NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting

March 22, 2023

NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, Building 4825

Edwards, California

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’s Armstrong Flight Research 

Center in California and others attending virtually.

Sustainable Flight Demonstrator

Mr. Lee Noble, director of NASA’s Integrated Aviation Systems Program, introduced

aircraft and flight research projects the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

(ARMD) manages.

He provided specific focus on the acquisition of the Sustainable Flight Demonstrator 

(SFD) aircraft. He outlined project goals for the SFD, including reducing the impact on 

climate, improving U.S. competitiveness in the single-aisle aircraft market, and 

informing technologies to be used in aircraft in the 2030s.

He described the funded Space Act Agreement (FSAA) process by which the SFD is 

coming to fruition and how partnering with industry via the FSAA is a cornerstone of the 

SFD effort. In specific, he explained how NASA’s industry partner, Boeing, is taking the 

lead on the effort with NASA as a contributing partner.

He elaborated on how the proposal and selection process worked and the benchmarks 

by which the selection occurred, also stating programmatic and funding details along 

with giving an overview of the SFD schedule.

Mr. David Silver asked Mr. Noble to provide more details on the airworthiness 

certification process, specifically how NASA is including the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) in the process.

Mr. Noble responded that NASA and Boeing teams are in close lockstep to achieve 

airworthiness certification even now, just as the project is beginning, and are including 

the FAA in the process. He applauded Boeing for seeking to do airworthiness early.

Mr. Brent Cobleigh, NASA’s manager for the Sustainable Flight Demonstrator project, 

added details on how the teams are going about the airworthiness process, including 
how they sought to actively include the FAA in the testing processes leading to 

airworthiness certification rather than waiting until after testing, especially because a 

presence during the testing period could help the FAA in certifying truss-braced wing 

configurations in the future.

Mr. Noble explained how, in a way similar to a fixed-price contract, the FSAA model 

pays industry partners on completion of predetermined milestones negotiated up front, 

giving industry more “skin in the game,” and thereby helping NASA better manage the 

timeline and potential risks, among other details.

Mr. Robert Pearce, NASA’s associate administrator for ARMD, added how unlike other 

FSAAs, NASA is comparatively bringing more to the table in this effort because there is 

an intention to have more than a partnership. Though Boeing is largely leading the 

effort, NASA is providing an abundance of technical capabilities and expertise.

Discussion

Mr. Silver suggested there be a written document, such as a memorandum of 

understanding, between NASA and the FAA relating to airworthiness certification and 

the opportunity to use this data as part of any future certification efforts undertaken by 

industry, which would put the onus on the FAA to do the work instead of NASA.

Dr. Clarke refined Mr. Silver’s suggestion, elaborating how the opportunity exists for the 

FAA to use such data in the future.

Dr. Nicole Key asked Mr. Noble if he could explain why there was a drought between 

FSAAs awarded by ARMD. Mr. Noble did not have the history, but a subsequent 

discussion ensued between Mr. Steven Clarke, Dr. Key, Mr. Jon Montgomery, Mr. 

Noble, Mr. Pearce, and Dr. Edgar Waggoner on the use of FSAAs and the benefits.

Dr. Helen Reed applauded NASA for the SFD’s FSAA, mentioning the agreement and 

its structure look promising for NASA especially by its partnership with Boeing and early 

addressal of airworthiness.

Findings:

1. The Committee finds there is an opportunity to include the FAA where 

appropriate in the Sustainable Flight Demonstrator development and 

airworthiness discussions, thereby providing early insights into technical aspects 

of this configuration and considerations, and access to subject-matter experts, 

that may be beneficial for future FAA certification assessments.
2. The Committee finds the Funded Space Act Agreement for the Sustainable Flight 

Demonstrator is an exemplar mechanism for collaboration with industry, 

especially because it enables industry to have “skin in the game.” The Committee 

also commends NASA and Boeing for considering airworthiness certification 

early in the process.

ARMD Budget Overview

Mr. Pearce gave an overview of budgetary and programmatic plans and details included 

in the fiscal year 2024 budget request.

He spoke on the Quesst mission timeline and the intention to have community response 

data for the Committee of Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) of the International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in a timely manner, especially given the CAEP 

convenes only once in a three-year period.

Mr. Pearce explained aspects of NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility activities and goals, 

including FAA certification. He discussed how the NASA/FAA relationship can be 

optimized. NASA also is looking at the near term so the FAA can enable the beginning 

of scalability. As an example, he stated automated corridors for high-density flight areas 

would not seek to change the current rules, just add automation. The overall intention, 

Mr. Pearce said, is to address some near-term goals while long-term goals are in the 

works, and so forth.

Mr. Pearce also pointed out NASA is continuing to strengthen relationships with multiple 

offices of the FAA, and there is recognition that finding ways to move the certification 

process along faster is important. He added NASA is providing tools to the FAA to 

provide support in these areas and mentioned prior situations in which subject matter 

experts also aided in the certification process.

He also brought up a promising new alloy developed as part of NASA’s Transformative 

Aeronautics Concepts Program, GRX-810, resulting from innovation on NASA’s part, 

which would be discussed during the following presentation and discussion.

Discussion

Mr. Silver pointed out that due to U.S. sanctions on Russia, there are new issues 

related to sharing data and information with ICAO – of which Russia is a member. He

encouraged NASA to learn more about this issue as it could affect the Quesst mission.

Dr. Reed concurred with Mr. Silver.
Dr. Clarke encouraged NASA to look more broadly than just developing certification 

tools for the FAA, but also bringing in subject matter experts to the FAA to assist. He 

elaborated how once certification is underway, tools cannot be overlayed, and providing 

subject matter expertise is the only way to further support the process.

Ms. Susan Pfingstler brought up delays the airlines are experiencing due to airspace 

restrictions. She gave an example of one weekend during which there was a rocket 

launch at Cape Canaveral, military flight training over the Florida panhandle, and 

several thunderstorms all in close proximity. The airlines were left with little airspace, 

and the resulting flight delays rolled through the entire National Airspace System, 

affecting hundreds of thousands of passengers.

She added challenges like these are growing in frequency, the obstacles require more 

fuel to steer around, and asked whether NASA had any tools not just for the FAA, but 

also for the airlines to enable better flight planning.

A discussion ensued between Dr. Clarke, Mr. Pearce, and Ms. Pfingstler on various 

solutions to constraint issues, including making Temporary Flight Restrictions more 

dynamic not only spatially, but also temporally; whether more collaborative methods of 

traffic management could be explored opposed to just responsive ones; and creating 

more idealized flight plans.

Dr. Reed emphasized the importance of specifically providing airlines with more insight 

into, and including them in, these conversations. 

Findings:

1. The Committee finds there is an opportunity for more collaboration with airlines 

and other airspace users to quantify constraints placed on airspace operation by 

the absence of certain technologies as well as the growing need for airspace use 

by traditional and new entrants, and to determine how greater coordination might 

alleviate the inefficiencies that are introduced by these constraints.

2. The Committee finds that NASA should more closely examine how issues with 

respect to the reporting of data to the International Civil Aviation Organization 

(due to US sanctions on Russia) could interfere with the Quesst mission.

University Leadership Initiative Round 6 Selections

Dr. John Cavolowsky, director of NASA’s Transformative Aeronautics Concepts 

Program, presented an overview of the University Leadership Initiative (ULI), the 

University Student Research Challenge, and the Gateway to Blue Skies competition.
During the discussion of ULI, Dr. Cavolowsky walked the Committee through how each 

ULI award relates to ARMD’s six strategic thrusts, as well as the special topics for ULI 

such as zero emissions. He discussed the status of several of the ULI awardees and 

their technologies, also detailing the Round 6 solicitations and awards.

Dr. Clarke asked if ARMD’s six thrusts are still the right six thrusts for ULI, given ULI 

has operated by them for some time now. He also wondered whether there could be 

more or different special topics for ULI and how often NASA examines those.

Dr. Cavolowsky answered the strategic plan is reviewed on a regular basis, and though 

the thrusts haven’t been specifically addressed, small adjustments have been made 

along the way into the six existing thrusts to keep up with various interests in the 

industry.

Discussion

Dr. Clarke pointed out there is some incongruity between the six strategic thrusts and 

the four transformational areas of NASA Aeronautics, especially when presenting them 

side by side. He wondered if this has been considered and how to rationalize the thrusts

into something easier to explain. He pointed out ULI could be a mechanism to explore 

new speculative areas, and universities could help define the research to tackle them.

Mr. Pearce replied that though the six thrusts have been useful, there is a consideration 

to consolidate them or explore additional ones, and that the four transformational areas 

best represent what the priority transformations are today, and that they are not 

intended to last forever.

Dr. Clarke added the context of the NASA Research Announcements being too 

prescriptive, and that universities sought an avenue to harness the creativity of all the 

young minds, which the University Innovation project arose from. He suggested NASA 

continue to explore that mindset of universities leading research avenues.

He also asked if there is an opportunity to look at ways for some of the maintenance 

requirements for designs to flow back upwards into the design process, because in 

many four-year universities, maintainability is not always accounted for. He suggested 

NASA could frame this idea to solicit requirements for a design.

There was a discussion between Dr. Cavolowsky, Dr. Clarke, and Dr. Reed on being 

more deliberate about finding the “seedlings” with potential to grow outward, with the 

specific example of the GRX-810 alloy. They explored the idea of figuring out how ULI 

could encourage communication between agency and non-agency people that could 

lead to high impacts.
Finding:

1. The Committee finds there is potential for the University Leadership Initiative to 

serve as a mechanism for exploring ideas and concepts beyond those defined in 

the six ARMD thrusts.

Public Comments

A public comments period was offered as required.

Mr. Paul Krasa of NASA congratulated Dr. Clarke for being the chair of the committee.

Igor Alvarado asked about the role of the NASA Innovation Core and Small Business 

Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) in the 

innovation strategy and stated there is an opportunity to create a continuum between K12 programs, university programs, and academic research by designing bridge 

programs in between.

Mr. Pearce responded he was unfamiliar with the details of the Innovation Core, but 

provided a brief explanation of SBIR and STTR and how ARMD relates to them.

Mr. Krasa added that the NASA Minority University Research and Education Project 

encouraged the solicitation of K-12, community colleges, and university partnerships 

with industry.

Conclusion

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

plans for future meetings.

MEETING ADJOURNED
List of Attendees

Committee Members:

1. Dr. John-Paul Clarke

2. Dr. Naveed Hussain

3. Dr. Nicole Key

4. Mr. Natesh Manikoth

5. Ms. Susan Pfingstler

6. Dr. Helen Reed

7. Mr. David Silver

NASA

8. Carmen Arevalo

9. Vanessa Aubuchon

10. Brian Barmore

11. Tracie Contreras

12. John Cavolowsky

13. Steven Clarke

14. Brent Cobleigh

15. Koushik Datta

16. Shannon Eichorn

17. Bradley Flick

18. Michael Gibson

19. Laurie Grindle

20. Lori Losey

21. Robert Pearce

22. Abigail Osborn-Pineda

23. Tim Peters

24. Sherilyn Brown

25. James Heidmann

26. Sharon Jones

27. Paul Krasa

28. Samantha Magill

29. Jon Montgomery

30. Lee Noble

31. Cheryl Quinn

32. Irma Rodriguez

33. Steve Velotas

34. Sarah Waechter

35. Edgar Waggoner

36. Wendy Yang

37. Eddie Zavala

External (Affiliation Identified if 

Provided)

38. Dan Kaplan (Collins Aerospace)

39. Gene J. Mikulka

40. Igor Alvarado

41. Mary Lombardo

42. Mike Krenz (Collins Aerospace)

43. Ray Kamin (Collins Aerospace)

44. Megan Rae Rosia (Collins

Aerospace/RTX)

45. Yeshani Wijeseka

FedWriters (NAC Meeting Support):

46. John Gould