B
Comparative Assessment of Goals and Visions
In response to the statement of task for Phase 1 of this study, the Committee on Aeronautics Research and Technology for Vision 2050 assessed the future visions and goals for U.S. civil aviation as expressed in five source documents (see Appendix A). To gain additional insight into U.S. visions and goals, the committee also included in its assessment a comparable vision for civil aeronautics in Europe, European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020—Meeting Society’s Needs and Winning Global Leadership, which was produced by the Group of Personalities and released in 2001 (available online at <http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/aeronautics2020/en/>).
NASA’S NEW GOALS
After the committee began its work, NASA adopted new goals and objectives for its aeronautical research program. These changes were part of a reformulation of NASA’s agency-wide vision, mission, and objectives, which are now as follows:
-
NASA’s vision
-
to improve life here
-
to extend life to there
-
to find life beyond
-
-
The NASA mission
-
to understand and protect our home planet
-
to explore the universe and search for life
-
to inspire the next generation of explorers … as only NASA can
-
-
Role of the Aerospace Technology Enterprise
-
to pioneer and validate high-payoff technologies: to improve the quality of life, to enable exploration and discovery, and to extend the benefits of innovation throughout our society
-
Based on the above, NASA’s Aerospace Technology Enterprise established Aeronautics Technology Strategic Theme Objectives, which are listed in the second column of Table B-1. NASA’s old goals and objectives are listed in the first column.
In making these changes, NASA has replaced time-phased, quantitative goals (e.g., “double the aviation system capacity within 10 years, and triple it within 25 years”) with open-ended, qualitative goals (e.g., “enable more people and goods to travel faster and farther, anywhere, anytime, with fewer delays.”). For some technologies quantifiable goals are difficult to define, and limiting research to areas with easily quantifiable goals would reduce the scope of NASA’s research to a subset of the overall problem. On the other hand, quantifiable goals could be readily established in many areas, and even as NASA moves away from quantitative research goals, the report of the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry (2002) concludes that “the Administration and Congress should adopt … aerospace technology demonstration goals for 2010 as a national priority.” In the area of air transportation, the specific goals endorsed by the Aerospace Commission are as follows:
-
Demonstrate an automated and integrated air transportation capability that would triple capacity by 2025.
-
Reduce aviation fatal accident rate by 90 percent.
-
Reduce transit time between any two points on earth by 50 percent.
-
Reduce aviation noise and emissions by 90 percent.
The first three goals are equivalent to NASA’s now obsolete 25-year goals for improving system capacity, safety, and mobility. The emission goal does not specify what emissions should be reduced. In any case, a 90 percent reduction is more ambitious that NASA’s previous 25-year goals, which were to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and
TABLE B-1 Comparison of Future Goals and Visions for Civil Aeronautics
NASA Goals and Objectives |
|
Next Generation Air Transportation System |
|
|||
Superseded |
Current |
National R&D Plan |
2050 Vision |
NASA Aeronautics Blueprint |
European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020 |
|
Safety
|
Safety and Security
|
Safety and security
|
Safety and security
|
Safety and security
|
Safety and security
|
Safety
|
Mobility
Capacity
Technology innovation
Engineering innovation
|
Mobility
New aerospace missions
|
National Airspace System
|
Efficiency
Advanced technology
|
Efficiency
|
National Airspace System
Revolutionary vehicles
Educated workforce
|
Air transportation system
Educational policies to provide skilled aeronautics workforce Aircraft design and production
|
carbon dioxide by 80 percent and 50 percent, respectively. In order to serve as a reliable guide for research and policy changes, goals for emissions should clearly state whether the goals are for average emissions or “characteristic emission” levels, which are about 15 percent higher than the level of NOx measured during the landing-takeoff cycle specified by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Goals should also be established for cruise operations (to limit climate effects) and landing and takeoff cycles (to limit effects on local and regional air quality). Another possibility would be to establish emissions goals that take into account the operational efficiencies of individual airlines, requiring them to meet goals in terms of emissions per revenue-passenger-mile, for example.
ASSESSING THE GOALS AND VISIONS
The committee identified compatibilities and incompatibilities in the visions and goals above, as they relate to civil aeronautics. The results are summarized in Table B-1 and discussed below. Although the above documents encompass a variety of time periods, starting as early as the late 1990s and extending as far as 2050, the committee concluded that all of the documents consistently emphasize three main thrusts:
-
safety and security
-
capacity of the air transportation system
-
environmental compatibility (noise and emissions)
The visions point to a comprehensive approach to safety and security that includes both prevention of accidents and incidents and mitigation of consequences (in terms of injuries, damage to equipment, and disruption of the air transportation system). Not unexpectedly, the most recent visions—NASA’s Aeronautics Blueprint and the current agency goals and visions—place much more emphasis on security than the visions created before September 11, 2001. As funding for transportation security increases, the magnitude of related technology development efforts is also likely to increase. As with the other major thrusts, long-term plans for developing technology to improve security should be based on a systematic approach that assesses the specific problems that need to be addressed and targets technologies accordingly. For example, security systems should be designed to predict and adapt to future threats to ensure that we are not in a constant state of preparing to “fight the last war.” This requirement is not included in the current U.S. visions.
The visions point to the need for a similarly comprehensive approach when it comes to the capacity of the air transportation system. Research and technology efforts are called for to realize improvements in four areas: (1) the performance of each of the primary elements of the air transportation system: aircraft, air traffic management systems, and airports; (2) the integration of the air transportation system with other modes of transportation; (3) supporting systems such as communications, navigation, and surveillance systems and weather observation and prediction systems; and (4) the design and development processes used to create new technologies and products.
Some of the documents quantify their goals for reducing the noise of new aircraft. NASA’s Blueprint and the European aeronautics vision, however, specify the ultimate goal in terms of operational impact: Aircraft noise should be reduced to the point where it is no longer a nuisance outside airport boundaries and airports are freed from operational restrictions related to noise. In terms of emissions, most of the visions deal only with NOx and CO2. The National Research and Development Plan takes a more open-ended view—it covers all emissions that affect local air quality, global climate, or atmospheric ozone. This broader view is important to ensure that future aeronautics research adequately considers both new understandings about the threat of other emissions and the complex interrelationships among various strategies for dealing with environmental problems. For example, high-altitude emissions of water vapor may be a particularly important environmental consideration for new supersonic aircraft, and some approaches for reducing NOx may increase emissions of particulates.
The European aeronautics vision includes two areas that are not highlighted in any of the U.S. visions:
-
quality and affordability of air transportation
-
global primacy of the aeronautics industry
By including quality and affordability issues, the European vision acknowledges the importance of structuring research and development programs so that they are focused on providing air transportation services that users want to buy and are able to afford. The original 1997 version of NASA’s goals spoke of reducing the cost of air travel by 50 percent within 20 years. However, this goal fell into disfavor with Congress, which seemed to view the meeting of customer demands as an industry responsibility that was inappropriate as a topic of NASA research. Congress reduced NASA’s aeronautics budget to eliminate research related to this goal, so NASA eliminated the goal.
The European vision foresees the following future:
In 2020, European aeronautics is the world’s number one. Its companies … are winning more than 50% shares of world markets for aircraft, engines, and equipment…. The public sector plays an invaluable role in this success story…. Crucially, they are coordinating a highly effective European framework for research cooperation, while funding programmes that put the industry on more equal terms with its main rivals (Group of Personalities, 2001).
The future of the U.S. air transportation system is not necessarily tied to the future of the U.S. aeronautics manufacturing industry. Advanced aircraft and air traffic manage-
ment systems could be procured from foreign suppliers if U.S. manufacturers fail to remain competitive. However, the supremacy of the U.S. aeronautics industry provides important national security and economic benefits. A U.S. aeronautics vision and research program that does not explicitly consider the importance of U.S. leadership in aeronautics could make it easier for the Europeans to achieve their vision of global leadership and market dominance.
One of the ways that the European vision foresees achieving global primacy is through greater cooperation and harmony among various elements of the aeronautics community throughout the European Union. Similarly, improved coordination and cooperation in this country would benefit the United States. Close cooperation is needed between NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), for example, to establish requirements for NASA research that are relevant to the air traffic management systems the FAA is likely to procure in the future. The FAA’s ability to support long-term systems analysis and requirements definition is limited, however, because so much effort is expended to solve more immediate problems and keep the air transportation system operating.
Commercialization of technology only shows up in NASA’s goals and objectives. This is an important goal for a research agency like NASA, because the value of its aeronautics research is closely linked to its ability to transfer research results to other organizations that are directly involved in the development or production of aircraft, air traffic management systems, and other aviation products.
Two of the visions include independence from foreign sources of energy. The committee questions the wisdom of giving much consideration to this goal when formulating a national aeronautics research program because it does not believe that freeing one segment of the economy, such as air transportation, from foreign sources of energy would produce significant benefits if the economy as a whole remained dependent on foreign energy. Before diverting significant resources to research intended to free air transportation from foreign energy, the federal government should conduct a comprehensive, economy-wide assessment of various options for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign energy. Such a study might well conclude that the optimum strategy for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign energy should focus on nonaviation uses of petroleum products. A large reduction in the demand for jet fuel would not greatly reduce overall demand for petroleum products. In 2000, jet fuel accounted for less than 9 percent of U.S. consumption of petroleum products (EIA, 2002). In addition, design requirements are more stringent for aircraft engines, especially in terms of reliability and power density, than for virtually any other large-scale user of petroleum. New types of engines are unlikely to be adopted by the aviation industry unless they are first proven in other applications.
REFERENCES
Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. 2002. Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Aerospace. Available online at <www.aerospacecommission.gov/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf>.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2002. Energy Consumption by Source, 1949-2000. Available online at <www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/tab0511.htm>.
Group of Personalities. 2001. European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020—Meeting Society’s Needs and Winning Global Leadership, p. 15. Available online at <http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/aeronautics2020/en/>.