NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting 

December 15, 2021 

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

Washington, DC 

Welcome 

Mr. John Borghese, committee chair, called the meeting to order. Introductions were 

made and new members of the Committee were welcomed. Information regarding the 

purpose and scope of the Committee’s discussions, findings, and recommendations 

were described. Once again, due to the restricted travel rules necessitated by the 

COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was conducted online. 

Sustainable Aviation in NASA’s Aeronautics Portfolio 

Mr. Robert Pearce, NASA’s associate administrator for Aeronautics, began with a broad 

overview of the missions, programs, and projects included in NASA’s Aeronautics 

portfolio, including those related to sustainable aviation, Advanced Air Mobility, 

commercial supersonic aircraft, and air traffic management. Mr. Pearce noted the 

appropriations to NASA Aeronautics in the President’s Budget request and the actual 

budget enacted by Congress have increased in recent years, especially to Aeronautics 

programs working on sustainability in aviation. 

Mr. Borghese commended NASA’s productive research in these areas and affirmed the 

value in an increased Aeronautics budget. He asked about the effect of being in an 

ongoing continuing resolution (CR) before the FY 2022 budget is enacted—particularly 

on NASA’s ability to start new programs. Mr. Pearce elaborated the current CR had yet 

to be detrimental to NASA Aeronautics’ priority procurements, facilities, and workforce.

He added that a full-year CR, should it transpire, may have an impact on certain 

projects and demonstrations. 

Mr. Pearce continued his overview of NASA Aeronautics with organizational charts and 

details, introducing the directors of each Aeronautics program and specific projects such 

as the X-59 Quiet SuperSonic Technology aircraft, the University Leadership Initiative, 

and the Aerosciences Evaluation and Test Capabilities portfolio. He also showed the 

Committee the distribution of budget increases to Aeronautics programs under the 

budget request for FY 2022. 

Mr. Borghese asked for details on how the increases to each program were determined 

and noted each program received increases as opposed to fewer high-cost or highpriority activities. Mr. Pearce explained, despite the “peanut butter spread” appearance

of the increases, the bulk of the funds are distributed to components of the Sustainable 

Flight National Partnership (SFNP) existing within each program. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Pearce continued the overview with more in-depth coverage of the SFNP and 

elaborated the focus of the increases is to eventually work toward a zero emissions, 

zero impact future for aviation whose outcomes can extend far beyond the next 

generation. He added that there are further opportunities for this type of innovative 

future-thinking research to occur in other areas as well, such as the University 

Leadership Initiative. 

Ms. Lisa Ellman asked Mr. Pearce about the way budget requests and the overall 

budgeting process affects NASA’s work on automation, including for small and large

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and air mobility. Mr. Pearce responded that, 

although most of the increases have gone to sustainability operations, the budget adds 

some more “breathing room” for UAS-related projects, noting the budget can get tight in 

the areas of autonomy and automation. 

Ms. Ellman replied with a follow-up question on NASA’s awareness of electrically 

powered UAS as an emerging clean transportation solution, and whether NASA has an 

understanding of this perspective at a political level. Mr. Pearce responded that the 

language received from Capitol Hill offers tremendous support for NASA’s activities in

electrically powered aviation and SFNP. He stipulated NASA’s work in electric power 

has been mostly in the megawatt class because it has applications at the transport 

scale and with regional-class type aircraft, which are both larger than what a small UAS 

may need. Mr. Pearce explained NASA’s role also includes helping future industry be

sustainable from day one and how electric aviation and systems are a large part of that 

mindset. NASA is focusing on questions such as what it takes broadly to move toward 

electrified aviation. 

Mr. Pearce continued his overview of NASA Aeronautics, explaining the four main 

Aeronautics centers across the country and their roles. Afterwards, he explained the 

type of future aircraft NASA is exploring, including UAS, electric vertical takeoff and 

landing vehicles, ultra-efficient subsonic aircraft, and commercial supersonic aircraft, 

emphasizing safety as a priority at all levels. 

Mr. Michael Dumais questioned whether the high-speed effort, namely supersonic 

aircraft, are compatible with sustainability in the long run, though he also pointed out 

that these areas of aviation are complementary. He asked if there may come a point in 

the future where high-speed aircraft are deemphasized in the budget to invest in more 

sustainable aviation. 

Mr. Pearce affirmed the validity of the question and its associated challenges but added 

even though supersonic aircraft may always be less efficient than subsonic, stakeholder 

support remains for supersonic aircraft and sustainable aviation fuels are a possible 

solution to the question of sustainability at supersonic speeds. He elaborated on the 

challenge industry faces in scaling-up sustainable technology and fuels to meet the 

needs of aviation by the middle of the century. 

Mr. Pearce continued to cover NASA’s role in sustainable aviation, explaining how the 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

goal of net-zero aviation emissions by 2050, and NASA’s role of pushing the efficiency

of aviation operations to new levels, applies mainly at the technological, operational, 

and infrastructure levels. He stipulated the key point that truly sustainable zero-carbon 

emissions aviation can only be reached with sustainable aviation fuels—a research area 

where NASA has a supporting, rather than primary, role. 

Mr. Pearce moved on to subsonic transports, describing subjects such as the Transonic 

Truss-Braced Wing design and other more efficient practices in commercial aviation that 

could come to be used in the 2030s. Mr. Pearce concluded his remarks with the idea 

that the goal of enabling sustainable aviation is twofold – not just net-zero emissions in 

aviation, but also U.S. leadership in sustainable aviation technologies. 

Dr. James Kenyon, director of the Advanced Air Vehicles Program, described in-depth 

the technological and methodological details of SFNP’s work in four key, transformative

areas of technology being explored: high aspect ratio wings, small-core gas turbines, 

electrified aircraft propulsion, and high-rate composite manufacturing. 

Dr. Kenyon noted the FY 2022 budget from Capitol Hill includes funds to develop 

combustion technology for small-core engines to burn up to 100 percent sustainable 

aviation fuel blends. He also explained NASA’s approach of addressing each of the four 

key technologies individually, providing the opportunity to work with a broader range of 

the aviation industry in a more focused manner. Dr. Kenyon concluded his remarks with 

a discussion of safety and procedures related to NASA’s work with electrified aviation

technology. 

Discussion 

Dr. Helen Reed expressed the increases to the Aeronautics budget in recent years is 

heartening, recalling a time when it was not as substantial, comparatively. Mr. Borghese 

echoed the sentiment and reckoned industry, the public, and Congress see the value of 

the work being done by NASA Aeronautics. 

Mr. Dumais added as the current administration and future administrations continue to 

focus on sustainability and commercial air travel as a contributor to the carbon footprint, 

there may be opportunities for NASA to advocate to secure even more funding for some 

of its related initiatives. Mr. Borghese concurred. 

Ms. Ellman suggested part of NASA’s budget could be devoted to quantifying the

environmental benefits of electric vehicles, including small and large UAS. She noted 

other parts of the federal government are focused on this topic, and that she hasn’t

seen any of NASA’s budget devoted to this specific context. Ms. Ellman also clarified 

some places in the federal government have the misconception that UAS integration is 

complete, which, she stated, is far from true. 

Mr. Jay Dryer commented that in terms of moving towards sustainable aviation and the 

goal of zero emissions by 2050, systems analysis showing where the benefits are and 

3 
 

 

 

how NASA could get there would be useful—also taking it to a level in which NASA 

says “we’re going to be the long pole.” He stated the timeline is critical to understanding

where NASA can have an impact, as well as venturing into some areas not traditionally 

in NASA’s lane. Mr. Dryer commended the goal of high-rate composite manufacturing 

as a good example of this mindset. 

Regarding the electrified aviation effort, Mr. Dumais stated NASA should not 

underestimate the importance of safety when faced with the challenges of dealing with 

higher voltages and what is needed to manage them. Mr. Borghese concurred. 

Mr. Dryer pointed out how creating international participation in NASA’s commercial 

supersonic transportation and high-speed aircraft is critical, and NASA has an 

opportunity to help set international standards, which in turn become an important part 

of US leadership in aviation from a broad perspective, including from the standpoint of 

NASA’s renewed focus on sustainability.

Finding 

The Committee is pleased to see NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

(ARMD) receiving a higher budget during recent years in both the President’s Budget 

request and in the official budget appropriated by Congress. While pleased with the 

increase in funding, the Committee also sees an opportunity for NASA Aeronautics to 

advocate for more funding to its programs and projects investigating and implementing 

sustainable aviation technology and practices, sensing high potential for Congress and 

the public to see the benefit of these activities. One such area is the use of Unmanned 

Air Vehicles and Advanced Air Mobility that have the potential to substantially reduce 

emission by replacing automobiles and delivery vans with electric powered air vehicles. 

Successful Transfer of Airspace Technology Demonstration 2 

Mr. Akbar Sultan, director of the Airspace Operations and Safety Program, discussed 

NASA’s work in airspace operations and air traffic management. He explained how, 

alongside partners in the FAA, NASA sees the vision of a collaborative environment for 

aviation by 2035 progressing towards even further goals and more diverse capabilities; 

as airspace operations diversify and increase in number, safety and automation become 

a greater challenge due to the limiting factors of a human-centric system. 

Mr. Sultan discussed specific activities in furthering this research, such as a set of five 

demonstrations beginning in 2022 and continuing into 2023. These demonstrations, 

building off integrated trajectories and gate-to-gate trajectories, will be a set of 

capabilities for efficient takeoff scheduling. Mr. Sultan stated 2024 as when NASA would 

like to move towards demonstrations in a more complex, highly dense environment 

together with the FAA—and expanding into oceanic, global flight trajectories in 2025. 

Mr. Sultan stipulated the work and its vision includes not only commercial aviation, but 

also Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and other ideas in the mix for the future of aviation. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Sultan gave the achievements of Airspace Technology Demonstration 2 (ATD-2) as 

an example of using NASA technology to improve airspace operations, and explained 

how work already done at just three airports (Charlotte Douglas, Dallas/Fort Worth, and 

Dallas Love Field) with three airlines (American, Southwest, and Envoy) on gate 

pushback times, nonstop taxiing to the runway, and continuous climbs in available slots 

already made significant improvements in reducing fuel usage and passenger delays. 

He made clear this technology is not just “sitting in the lab,” but has been transferred to

the FAA and industry. Mr. Sultan expressed the research doesn’t end there, and future 

technology such as new flight demonstrators, electrified aviation, AAM, and high-speed 

vehicles will be operationalized into this kind of system. 

Ms. Susan Pfingstler asked about the effect of weather conditions and environmental 

factors. She pointed out how systems currently used for these tasks are outdated and 

that time spent making decisions on weather costs emissions. She noted that start/stop 

conditions for operations could be looked at more closely by NASA. Mr. Sultan affirmed 

the importance of different configurations for air traffic management and the specific 

question of weather conditions are planned to be covered in demonstrations planned for 

2025 and 2026 involving disruption management recovery. He noted there are even 

more areas to consider, such as reducing the number of repositioning flights made by 

airlines with no passengers or cargo aboard, and NASA intends to address these cases. 

Mr. Borghese noted the program’s In-Time System-Wide Safety Assurance research 

has seemingly evolved out of just safety in the terminal area to now using new methods 

of trajectory management with different types of aircraft and added focus on 

sustainability. Mr. Sultan added to Mr. Borghese’s observation with the nuance that as 

NASA looks to the future of air traffic management, follow-on ideas to NASA’s previous 

work with In-Time System-Wide Safety Assurance lead into the highly automated 

environments of AAM, electrified systems, and even the high-speed environment. 

Discussion 

Ms. Pfingstler congratulated NASA’s ATD-2 team for their successes. She suggested 

that, with sustainability in mind and future integration of other emerging technologies, 

now is not the time to “let the foot off the gas” when it comes to bridging the gap

between concept development and the actual implementation of the technology in realtime operations. She noted without the work done by ATD-2, it may not have been 

possible to capitalize on other integration investments already made in the industry. Ms. 

Pfingstler noted apprehension with the idea of a budget line item going down instead of 

up, stated her support for the continuation of the good work done by the ATD-2 team 

and encouraged even more work if possible. Mr. Borghese agreed with Ms. Pfingstler’s

points on keeping the proverbial foot on the accelerator. 

Dr. John-Paul Clarke commented on the door-to-door, curb-to-curb aspects of airport 

terminals and airport operations and pointed out the possibility for some areas of the 

system to become efficient while having a bottleneck elsewhere. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding 

The Committee commends ARMD for establishing the value of the research done by 

ATD-2 and for transferring the technology to the FAA. Stemming from this success, the 

Committee encourages NASA to keep the ball rolling with continued, subsequent 

successes in more air traffic management and sustainability-related activities. 

Committee members note there is still much work to be done in the areas of increasing 

capacity and requirements to meet the net zero by 2050 goal, and steps like the ATD-2 

completion and transfer could be just one of many more to come. 

Achievements of the University Leadership Initiative 

Dr. John Cavolowsky, director of the Transformative Aeronautics Concepts Program, 

covered the program’s research projects and activities. He described how the driver of 

the three projects included in the program is to address bigger-picture future challenges 

and needs, as well as invigorate and inspire the workforce internally. 

Dr. Cavolowsky explained how this concept takes form in the University Innovation 

project and its University Leadership Initiative (ULI). He acknowledged how the 

participation of some members of the Committee in this initiative did not necessitate a 

deep discussion, though he still detailed the number of universities that have 

participated in the initiative and the dollar amount of grants they have received. 

Dr. Cavolowsky mentioned the 300+ students who have participated in the initiative, and 

how invigoration and diversity of the workforce are critical to the future of the entire 

aviation industry. Dr. Cavolowsky also linked ULI to the furthering of NASA’s goals in 

sustainable aviation and explained the intention of NASA to have ULI “cast a wide net,” 

helping to get a variety of ideas and work with other NASA Aeronautics programs. 

Discussion 

Mr. Naveed Hussain commended ULI, having been involved in several of them and 

having interacted with participating students. He noted he and his group had learned 

from students in some cases and expressed hope the students benefitted from the 

activity, along with their university and all involved. 

Finding 

The Committee applauds NASA for the ULI activity and its benefits to aviation in the 

United States. ULI brings the best academic minds together to work on solutions to 

aeronautical challenges – enabling collaboration across universities and promoting 

aeronautics programs for students to enter. The Committee sees ULI bringing new 

innovative ideas for the electrification of aircraft, material development, and 

sustainability to industry. 

6 
 

 

 

(Editor’s Note: more information on the University Leadership Initiative can be found at 

this link: https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/programs/tacp/ui-uli) 

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. As this meeting was Mr. Borghese’s last with the Committee,

Mr. Pearce thanked Mr. Borghese for his years of service to the NASA Advisory Council 

Aeronautics Committee and extended invitations to remain part of the extended NASA 

family and return to the table any time. Mr. Borghese returned the thanks to Mr. Pearce 

for his presence on the Committee and noted that the future of Aeronautics is bright. 

MEETING ADJOURNED 

7 
 

List of Webex Attendees 

Committee Members 

1. Mr. John Borghese 

2. Mr. Peter Bunce 

3. Dr. John-Paul Clarke 

4. Mr. Jay Dryer 

5. Mr. Michael Dumais 

6. Ms. Lisa Ellman 

7. Dr. Naveed Hussain 

8. Dr. Nicole Key 

9. Mr. Natesh Manikoth 

10.Ms. Susan Pfingstler 

11.Dr. Helen Reed 

12.Dr. Hassan Shahidi 

13.Mr. David Silver 

NASA 

14.Akbar Sultan 

15.Alicia Wesley 

16.Barbara Esker 

17.Robert Pearce 

18.Cheryl Quinn 

19.Edgar Waggoner 

20.Eric Miller 

21.Gelsomina Cappuccio 

22.Huy Tran 

23.Irma Rodriguez 

24.James Kenyon 

25.Janet Ross 

26.John Cavolowsky 

27.Jon Montgomery 

28.Kate McMurtry 

29.Lee Noble 

30.Marcia Guignard 

31.Michael Rogers 

32.Nateri Madavan 

33.Parimal Kopardekar 

34.Ron Colantonio 

35.Rich Wahls 

36.Steven Clarke 

37.Steve Hirshorn 

38.Vanessa Aubuchon 

39.William Johnson 

External (affiliation identified) 

40.Denis Feerick (USRA) 

41.Christine Joseph (House Science 

Committee) 

42.James Lochner (USRA) 

43.Darrell Pennington (ALPA) 

44.Mark Reed (ALPA) 

45.Chanchan Song (Mississippi 

State University) 

FedWriters (NAC meeting support) 

46.John Gould 

8