1

NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting

6 June 2023

NASA Headquarters Mary W. Jackson Building

Washington, DC

Welcome

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

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

findings, and recommendations were described. This meeting was conducted in a 

hybrid style, with some attending in person at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC 

and others attending virtually.

Future of Vehicle Technology Development

Dr. James Heidmann, acting director of the Advanced Air Vehicles Program, gave an 

overview of current research activities in the Sustainable Flight National Partnership 

(SFNP). He discussed how, all conditions the remaining the same, Aeronautics 

Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) leadership anticipates a future wedge in the 

budget following the closing out of several current activities.

Dr. Heidmann prompted brainstorming of what new tall-pole missions and projects could 

feasibly be pursued. He explained how SFNP projects were born out of the N+3 studies 

of the 2000s – and that this anticipated budget wedge provides an opportunity to “rinse 

and repeat” that model of engaging the aviation community to identify future audacious 

goals.

While covering NASA’s current research, he postulated about ideas for future research 

including, but not limited to, various concepts in Hydrogen propulsion; electrified aircraft 

propulsion; materials, structures, and manufacturing; high-speed supersonic flight; and 

others.

Discussion

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

Gateway for Blue Skies competition. He commended the participating teams and their 

out-of-the-box ideas, such as the winning aluminum powder concept. He highlighted the 

value of getting some of these ideas on the table whether they come to fruition or not.

Dr. Helen Reed asked what the mechanism would be for bringing these out-of-the-box 

ideas into the NASA pipeline. Mr. Pearce answered the University Leadership Initiative 

(ULI) is a mechanism, and it is the next level up for teams participating in such research 

competitions.
2

Dr. Clarke brought up the process used by the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts 

(NIAC), which enables these smaller teams with more out-of-the-box ideas, like 

powdered aluminum, to be brought in; comparatively, ULI is broader and more multiuniversity than NIAC. Dr. Reed concurred and stated support for bringing in smaller 

teams.

Mr. Jay Dryer asked, in the context of reusing the N+3-style approach to field new 

research areas, whether NASA has intentions to collaborate with other agencies such 

as the FAA or the Department of Energy on these advanced, out-of-the-box future 

research ideas. He gave the example of powdered aluminum, which would present 

logistics challenges outside NASA’s focus. He explained how a whole-of-government

approach would be required and that NASA has the credibility to lead such an effort. He 

emphasized that asking “what will it take to operationalize this?” leads to collaboration 

with government and industry that identifies holes in the process and anticipate 

challenges before they arise.

Dr. Clarke and Dr. Reed agreed with Mr. Dryer. Dr. Clarke noted that in some areas 

such as fuel, the FAA is not actually the agency with the bulk of regulatory control, and 

that identifying and tying in other appropriate agencies is a worthwhile idea.

Dr. Reed asked whether NASA has considered the operationalization of high-speed 

supersonic flight, and what it would take to fully enable it. She pointed out that someone 

must lead the community through the challenge of reaching that intended end goal of a 

holistic, operational system. She emphasized that future challenges, such as regulatory 

hurdles, should start to be addressed now.

Findings:

1. The Committee finds NASA would benefit from clearly articulated mechanisms to 

transition promising out-of-the-box ideas, such as those presented in the recent 

Gateway to Blue Skies competition, into the research mainstream (e.g. providing 

internships and pathways opportunities, as well as hiring students who have 

distinguished themselves, developing internal research efforts and NASA 

Research Announcements based on promising ideas, etc.).

2. The Committee finds NASA should, when determining “what NASA could do,” 

consider leading all-encompassing, whole-of-government efforts (e.g. research 

and development, policy, lifecycle analysis, operations, etc.). For example, as it 

pertains to the Sustainable Flight National Partnership, NASA might consider 

leading and coordinating government-wide research and development in 

alternative energy and propulsion that may fall under the regulation of an agency 

other than the FAA.
3

Future of Flight Demonstrations

Mr. Lee Noble, director of the Integrated Aviation Systems Program, gave an overview 

of NASA’s flight demonstration activities, including the X-59 aircraft and the Sustainable 

Flight Demonstrator (now referred to as the X-66A).

In much the same thread as Dr. Heidmann’s presentation, Mr. Noble directed attention 

towards the future, with particular focus on potential future flight demonstrations and 

goals given the anticipated opening of the budget in several years’ time. He explained 

the process by which ARMD identifies and selects flight demonstrations.

He presented to the Committee a handful of hypothetical research options based on 

current goals and commitments to sustainable aviation, Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), 

and commercial supersonic transportation – none of which have been explicitly 

committed to by ARMD, rather just considered as potential options.

Discussion

Dr. Reed asked about funded space act agreements (FSAAs) and suggested continuing 

the idea of a construct by which industry gets to have “more skin in the game” of 

developing and conducting flight demonstrations.

Mr. Dryer asked whether the FSAA will still be the most advantageous construct for 

future flight demonstrations, particularly with regards to demonstrations involving 

multiple partners and/or safety-related activities. He explained how lessons learned 

from going through different acquisition approaches could be shared across the 

government since other agencies conduct them, as well.

Dr. Clarke asked whether lessons learned from prior demonstrations and X-planes are 

recorded, mentioning how at various points in the past, such insight and institutional 

memory was not captured by its participants. He suggested ARMD document what it 

has learned from conducting these flight projects and missions, for better or for worse, 

to best inform the execution of future activities – giving the examples of the X-57 

Maxwell and X-59 as something to be scrutinized.

Dr. Reed and Dr. Clarke discussed workforce involvement and opportunities. 

Highlighting the workforce and generating excitement as a priority, they suggested 

involving more young people and expanding the access they have in performing

research with NASA – not just as an involvement opportunity, but as a future career. Dr. 

Clarke gave the example of the access CubeSats give to students.
4

Dr. Clarke introduced and suggested the concept of an “X-system.” He elaborated how 

while an X-program is generally considered to be developing a vehicle, it could be 

broadened into an X-system that demonstrates capabilities from Air Traffic 

Management, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management (UTM), or other 

autonomy-related activities. He pointed out a city or region could potentially agree to

participate in such a program. He suggested building the student and workforce-related 

out-of-the-box thinking and involvement from that. He stated this multi-vehicle, multitesting real operating environment is an X-level challenge.

Dr. Clarke also suggested the idea for an X-plane of bio-inspired variable sweep wings 

that naturally finds the right sweep for the right condition without reliance on control 

mechanisms.

Findings:

1. The Committee finds lessons learned from prior demonstration projects such as 

the X-57 Maxwell and X-59 aircraft should be curated and documented to reduce 

the learning curve for future endeavors and the next-generation workforce. There 

is also benefit in incorporating best practices and lessons learned from 

demonstrations by other agencies.

2. The Committee finds there may be value in not just X-planes, but also X-systems 

that address challenges in Advanced Air Mobility, autonomy, airspace 

management, and digital platforms, as well as generating attention and 

excitement from students.

NASA Support to Certification

Mr. Pearce opened with brief remarks about ARMD’s conversations with the FAA and 

drive to identify more areas of robust collaboration and partnership, particularly on AAM 

and autonomy-related challenges. He shared that ARMD is stepping up its role in 

supporting Beyond Visual Line of Sight and is working towards revectoring some of its 

work to do so.

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

Heidmann, and Mr. Noble gave a presentation on NASA’s certification efforts pertaining 

to AAM activities. They outlined all the areas NASA and the FAA interface and 

collaborate via offices, projects, activities, research transition teams, and more. They

elaborated on how the new vehicle configurations and infrastructures in NASA and the 

FAA’s visions for the National Airspace System present challenges, and some ways

these challenges may be addressed.
5

Discussion

Dr. Clarke asked whether cybersecurity is being considered and pointed back to the 

idea of an X-system. Mr. Natesh Manikoth answered cybersecurity is not necessarily 

tied to current demonstrations but is being worked on extensively via trust frameworks 

and their global harmonization – and the work today is more robust than a few years 

ago.

Mr. Dryer concurred with Dr. Clarke and asked whether cybersecurity is more of an FAA 

task or if NASA is building it into the research earlier. Mr. Manikoth replied the FAA is 

more active, though NASA is considering cybersecurity early in the cycle within such 

activities as UTM.

Mr. Dryer and Dr. Reed emphasized the importance of working cybersecurity hand in 

hand with all the research early on. Dr. Clarke added this would prevent having to face 

the costly and lengthy process of coming back to address it later. Ms. Susan Pfingstler 

stated that carriers are also beginning to address the process of weaving cybersecurity 

into their systems.

Mr. Dryer brought up potential certification challenges associated with concepts such as 

electrified propulsion and others. He asked whether NASA foresees itself having the 

bandwidth to pivot and address these, or if it would be a case of a balance between 

NASA and the FAA on a dialogue to do so. Mr. Dryer also pointed out that assuming the 

Department of Defense is working this problem is not a foregone conclusion, as it may 

not be working them from the same perspective or for the same purposes.

Dr. Clarke stated certification is just one part; there is also an opportunity for NASA to 

engage on continued airworthiness, operations, risk assessments, and more related to 

both vehicles and the whole Air Traffic Management system. He suggested reviewing 

the National Academy’s Transport Aircraft Risk Assessment Model report.

Mr. Dryer added another aspect of understanding what it takes to operationalize 

technology – as well as getting something to market. He posited NASA has more 

bandwidth than some give it credit for; pivoting to focus on key long poles not 

necessarily focused on in the past could inform some prioritization. He also stated the 

value of NASA’s participation in various committees, commending this presentation’s 

comprehensive linking of NASA/FAA areas of collaboration as an example.

Findings:

1. The Committee finds NASA should integrate cybersecurity into Advanced Air 

Mobility’s research pipeline earlier. NASA may be able to bring, with its 

multidisciplinary approach, developmental research tools and systems to put in 
6

the hooks for others to tackle cybersecurity challenges. NASA should explore 

partnerships with other organizations such as the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Intelligence Community, industry, and others to help address such 

challenges and leveraging existing agency and industry efforts around 

cybersecurity – as cybersecurity challenges faced by Advanced Air Mobility do

not exist in a vacuum.

2. The Committee finds that interactions between NASA and the FAA are both 

extensive and robust and commends NASA for its work in fostering this 

relationship.

3. The Committee finds greater collaboration should be pursued with the FAA on 

continuing airworthiness, operationalization, and risk computation and 

management given NASA’s expertise in managing risk.

Public Comments

A public comment period was offered as required.

Mr. Jeff Engler, chief executive officer of Wright Electric, Inc., introduced himself and his 

small business focusing on megawatt-level electrified propulsion with ongoing 

government contracts.

He advocated for three items related to supporting small businesses: 1) continued 

support and funding for research facilities such as the NASA Electric Aircraft Testbed 

(NEAT), which reduces costs for small businesses by having existent facilities to use; 2) 

continued support for risk reduction for any new projects NASA advances, which helps 

determine where the state of the art of the industry is; and 3) having multiple winners 

and companies selected for these efforts, such as how NASA’s Environmentally 

Responsible Aviation project had numerous winners compared to X-59 or SFD’s one 

winner.

Discussion

A discussion ensued on how facilities such as NEAT are organized, funded, and 

assessed, where the demand lies for them, and how they may potentially be optimized 

in the future.

Dr. Reed mentioned how there is a drive to include more small business in government 

operations, and that the space side of NASA does so. She agreed with Mr. Engler’s 

inputs and suggested they be considered to effectively engage small businesses, also 
7

pointing out the earlier discussion on more inclusion of early-stage research ideas. Dr. 

Clarke concurred.

Finding

1. The Committee finds NASA has been supportive, and must continue to support, 

early stage and non-traditional businesses. In general, exploring additional ways 

to meaningfully enable, engage, and sustain commercial business involvement 

should be pursued.

Conclusion

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

plans for future meetings.

MEETING ADJOURNED
8

List of Attendees

Committee Members:

1. Dr. John-Paul Clarke (Chair)

2. Mr. Jay Dryer

3. Mr. Michael Dumais

4. Ms. Lisa Ellman

5. Dr. Nicole Key

6. Mr. Natesh Manikoth

7. Ms. Susan Pfingstler

8. Dr. Helen Reed

NASA

9. Brian Card

10. John Cavolowsky

11. Fay Collier

12. Michele Dodson

13. Shannon Eichorn

14. John Gould (FedWriters)

15. Kelley Hashemi

16. Tristan Hearn

17. James Heidmann

18. Stephen Jensen

19. Sharon Jones

20. Devin Kaucher (SAIC)

21. Maureen Kudlac

22. Nateri Madavan

23. Samantha Magill

24. Jon Montgomery

25. Lee Noble

26. Michael Patterson

27. Robert Pearce

28. Andrew Ramos (SAIC)

29. Irma Rodriguez

30. Naseem Saiyed

31. Akbar Sultan

32. Alicia Wesley (Venesco)

33. Rich Wahls

34. Kevin Witzberger

External (Affiliation Identified if 

Provided)

35. Anusha Vallepalli

36. Jeremy Fehrenbacher (Moog)

37. Jeff Engler (Wright Electric)

38. Chad Kirk (AIA)

39. Gene Mikulka

40. Igor Alvarado (Applied Research 

and Technology, Collins 

Aerospace)

41. Tasha Kelley (Rolls-Royce North 

America)

42. Thomas Edwards