NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting 

March 17, 2020 

Virtual Meeting Originated at NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 

Welcome 

Mr. John Borghese, committee chairman, called the meeting to order, noting this was 

the first time everyone was meeting from remote locations due to the coronavirus 

pandemic. He reviewed the committee’s obligation to NASA in terms of providing

findings and recommendations and reviewed what each type of communication means 

and what NASA’s required response is supposed to be. 

Ms. Irma Rodriguez provided the required explanations related to the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) purpose of the meeting and structure of the committee and 

noted that a public comment period would be accommodated in the virtual meeting 

mode. 

Fiscal Year 2021 ARMD Strategy and Budget Overview 

NASA Associate Administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

(ARMD), Mr. Robert Pearce, welcomed the virtual attendees to this first-of-its-kind 

meeting for the NAC Aero committee. He explained NASA’s current response and 

status related to the pandemic and noted the positive support for this new way of doing 

business he has seen within the agency and all of NASA’s partners and stakeholders.

Mr. Pearce summarized the fiscal year 2021 President’s budget request to Congress 

and reviewed the major research themes for the next 50 years of aviation with respect 

to supersonic, subsonic, and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM); explained the evolution in 

thinking related to the six research thrusts that are now reflected in the updated 

Strategic Implementation Plan; and described changes to the aeronautics directorate’s 

organization, which now includes the Aeroscience Evaluation and Test Capabilities 

(AETC) program. The AETC program was previously slated to be transfer to another 

mission directorate but in the FY21 budget it was decided that it would stay within 

ARMD. 

Mr. Pearce described how dollars from the budget request will be spent once approved, 

noting shifts in funding between programs that are a result of some projects ending and 

increased emphasis on others. 

Mr. Borghese asked if ARMD has control over research facilities under AETC and, with 

the NASA-wide consolidation of AETC resource management within ARMD, did that 

include aircraft used by other mission directorates, such as the T-38 fleet flown by 

NASA astronauts. Concern about facility management has been discussed during 

several previous NAC Aero meetings as NASA deliberated how to manage its research 

infrastructure. Mr. Pearce responded that ARMD does control the AETC facilities with 

March 17, 2020 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the help of a board to manage priorities. Aircraft and aircraft support facilities remain in 

the purview of the individual Centers and mission directorates they belong to, and to 

other agency offices (Aircraft Management Division.) 

Dr. Mike Francis commented about autonomy and the importance of its inclusion in 

airspace and vehicle research. He repeated concerns, expressed during previous 

meetings, that it is important to develop autonomy such that you don’t need an airline

transport rating to fly simple AAM vehicles. He also suggested that the human-intelligent 

machine relationship needs to be redefined, as he doesn’t see that in ARMD’s current 

charts. He is hopeful that will be discussed the next time autonomy is included in a NAC 

Aero meeting topic. 

Andrew Cebula expressed a desire for more NASA help with data transfer and 

integration in terms of FAA air traffic management and the new capabilities enabled by 

Air Traffic Demonstration (ATD) projects. Pearce said that is part of future work NASA is 

doing and appreciates industry input on their needs. 

Mr. Pearce reviewed in more detail plans for some of the major research themes, such 

as enabling commercial supersonic flight via the X-59 QueSST aircraft. Dr. Francis then 

asked about contingency planning in the event of a partial or total vehicle loss. While 

funding for a full replacement aircraft was not pursued, there will be a capability to 

employ key areas of structural spares. 

Sustainability in aviation was discussed by Mr. Pearce and several committee members 

offered insight and input in areas ranging from supply chain to concerns about climate 

change inducing increased turbulence for aircraft at cruise. Mr. Pearce continued 

discussion on this topic by reviewing plans for further developing technology in support 

of a new subsonic 150-175 passenger transport deploying in about 2030. (Specifics of 

these technologies are summarized here.) 

Mr. Pearce wrapped up his presentation by talking about work being done in support of 

AAM. 

Recommendation: 

NASA should take the leadership role in ensuring that the United States continues to 

retain the world’s foremost subject-matter experts in all disciplines essential to the future 

of the aerospace enterprise through a focused workforce development and pipelining 

program. 

Major reasons for the recommendation 

During the past few decades, traditional aerospace disciplines such as aerodynamics, 

astrodynamics, aerothermal, aeroelasticity, aeroacoustics, and computational 

aerothermal have been underfunded even though they remain highly relevant. ARMD 

has provided some funding for NRAs and related University research in these areas but 

ARMD funding alone has been insufficient. In those traditional disciplines, very few 

March 17, 2020 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

PhDs who could become subject-matter experts have been nurtured because of lack of 

research support in these areas. Subject-matter experts currently at universities, 

industry, and government in these areas are near retirement, and most could retire 

within a decade with no pipeline in place. In addition, experts in those adjacent 

disciplines that are becoming ever more influential in aerospace systems and 

technology such as robotics, artificial intelligence, and other advanced computer 

science applications are often not equipped to understand the unique needs of our 

diverse array of aerospace applications. 

Consequences of no action on the recommendation 

To design the best aerospace vehicles and systems, every discipline must be pushed to 

the same limits including the risks. Since the design and the product can be no better 

than its weakest element, we cannot afford to have anything less than the best in any of 

these disciplines. If we do nothing, we will lose our nation’s leadership in aerospace, 

and, in turn, weaken our national security and the economy. 

Small Business Innovation Research 

NASA’s Jenn Gustetic, Cheryl Quinn, and Max Briggs offered an overview of the Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. 

The overall program is managed by the Space Technology Mission Directorate, but all 

directorates, including ARMD, participate and are represented. The vision for SBIR is on 

enabling small businesses to deliver technology and innovation that not only benefits 

NASA's mission, but also provides societal benefit and grows the U.S. economy. 

Primary customers are small businesses and entrepreneurs who can help provide 

innovative technology solutions that help meet NASA’s research goals. It is further 

hoped those solutions can provide businesses with the opportunity to fully 

commercialize the technology and grow their business. During 2019, there were 279 

proposals for ARMD-related topics, with 55 selected for funding. Increased participation 

from disadvantaged small businesses continues to be an emphasis. More complete 

information about the SBIR program can be found here. 

Discussion 

Committee members focused their discussion of this topic on measuring success of the 

SBIR program. The SBIR presenters explained that success is measured in many ways 

as each company has its own story to tell. And generally speaking the SBIR program –

and its sibling Small Business Technology Transfer program, which also was briefly 

explained – has been a great success. The sense of the committee was that measuring 

success in more concrete, return-on-investment criteria would be helpful and resulted in 

a finding listed below. 

Mr. Borghese asked how it is determined which mission directorate gets awards. The 

answer is that solicitations are designed to align with each directorate’s strategy and 

needs, with each directorate providing SBIR with that guidance. The SBIR team also 

March 17, 2020 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

looks for ways to solicit businesses that might provide help that is relevant across 

multiple directorates. Ultimately the goal is to solicit and fund the best technical efforts 

that both align with mission objectives and can be accomplished by small businesses. 

For ARMD this has meant increased emphasis on areas such as AAM and electrified 

propulsion. 

Committee members asked about SBIR involvement with universities, which spring 

boarded into a dialogue about industry’s ability to attract a workforce that provides 

expertise in every discipline, a persistent problem in the pipeline from universities to the 

workplace. This extensive dialogue resulted in a recommendation intended for the 

NASA Administrator to consider as an agency-wide consideration. 

Finding 

Note: This Finding is intended for the Space Technology Mission Directorate, 

which manages the SBIR program. 

The Committee applauds the SBIR program which nurtures the growth of emerging 

companies. These small companies are very important to the supply chain in the 

development of technology for the next generation of aircraft, supplying innovation into 

the national aviation enterprise and bringing novel approaches to problem solving. The 

committee would look forward to seeing a metric for the NASA SBIR investment using 

standard return-on-investment metrics. 

NASA Aeronautics Facilities 

Mr. Ron Colantonio, acting director for the Aeroscience Evaluation and Test Capabilities 

(AETC) portfolio presented an overview of the facilities managed by AETC with a focus 

on wind tunnels. Mr. Colantonio noted the desire expressed during previous NAC Aero 

meetings that more information be provided about the research facilities ARMD had 

available for its use, how ARMD was sharing those facilities within NASA, who was 

paying for their use, and what was involved to enable outside entities to come in and 

use them. 

Mr. Colantonio explained there are many types of agency-owned research facilities 

available to NASA and others. These include laboratories of all sorts, computer 

resources for advanced data processing such as with computational fluid dynamics, 

fixed and motion-based flight simulators, actual aircraft, and – of course – wind tunnels. 

When discussing the facilities managed by AETC on behalf of the entire agency, Mr. 

Colantonio said this referred only to 12 large wind tunnels with test cross sections of 

four-feet by four-feet or more and used for aeroscience research, or the study of 

aerodynamic flow or movement of an aircraft or rocket through an atmosphere. These 

include one tunnel at Ames Research Center in California, four at Glenn Research 

Center in Cleveland, and seven at Langley Research Center in Virginia. The $117 

million line item in the ARMD budget under AETC is only for the operation, 

March 17, 2020 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

maintenance, and upgrades to those wind tunnels – which he noted once again are 

available to other NASA mission directorates. 

Mr. Colantonio noted there were more than 50 other smaller wind tunnels across the 

NASA field centers that are doing aeroscience research in one form or another, but 

none of those fall under the purview of AETC. Those are funded by other ARMD 

programs, mission directorates, or user fees. 

Information about the AETC-managed facilities, including how to engage with NASA to 

conduct research there, is available online and promoted within the aviation research 

community, including at major conferences. Mr. Colantonio noted two key venues for 

this effort: the annual AIAA Sci Tech conference and participation in the AIAA Ground 

Testing Technical Committee. Another place for promotion and collaboration is with the 

Department of Defense and the National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing Alliance. 

Mr. Colantonio described the process a potential user must follow to conduct research 

in an AETC wind tunnel. Variables for schedule and cost were presented, as was a 

break down of who uses the facilities between NASA, military, and commercial partners. 

He also noted that within NASA, about 80 percent of facility usage is for aeronautics, 

while the other 20 percent is for space. 

Discussion 

Mr. Mike Hirschberg asked if NASA has adequate facilities and support infrastructure to 

work with new vehicles, such as those expected to be designed and developed as part 

of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) or other aircraft programs in the future. Mr. Pearce and 

Mr. Colantonio noted this could best be answered during a future NAC Aero committee 

meeting as part of a broader update on AAM. 

Dr. Eric Allison noted from the charts there was a significant increase in NASA’s use of 

the facilities as measured by hours and asked why that was so. Mr. Colantonio 

explained it was because of in the new funding models, i.e., covering a full shift worth of 

operating cost at each of the twelve AETC facilities and who was paying for things like 

consumables such as power. In the past such things were partially charged to a NASA 

project, but now are fully part of the AETC budget. While the total operating cost of the 

wind tunnel hasn’t changed, the way the expenses are accounted for has. This has 

allowed the projects to do more work and thus inflate the number of hours tallied. 

The new funding model and availability of funds also is enabling AETC to do more 

calibration and characterizing of its facility, which is improving overall research quality 

and allowing the wind tunnels to meet the “gold standard the rest of the world is trying to

attain,” Colantonio said. 

Dr. Allison expressed an interest in if there was an effective way to measure success of 

a project in terms of a return on investment, especially in light of fixed and variable 

costs. He suggested it appeared there was a successful story to tell and wanted to be 

March 17, 2020 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sure there were ways to tell it such that new users would be enticed to bring their 

research to NASA. Mr. Colantonio noted their current criteria for success related to 

reducing risk, increasing knowledge, and improving testing with more innovative 

methods. A more financial-oriented approach has not yet been studied. 

Finding 

The Committee recognizes that NASA’s facilities are a national treasure and applauds 

the high utilization of these facilities. Because of the diverse, dynamic aerospace 

initiatives underway and a new generation of air vehicles yet to be developed, NASA 

should continue to assure that the next generation of facilities, instrumentation and 

toolsets are available to address these needs. 

Materials and Structures 

Dr. Jimmy Kenyon, NASA’s director for the Advanced Air Vehicles Program, and Dr. 

Nateri Madavan, NASA’s acting deputy director for the Integrated Aviation Systems 

Program, provided an update to the committee on NASA Aeronautics’ research with 

regard to materials and structures. 

The overall goal of the Advanced Composites Project was to significantly reduce the 

amount of time it takes to go from concept and design to certification of a composite 

structure for use on an aircraft. Accomplishing this involved reducing the number of 

design iterations to reduce testing, as well as employing more rapid inspection and 

characterization methods, especially with the use of nondestructive testing. Improving 

the manufacturing process to make it more efficient also helps. Dr. Kenyon presented a 

number of examples of how each of these technical challenges were addressed. 

Final review of the Advanced Composites Project is complete. Documenting results for 

inclusion in publications and industry handbooks – including the Composite Material 

Handbook 17 – is ongoing. To aid in transferring technology and knowledge from NASA 

to industry, an Advanced Composites Consortium was developed and includes more 

than 50 members. 

Dr. Kenyon noted work completed on Vision 2040, which is looking at what the future 

holds for integrated modeling of materials and systems. The challenge is to develop the 

right tools, models, and methodologies for the different physics, parts, and kinds of 

materials that may be worked with – as well as their applications. 

Dr. Madavan covered research completed between June 2019 and January 2020 

related to an analysis of alternatives (AOA) for a future strategy for research into 

materials, structures and manufacturing (MSM) The AOA resulted in a recommended 

strategy that would look at unitizing complex structures, improving structural efficiency 

of airframe components, improving durability of conventional electrified propulsion 

systems, and manufacturing at a high rate. 

March 17, 2020 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

A thorough presentation of MSM and the current industry situation, future needs, 

research methodology, studies made, and resulting engineering analysis and its 

documentation was given. This work is helping inform the next steps NASA must take in 

the area of materials and structures. Dr. Madavan noted there must be a balance 

across tools, technologies, and processes, while also balancing variables such as 

manufacturing rate, cost, and performance. 

Dr. John Cavolowsky followed up with a discussion of the Vision 2040 document and its 

role in the computational challenges related to analyzing composite materials and 

modeling their use in future applications that range from large structures to handling 

high heat in the core of a jet engine. He provided several examples of where this could 

be helpful, including electrified aircraft propulsion or additive manufacturing. 

All of this work sets the stage for a research project intended to determine how best to 

increase the rate at which composite materials, especially for large structures, can be 

safely and certifiably manufactured. 

Discussion 

Dr. Eric Allison asked if thought was given to scalability of these materials as they are 

considered for use on AAM-type vehicles versus larger scale vehicles, e.g., single-aisle 

subsonic transports. Dr. Madavan said that “in a deep sense” the answer was probably 

no. Consideration was given not so much to the scale of use but to the specific use; but 

the essence of the question was part of the analysis. 

Dr. Karen Thole asked about supply chain issues, especially if the rate of composite 

manufacturing goes up, will there be supply of necessary materials available from other 

countries. There was no easy answer to this question other than an acknowledgement 

that it must be considered, especially in light of a world so quickly affected by the 

coronavirus pandemic. 

The mention of electrified propulsion in Dr. Cavolowsky’s presentation sparked a 

substantial discussion on the availability and use of several different materials, both 

natural and man-made, in future electrified aircraft designs. As one example, the topic 

of exotic materials prompted a question about their use in creating power cells that 

operated at cryogenic temperatures. While these ideas are not being ignored, they also 

do not yet warrant the same kind of investment in applying strategic research dollars to 

their development. At the same time, committee members suggested that a future 

discussion of NASA Aeronautics’ approach to battery technology would be beneficial.

There were no Findings or Recommendations on this topic. 

Public Comments 

A public comments period was offered, as required. No public comments were received. 

March 17, 2020 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Webex Attendees 

Committee Members 

Dr. Eric Allison 

Mr. John Borghese (Chair) 

Mr. Andy Cebula 

Mr. Darin DiTommaso 

Ms. Lisa Ellman 

Dr. Mike Francis 

Mr. Mike Hirschberg 

Dr. Greg Hyslop 

Mr. Anil Nanduri 

Dr. Tom Shih 

Dr. Karen Thole 

NASA 

Richard Barhydt 

Marc Birckbichler 

Maxwell Briggs 

Ralph Buehrle 

Andrew Carnell 

John Cavolowsky 

K. Cramer 

Ron Colantonio 

Joyce Dever 

Mary DiJoseph 

Shawn Engelland 

Catharine Fay 

Michelle Ferebee 

Bradley Flick 

Jenn Gustetic 

Eric Hendricks 

Patricia Howell 

Brian Jensen 

James Kenyon 

Cara Campbell Leckey 

Nateri Madavan 

Michael Madden 

John Martin 

Jon Montgomery 

Gretchen Murri 

Lee Noble 

Bob Pearce 

Cheryl Quinn 

Jonathan Ransom 

Irma Rodriguez 

Stephen Smith 

Tony Springer 

Akbar Sultan 

D. Thomsen 

Ed Waggoner 

Sandra Walker 

Terryl Wallace 

Anthony Washburn 

Alicia Wesley 

William Winfree 

Richard Young 

External Attendees 

B. Harvey 

Joan Higginbotham 

Cat Hofacker 

Joe Smith 

Other Attendees (Affiliation Indicated 

if Provided) 

Lee Olson (FAA) 

Meeting Support (FedWriters) 

James Banke 

Abigail Casas 

March 17, 2020 

8