NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 1 of 14

NASA Advisory Council (NAC) 

Aeronautics Committee 

December 3, 2013 

National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, Virginia 

 

Summary of Meeting Minutes 

Participants: 

First Last Organization Role

Marion Blakey AIA Chair

John Borghese Rockwell Collins Vice Chair

Michael Bragg University of Washington Member

Mike Francis United Technologies Center Member

Tom Wood Bell Helicopter Member

Karen Thole Penn State Member

Mark Pearson GE Aviation Member

John-Paul Clarke Georgia Tech Member

John Langford Aurora Flight Sciences Member

Mark Anderson Boeing Member

Tom Irvine ARMD NASA Deputy AA

Susan Minor ARMD Exec. Secretary

Jay Dryer ARMD FAP Director

Ed Waggoner ARMD ISRP Director

Doug Stanley NIA Director

George Finelli NASA Langley Aero. Res. Director

Susan Gorton NASA Langley FAP 

Dave Bowles NASA Langley Associate Center Director

Cathy Bahm ARMD ISRP Dep. Prog. Director

Stuart Cooke ARMD ISRP

Luat Nguyen NASA Langley Observer

Fred Brooks NIA Observer

Rick Young NASA Langley ISRP 

Benny Lunsford NASA Langley Observer

Odilyn Luck ARMD FAP

Duncan McIver TeCC and NAST Observer
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 2 of 14

Morning Session 

The meeting was called to order by the chair at 9:14 a.m. 

Introductions 

Ms. Marion Blakey opened the meeting and welcomed members and participants, 

including those on the phone. Ms. Blakey welcomed Dr. Karen Thole to the Committee. 

Members introduced selves. 

Dr. Doug Stanley welcomed attendees to the National Institute of Aerospace. 

Ms. Blakey said that the committee had a full agenda. 

 

NASA Langley Research Center Overview by Dr. Doug Bowles

Dr. Bowles welcomed members and participants to Hampton. He presented a brief 

history of NASA Langley Research Center, tying it to the formation of NASA in 1958. In 

citing Langley areas of competency and organization, Dr. Bowles said the Center was a 

very matrixed organization. NASA’s Engineering and Safety Center is hosted at Langley 

and draws elements from across the entire agency. 

In response to a question posed by John Langford, Dr. Bowles elaborated on the 

Langley budget, mentioning $30 million in reimbursables in 2013; it sometimes has 

gone as high as $60 million: “It’s not just roads and commodes.”

When John-Paul Clarke inquired about how facilities are treated, Dr. Bowles said that 

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) programs pay for usage. It’s borne 

by the center management and ops budget. Dr. Bowles continued by describing a 20-

year infrastructure plan; Langley is about two years into that plan at present. The Center 

will be building much more energy-efficient facilities; will construct an integrated 

engineering services building; and, by reducing the overall infrastructure footprint –

tearing down two square feet for every square foot Langley will build – the Center 

should save $100 million over time. 

NASA Langley Aeronautics Research Director George Finelli mentioned ARMD’s 

Aeronautics Test Program that does sustainment of facilities. John Borghese said that 

the other really important investment is people and asks if the Center has devised a 20-

year plan to manage future workforce needs. 

In response, Dr. Bowles said that Langley decided the Center needed the same type of 

plan for its workforce. What is needed? The workforce is much more challenging than 

facilities. People may not leave after 20 years. Langley management is “using our best 

crystal ball ... And trying to identify the skills we may need.” Langley will brief the NASA 

administrator in mid-December about Langley’s progress in developing such a plan. The 

Center must also take account in the ongoing comprehensive digital transformation 

[occurring worldwide]. 

In response to a question from Michael Bragg about workforce downsizing, Dr. Bowles 

replied that that is part of Langley Center Director Lesa Roe’s temporary assignment at 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 3 of 14

NASA Headquarters [to oversee a Technical Capabilities Assessment Team, known as 

TCAT]. He said managers are trying to take a look across the board. The agency has 

changed a lot over the last 20 years. Just retiring the space shuttle has made a huge 

impact. Looking at the workforce numbers right now, the ratio of civil servants to 

contractors is still about one-to-one, even though the overall numbers have dropped 

over the last 20 years. The challenge lies in trying to determine what is needed and 

match that to the right mix of skills across the agency. 

Dr. Langford mentioned interagency collaboration and how necessary it is in this budget 

environment. How are the efforts being coordinated? Dr. Bowles referred the question 

to ARMD deputy associate administrator Thomas Irvine, who referenced the 

hypersonics research effort across agencies. NASA is still the keeper of a lot of 

intellectual property. The question is how to support that and how to efficiently transfer 

funds. The discussion about how not to duplicate efforts continues. 

Mike Francis observed that such opportunities do exist, although they take work. Dr. 

Clarke said that the model that is being described a 1950s model. Are there any civilian 

applications in Department of Defense’s mind? Mr. Irvine said although they pushed for 

it, they found none. 

 

A discussion ensued about the ins and outs of hypersonics research and collaboration. 

Dr. Bowles said that Langley continues with individual initiatives, even as the Center 

collaborates, such as in rotary wing research. He discussed Langley involvement in 

Human Exploration and Operations (HEO), space technology and development, and in

evaluating advanced technology. 

Dr. Bowles discussed Langley’s strategic alignment with the aeronautics strategic 

vision, including sustainable, high-speed mobility. He cited Langley’s science 

contributions, and discussed risk reduction as it relates to the Mars Airplane project. 

There is no specific work right now, and no active program on the vehicle side. 

Langley continues to support “911 calls”: urgent, short-turnaround projects. Dr. Bowles 

outlined Langley’s core competencies and its facilities. The Center’s Unitary Plan tunnel 

will be mothballed and then shut down. In response to a query from Dr. Clarke about 

what facilities would be kept as part of the Langley 20-year plan, Dr. Bowles said that 

the 14-by-22 Subsonic Wind Tunnel and the National Transonic Facility have had 

significant investments and still feature unique capabilities. The 14-by-22 is the 

workhorse facility. Both are solid. For the 8-Foot High-Temperature Tunnel, Langley has 

an agreement with the Air Force to bring actual testing into place. In terms of transonics, 

that’s a capability NASA is looking to replicate on the NASA side, vs. the Air Force side. 

Dr. Clarke: “In the entire spectrum, when you shut down the Unitary Plan, are there any 

[speed-regime] holes?” Mr. Finelli replied, not necessarily, since NASA is part of the 

National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing, or NPAT. Mr. Irvine said that there were 

layers of answers to the question. The tradeoff with the Unitary Plan was its duplicative 

capability, when compared with a similar Air Force facility. 

A discussion ensued about wind tunnel usage vs. computational fluid dynamics (CFD) 

analysis. Wind tunnel demand should stay at least level with CFDs for some time to 

come. Smart users employ both capabilities. Fifteen years out, managers have to 

determine what makes sense. There is substantial supercomputing capacity at NASA 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 4 of 14

Ames Research Center. Wind tunnels are still relied on to produce large databases. The 

right way to look at it is in terms of plugging into national assets. Nevertheless, there are 

concerns about being one-deep without any redundancy. In terms of open wind tunnels, 

the nation is getting close to the absolute minimum that the U.S. needs. Boeing is doing 

testing abroad, and NASA is sensitive to why companies like Boeing have done so. 

Ultimately it comes down to value. NASA is trying to be as cost-effective as possible. 

What value does the customer perceive he’s getting in terms of both data quantity and 

quality? 

Where Ideas Take Flight by George Finelli 

Mr. Finelli presented an organizational overview, a discussion of Traffic Aware Strategic 

Aircrew Requests software, known as TASAR, and an Aviation Safety Program 

overview. In terms of ARMD’s Fundamental Aeronautics Program work at Langley, he 

cited research in drag reduction, rotary wing crashworthiness, and low-boom, airframeshape design. 

A discussion ensued about low-boom research, testing and validation, and a revised 

goal set. Bounding the design space would be helpful. NASA has involved other 

members of the community in same. Community noise standards are essential for 

practical overland supersonic flight. A limited set of experiments may occur. What boom 

would be acceptable, for example in rural settings where the standards may differ from 

urban? It’s difficult to get the law changed for Mach 1-plus flight for commercial aircraft. 

Creating a boom that doesn’t touch the ground is being looked at in the research. Much 

of that depends on the atmospherics. Internationally there is a different standard. It is 

possible to build a supersonic airplane in the United States for flight overseas. 

Questions remain about what the exact mission here is for NASA aeronautics. NASA’s 

emphasis is on the research itself. NASA wants to inform the regulatory part of the 

government of the sonic boom levels and come up with a numerical value. There is a 

need to quantify the feasibility. What does it mean to demonstrate something in flight? 

What is the role of flight testing? NASA is in total agreement that a demonstrator would 

be necessary. The question is how NASA achieves that capability. NASA should be 

able to advocate for that. NASA Aeronautics needs to prioritize. The Committee agreed 

that a sonic demonstrator needs to happen. 

Mr. Irvine said that, in terms of prioritization, if it is one of our strategic thrust areas, and 

it is, we’re not prioritizing among the six areas. We know that it will require a flight 

demonstrator, and we are working on that. We don’t have the final say.

Mark Anderson said that here the United States can advance its own interests. He cited 

breakthrough thinking and its necessity. There are real reasons for NASA to get 

involved in this. Other people won’t do it. It isn’t within their capabilities.

Dr. Clarke cited what’s in the best national interest. What is the system solution to the 

problem? We need to collaborate and then move forward. Ms. Blakey cited the need to 

introduce this to the public and capture the public imagination. Mr. Finelli said that it’s 

very much part of the strategy, mentioning Langley-resident research on the human 

perception of sonic boom in residential settings. Ms. Blakey said that was very 

encouraging. 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 5 of 14

Mr. Finnelli continued with an Integrated Systems Research Program overview, and 

cited the community noise experiment in 14-by-22 Foot Wind Tunnel. In response to 

question about the certifiability of hybrid wing aircraft (HWB), Mr. Finnelli said that 

NASA was examining various engine-mounting designs. Answering a question from Dr. 

Clarke about airport reconfiguration and ground infrastructure issues regarding the 

HWB, Mr. Finelli said there were pieces of that throughout the entire research. NASA 

has been looking at implementability. 

Mr. Irvine said that the question is interesting. You are climbing a staircase, but you 

have to take individual steps. Is this an advantageous configuration if you’re looking at 

flight efficiency and environmental suitability? We should at some point try to consider 

[that] as much as we can. Dr. Clarke observed that the HWB could be very far off, 

especially considering the certification issues. Mr. Borghese said that if the HWB 

was certifiable, someone would build it and airports would be reconfigured. It would 

solve a lot of problems. 

Mr. Finelli said that NASA isn’t only looking at one configuration. There is a stable of 

advanced concepts. Mr. Anderson said that this should be the heart and soul of what 

NASA does, to get stuff in the air and get the planes to the air shows 

NASA’s Rotary Wing Research by Jay Dryer and Susan Gorton 

Mr. Dryer cited the civil rotorcraft market outlook and market growth areas. Dr. Clarke 

said there is a new framework for investments. Investment in the military has been 

underfunded. Mr. Dryer responded by saying that there is a significant investment on 

NASA’s part.

Mr. Dryer cited U.S. rotorcraft research roles, which are tied into military very closely. It 

could prove a double-edged sword. Mr. Borghese observed that Europe has been very 

successful in rotorcraft innovation. The U.S. original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) 

have programs of record and success on those platforms. The Europeans actually have 

a market-based and not a program-based effort. That’s how you’re successful. 

Mr. Dryer said that the ARMD portfolio still supports other platform development. It can 

be easier to flow from the civil side to the military. Dr. Francis cited two Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programs. There is out-of-the-box work 

there. He encouraged NASA’s involvement. Mr. Dryer agreed and said that NASA 

remains engaged. 

Dr. Langford indicated that you need to provide both money and leadership to 

contribute. He said he was concerned about the degradation of NASA into a supporting 

role, and mentions the advancing-blade concept. Those are the kinds of things that 

mean leadership. Mr. Dryer responded by saying that future vertical lift area is one of 

those areas NASA is leading in. 

Dr. Langford: “Why not call it vertical lift rather than rotorcraft? [The rotorcraft 

designation] stovepipes it into one technology.” Mr. Dryer agreed. Dr. Francis agreed. 

Mark Pearson said that “Eurocopters have a better mousetrap.”

Dr. Langford said that the problem is what NASA has done in the 1970s hasn’t been 

carried forward, even the work of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 6 of 14

(NACA) work, and what NASA did in the 1960s: “This theme of leadership is what I’m 

really concerned about.”

A discussion ensued about conventional and non-conventional terminology. Rotary wing 

is a departure from “helicopter.” Names are important; there is power there. 

Mr. Dryer said that ARMD is providing a vision for aviation. There are challenges from 

commercial rotorcraft for entry into service circa 2030. He described current common 

rotary-wing configurations and missions, and envisioned configurations and missions in 

2030 and beyond. Autonomy is not currently part of the Rotary Wing Project. But ARMD 

is well aware of it. 

Dr. Francis posed a challenge problem: an autonomous passenger-carrying vehicle, 

citing elevators and trams. Dr. Langford asked: “What do you need from NASA to keep 

doing what you [at United Technologies] are doing? The toolkit ... What’s holding it 

back? Maybe the answer is nothing.” Dr. Francis said that to do what we’re talking 

about here is “making the S-97 [the proposed Sikorsky S-97 Raider high-speed scout 

and attack helicopter] look like child’s play.”

Dr. Francis asked how ARMD is integrating the industrial age with the digital age. In 

partial reply, Tom Wood said that what NASA most likely has to provide is reducing the 

acoustic signature. The FAA is making the rules so you can be truly runwayindependent. Acoustics is the thing that “comes back to haunt me the most.”

Mr. Anderson said that what he keeps coming back to is the appropriate role for NASA. 

In the case of vertical lift, lots of products are extremely good, but very limited in speed 

capability; or worse in speed, but good in hover. NASA aeronautics ought to be out in 

front of rotorcraft innovation. NASA is getting overrun. 

Dr. Langford agreed, saying it was true across the board. Removing the regulatory 

environment means flying a demonstrator. That’s the burden of proof. There is a 

convergence of industry needs. Dr. Clarke said that ideally it would be great to have [a 

rotorcraft] fly as fast as a fixed-wing. What do you need to make that [a reality]? Mr. 

Wood cited the ARMD strategic vision and lack of mention of rotary wing. Mr. Dryer said 

that ARMD was looking at it in terms of more efficient transport. 

Ms. Blakey said that there does look to be tremendous potential in rotorcraft research. 

Mr. Dryer said that speed continues to be an issue. Mr. Borghese said that ARMD’s 

rotorcraft research is very short term vs. what you need to be looking for. You need a 

separate mission statement. Mr. Dryer said that ARMD was in the midst of developing 

that right now. We are working some of these important areas. Icing is another 

component. Are we doing things valuable to industry today, and what do we work next? 

Dr. Francis said that controlled flight into terrain is still the biggest issue. The autopilots 

aren’t terribly sophisticated. There isn’t much capability of operating in an object-rich 

environment where most of these vehicles play. Mr. Borghese said that there are 

existing solutions right now. There is very little interest in these systems in the U.S. 

In response to Ms. Gorton’s presentation of research themes and the current portfolio, 

Mr. Pearson asked: “What bucket does noise go into?” Ms. Gorton replied that it was 

included in both advanced concepts and configurations and integration. 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 7 of 14

Ms. Gorton discussed challenges for future rotary wing aircraft, the technology benefit 

assessment study, and research themes and tech challenges. Dr. Francis asked why 

GPS-denied navigation was not on the list. Ms. Gorton replied that ARMD could add 

that to the list and downselect it to fit it into the budget. That could be an option. Dr. 

Francis said that as one shifts to a new direction, expertise comes into play. Mr. Dryer 

said that ARMD will work hand in hand with the NASA research centers on that. This 

will involve an evolution of the workforce. It’s getting people to shift the focus. It’s not 

easy, but new people will bring a new perspective. That must be balanced. 

Mr. Irvine said that there is a revised strategy for ARMD. There are obviously 

organizational and structural changes that are needed to implement that strategy: “We 

have to get out of or de-emphasize some areas where we have strong technical 

capabilities. We feel we need to fully implement that new strategy and structure in the 

2015 fiscal year.” One of those teams has the workforce issue to deal with. “When you 

ask if we have a plan, I have to ask for your patience. We’re actually developing that 

now. We’ll do some kind of data dump at the next meeting to let you know what we’re 

doing.”

Dr. Langford asked about the National Institute of Aerospace (NIA) being tasked with 

the workforce problem. It doesn’t look like the NIA has actually gone in that direction. 

Mr. Irvine said that he agreed, and that he didn’t think the NIA has fully realized that 

vision. The civil-servant staff is pretty much fixed. There is flexibility in supplanting inhouse expertise with contractor expertise, which is always an option. 

Mr. Wood observed that bird strikes remain a big issue. The birds are getting bigger. 

That is a tough design problem. Mr. Borghese said that it’s also a big issue for general 

aviation aircraft. Are you doing any work with hybrid aircraft? Ms. Gorton replied that 

ARMD is just starting to look at how they can be applied. Some NASA researchers have 

looked at hybrids with hydrogen. 

Mr. Borghese posed a question about more efficient gear boxes and additive 

manufacturing. Ms. Gorton said the project is looking at it overall. Hybrid gears might be 

one area, since 50%-60% of rotorcraft weight is in gears. 

Dr. Langford observed that rotorcraft integration in NextGen is “kind of a grab-bag of a 

bunch of other stuff.” He commented on small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems 

and how the air traffic control systems handles that. It’s really different than today’s 

national airspace system. 

Dr. Francis said that it was not just large aircraft, but more aircraft and more dense 

aircraft. It’s a system-wide problem. That’s something the FAA really needs help with. 

Ms. Gorton discussed fiscal year 2013 key elements and areas of research, and recent 

examples of NASA research making an impact. Dr. Langford asked if there was 

pressure from dual-use technology. Mr. Dryer said that if one looks at the 2014 

President’s Budget, the question is whether NASA is too tied to what the military is 

doing. 

Mr. Irvine: “There’s a lot to do. We all know what the funding for NASA Aeronautics is. 

What is your portfolio and what are your priorities? Any part of our budget too closely 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 8 of 14

tied to the Department of Defense will be automatically scrutinized because it’s not 

civilian. What is it that we’re doing that is readily explainable to the nation’s civilian 

aeronautical needs? That part of the budget will then be on the table for reduction or 

elimination.” 

Dr. Langford cited the budget-reduction pressures from both the civilian and defense 

sides. Dual use has saved NASA’s budget over and over. Mr. Irvine said there was a 

request for the reduction in rotorcraft funding. ARMD wasn’t happy with that and dead 

set against the glideslope reduction, and so fought back very hard. 

An extended discussion ensued about the role of the Committee to advise NASA 

Aeronautics how to spend inadequate resources and how to get the resources up to 

where they need to be. Cutting ties with the military would not be financially prudent. 

Afternoon Session

Ms. Blakey reconvenes the afternoon portion of the Aeronautics Committee meeting, 

reminding members that part of the Committee’s purpose is to consider the discussions 

in light of feedback to the administrator. 

National Research Council Committee on Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation 

by Dr. John-Paul Clarke 

Dr. Clarke presented a statement of task, iterating participants and the study plan. The 

Autonomy Committee’s first meeting took place on July 10-12 and the second on 

August 27-29. Dr. Francis mentioned the development of perception algorithms as 

being particularly interesting. A third meeting was held Nov. 13-14. 

Dr. Clarke said that, while the Autonomy Committee (AC) members’ opinions are 

scattered, people are starting to coalesce about what the issues are. He believes the 

AC will come up with less than a handful of technical priorities, and then another set of 

assurance priorities. The Committee is keeping in mind going from three crew to two 

crew. Dr. Clarke said to imagine if long-haul flights could be done with only two pilots on 

board. There are some interesting things to be had there. And how do you handle 

vehicles on the ground? Across all these areas are questions of assurance. They need 

to be tacked before the FAA can be convinced. In Dr. Clarke’s opinion, those are the big 

themes. 

Dr. Francis said that the composition of the AC reminded him of the old Congress: some 

real conservatives, some real liberals, but a lot of moderates. The result should be a set 

of research topics for the next 20 years. Dr. Clarke replied that his hope was that the AC 

will have substantial recommendations for the nation going forward. 

Mr. Borghese asked that, given the immaturity of this new technology, would it be good 

to develop a knowledge base to know what’s going on. In response, Dr. Clark said it 

was a good thought. The AC can’t make recommendations regarding budget, but they 

can make recommendations regarding process. The horse is already out of the barn ... 

Bringing all these different vehicle types together is a big challenge. No one person can 

do it all. Aviation can’t afford to make mistakes. There is a need to do a lot more upfront thinking. 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 9 of 14

Dr. Francis said that the Autonomy Committee won’t solve the problem, but will set the 

agenda to solve the problem. He cited machine intelligence, and said the question for 

NASA is how does it focus its efforts? Dr. Langford observed that the last National 

Academy report that was important for the aeronautics industry was the flight test 

report. It was not an exemplary piece of scholarship, and was released before it was 

done. That has limited its impact, which Dr. Langford believes was a loss. He hopes the 

Autonomy Committee can release a finished report. In response, Dr. Clarke said Dr. 

Langford was absolutely right. The AC is pushing on toward the objective. The report 

will not be released before its time. 

Mr. Anderson mentioned being on the flight test report committee, and agreed it didn’t 

meet expectations. Dr. Clarke said the AC was going to try to achieve consensus. The 

timetable will not be allowed to be the determining factor. 

Ms. Blakey asked if the AC had discussed in a general way the resources required to 

take this underway. Dr. Clarke replied that they haven’t had an overt discussion about 

that. In terms of technology, there are people spending a lot of money doing a lot of 

things. It’s not about spending 500 gazillion dollars to invent a whole bunch of new 

things. The budget issue has not been a high-level issue. 

A discussion then ensued about what would be good government funding and what 

would be good private-sector funding. Dr. Francis said the AC is taking its collective 

knowledge and trying to achieve consensus; he believes it will be able to reach 

consensus. Dr. Clarke agreed and said he was very optimistic. 

Mr. Anderson said that if the Autonomy Committee took an extra 60 or 90 days, that 

might be a good thing. The National Research Council might not like it, but it would be 

better for the nation. 

A discussion then occurred about the need for time and doing a quality job, and 

assurance research as it resonates politically. There is a need to balance utility and 

convenience with privacy concerns. People are willing to give up anonymity if there is 

sufficient benefit. Other significant issues are trust and certification, and risk and 

mitigation. 

Mr. Irvine asked about outreach to other industry segments. Any general observations 

about how these other sectors use automation? In reply, Dr. Clarke said that, in 

industrial sectors, people use automation when people can no longer handle the 

situation. Other places it’s used so that people won’t get bored. Then when a 

complicated situation is encountered, it’s back to people again. 

Mr. Borghese asked that, relative to the FAA, will there be any discussion about what 

their requirements will be? Dr. Francis said there’s a shift in the way that this gets done 

over time. Machine intelligence is a different way to think about certification.

A discussion ensued about where the FAA is now and where they will need to be. A 

great deal of research needs to be done. The FAA will have to change, even as it 

continues its dual mission of both regulating and operating the national airspace system 

(NAS). That dual mission does not have to be a negative. 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 10 of 14

Ms. Blakey observed that it would require much effort to, by 2015, to get a remotely 

operated vehicle into the NAS. Dr. Langford said implementation won’t move faster than 

the network moves. Mr. Anderson wondered how the Amazons and the Googles of the 

world will somehow seamlessly introduce unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into the 

NAS. A discussion then followed about the practical impediments of introduction of 

miniature UAVs into the NAS. Disruptive innovation will drive the system. 

Mr. Irvine mentioned how NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National 

Airspace System Project is developing air traffic procedures on how to operate small 

UAS in urban areas. There is a consortium of 20 companies that NASA ARMD will use 

seedling monies to fund. ARMD had sent an email to Jeff Bezos, who responded 

immediately. There will be a mix of industry, academia and entrepreneurial interests. A 

discussion then followed about the rapid development of UAS despite existence of rules 

and regulations. 

Advance Compositions Project Planning Updates by Dr. Richard Young 

Dr. Young presented a problem statement, the technical challenges, a summary of a 

Meeting of Experts and a DARPA-National Science Foundation composites workshop. 

In response to a query from Mr. Borghese about the cost of the final product not being 

an issue, Dr. Young responded that it did come into play. Project planning has focused 

on reduction of time, because time factors into cost. There will have to be a balanced 

approach and a way to enhance performance: reduced time and reduced cost. 

Mr. Borghese: “Is the U.S. behind in composites structures compared [internationally]? 

Did that come up?” Dr. Young said, “No, because these companies are international. 

The concern was over bonded structures: quality and process control and the like.”

In response to Ms. Blakey’s question about issues in unitized bonded structures, Dr. 

Young said that because there’s fear of contamination, there’s almost no way to inspect 

the structure to make sure that it won’t de-bond. Engineers are now using lasers in 

specific areas to make sure bonds are strong enough. 

In response to a question from Mr. Borghese about test-sample coupons, Dr. Young 

said that, generally, scalability is the issue. Researchers are addressing that concern 

through tighter process controls. Nevertheless, that remains a “holy grail” challenge.

Addressing Mr. Borghese’s question about contamination, Dr. Young said that was why 

fabrication will be moving toward greater automation. It’s an evolution, as are ongoing 

quality control evaluations. 

In discussing a partnership with the FAA, Mr. Anderson had a question about signature 

authority even if the FAA was not a voting member. Dr. Young said the FAA was 

making a financial investment and shouldn’t be voting. Mr. Wood said that, in his 

opinion, that was “letting them off the hook.” Ms. Blakey said such a role for the FAA 

was perfectly reasonable and appropriate. In response to a question from Mr. Wood –

“What if it doesn’t hold water with them later on?” Ms. Blakey said that it could evolve 

into an ARC: an aviation rules committee. At this stage, Ms. Blakey thinks this is what 

the Project wants. Dr. Young said that consortium participants are happy to know the 

FAA is in the meeting. 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 11 of 14

In response to a question from Ms. Blakey about the status of composites standards, 

Dr. Young said he wasn’t exactly sure how to characterize that. There are two 

databases and standardized testing techniques to do characterizations. A discussion 

then ensued about characterizing loads and fatigue on rotorcraft, fatigue test articles 

and analysis pieces, and embedding flaws for discovery. One of the greatest 

vulnerabilities is in the analysis. 

Dr. Young discussed a potential partnership with the Department of Defense, and 

presented the initial idea of and participants in the Advanced Composites Consortium. 

Dr. Langford asked what there weren’t any small businesses on the list. Dr. Young 

replied that Project planners established criteria for those who are key players in U.S. 

industry in this area, taking into account the ability to cost share, fabrication expertise 

and experience in certification. A number of smaller entities may have had one and not 

the other. The ones chosen scored highly in every category. 

A discussion then ensued about aircraft structural components only. Which will be the 

primary focus for the Project? Mr. Anderson observed that the development of this 

whole initiative was very strange. It must be really important to people in the composites 

community. Dr. Francis asked if the consortium membership would change over time, 

and Dr. Young replied that yes, it can. 

In response to a question from Dr. Langford about how much money is NASA putting in 

[to the Project], Dr. Young said $25 million a year for five years. How much money is 

going to the consortium is yet to be decided. Mr. Anderson said that it was enough 

money to do a technology demonstrator. 

Mr. Borghese said that when the Project concluded after five years “you won’t be able to 

say you did anything.” Dr. Young disagreed; there could be a demonstrator. Dr. 

Langford mentions the Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology 

Project, or ERAST. In the 1990s, NASA did that environmental aircraft; four companies 

were chosen, and they were all small. The total budget was $150 million over 10 years. 

It was one of NASA’s huge industrial successes. Those companies now have combined 

revenues of more than $2 billion. No new companies were even let in. The companies 

in the advanced composites effort will each do their own thing, and won’t collaborate on 

a single vehicle. 

A discussion then ensued about how companies will get involved and what that 

involvement could lead to, as well as development of methods that could lead to new 

regulations. Mr. Pearson said that the result would be getting new tools and processes. 

It’s almost pre-competitive. These consortia are not new; its leverage for an investment. 

It’s pretty impressive to get this list of companies. 

Dr. Langford cited ERAST and each company protecting what they thought of as their 

own intellectual property. There was never the data sharing that was anticipated. Mr. 

Anderson said he remembered ERAST. He said it was “a phenomenal success. It gave 

us some great companies.” He cited the promise of making better materials for the 

future, but contrasted that with lack of support for other noteworthy efforts: “What makes 

me grit my teeth is that if I proposed getting $25 million for computational fluid dynamics 

or wind tunnels, I wouldn’t make it past the first two [proposal] charts.”
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 12 of 14

Mr. Irvine pointed out that, for at least 30 years, NASA has been involved with 

composites. The point has been reached where most aerospace companies want to use 

composites in primary structures. A generation ago that was in secondary structures. 

Designers of the Boeing 787 “Dreamliner” had to be ultra conservative, using “black 

aluminum” that was heavier because they had to be conservative. Better refinement of 

these materials would convey a huge advantage. One has to take a step, and this is a 

pretty important step. Everyone in the aerospace industry [ARMD consulted] was very 

strongly in favor [of the Project]. Is the consortium route perfect? Few things are. The 

pervasive use of composites is worth the investment. 

Mr. Anderson said that, for the record, he was supportive. He still wondered why this 

effort was elevated above everything else in a constrained budget environment. Mr. 

Borghese said that, as a non-conflicted member, he believed this was a very important 

thing to do, especially seeing what’s coming out of Asia. Dr. Francis cited [Internet 

predecessor] the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, or ARPANET, as one 

precedent. Mr. Pearson said that pervasive problems across industry require consortia. 

Dr. Langford said that in the current budget environment there are a lot of things done in 

the past that must change. Mr. Anderson said that he knew how many resources are 

flowing into this problem from his own company. Mr. Pearson said it is fundamental 

tools and processes. 

The Project will start with the passage of FY2014 budget. Under a continuing resolution, 

the Project could start vectoring some work and organization planning and some nofunds work with industry. Mr. Irvine pointed out that as long as NASA gets a budget,

sequestration won’t affect this program. ARMD will take some reductions and then start 

the activity. Ms. Blakey wished ARMD good luck with the new initiative. 

Public Comments:

None. 

Committee Deliberations 

Ms. Blakey asks the Committee for any further comments. Additional ones can be made 

during the meeting of the NASA Advisory Council next week in Florida. 

Dr. Langford said he had grave concerns about what he just saw on this composites 

presentation. He cited reservations about lack of diversity in terms of the consortium, 

and grave concerns about the process and the results. To his surprise, there was no 

inclusion of small businesses and mid-size businesses. 

Dr. Francis agreed: “It’s an awfully limited list.” The way to remedy it is to include 

composite firms that specialize. There’s a lot to be learned from what [startups] did 

wrong. There needs to be a way to make this effort sustainable. This is worth looking at 

more strategically. 

Mr. Borghese said the ongoing rotary-wing effort is important to the future of rotary-wing 

technology in this country. He cited the cost-sharing philosophy in the European Union. 

He praised the technical challenges laid out. A capstone project to show at an air show 

would be very good. He would like to see additional people on the composites team. 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 13 of 14

Ms. Blakey said there seems to be real concern about dual use; perhaps it’s an excuse 

to hold back on funding. She believes dual use is a great strength, especially at this 

point. 

Dr. Clarke cited U.S. Army underfunding of rotorcraft research. It’s critically important to 

have that research. Dr. Francis said that there are different reasons on both the civil 

side and the military side to pursue the same technology, like acoustics stealth/noise 

reduction. Mr. Anderson said he didn’t see any impediment to NASA support of military 

research. Synergistic advances are very possible. He urged the Committee to get on 

the record in favor of dual use. 

Dr. Francis said that ARMD’s rotorcraft efforts will advance the NASA agenda. Dr. 

Clarke said that it really enhances mobility. Dr. Francis said that the term urban air 

power is non-existent at present, and he believes that coupling rotorcraft with autonomy 

is a good idea. 

Karen Thole asked if there is a role for NASA to play in moving things from the military 

to the civilian arena even faster. Mr. Borghese said that going from military to civilian 

given ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) regulations [that control the 

export and import of defense-related articles and services] is a very hard thing to do. 

Mr. Wood would like to include vertical lift/rotary wing in the ARMD strategic plan. A 

discussion then ensued about rotary wing vs. vertical lift terminology. 

Ms. Blakey expressed approval of the autonomy presentation. A discussion about 

reviewing the autonomy report followed. That report should become public around April 

2014, according to Dr. Clarke. 

Mr. Anderson said that he thought events are overtaking [the Committee]: “The steady, 

stately academic process is giving way to people actually doing stuff.” Dr. Francis said 

that autonomy is very young technology. The Committee’s job is not to worry, but to set 

an agenda. Dr. Thole pointed out that Dr. Clarke had raised a question about resources 

[re rotorcraft research]. 

Dr. Francis and Dr. Clarke applauded NASA for taking on autonomy research. Dr. 

Clarke praised NASA Langley Research Center’s strategy of infrastructure 

management. Mr. Borghese said he was impressed that Langley has a 20-year plan, 

not just for facilities, but for personnel. 

Ms. Blakey returned the discussion to ARMD’s Advanced Composites Project. Mr. 

Anderson said he thought NASA Aeronautics leadership has done a superb job of 

navigating some pretty tricky waters, and commended them for them for putting the 

Project into place. Mr. Borghese said the research is important to the continuing 

premiership of this technology in the United States. 

Dr. Langford expressed doubts about whether NASA should be doing this work. It is a 

matter of priorities. He has much stronger reservations about not picking smaller 

companies, which is not endorsable. The Committee should know more about the 

process. He objects to the impression the results create. It was not conducted in a full 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting December 3, 2013 Page 14 of 14

and open competition. If it is an important technology, innovation doesn’t occur solely in 

the large OEMs (original equipment manufacturers). 

Michael Bragg cited universities and NSF efforts in this arena, and suggested the 

committee take a look at the ERC process. 

A discussion then ensued about previous consortia. The advanced composites project 

is modeled loosely on the AGATE (Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments) 

and SATS (Small Aircraft Transportation System) consortia. There’s not a one-to-one 

comparison. CLEEN (the FAA’s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise 

program) is a competitive proposal. The advanced composites project [call to participate 

in a consortium] was a competitive process put out like a ROI (return on investment). 

More than 20 respondents, and criteria were published. 

Mr. Irvine said the consortium is set up to add members. There are Tier 1, 2 and 3 

OEMs. NASA will not exclude anyone who wants to participate. Dr. Langford observed 

that the behavior in putting together the consortium is inconsistent with large-scale 

statements made by politicians and leaders that small business is crucial to the U.S.; 

there are no small businesses on the advanced composites list. He expressed a great 

concern about how information is shared. Expand the circle or deal more assertively 

with the intellectual property issue. 

Mr. Irvine said NASA considers this activity to be in the pre-competitive arena. 

Catherine Bahm said it will be pre-competitive and disseminated; the group that will help 

develop articles of collaboration will define how the work will be done, including the 

intellectual property issues. Articles of collaboration will be ready to be signed, and it is 

ARMD’s intent to expand the group. George Finelli said while there is yet no mechanism 

to set up funds, there will be ways to bring on additional members. Dr. Langford: “That 

sounds great but the incentives of the first six members will be to exclude others based 

on the limited size of the pie.” Mr. Finelli replied that the intent is still the same: to work 

out the intellectual property details, and how modeling and validation testing will be 

brought to the table. 

Ms. Blakey had questions about the Committee being briefed about the composites 

consortium. The Committee would need to know more if making an informed statement 

as to its suitability. Mr. Anderson suggested a private conversation between Ms. Blakey, 

ARMD associate administrator Dr. Jaiwon Shin and ARMD deputy associate 

administrator Thomas Irvine. Ms. Blakey suggested having a more complete 

conversation during the next Committee meeting, and mentioned NASA’s general 

intellectual property philosophy and how it applies to the advanced composites 

consortium planning. Dr. Francis described the upside and downside of waiting; an 

interim solution would be the telecon. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Committee 

doesn’t have oversight authority, just recommendation authority. Dr. Thole said it would 

be helpful to know how other consortia are structured. Ms. Blakey suggested putting this 

on the agenda for the next meeting. Dr. Thole asks that the NASA Advisory Committee 

be informed about that questions were raised about the consortium. Mr. Anderson 

reiterated that he is general supportive of the objectives, but still has questions about 

the partnership model. Dr. Langford: “Our role is to at least ask the questions; it’s 

governance in the sunshine. I’m a big supporter of small business.”

MEETING ADJOURNED at 4:34 p.m.