1

NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting

August 28, 2018

NASA Ames Research Center

Building 3, North-Wing Room

Moffett Field, CA

Welcome

NASA Advisory Council Aero Committee Chair Mr. John Borghese called the meeting to 

order and introduced new committee members Mr. Scott Drennan, Mr. Anil Nanduri, Dr.

Tom Shih and Dr. Eric Allison, who was not present. After some additional words of 

welcome and meeting logistics from Dr. Jaiwon Shin, NASA’s associate administrator 

for aeronautics, and Ms. Irma Rodriguez, executive secretary, Mr. Borghese laid out the 

committee’s work plan for the day and explained how today’s discussions are meant to 

potentially result in findings and recommendations – two types of advice the committee 

provides to the NASA Administrator. 

Ames Research Center Overview

As host for this meeting, Dr. Eugene Tu, director of NASA’s Ames Research Center, 

presented a historical overview of NASA’s second oldest field center and briefed the 

committee on some of the current activities taking place at Ames in support of NASA 

Aeronautics. Originally a fully aviation-minded research center in support of the National 

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics that will celebrate its 80th anniversary next year, he 

noted that Ames now has eight core competencies. They include air traffic 

management, entry systems, advanced computing and IT systems, intelligent adaptive 

systems, cost effective space missions, aero sciences, astrobiology and life sciences, 

and space neurosciences.

Dr. Tu highlighted some of the unique research facilities that call Ames home and 

described the origins and present-day usage of the NASA Research Park, 2,000 acres 

of real estate that takes advantage of property and buildings when the Moffett Field 

Naval Air Station – where Ames is physically located – was closed. 

Dr. Tu noted how Ames’ location in the heart of Silicon Valley has played a role in 

shaping the center’s culture, especially in terms of its approach to innovation and 

entrepreneurship. He said that these opportunities come with challenges as well, 

particularly in terms of the high cost of living, congested roads and NASA’s ability to 

compete with area companies in terms of talent and workforce. At the same time, as 

workers move between government and industry jobs, this leads to a healthy exchange 

of ideas and builds networks and connections.

At the end of Dr. Tu’s remarks, Mr. Borghese asked him if there was anything Ames

was doing to enable students to accept internships at the center, given the local high 

cost of living. Dr. Tu replied that dormitory-like facilities left over from the naval air 

station were taken over by the center’s employee exchange, enabling non-appropriated 
2

funds to be used to operate the facility and provide student housing at dramatically 

lower costs compared to other area housing.

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Strategy Overview

Dr. Shin presented a high-level overview of NASA Aeronautics’ current research 

activities. These activities, he noted, are strategically selected based on input from other 

government agencies, industry and academia, so that everything NASA Aeronautics 

does is relevant in addressing the most important areas for advancing the nation’s 

global leadership in aviation.

Dr. Shin highlighted NASA Aeronautics’ emphasis on building and utilizing inter-center 

collaborations, as well as success in the way NASA Aeronautics has worked with other 

government agencies – specifically working with the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) through Research Transition Teams to deliver NASA-developed technology to 

the FAA for eventual operational deployment.

Dr. Shin provided summary updates on NASA’s status in the areas of Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Urban Air Mobility (UAM), as well as supersonic flight over 

land – both topics that were discussed in more detail later in this meeting. He also 

reviewed how the directorate is structured with four programs – three considered 

mission programs and one a seedling program that provides new ideas to the other 

three. 

Dr. Shin concluded with a review of the positive trend in funding NASA Aeronautics has 

enjoyed during the past decade, and how that budgetary support is helping to open a 

new era in aviation. He also warned this is a critical time, as other nations are moving 

quickly to develop their own advanced aviation capabilities and industries. As a result, 

the United States must stay vigilant if it doesn’t want to be passed by and left watching 

others from the sideline.

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Strategy:

UAM Coordination and Assessment Team (UCAT)

Mr. Davis Hackenberg, NASA’s strategic advisor for UAM, presented an overview of the 

agency’s current and planned activities related to UAM, beginning with a brief history of 

the “whirlwind” of activity accomplished since the UCAT was formed in the December 

2017 and January 2018 timeframe. He characterized UAM by saying the aviation 

community has never seen anything like it.

Mr. Hackenberg described how UCAT is organized and some of the roles of its 

members. He explained how UCAT is an example of a new way of doing business 

within NASA Aeronautics and of working with the aviation industry, which increasingly is 

welcoming new companies with little to no prior aviation-related experience. He said 

UCAT’s focus is not just about technology development; it’s more about bringing people 
3

together, being a systems-level agency and leveraging lessons learned from UASrelated projects, all in a unified strategy.

A major focus by UCAT this year has been on a pair of UAM market studies NASA 

commissioned to Crown Consulting and Booz Allen Hamilton. The focus of these 

studies was to evaluate potential markets and how variables such as policy, regulation, 

technologies, social barriers and social acceptance might be an influence. Each 

company chose three specific business cases. One of those business cases was 

examined by both companies to see if similar results would be obtained.

Although final results of the two market studies are not due until the end of September, 

Mr. Hackenberg reported it appears most of the business cases could be profitable in 

the long run. The air ambulance case might be a little trickier, but the value to the public 

is obvious. He also reminded the committee that, as with all research, you get some 

answers that only create more questions – a key one in this case being whether all the 

assumptions are valid.

Mr. Hackenberg also presented a summary of where some of the current major industry 

players are with their UAS plans, in terms of both reference missions and timing. He 

commented that many of the stated goals might seem aggressive, but NASA stands 

ready to help the community any way it can.

Mr. Hackenberg concluded his presentation and discussion on this topic by noting

NASA’s work on things directly and indirectly related to UAM dating back 20-plus years. 

That experience is informing NASA’s strategic plans, and the data gained from these 

market studies will ensure NASA remains a leader in helping the industry achieve its 

goals. This guidance is especially important as new entrants to the market face a 

learning curve of sorts in working with NASA and other government agencies.

Discussion

Committee members held a lengthy discussion with Mr. Hackenberg about autonomy, 

human factors (such as pilot training), machine intelligence, systems engineering, other 

reference missions (such as those with and without passengers), environmental factors, 

setting regulations, communication standards, certification and costs associated with all 

of those assumptions. The importance of public-private partnerships and the ability to 

successfully transfer technology also were discussed at length.

Findings/Recommendations

No findings or recommendations came about as a result of these discussions.

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Strategy: Grand Challenge

Mr. Hackenberg briefed the committee on NASA’s plans for a UAM-related Grand 

Challenge to be held in 2020. He described the challenge as an opportunity for 
4

participants to demonstrate their ability to execute system-wide safety and integration 

under a number of different scenarios. By doing this, NASA hopes to better understand 

and benchmark what the industry (representing both vehicle development and airspace

management companies) can do with respect to safety and the available technologies. 

However, he noted this is not about bringing technologies to showcase. In fact, NASA 

wants to make the event challenging enough that many participants won’t be successful 

in demonstrating every aspect of the Grand Challenge. In this way, both NASA and 

industry can learn from each other about what still needs to be done to mature the 

various UAM concept of operations.

More specifically, the mission and goals of the UAM Grand Challenge were stated as: 

promote public confidence in UAM safety and facilitate community-wide learning while 

capturing the public’s imagination; ensure UAM community participants address 

ecosystem-wide safety and integration barriers in a robust and relevant environment; 

and obtain critical insights into UAM systems via realistic scenarios focused on enabling 

FAA safety, certification and operational approvals.

Discussion

Dr. Michael Francis asked what Mr. Hackenberg characterized as a very common 

question at this point in the event’s development: How is NASA planning to implement 

the Grand Challenge and should it be considered a contest of any kind in which a 

winner is selected?

Mr. Hackenberg noted that many specific details about exactly what the Grand 

Challenge would look like or how it would operate are still being discussed. However, 

the idea of awarding prizes or selecting winners in the same vein as centennial 

challenges or those conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) was not in the plans.

Dr. Tom Shih asked to what extent the Grand Challenge would involve and address the 

need for workforce development in the areas that are unique to UAM operations. Mr. 

Borghese expanded on the question and asked if the Grand Challenge would include 

some level of university student involvement.

Mr. Hackenberg replied that university involvement would be welcome. As the Grand 

Challenge is further developed, there may be areas where universities would have the 

resources and expertise to contribute. Developing a fully operational and safe UAM 

ecosystem will require input from many different players that can offer relevant 

contributions.

Dr. John-Paul Clarke suggested that NASA consider requiring a university partnership 

with industry for any company wanting to participate in the Grand Challenge. Other 

committee members echoed this sentiment, noting the ongoing challenge of attracting 

students to pursue aerospace careers. Mr. Hackenberg agreed with the sentiment of 
5

these comments and said NASA would have conversations about the best way to 

include university participation in the Grand Challenge.

Mr. Anil Nanduri urged that NASA consider those areas in which industry does not fully 

have answers and place an emphasis on them in the Grand Challenge. In this way,

NASA can provide leadership to industry in helping to address these areas, either by 

encouraging industry in order to achieve success in a Grand Challenge or by influencing 

NASA’s research portfolio. Mr. Hackenberg agreed.

The committee discussed a number of different topics related to specific parts of UAM 

operations and how they might be represented in the Grand Challenge. Topics included 

autonomy, standards, FAA certification, detect-and-avoid, airspace management, 

aircraft requirements, intellectual property considerations, public engagement and 

acceptance, use of public and/or private ranges, and how the next Grand Challenge 

might be shaped by the first one and any resulting industry input.

Findings/Recommendations

The Urban Air Mobility Grand Challenge is a great initiative for NASA to set the

leadership beacon on UAM that inspires the industry and the next generation of

workforce alike. While it is in the early stage of planning, the Committee believes that

the UAM Grand Challenge needs to be articulated more clearly. The Committee also

recommends that NASA’s role is to study, estimate, and articulate the trade space for

UAM. The Committee urges the project to work closely with universities to take

advantage of the talent available. The Committee complimented NASA for the evolution

of the relationship with the FAA and how this change has improved the level of 

collaboration.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Update

UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS)

Dr. Ed Waggoner began this portion of the agenda by offering a summary of the intent 

of the UAS in the NAS project and followed that discussion with an update on the 

project’s latest developments and status. He reviewed the project’s goals and how they 

affect, and are being considered with, the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project to 

result in a cohesive, overall UAS research strategy.

Dr. Waggoner reviewed the vision for what a future civil UAS airspace environment 

might look like, noting the different types and sizes of aircraft that could be flown, the 

various types of airspace these vehicles could be flown in (high or low altitude, rural or 

urban), and the various technological and regulatory enablers required for safely 

managing air traffic. He followed this with a review of how NASA’s efforts to support the 

development of minimum operational performance standards for the FAA have been 

divided into two phases, which are based on the type of aircraft and class of airspace 
6

involved. In updating activities performed related to each phase, Dr. Waggoner 

underscored the importance of ensuring the FAA is receiving the information it needs as 

data is gathered, so it can more efficiently develop necessary rules and regulations in 

support of UAS in the NAS operations.

As a recent example of progress made, Dr. Waggoner highlighted the successful 

completion of achieving the first-ever certification of authorization and subsequent 

execution of an unmanned aircraft flying through the national airspace system without a 

chase aircraft. He noted some of the complexities that had to be overcome and 

characterized the accomplishment as a graduation of sorts from the first phase of the 

UAS in the NAS project. He also underscored the importance of the working relationship

with the FAA and how it was strengthened by this feat.

Looking ahead, Dr. Waggoner explained that NASA is moving toward a systems 

integration and operationalization demonstration in partnership with industry. The idea is 

that working with industry partners – three have been identified and are working toward 

signing agreements – NASA will explore ways to develop and integrate critical 

technologies (such as command and control, detect and avoid) onto an unmanned 

aircraft and work towards type certification, all while working with the FAA to ensure 

appropriate approvals and policies are identified that will benefit the entire industry.

Discussion

The committee and Dr. Waggoner together discussed a number of specific details 

regarding UAS in the NAS requirements and technologies and considered a variety of 

both routine and contingency scenarios under which future unmanned aircraft of various 

types and capabilities might operate. No specific conclusions or recommendations from 

the committee to NASA arose from this discussion.

Findings/Recommendations

No findings or recommendations came about as a result of these discussions.

UAS Traffic Management (UTM)

Mr. Akbar Sultan continued this portion of the agenda with an update on UTM, setting 

the stage by noting how UTM operations are expected to compare to what is now flying 

in the national airspace. This difference is significant in that currently in the NAS, there 

are between 50,000 and 60,000 operations each day, but with the way smaller UAS are 

expected to operate, there could be millions of daily operations requiring some kind of 

air traffic management engagement. This paradigm shift is at the heart of a research 

pivot NASA Aeronautics is making to transform its research activities as well as the 

aviation community.

A key feature of what UTM is helping to enable, and, therefore, the focus of NASA-led 

research activities, is an operational architecture in which third-party service providers 
7

will work with operators to manage the low-level airspace in a manner that is acceptable 

and certifiable by the FAA. Key technologies, as discussed before, include command 

and control, weather knowledge, terrain knowledge and detect and avoid. Mr. Sultan 

noted the accomplishments of the three technology capability levels (TCL) in which 

increasingly complex UTM operations were demonstrated at FAA test sites around the 

country. This now sets the stage for TCL4, which will be the most complex test involving 

a simulated dense urban environment to date.

Discussion

Mr. Borghese asked how UTM is different from the current Low Altitude Authorization 

and Notification Capability (LAANC), which the FAA has established to approve 

requests for UAS operations in various classes of airspace. Mr. Sultan explained that 

UTM will take LAANC a step further by involving multiple vehicles operating within a 

larger volume of airspace. He noted that LAANC was a direct result of UTM-related 

collaboration between NASA and the FAA.

Dr. Clarke initiated a brief discussion about the use of batteries, asking if there was a 

requirement within the TCL activities for recording the history of the environmental 

conditions in which batteries powered UAS aircraft. He also asked what considerations 

were made for dealing with flight durations driven by battery performance and how UTM 

might handle engine-out situations in which the aircraft’s batteries expire. Mr. Sultan 

replied that such considerations were not part of TCL, but they are within the UTM 

project to some extent, and also are being addressed within the System-Wide Safety

Project.

Several committee members asked how TCL4 relates to the Grand Challenge and how 

complex it can be in simulated dense urban environments. Mr. Sultan said the two are 

not identical, but they are coordinated. Both are in planning stages. As already noted, 

both will deal with dense urban environments that are simulated because these tests 

cannot take place over Manhattan, for example. He said that, in a sense, TCL4 will 

enable the Grand Challenge. These statements led to a lengthy discussion among the 

committee about dealing with specific variables within the simulated environment, 

including wind effects, Wi-Fi latency, loss of control and other contingency scenarios. 

Mr. Sultan summarized NASA’s view that “we don’t need to have a test site where you 

actually have a lot of people, animals, other infrastructure and buildings and everything 

else. It's more of determining if you were operating at a dense urban environment, what 

are all your constraints that you have to operate in? What are all the safety measures 

that you have to have on the vehicle, what are all the mitigation steps that you need to 

have on the vehicle?”

Speaking on behalf of the committee, Mr. Borghese concluded the discussion by

praising NASA for its pioneering work on developing a UTM capability and its leadership 

in building interest and excitement within industry and the FAA. NASA’s efforts now to 

transition the new technology and its own research portfolio to meet the needs of 

industry are truly outstanding, he said.
8

Findings/Recommendations

No findings or recommendations came about as a result of these discussions.

Low Boom Flight Demonstrator (LBFD) Update

Dr. Ed Waggoner summarized the history that led to the establishment of the Low Boom 

Flight Demonstrator project, reviewed the major goals of the project and its associated 

timeline, and provided the committee with a progress report. 

The goal is to provide the FAA and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

with a statistically valid set of data regarding public reaction to noise generated by the 

X-59 QueSST as it flies at supersonic speeds over selected U.S. communities. Dr. 

Waggoner noted recent related research highlights and mission milestones. These 

included the awarding of the X-59 construction contract to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

Company, completion of a delta Preliminary Design Review, and sonic boom 

characterization flights in the humid Florida skies. Looking ahead, the team is now 

planning for key decision point C and an exercise of initial community response datagathering methods using the F/A-18 flying low boom profiles over Galveston, Texas.

Dr. Waggoner concluded his presentation by reporting that schedule milestones are 

being met, and everyone is very confident in the plan going forward and in the 

contractor’s ability to deliver the X-59 on time and on budget.

Discussion

Mr. Borghese asked if there is a risk management plan, particularly in terms of having 

the funds available to deal with anything that comes up. Dr. Waggoner said they do 

have a plan in place. Estimates are still being made as to what additional funding may 

be needed to deal with the “unknown unknowns,” but there is confidence that money 

can be found and set aside for those cases.

Dr. Clarke suggested as another test condition that the X-59 fly over thunderstorms, 

which generate their own noise, and gather public response from those below. Dr. 

Waggoner replied that it was an interesting idea.

Dr. Clarke asked if there were any numbers available for the effects of humidity on 

supersonic shockwave propagation as a result of the flight tests in Florida. Dr. 

Waggoner did not have those numbers handy but said he could provide them later.

Dr. Karen Thole asked what NASA would do if the public response to supersonic flight 

over land is “No, we don’t want this. We don’t like the boom.” Dr. Waggoner replied that 

it is NASA’s job to gather the scientifically sound, statistically valid data and present it to 

the FAA and ICAO. Dr. Shin added that, no matter the outcome, commercial supersonic 

flight over land will not be possible at all unless this data is produced.
9

The committee expressed its support and enthusiasm for the LBFD mission. In doing 

so, several members underscored their concerns that a plan be put in place for dealing 

with any unexpected issues that arise either during construction and assembly or during 

the flight tests.

Findings/Recommendations

The Committee endorses the Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator project and congratulates 

NASA for developing clear project objectives and an adequate yet aggressive schedule. 

The Committee observed that the risk mitigation strategy has been well-developed, and 

the goals of the project are clearly articulated. The Committee believes that the 

demonstrator will reinvigorate the public view of the role of Aeronautics within NASA 

and encourages the project to involve schools to take advantage of this opportunity to 

inspire the next generation.
10

List of Attendees

Present

Committee Members:

John Borghese Rockwell Collins

John-Paul Clarke Georgia Tech

Scott Drennan Bell, Textron

Michael S. Francis Consultant

Anil Nanduri Intel

Tom Shih Purdue University

Karen Thole Penn State

Presenters and Audience:

John Cavolowsky NASA

Mitchell Cho FedWriters

David Could NASA

Ravi Deepah Science & Tech. 

Shawn Engelland NASA

Barbara Esker NASA

Davis Hackenberg NASA

Paul Krasa NASA

Jessica Nowinsky NASA

Lee Olson NASA

Irma Rodriguez NASA

Jaiwon Shin NASA

Steve Spearman FedWriters

Akbar Sultan NASA

Huy Than NASA

Mike Tsairides

Ed Waggoner NASA

Kevin Witzbergar NASA

Remotely

Alina Eskridge

Arwa Aweiss

Ben Kallen

David Thipphavong

Gloria Yamauchi

Greg Bowles

Heather Arneson

Heather Bloemhard

Hemil Modi

Holz S.

Husni Idris

Jeff Maddalon

Jim Banke

Joe Morrison

Joe Smith

John Kaneshige

Karen Cate

Lou Glaab

Mark Aitken

Michael Patterson

Michael Rogers

Michael Tsairides

Nelson Guerreiro

Robert McSwain

Ron Johnson

Ronald Lehmer

Savvy Verma

Shawn Engelland

Shivanjli Sharma

Siena Whiteside

Susan Gorton (NASA)

Unmeel Mehta

Xiaofan Fei

Yuri Gawdiak