EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL AEROSPACE INITIATIVE
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This is a report of work supported by Grant F49620-01-1-0269 between the U.S. Air Force and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09175-6 (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-53107-1 (PDF)
Limited copies are available from:
Air Force Science and Technology Board
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3118
Additional copies are available from:
The National Academies Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL AEROSPACE INITIATIVE
EDSEL D. DUNFORD, Chair,
TRW (retired)
DONALD J. KUTYNA, Vice-Chair,
Loral Space and Communications, Colorado Springs
KEVIN G. BOWCUTT,
The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, California
KENNETH E. EICKMANN,
University of Texas at Austin
WESLEY L. HARRIS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
HANS G. HORNUNG,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
KATHLEEN C. HOWELL,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
ERIC J. JUMPER,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
IRA F. KUHN, JR.,
Directed Technologies, Arlington, Virginia
ANDREW J. MEADE,
Rice University, Houston, Texas
CARL J. MEADE,
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Palmdale, California
NEIL E. PATON,
Liquidmetal Technologies, Lake Forest, California
RONALD F. PAULSON,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
FRED E. SAALFELD,
National Defense University, Washington, D.C.
DONNA L. SHIRLEY,
University of Oklahoma, Norman
PETER STAUDHAMMER,
Northrop Grumman, Redondo Beach, California
Air Force Science and Technology Board Liaisons
ROBERT A. FUHRMAN,
Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California
ELI RESHOTKO,
Case Western Reserve University (emeritus), Cleveland, Ohio
Staff
JAMES C. GARCIA, Study Director
LaNITA JONES, Project Assistant
DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate
ANDREW WALTHER, Intern
AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
ROBERT A. FUHRMAN, Chair,
Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble Beach, California
R. NOEL LONGUEMARE, Vice-Chair,
Private Consultant, Ellicott City, Maryland
FRANK CAPPUCCIO,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Fort Worth, Texas
LYNN CONWAY,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
LAWRENCE J. DELANEY,
Titan Corporation, Arlington, Virginia
STEVEN D. DORFMAN,
Hughes Electronics (retired), Los Angeles, California
EARL H. DOWELL,
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
DELORES M. ETTER,
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
CHANDRA KUMAR N. PATEL,
University of California at Los Angeles
RICHARD R. PAUL,
The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
ROBERT F. RAGGIO,
Dayton Aerospace, Inc., Dayton, Ohio
ELI RESHOTKO,
Case Western Reserve University (emeritus), Cleveland, Ohio
LOURDES SALAMANCA-RIBA,
University of Maryland, College Park
EUGENE L. TATTINI,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
Staff
MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Director
WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Officer
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Administrative Associate
DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate
Preface
Since the end of the Cold War, the percentage of national resources devoted to aerospace has declined and graduation rates in science and engineering have declined as well. The goal of the National Aerospace Initiative (NAI), a partnership set up in 2001 between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), is to sustain U.S. leadership in aerospace in the coming decades. The initiative challenges the military services and agencies to accelerate development and demonstration milestones in selected areas to allow systems to be implemented earlier than they would otherwise have been.
BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF STUDY
As the primary DoD participant in NAI, the Air Force became concerned about possible effects on its program and budget if NAI investment decisions followed a set of priorities different from those of the Air Force. For an independent assessment of the feasibility and operational relevance of NAI, the Air Force turned to the National Academies. In March 2003, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering requested a detailed study of NAI. The full statement of task is given in Box P-1. The study grant was awarded in mid-May 2003, after which the Committee on the National Aerospace Initiative was formed under the auspices of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Air Force Science and Technology Board (see Appendix A for short biographies of committee members). The first committee meeting was held in early August 2003. By agreement with the sponsor, the committee addressed two of the three NAI “pillars” (subject areas)—hypersonics and access to space—but did not attempt to comment on space technology.1
Box P-1 To assist the Department of Defense, the services and agencies, and NASA by providing an independent evaluation of the feasibility of achieving the science and technical goals as outlined in the National Aerospace Initiative, the National Academies, under the leadership of the Air Force Science and Technology Board, will form a committee to answer the following general questions concerning the NAI:
In developing its answers, the committee will perform the following tasks:
|
When the committee began this study, most committee members assumed they would be reviewing a clearly defined program with a strong management organization. In fact, the committee discovered that NAI included programs that predated the initiative and that the NAI executive office had only recently been staffed and was functioning as an advocate, facilitator, and data-sharing mechanism, with financial and management responsibility for the various programs remaining with the services and agencies.
STUDY APPROACH AND CONSTRAINTS
Over a 3-month period, the committee gathered data and information by meeting with persons involved in NAI planning, budgeting, and execution and by reviewing relevant reports and other documents. Appendix B lists presentations made to the committee by guest speakers.
Committee members met with the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) three times to receive information that was unclassified and cleared for public release, export-controlled information, and DoD classified information. The vice chair of the committee and the director of the Air Force Science and Technology Board, both with appropriate active security clearances, were briefed at a highly classified level. It was determined that the content of that briefing did not materially affect the findings and conclusions of this report. As requested by the Air Force, the committee’s final report is unclassified; however, it is based on the understanding the committee received from all the information presented to it. The report does not (and could not) reflect information that was not presented to the committee.
During its first meeting, the committee divided itself into two main writing teams—one for hypersonics and one for access to space. Air-breathing hypersonics is an embryonic technology with considerable promise but no operational systems, while rocket-based vehicles have been operational as space launch or missile systems for 50 years. Because of the enormous difference in their operational maturity, the information presented to the committee differed substantially for the two topics. Discussion in this report of hypersonics and space access reflects these differences.
In general, the committee’s approach to assessing NAI’s technical feasibility was to analyze the main technical challenges to achieving NAI technical objectives and then decide whether NAI addresses those challenges. The committee did not attempt to predict whether all the challenges would be met. There are unknowns that despite DoD’s and NASA’s best efforts might not be resolved. NAI technical goals may be achievable and would certainly be useful if they were achieved; however, no one can guarantee that executing the best possible NAI plan will result in their achievement. The committee did its best to address technical feasibility separately from financial feasibility; however, in reality, the two are intertwined. NAI technical objectives cannot be achieved without money to pay for the needed research and technology development effort.
The inability to clearly determine NAI funding adversely affected the committee’s ability to assess the financial feasibility of NAI. A clear understanding of NAI funding is also needed to consider current versus optimal budget scenarios and to provide related advice on NAI planning.
Estimating the investment required to develop technology is difficult under the most optimal conditions. Therefore, when even a rough estimate was beyond the scope of the study, the committee strove to evaluate what it could—namely, the relative utility of the technology area. An accurate and complete cost estimate by independent professionals who are expert in the practice should be completed as a follow-on to this study.
Finally, to assess the operational relevance of NAI, the committee looked for formal user requirements documents for NAI technologies or systems using NAI technologies. However, the committee did not base its conclusions solely on existing documents but rather sought indicators that such technologies could have a substantial payoff for the various military missions.
It was beyond the committee’s ability to conduct an exhaustive review and comparison of all the options and alternatives for satisfying current warfighter requirements or providing future warfighting capabilities.
NASA’S NEW SPACE EXPLORATION MANDATE
On January 14, 2004, President Bush publicly announced “a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system.”2 The President’s plan called for developing and
2 |
President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program. Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy. NASA Headquarters. Washington, D.C. Speech available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html. Last accessed on March 25, 2004. |
testing a new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) by 2008, human missions to the Moon as early as 2014, and, later, human missions to Mars.
The President’s plan was announced after the committee had completed its study and submitted its draft report for external peer review. It was clear to the committee and peer reviewers that the new NASA mandate could affect NAI as NASA’s plans, programs, and resources shift toward new objectives. On February 9, 2004, the committee held a teleconference with Robert Shaw, Special Assistant to DDR&E, to discuss the likely outcome of the new mandate. Exactly how NAI will be affected is not yet clear; however, Mr. Shaw conjectured that some NAI schedule objectives might be significantly delayed. Technical objectives could change as well.
Despite the timing of the announcement and its uncertain consequences, the committee wanted this report to be as relevant as possible. In the limited time it had available, the committee reviewed the report and made revisions that it felt were reasonable. The committee found effects on NAI’s access-to-space pillar easier to foresee than effects on its hypersonics pillar. Access to space is obviously relevant to development of the CEV and human missions to the Moon and Mars. What role hypersonics will play is not obvious at this time.
The committee advises readers of this report to keep in mind the reorientation now under way at NASA and the effects that this reorientation might have on the future of NAI.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The members of the NRC study committee were highly motivated and intellectually curious and represented a wide range of academic, industrial, and military backgrounds. Because of a short schedule to cover such a complex subject, the meeting sessions were lengthy and the period of report drafting was abbreviated. In spite of this, every member of the committee willingly accepted his/her writing assignment, and many of them made site visits to organizations with programs in the subject areas.
The committee thanks the many organizations and guest speakers that provided excellent support to the committee. All the speakers were impressive and presented information to the committee that had a direct bearing on the study. From the high quality of the presentations, it was obvious that the speakers and others had spent many hours preparing. For the committee, this was time well spent. We hope that the speakers, their organizations, the committee’s Air Force sponsor, and the ultimate readers of this report will agree.
Finally, the committee thanks the NRC staff members who supported the study. Primary among them were Mike Clarke, Jim Garcia, LaNita Jones, Daniel Talmage, and intern Andy Walther.
Edsel D. Dunford, Chair
Committee on the National Aerospace Initiative
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Darrell R. Branscome, Science Applications International Corporation,
Yvonne C. Brill, Consultant,
Robert P. Caren, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired),
Aloysius G. Casey, U.S. Air Force (retired),
Stewart E. Cranston, Veridian Engineering,
Werner J.A. Dahm, University of Michigan,
Delores M. Etter, U.S. Naval Academy,
Alexander H. Flax, Consultant,
Delma C. Freeman, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (retired),
George A. Paulikas, Aerospace Corporation (retired),
Todd I. Stewart, Ohio State University, and
John M. Swihart, Swihart Consulting, Inc.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Robert A. Frosch (NAE), Harvard University. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Acronyms
ACC
Air Combat Command
AEDC
Arnold Engineering Development Center
AFB
Air Force Base
AFMC
Air Force Materiel Command
AFOSR
Air Force Office of Scientific Research
AFRL
Air Force Research Laboratory
AFROC
Air Force Requirements Oversight Council
AF SAB
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board
AFSPC
Air Force Space Command
AIA
Aerospace Industries Association
AIT
Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (program)
AMCOM
Aviation and Missile Command
AMRAAM
advanced medium-range air to air missile
APU
auxiliary power unit
AQR
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering
ARRMD
affordable rapid response missile demonstrator
ASC
Aeronautical Systems Center
ASCI
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
ASNRDA
Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition
ASTP
Advanced Space Transportation Program
ATS
access-to-space
BAU
business as usual
BMDO
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
C4ISR
command, control, communications, computing, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance
CAV
common aero vehicle
CC
commander
CDR
critical design review
CFD
computational fluid dynamics
CFUSAI
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry
CMC
ceramic matrix composite
CoDR
conceptual design review
CONOPS
concept of operations
CONUS
continental United States
CRRA
capability review and risk assessment
CSAF
Chief of Staff of the Air Force
CUBRC
Calspan-University of Buffalo Research Center, Inc.
CV
vice commander
DAKOTA
Design Analysis Kit for Optimization and Terascale Applications
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DCR
dual combustion ramjet
DDR&E
Director of Defense Research and Engineering
DES
discrete-eddy simulation
DMF
dry mass fraction
DoD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DSB
Defense Science Board
DSMC-NS
direct simulation Monte Carlo–Navier-Stokes
EELV
evolved, expendable launch vehicle
ERV
expendable rocket vehicle
FALCON
Force Application and Launch from CONUS (program)
FEM
finite element model
FLRS
future long-range strike
FRSC
fuel-rich staged combustion
FSD
full-scale development
FSW
friction stir welding
FY
fiscal year
FYDP
Future Years Defense Program
GASL
General Applied Science Laboratory
GDP
gross domestic product
GNC
guidance, navigation, and control
GOTChA
goals, objectives, technical challenges, and approaches
GPS
Global Positioning System
GRC
Glenn Research Center
GRST
Global Response Task Force
GSTF
Global Strike Task Force
GT
ground testing
H2
diatomic hydrogen
HC
hydrocarbon
HCV
hypersonic cruise vehicle
HQ
headquarters
HS/H
high speed/hypersonics
HTHL
horizontal takeoff/horizontal landing
HyFly
Hypersonics Flight Demonstration (program)
HyTech
Hypersonics Technology (program)
IHPRPT
integrated high-payoff rocket propulsion technology
IHPTET
integrated high-performance turbine engine technology
IOC
initial operational capability
IP
integrated powerhead
IPD
integrated powerhead demonstrator
ISR
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
ISS
International Space Station
IVHM
integrated vehicle health management
JHU/APL
Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory
JROC
Joint Requirements Oversight Council
LaRC
Langley Research Center
LEO
low Earth orbit
LES
large-eddy simulation
LOx
liquid oxygen
LH2
liquid hydrogen
LRS
long-range strike
MAJCOM
major command
MCH
methylcyclohexane
MDA
Missile Defense Agency
MDO
multidisciplinary design optimization
MIPCC
mass injection precompressor cooling
MIS
modular insertion stage
MMC
metal matrix composites
MNS
mission needs statement
MPV
MIPCC-powered vehicle
MSFC
Marshall Space Flight Center
NAI
National Aerospace Initiative
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA HQ/MDepAA
Office of Space Flight Deputy Associate Administrator
NASA HQ/RAA
Office of Aeronautics Associate Administrator
NASP
National Aerospace Plane
NAVAIR
Naval Air Systems Command
NDAA
National Defense Authorization Act
NGLT
Next-Generation Launch Technology (program)
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRC
National Research Council
NRO
National Reconnaissance Office
OML
outer mold line
OMS
orbital maneuvering system
ONR
Office of Naval Research
ORDs
operational requirements document
ORS
Operationally Responsive Spacelift
ORSC
oxidizer-rich staged combustion
ORU
orbital replacement unit
OSD
Office of the Secretary of Defense
OSP
orbital space plane
OSTP
Office of Science and Technology Policy
OTV
orbit transfer vehicle
P&W
Pratt & Whitney
PBR
President’s budget request
PDR
preliminary design review
PGS
Prompt Global Strike
PLIF
planar laser-induced fluorescence
PRD
program requirements document
R&D
research and development
RAA
regional airline association
RANS
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
RASCAL
Responsive Access, Small Cargo, Affordable Launch (program)
RATTLRS
Revolutionary Approach to Time-Critical Long-Range Strike (program)
RBCC
rocket-based combined cycle
RCS
reaction control system
RDT&E
research, development, test, and evaluation
RFI
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act facility investigation
RLV
reusable launch vehicle
RP
rocket propellant
RTA
Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator (program)
S&E
science and engineering
S&T
science and technology
SAALT
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology
SAF
Secretary of the Air Force
SBR
space-based radar
SC
Space Control
SDB
small-diameter bomb
SECAF
Secretary of the Air Force
SECDEF
Secretary of Defense
SED
Single-Engine Demonstrator (program)
SJ
scramjet
SLV
small launch vehicle
SMC
Space and Missile Systems Center
SMV
space maneuvering vehicle
SOA
state of the art
SOV
space operations vehicle
SSC
Stennis Space Center
SSTO
single stage to orbit
STEM
space, technology, engineering, and mathematics
STS
Space Transportation System (shuttles)
TBBC
turbine-based combination cycle
TCT
time-critical target
TDRSS
tracking and data relay satellite system
TEO
technology executive officer
TJ
turbojet
TOA
total obligational authority
TPS
thermal protection system
TRL
technology readiness level
TSTO
two stage to orbit
URETI
university research, engineering, and technology institute
USAF
U.S. Air Force
USECAF
Under Secretary of the Air Force
USMC
U.S. Marine Corps
USSTRATCOM
U.S. Strategic Command
V&V
validation and verification
VAATE
Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engines (program)
VLS
vertical launch system
VMC
vehicle management computer
VMS
vehicle management system
WMD
weapons of mass destruction