NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 14-15, 2016 Page 1 of 8

NASA Advisory Council (NAC)

Aeronautics Committee 

November 14-15, 2016

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

Meeting Summary

Participants:

First Last Organization Role

John Borghese Rockwell Collins Vice Chair

Dr. Michael Francis United Technologies Res. Ctr. Member

Dr. Missy Cummings Duke University Member

Dr. Lui Sha University of Illinois Member

Dr. Karen Thole Penn State University Member

Dr. John-Paul Clarke Georgia Tech Member

Dr. David Vos Independent Consultant Member

Irma Rodriquez Aeronautics Committee Exec. Secretary

Robert Pearce ARMD OAA DAA / Strategy

Tom Edwards NASA Ames Res. Center Dep. Center Dir.

Huy Tran NASA Ames Res. Center Director, Aeronautics

Jay Dryer ARMD AAVP Director

Doug Rohn ARMD TAC Program Director

Dr. Mujeeb Malik ARMD TAC Program RCA/TTT Project

Dr. John Cavolowsky ARMD AOS Program Director

Dr. Jessica Nowinski ARMD AOS Program Tech Advisor

Mark Ballin ARMD AOS Program Manager
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 14-15, 2016 Page 2 of 8

Monday, November 14, 2016

The meeting was called to order at 2:02 p.m.

Introductions

Vice Chair Mr. John Borghese welcomed members and announced that both Dr. Jaiwon 

Shin and Ms. Marion Blakey were not able to attend.

Mr. Robert Pearce sent Dr. Shin’s regrets about not being able to attend. NASA is 

waiting additional guidance regarding the new presidential administration. It will take 

time for the new administration to put together a new budget. ARMD’s budget request 

is at the $640M level. However, there will be budget uncertainty over the next several 

months.

Mr. Tom Edwards, Ames Deputy Center Director welcomed the Committee members to 

the Ames Research Center. Ms. Huy Tran, Aeronautics Research Director, provided an 

overview of the Ames Aeronautics capabilities that support the ARMD strategic thrusts.

CFD Vision 2030 Implementation Plan by Dr. Majeeb Malik

Dr. Majeeb Malik briefed the Committee on the CFD Vision 2030 Implementation Plan. 

Mr. John Borghese commented that the project seems to be trying to do a lot of things, 

but it needs a lot more computational ability and asked if the project plans to develop 

algorithms that are more complex. Dr. Malik indicated that it’s not just the hardware: it’s 

both hardware and software so the answer is to have bigger machines, or ones that 

would exploit more code better. 

Dr. David Vos asked about the measurable targets and milestones including specific 

industry needs in the medium range. Dr. Malik indicated that NASA has technical 

challenges that are in the five to six-year range that deliver new technology. NASA and 

Boeing have a pioneering effort to make sure this can be used in their design efforts. He 

added that NASA is also working with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. NASA is

interacting with all the stakeholders and they won’t have to wait 15 years.

Dr. Clarke asked about the timeframe for alternative fuels work and expressed 

concerned about a research timeline of five to six years not aligning with a three-year 

alternatives fuels time horizon. Mr. Jay Dryer indicated that ARMD is working with other 

agencies on an alternative fuels strategy that aligns with other efforts in government. 

He added that it’s more about understanding the models so testing and certification can 

be accomplished sooner in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

(FAA) timelines. Dr. Vos added that if there is a driving need, a decision point or some 

new aero propulsion interaction, driving milestones by a certain date would really inform 

the process here. A discussion ensued about the need to advance a good story 

included in which is the need to know how everything adds up across government.

Dr. Michael Francis noted that NASA has an autonomy initiative and embedded in that 

is AI (artificial intelligence) and machine learning. He suggested that that there’s a 

potential marriage here. Those tools could be useful and he indicated that he hasn’t 

seen no reference to that. It’s a way to calculate the data and he felt that the project 

should take advantage of all those adjacent technologies to make this effort truly 

transformational. Use the intelligence algorithms to do it. Use the physics to help inform 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 14-15, 2016 Page 3 of 8

the process. Dr. Malik indicated that the project doesn’t have the funds to deploy the

new generation of AI systems.

Mr. Doug Rohn clarified that if NASA’s proposed New Aviation Horizons Program (NAH) 

happens, NASA will be building X-planes. It could provide designers crucial tools down 

the road. That’s the connection: having those tools that could be used by Boeing and 

others.

Dr. Vos emphasized that the project needs to make it a goal, otherwise it won’t happen. 

He added that 2-D and 3-D flow visualization is what everyone has always wanted. 

Maybe, based on funding, grid visualization isn’t a priority. Identify the key enablers that 

over time will break free.

New Funding Model for NASA’s Aerosciences Ground Test Facilities by Jay Dryer

Mr. Jay Dryer briefed the Committee on the NASA new funding model for NASA’s 

Aerosciences Ground Test Facilities. In FY17 the New Funding Model will fully cover 

the operational cost for NASA users of a key set of critical aeroscience ground test 

facilities. In addition, limited funds are available for capability advancements, new test 

technologies, and maintenance.

Dr. Clarke stated that the project was managing all these things centrally and the 

biggest expense is employees. He asked about moving people between centers. Mr. 

Dryer indicated that this is not easy to do and added that at a given center, the project

optimizes within the center boundaries, moving people between facilities.

Dr. Vos asked about consolidating facilities and what was the backlog of work. Mr. 

Dryer indicated that in terms of optimization, the studies have looked at critical facilities. 

There is a specialty need. Now the project is running at capacity.

Mr. Borghese asked if everything was treated as just an expense and where are the 

aero subject matter experts. Mr. Dryer answered that it was both: the Aeronautics 

Evaluation and Test Capabilities Project and a pull from the programs/projects side. A 

lot of this is driven by ARMD needs. This isn’t just “I’ve got something to test;” it’s a 

question of prioritization that determines the duration of the test.

Mr. Borghese asked if the investment in facilities and computer models is driven by the 

new ARMD initiatives in X-planes. Mr. Dryer stated that the new funding model is 

independent of the X-plane program. It’s not just the demonstrators but increased 

utilization overall.

Dr. Francis offered a word of caution indicating that it’s a budget-limited world. A danger 

is to let the facilities drive the agenda. A big concern is the balancing act between the 

important ones in the present and the ones coming that will put NASA in a leadership 

role. 

Dr. Clarke and Mr. Borghese expressed appreciation for NASA’s approach with the 

facilities new funding model and praised the project for doing a really good job.

Meeting Adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 14-15, 2016 Page 4 of 8

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The meeting was called to order at 9:57 a.m.

Vision and Strategic Planning for Advanced Aviation Operations by Robert 

Pearce

Mr. Robert Pearce provided a brief review to the Committee of ARMD’s Strategic 

Thrusts included in the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) with a focus on the 

advanced aviation operations (Thrusts 1, 5 & 6).

The discussion centered on the UTM and UAS Strategy. Mr. Borghese asked how the

vision and roadmap of UTM (unmanned aerial systems [UAS] traffic management) 

could enhance overall traffic management. Mr. Pearce indicated that NASA has spent a 

lot of time looking at overall UAS strategy and has started to come together over 

NASA’s role. The overall operation of the NAS (national airspace system) is a research 

topic that NASA needs to get into.

Dr. Vos added that the UTM could launch an entirely new way for air traffic 

management. It’s a new sandbox. Uncontrolled airspace could become the busiest and 

most congested airspace the world has ever seen. It provides an opportunity for 

hundreds of millions of dollars of GDP (gross domestic product). It provides the 

opportunity to create an entirely new airspace. So why isn’t that the main focus and 

breeding ground for funding for new explorations for commercial airspace? In his 

opinion, the strategies and priorities are completely backwards and suggested that 

investment and progress should be taking place there.

Mr. Pearce clarified that when NASA looks at this internally, it’s not a big conflict. The 

ideas aren’t that different. He added that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) is 

the agency’s customer and the goal is to make sure that the right level of resources and 

intellectual capital is put in place.

A discussion ensued about NASA’s role in the collaborative space of UTM and Mr. 

Pearce emphasized that NASA has a role. Dr. Vos added that this is a phenomenal 

opportunity to get to the future. A highly automated, integrated airspace is needed. He 

recommended that NASA looks at how to get there with the least numbers of variables 

possible.

Mr. Pearce added that NASA is working with others on several breakthroughs that are 

important for the future and deploying resources to meet critical national needs. There is 

no resistance to the UTM assertions. NASA has played a role where industry and 

universities come together to innovate together while providing an environment to put 

intellectual capital in.

The Committee agreed that this is an opportunity for NASA to emphasize a vision and 

role in the UTM and UAS world and highlight that NASA is leading the way and 

developing a new economy. Mr. Pearce indicated that he agrees with the Committee’s 

recommendation on the vision and added that there is a need to present a holistic 

portfolio that shows the priorities and goals.
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 14-15, 2016 Page 5 of 8

Dr. Francis added that there needs to be a set of metrics to see how those priorities and 

goals are met taking into account the skill set. Mr. Pearce cautioned that making 

changes in the workforce takes years and NASA has a lot of expertise.

Dr. Clarke asserted that NASA needs to continue to think a step ahead, pushing the 

envelope even when supporting industry. NASA needs to show how all different things 

in the portfolio map to that goal. That’s one recommendation: to really map the strategy 

for how to map core competencies to stay ahead.

Dr. Vos added that during the last two meetings the Committee has made 

recommendations to take more of a systems view and recommended that at the next 

meeting the conversation continues.

Hypersonic research was brought up as well. Dr. Thole suggested to look to the past for 

clues to the future. Dr. Cummings stated that hypersonic discussions are cyclical and 

suggested that there needs to be a re-prioritization and that NASA only needs to 

provide backup to the Air Force rather than stale research that keeps on recycling.

Dr. Francis indicated that as far as hypersonics goes, the Air Force is concentrating on 

threats, global reach and mostly with weapons with no human in the system. 

Hypersonics is a huge consumer of energy and has to be taken in context for all the 

other systems been worked on. It’s much harder to see how hypersonics will play.

ARMD Strategic Thrust 5: Real-Time System-Wide Safety Roadmap Vision and 

Project Planning by Dr. Jessica Nowinski

Dr. Jessica Nowinski briefed the committee on the Real-time System-Wide Safety 

Roadmap Vision and Project Planning. 

Dr. Cummings asked about the past work at Ames that dealt with uncertainty 

management. She added that those tools concerning separation were ignored in the 

past. She suggested to look at the lessons learned in the 1990s and how is this effort 

going to be better than the work done 20 years ago.

Dr. Vos added that there is excitement about automated ATM (air traffic management). 

He stated that NATCA (the National Air Traffic Controllers Association) and ATCA (the 

Air Traffic Control Association) are stressed because everything is being done 

manually.

Dr. Nowinski indicated that automation comes from the tools that NASA is developing. 

She agreed that lessons learned needs to be addressed. She added that the concerns 

that controllers have is that humans can figure it out when the algorithms don’t work.

Dr. Cummings asked about the efforts being done by MITRE in DC and how similar they 

were to what NASA is doing. In addition she suggested that the NASA roadmap should 

show what’s in use today and to be cautious about not replicating work. Dr. Nowinski

clarified that they are doing some elements but they are not working on real-time. They

may be developing some tools and integrating some data sources in data fusion. She 

also added that NASA is interested in collaborating with MITRE, but they are extremely 
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 14-15, 2016 Page 6 of 8

resistant to incorporating tools that are not their own. Dr. Nowinski agreed and stated 

that NASA would be willing to share our research with them.

Dr. Vos suggested that system-wide safety real-time would be particularly useful in the 

San Francisco Bay area which fogs up regularly. In his opinion, it’s a fantastic place to 

implement these tools.

Dr. Francis expressed concern about having roadmaps that run out to 2045 which 

seems inconsistent with rapid pace of technological change in this area. Dr. Nowinski

emphasized that one function of a roadmap is to tell a story and have stretch goals and 

another is specifying how to get there. Mr. Pearce added that NASA developed TCs 

[technical challenges) to address this concern. Some of these challenges are big 

enough that it’s hard to see how things can be accomplished in less than six or seven 

years. Dr. Thole suggested that possibly the messaging needs to be different. It was 

suggested to set aggressive targets so that the long-term roadmap doesn’t seem 

irrelevant in a technology environment that is fast-paced.

The committee suggested to break down the roadmap in pieces that are motivational 

and inspiring to gain the support of the new administration. It was emphasized that the 

messaging is absolutely crucial including having a deadline and a commitment. A 

discussion ensued about the technology barriers to make this happen. Dr. Nowinski 

indicated that cybersecurity is one, with a lot of uncertainty behind it. Dr. Clarke added 

that in the machine-learning segment there is a lot of uncertainty. Dr. Sha stated that 

when considering machine learning, one must consider its promises and pitfalls. When 

facing new and unexpected constraints, on has to change initial assumptions. The 

certification process will have to be changed. It’s a challenge to the whole community. 

Dr. Nowinski indicated that NASA needs to find a way to present the vision so that it’s 

not just one big machine-learning process.

ARMD Strategic Thrust 6: Assured Autonomy for Aviation Transformation Vision 

and Roadmap by Mark Ballin

Mr. Mark Ballin briefed the committee on the NASA ARMD developed roadmap to guide 

activities for Aeronautics Strategic Thrust 6: Assured Autonomy for Aviation 

Transformation. He cited the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) that states: The 

objective of Strategic Thrust 6 is to enable autonomous systems that employ highly 

intelligent machines to maximize the benefits of aviation to society.

Dr. Vos recommended using UTM as a test case that could expand out to the entire 

system. An appropriate level of safety from a terrestrial standpoint should apply to 

flights aloft. Mr. Ballin explained that high-level decision making is a very serious 

problem. Humans do certain jobs very well. Dr. Vos suggested to consider the crash 

landing in the Hudson River in which traditional procedures involved meant that there 

was no time for any alternative.

Dr. Sha suggested to look at the involvement of the FAA and certification rules. He 

stated that there is a difference between landing a UAS and a commercial airliner. It’s a 

different air-worthiness task. Dr. Vos emphasized that this might be the real thing that 

deserves the focus even if it’s hard to do. Dr. Sha agreed with this point and added that 

regulation change won’t happen in four years.
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 14-15, 2016 Page 7 of 8

Dr. Clarke expressed that we often think about humans supervising automation. An 

economic benefit could be like the fictional software agent “Jarvis” to warn and, in some 

cases, intervene. In the case of a three-person crew, if you could have a one-person 

crew, Jarvis would have to work only long enough on a long-haul flight to wake a 

sleeping pilot. If you could cut the crew from three to one, the economic benefits would 

be enormous.

A brief discussion ensued about Global Hawk: how it defines automation and autonomy 

judgement and reason which don’t exist in most systems presently. Autonomy of 

execution is different from autonomy of judgement. Mr. Ballin asserted that the 

discussion was about higher-level machine intelligence, not autonomy of execution. Dr. 

Cummings added that the industry will be there before 2025. Mr. Ballin agreed and 

indicated that the question is how NASA can add value in a world where billions are 

already being invested. There will be areas NASA won’t work and other times room for 

partnership opportunities.

Mr. Pearce added that NASA wants to reflect what the community is asking for. Dr. Vos

indicated that there are already capabilities out there that address these outcomes to 

2035. Dr. Cummings provided an example of Amazon Prime who is working on 

distributed control, and not necessarily in this country. It’s already in China and its likely 

coming quickly to the US.

Mr. Ballin agreed with the Committee assessment of the environment in this topic. He 

indicated that perhaps NASA should choose fewer visions and stick with one or two 

supported by funding where NASA can make a contribution. Dr. Clarke suggested that 

NASA should look at two things: 1) What will have a huge impact – economic, social 

and so on – and 2) What is no one else working on?

A discussion ensued about embedded systems and hacking into a UAS featuring a 

“secure” link. There is a pent-up value and demand measuring in the billions for 

presenting relatively simple solutions. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the goodenough. Autonomy should include security, but focus the problem over a much smaller 

timeline of about four years. NASA could lead and coordinate.

Dr. Vos added that it’s deciding on the mission. How would a UAS navigate in the event 

of an outage? It’s a huge problem today. The robotics community has made great sides 

by using imagery. One of the problems is integrated management for small UAVs. He 

suggested setting up a community to do it. Set up the problem and identify the barriers 

where those barriers are so NASA can drive the solutions. UTM is a wonderful example. 

And it’s evolved dramatically today because of NASA’s efforts. Mr. Ballin agreed that 

the most important way to lead the community is to pick a problem that needs to be 

solved and form a community around that.

Dr. Francis added that he was in agreement with most of the discussion about 

autonomy considering the breadth of the subject. He indicated that in the near-term, the 

industry is working them. He suggested that NASA needs to understand where the state 

of the art is to get in touch with the cutting edge. If industry is doing it, NASA doesn’t 

need to do it. He asserted that NASA started working on autonomy about two years 

ago and recognized that it is still in the planning progress.
NAC Aeronautics Committee meeting November 14-15, 2016 Page 8 of 8

Committee Observations, Findings and Recommendations:

Below is a summary of the final committee deliberations for all of the topics covered 

during the two-day meeting. The committee agreed to submit the following 

observations and recommendations to the AA for ARMD.

1. Observation: CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) Vision

The Committee understands the importance of Computational Fluid Dynamics(CFD) 

has played in the development of efficient aerodynamics for airplane structures and 

turbine engine development. The CFD project has good project planning. Given the 

length of this project, the Committee suggests that the project define the current state of 

the art, what specific problems are being solved, gaps to solve these problems and 

develop clearly defined milestones on a frequent basis to measure progress throughout 

the project.

2. Observation: New Funding Model for Key Facilities

Wind tunnel testing continues to be an important part of air vehicle and engine 

development. The cost associated with extensive testing sometimes inhibits facilities 

use leading to insufficient testing and sometimes a lack of full usage of the tunnels. The 

Committee agrees with this new approach of funding the non-recurring wind tunnel 

costs. Given the dynamics of influencing usage using a new cost model, the committee 

suggests that the results of this new model be evaluated frequently and adjusted if 

necessary.

3. Recommendation: Assured Autonomy for Aviation Transformation Roadmap 

and the Autonomous Systems Project and UTM

Unmanned air vehicles (UAV) and personnel air vehicles are expected to grow from 

today’s nascent industry to a $20B business within 20 years. The NASA UTM project 

has made significant strides in demonstrating how an appropriate automated air traffic 

management system could enable this UAV growth and make the US a leader through 

technology experimentation in the UTM project. In addition, automation, in particular 

autonomous air vehicles in a UTM like air traffic management system has the long term 

ability to enable the National Aerospace System to increase capacity and safety. Given 

the importance of this area to the US and NASA, the Committee recommends that the 

UTM project be expanded and accelerated. In addition, the committee recommends that 

the new Autonomous Systems project include a focus on autonomous air vehicles and 

address the gaps not being funded by industry like autonomous verification and 

validation.

Public Comments: None. 

MEETING ADJOURNED at 3:05 p.m.