMD’s next meeting with aviation industry CEOs should include discussion of this 

issue. 

A discussion ensued about tech transfer and data services. There is a lack of specificity 

of terminology, which is a concern. The term autonomy in the national airspace system 

(NAS) is different from Mars Rover autonomy; specific definitions really matter. Mr. 

Pearce cited extensive definition of products and deliverables, and said ARMD is 

attempting to apply previously successful methods to these new areas. The intent is not 

to create a lot of sandboxes. ARMD wants to be specific about applications and how 

they help in the NAS. Mr. Sultan said he agreed; although the titles could be more 

focused, the activities in each is very focused. The discussion continued about 

terminology and its use in describing autonomous systems and practical application. 

Money can be wasted if things are not properly defined. 

Mr. Borghese wondered how ARMD successfully transitions technologies. Does the 

FAA say the work is finished or is it implemented? Mr. Sultan said it was both. A 

discussion then followed about how the FAA integrates NASA-delivered technology. 

The FAA approach remains ad hoc; information provided by NASA allows the FAA to 

eventually make a definitive decision. The FAA needs to tell NASA what it needs, not 

how to do it. The FAA does remain a “flat veto” organization, with as many as 20 

different departments having the ability to say “no.” 

In response to a question posed by Dr. Thole about ARMD’s work on energy innovation, 

Mr. Sultan said the research is an example of a partnership strategy. Mr. Pearce added 

that ARMD wants to maintain a broad tradespace. But some ideas are more mature 

than others. A group is currently working on laying out an overall roadmap. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 4 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Air Traffic Management by Akbar Sultan 

In citing international collaboration, Mr. Sultan explained that there is a difference 

between interaction and collaboration. NASA wants to leverage unique capabilities, and 

is looking for complementary but not overlapping research. Face-to-face meetings 

remain essential. Fleet aging is another notable issue. ARMD is looking at testbed 

possibilities worldwide. 

In response to a question from Dr. Francis about the involvement of the French 

organization Office National d'Etudes et Recherches Aérospatiales (ONERA) and its 

involvement in assistance to ARMD’s Shadow Mode Assessment Using Realistic 

Technologies for the National Airspace System (SMART-NAS) Project, Mr. Sultan 

replied that the difference was that ARMD does high-level TRL work and ONERA is 

focused on first-principle work. ARMD is attempting to use their approach to inform the 

SMART-NAS simulation plan. Dr. Shon Grabbe, technical lead for NASA's traffic flow 

management research activities, said that ONERA’s work is “about the how and the 

where. Human-automation teaming isn’t the sole focus, but is a piece of the overall 

research.” ONERA provides the low-level TRL triage. 

Dr. Lui Sha said he wanted to echo Dr. Francis’ comments. The most useful thing is to 

compare constraints. Is ARMD operating with the same profiles? Adverse interactions 

identified late in any program are serious issues. Potential structural issues can easily 

arise from non-rigorous computerized aircraft design. A discussion then ensued about 

pre-competitive concepts and simulation levels, and industrial partners. If tech transfer 

occurs, it occurs for a U.S.-based industrial partner. Dr. Thole expressed concern that 

by investing in foreign partnerships, NASA may be missing opportunities to invest 

domestically in the U.S. 

Dr. Sha said he would like NASA to have a bigger budget, but [the Committee has] no 

control: “If we spread ourselves too thin, then we’re not competitive anyway. We cannot 

do everything. Some core competencies cannot be compromised [whereas] secondary 

things can be outsourced.” Dr. Sha cited [former CEO] Jack Welsh and how he turned 

around General Electric. Mr. Sultan said he wouldn’t bypass a domestic capability. If 

that capability exists, ARMD engages. Dr. Sha said that truly unique isn’t possible. How 

can the U.S. keep its core competencies strong? Sometimes it is much better to 

collaborate. 

Dr. Cummings inquired about the work that ARMD is conducting with ONERA and 

expessed concern that they may not be the right partner for the work identified. Mr. 

Sultan emphasized that ONERA has expertise in the foundational aspects of the 

research and that is being leveraged by NASA. 

In response to a question posed by Dr. Thole on what the vetting process on the 

technical side is that NASA uses to identify viable partners, Mr. Sultan said that ARMD 

holds technical workshops and identifies the program objective. He cited simulations as 

one reason ARMD is working with ONERA: ARMD has worked short-term with them on 

previous efforts. Dr. Sha observed that the approach was a process solution and agreed 

with Dr. Thole that the key is vetting. He suggested that setting up a vetting committee 

made up of researchers would be better. The researchers could go meet with potential 

partners and make recommendations based on their findings. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 5 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Anderson said that it wasn’t a good idea to fund ideas without the needed technical 

rigor. When the objective becomes collaboration at all costs, one gets in trouble. A 

discussion followed about collaboration being informed by technical expertise. It’s a 

question of putting the best players in place. Mr. Pearce said that aeronautics is now a 

global enterprise, not just on a product basis, but on a research basis. ARMD’s Airspace 

Operations and Safety Program (AOSP) is the first attempt to take a more strategic view 

on how ARMD should partner, and not on an ad hoc basis. Dr. Francis said he 

remained concerned that a dilution of research funds occurs with international 

collaboration. 

In terms of potential future collaboration, AOSP has reached out to KLM Royal Dutch 

Airlines. Dr. Cummings said that KLM is the best company to team with. A discussion 

then ensued about how best to collaborate. The luxury business jet business might be a 

good opportunity. But the rub comes when taking the aircraft out of service in order to 

equip it for research. 

Shadow Mode Assessment using Realistic Technologies for the NAS (SMARTNAS) for Safe Trajectory Based Operations (TBO) Project by Shon Grabbe 

Mr. Borghese asked if trajectory based operations occur from gate to gate. He said that 

there are much larger problems one needs to understand during descent. Dr. Grabbe 

replied that the project was looking at the surface piece, the arrival piece, and trying to 

work through the integration issues, when one scheduler gives up control and passes it 

to another. The effort is to evolve beyond the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen). Mr. Borghese said that there are three reasons for delays: weather, 

system outreaches when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) goes down, and the 

complexity of metroplex operations. Is the project addressing those? 

Dr. Grabbe responded that that was the spirit of the effort. Bringing in weather 

uncertainties, especially when automation breaks down, will be a huge piece of the 

research. The regional part, the metroplex, will focus on the flows of traffic, not just on 

the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) boundary, but across the nation. 

Weather is usually ignored, but it makes up about 70% of the problem. Dr. Sha cited 

known incidents in a place like New York: “We have a wealth of records about all kinds 

of incidents. Establishing a team to pin down a data-driven approach for something like 

loss of separation would be more successful. It’s hard to have a high-quality model for a 

complex system. Look for an actual risk and then [devise ways to] stay out of it.” Dr. 

Grabbe said, “Well, yes and no. We have some data-driven elements in there. We’re 

chipping away at some of the tall poles. A lot of this work is looking at an hour before 

departure. We’re not de-conflicting for loss of separation.” 

Dr. Francis said that Dr. Grabbe mentioned going past NextGen. To what degree is the 

project looking to conduct out-of-the-box work? One example may be future co-piloting 

when the co-pilot is handling 10 airplanes. There may be a value proposition there that 

the project could explore. Dr. Grabbe said that hadn’t yet occurred. Mr. Pearce said that 

the ultimate goal of SMART-NAS is to create a plug-and-play environment. But the 

funding only goes so far. Mr. Borghese said that if the project was doing evaluations of 

new concepts, particularly with weather, previous instances should be examined. Dr. 

Grabbe agreed, saying that the research wasn’t focused on real-time only. Researchers 

want to “shadow,” although that’s not the only mode they will work in. Dr.Thole asked if 

the research would ultimately get to a cost and identify more efficiency. Dr. Grabbe 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 6 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

replied that regardless of whether the effort was monetized, metrics remains a huge 

part, as is leveraging capabilities. 

Dr. Sha said that the areas that would be valuable for this Committee to understand are 

integration risk and technology risk. How will the project manage the contingencies, and 

what will be done when certain areas of pursuit don’t pan out? Dr. Francis said that 

project researchers are “trying to wrap their hands around the future [so] I’d cut them a 

little slack in knowing where all the risks are.” Mr. Borghese said that after a year or two 

of concerted effort, a different route may be followed. As scenarios are run, the resultant 

data may send the project in a different direction. Dr. Cummings said that the outcome 

of the research could be of use to academia if it’s open source. Dr. Grabbe said that 

was where the project was going, although he didn’t know the exact computer language 

that will be used. Starting early next year, the project intends to find a group of core 

users to work through the details of what is and is not feasible. Ultimately, such 

individuals could be part of [computer-based] demonstrations. The project wants to 

reach out to the community and make data usable. Dr. Cummings agreed: “Making it 

easily accessible is the key.” 

A discussion then ensued about ARMD’s Future Air Traffic Management (ATM) 

Concepts Evaluation Tool, known as FACET. The new work would be communitybased, with clean application program interfaces (a set of computerized approaches for 

building software applications), known as APIs. Problems related to International Traffic 

in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have cropped up before. There is a need to modify 

algorithms, so that the code could be improved. That would require a back- and-forth 

between NASA and users. NASA isn’t providing all the tool kits, but the basic 

architecture. But: How will NASA move it and make it alive? A good template might be 

jet engine research conducted at Glenn Research Center. The exact mechanism isn’t 

yet known, however. ARMD would like to get this research to a point where the value 

proposition kicks in. There is ongoing work to build toward tech transfer and 

sustainment. NASA may, however, want to retain the ability to pull it back; there should 

be more than one off-ramp. Although ARMD will continue to have a key interest, ARMD 

doesn’t know yet how the code can or will be commercialized. There has to be a 

compelling business case for a company to take it on. The problem that has to be 

solved is how to make the air traffic management system more efficient. It’s a valuable 

effort, so perhaps NASA should retain it. The potential value is very high. 

Mr. Borghese observed that automation can play a major role in functional allocation. 

Mr. Pearce said it was at a relatively low technology readiness level. ARMD looked at it 

two years ago, and maintains a strong capability at NASA’s Langley and Ames 

Research Centers. Dr. Francis said that the answer obtained today is not the one 

arrived at two years down the road, and definitely not the one reached five years down 

the road. Technology continues to change. Dr. Sha said that the risk is mitigated by an 

open-architecture approach, and getting the community involved early. Dr. Cummings 

said that approach can backfire too. Involve the air traffic control union, and there will be 

pushback. Dr. Sha asserted that by the time research was completed, the technology 

could be obsolete. Technology is always going to change, Mr. Borghese said. Dr. 

Francis wondered that if something is allocated to a machine, what is that going to do to 

the system? It becomes a series of what-if scenarios. Mr. Pearce said ARMD has been 

asking this question for a long time. There has been a long time since there has been a 

change to roles in the air traffic management (ATM) system. But he believes ATM can 

and will be improved. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 7 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Borghese asked when this type of research will be integrated into the national 

airspace system. Dr. Grabbe said it was “beyond NextGen; 2030, maybe. We won’t end 

up with a single recommendation, but a suite of them with associated metrics.” Mr. 

Pearce said that, by 2018, if the research is successful, ARMD could enter into a 

research transition team (RTT) agreement with the FAA. Then there would be another 

five years for development. Mr. Borghese said there needed to be some “drops” with 

these longer timelines. Dr. Sha suggested that it would be good to have some media 

management, to focus on real-world questions being answered and to get reporters and 

news organizations involved. 

In response to a question by Dr. Francis about involving a private organization with 

ARMD’s UAS research, Mr. Pearce said he would not be sure about the fallout, but he 

expected at a minimum some kind of good, solid relationship could be developed. A 

discussion than ensued about privatization of UAS operations. It could be beneficial in 

the long run, but could also affect [NASA ARMD] budget allocation. A precedent for 

such an arrangement is the special agreements between and among airlines that 

already exist. 

Dr. Francis said that there will be a need to eventually integrate with what gets done at 

lower altitudes and what gets done at higher altitudes. How might these things 

integrate? Communications is very important. Dr. Grabbe responded that his project is 

looking at alternative architectures, different than what exist today. An integration 

initiative will take place; if ARMD can’t do it internally, it might be opened up to others 

via a NASA Research Announcement (NRA). Dr. Sha said that such an effort could 

enhance NASA’s image to the public. Dr. Thole said the Committee has talked about 

involving the public in some way. Dr. Sha said that if the public understands, Congress 

may be willing to put more money in. Mr. Pearce said that, in the last couple of years, 

ARMD has settled on a solid strategy to communicate where NASA aeronautics 

research is going. ARMD will conduct unmanned aerial systems traffic management 

(UTM). A discussion then continued about UTM and public outreach. ARMD is doing 

what it can, but it also plays in the greater NASA agency. 

Mr. Borghese said that what industry now sees is that the cost of delivering new 

certification was 30% and now it’s 60%. That increase is jeopardizing the entire airline 

industry. A discussion followed about certification costs, which are increasingly tied into 

the software side. Integration is a key issue. Dr. Sha said that researchers test models 

and assumptions: “We verify against a model, but the model can be missing things. 

Testing is vital; then formal methods can really pay off big. Nothing can replace the 

simplicity of the core function. Let’s look at all the major fails and all the facts. Formal 

methods and testing are complementary.” 

Mr. Anderson expressed concern about top project risks. A discussion ensued about 

funding amounts for SMART-NAS Project resources. More money may be needed 

further in. It’s good that charts give a level of specificity, but top project risks remain 

quite worrisome. A plan is needed to resolve those risks. Otherwise, it needs to be 

pulled back to something that can be accomplished. 

ARMD University Leadership Strategy by Doug Rohn 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 8 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Doug Rohn said that in the case of a specific tech challenge such as demonstrating 

ceramic matrix composites for fuel blades to lower fuel use, progress may be plotted. 

But there is a need to listen attentively to university feedback. Many NRAs are smaller 

in terms of dollars and involve one principal investigator (PI), one professor and two 

grad students perhaps. Dr. Sha said that certain programs are so confined that 

fundamental innovations may be lost. Industrial research tends to be overly constrained. 

University folks tend to be under constrained. The lesson is understanding the problem 

formulation early, so that the two situations can be corrected. Cite success stories, 

manage the constraints, but don’t manage the solutions. 

Dr. Thole asked if there are longer-term commitments to universities. Mr. Rohn replied 

that there are perhaps three-to-five year agreements. Cost sharing is not a requirement. 

Dr. Francis said that centers of excellence may not produce a multidisciplinary effort. 

Mr. Anderson: “Is your plan to float competitive solicitations through all the [strategic] 

thrusts simultaneously?” Mr. Rohn: “We have not quite settled on that. We’re asking 

universities to identify the critical challenges.” Mr. Anderson said he could envision a 

scenario involving a variety of strategic thrusts, and if the universities come back with 

very different approaches, then ARMD would have quite a choice on its hands. ARMD 

would have to come to grips with whatever group offers the best solution. 

Discussion then ensued about differing proposals. It’s a complicated challenge; if 

professors are left alone to explore their own research interests, they will have fun, but 

NASA cannot allow that since it’s a mission agency. It would be better to identify the 

functional gaps and go after the universities best suited to fill those gaps: get an idea of 

where partners can help ARMD. ARMD-underwritten NRAs will not go more than a few 

years, and a research roadmap should be required. ARMD has told universities that 

they need to take a more assertive role, gather critical thought leaders, and identify 

problems that they can solve. An integrated capability package is what is optimal. There 

is a need to know what the university’s research strengths are. Funding is secondary; 

what is primary is trying different ideas. But money is needed to pay for graduate 

students and equipment. A two-step process could work: send a white paper, and if the 

funder is interested, the project will be funded. Internships should be encouraged as 

well. 

Dr. Cummings expressed concern that university response to an ARMD request for 

proposals (RFPs) will be weak. Mr. Rohn said that there are usually many responses, 

specifically regarding proposal-related inquiries for additional information. Mr. Anderson 

said that ARMD might want to speak with individuals at the U.S. Air Force Research 

Laboratory (AFRL) on how the AFRL collaborative centers were established. There’s a 

need to answer why industry would participate, and what’s in it for them. Dr. Cummings 

said access to students might be one reason. Dr. Thole said that industry might want a 

university to establish a research strength in a given field of study. 

Low Carbon Aviation Subcommittee by Drs. Karen Thole and Woodrow Whitlow 

Mr. Borghese asked if the NRC study included both high bypass engines and open-rotor 

designs. Dr. Thole replied in the affirmative, but noted that both could be restricted on 

scope. Economic impacts are not clear. Both NASA and the International Civil Aviation 

Organization are studying low carbon aviation. In NASA’s case, it parallels the ARMD 

autonomy study. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 9 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Borghese praised the subcommittee’s findings as delivering a good, solid 

background. He said that, when looking at hybrid systems, two things will drive 

successful development: energy storage and high-density energy conversion. In terms 

of energy storage, next-generation batteries and supercapacitors are candidates. There 

was good expertise on the subcommittee team. Mr. Anderson said he was impressed 

with the subcommittee membership, but wondered why experts from Toyota’s Prius 

group and Tesla Motors weren’t included. Dr. Thole said that upcoming meetings would 

include such individuals. Dr. Francis said he had encountered the same thing before in 

another committee on which he served. Such people need to be added as committee 

members, not just as speakers. He also noted the Airbus interest in electric propulsion, 

and suggested bringing in an Airbus representative to explain the company’s motivation. 

Mr. Pearce thanked Dr. Thole and Dr. Whitlow for their work, and said that ARMD 

planned to do a similar study for each ARMD research thrust. 

Committee Discussion 

During the final portion of the Aeronautics Committee meeting, the members discussed 

their thoughts on, and opinions about, all of the presentations given to determine if a 

finding or a recommendation was warranted. 

The discussion about the Interagency Partnerships and Global Air Traffic Management 

presentations centered around vetting of partnerships and having clear objectives to 

ensure the best partners are identified, especially when working with potential 

international partnerships. Mr. Borghese commented that there is a lack of clarity in the 

process for identifying potential partners and how these decisions are made. The 

members agreed with Mr. Borghese, and Mr. Anderson added that it is important to 

determine who the best partners are for a given expectation or objective. Is the purpose 

to work with the best in class, or is there another reason behind the partnership? The 

members decided that a finding on this topic should be developed. 

During the final portion of the Aeronautics Committee meeting, reacting to the 

presentation made by Dr. Grabbe of the SMART-NAS Project, Committee members 

agreed it was very complete and very good, inasmuch as it contained a great number of 

specifics. Mr. Anderson said that the Committee is an advisory board, not a directive 

board. The project needs to come to terms with potential risks; at the moment, it isn’t 

getting there. 

Dr. Francis said that one of the things that made sense to him was that the project’s 

work could be the basis for an X-program. Experiments could begin virtually and 

graduate to real-world demonstrations. It would be a way to demonstrate what is 

technologically feasible. Mr. Anderson said that available project resources seem to be 

inconsistent with the stated objectives. That may mean the project is trying to 

accomplish too much. Mr. Borghese wondered if the project was wasting money on 

allocation. Dr. Francis said that it wasn’t possible to see out to 2030; such envisioned 

work in that timeframe shouldn’t be funded. Mr. Anderson said that what the project was 

attempting to accomplish is too big for current funding levels. 

Dr. Sha said the project’s organizational and management structure is complex. What 

they’re trying to do is very ambitious. What are the secondary goals? Reduce the 

complexity or inevitably fail. Many software projects have too much complexity. Grand 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 10 of 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

features are useless if they’re buggy features. One must identify the most fundamental 

requirements. Formal methods become useless. Anything that is as large and complex 

as software should involve the National Research Council. Eliminate all the 

unnecessary complexities. Mr. Borghese said the comments from Committee members 

should be incorporated into a finding. 

In terms of university strategy, Mr. Anderson said that he applauded ARMD trying to 

move the universities toward leadership. Universities want grants; that’s one end of the 

spectrum. The other end is leadership. Dr. Cummings said that leadership is important, 

but looking at [federal government] sequestration, people are in a very reactive mode 

right now. Mr. Borghese said there should be some level of guidance for the proposals. 

Dr. Cummings said she would recommend drilling down on the topics area. Dr. Thole 

said she liked the white paper concept. Faculty spend a lot of time on proposals. Mr. 

Borghese said that the approach taken by the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) “is wonderful. If they choose you, they tell you how to proceed.” Dr 

Cummings said that she understands the impetus behind thought-leadership. However, 

she is concern that the average professor wont be willing to do that kind of leadership. 

Dr. Sha said he agreed: “You want to make people more aware. If you want more 

people involved, you need to notify university management to distribute it widely.” Dr. 

Thole said she wasn’t sure that would guarantee a response from professors. Dr. 

Cummings said that professors are focused on responding to NRAs because of te 

funding associated with them. Mr. Anderson complimented ARMD on their efforts to 

reach out to the universities on this topic. Dr. Cummings suggested that ARMD could 

take its strategic thrust areas and turn each into a white paper. 

A discussion then ensued about a white-papers approach. The Committee will submit a 

finding. Mr. Anderson said that an after-action report might be useful to determine why 

any potential interactions didn’t occur. Dr. Cummings said that university professors 

don’t frequent the government website Federal Business Opportunities [where 

procurement listings that exceed $25,000 are posted]. Mr. Borghese said it was a great 

first step, and Dr. Sha agreed. 

Mr. Borghese said he recommended no formal finding be issued as regards the report 

made by Drs. Thole and Whitlow, and the committee members agreed. 

No comments from the general public were made, and the Aeronautics Committee 

meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. 

NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting July 28, 2015 Page 11 of 11