DECADAL SURVEY OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS
Foundation for the Future
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 study was supported by Contract No. NNH05CC15C between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-10158-1
Available in limited supply from the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 334-2858.
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2006 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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
DECADAL SURVEY OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS
Steering Committee
PAUL G. KAMINSKI (NAE), Chair,
Technovation, Inc., Fairfax Station, Virginia
WILLIAM W. HOOVER, Co-chair,
U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
INDERJIT CHOPRA,
University of Maryland, College Park
EUGENE E. COVERT (NAE),
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ALAN C. ECKBRETH,
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, Hartford
THOMAS M. HARTMANN,
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Palmdale, California
ILAN KROO (NAE),
Stanford University, Stanford, California
NANCY G. LEVESON (NAE),
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
IVETT A. LEYVA,
Microcosm, Inc., El Segundo, California
AMY PRITCHETT,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
EDMOND L. SOLIDAY,
United Airlines (retired), Valparaiso, Indiana
JOHN VALASEK,
Texas A&M University, College Station
DAVID VAN WIE,
Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland
ROBERT WHITEHEAD,
Aerospace Consultant, Henrico, North Carolina
DIANNE S. WILEY,
The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, California
Panel A: Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics
DAVID VAN WIE, Chair,
Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland
PAUL BEVILAQUA (NAE),
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Palmdale, California
CHARLES BOCCADORO,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, El Segundo, California
THOMAS CORKE,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
ILAN KROO (NAE),
Stanford University, Stanford, California
ROBERT LIEBECK (NAE),
The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, California
DAN MARREN,
Arnold Engineering Development Center—White Oak, Silver Spring, Maryland
STEPHEN RUFFIN,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
FREDRIC H. SCHMITZ,
University of Maryland, College Park
JOHN SULLIVAN,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
KAREN WILLCOX,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Panel B: Propulsion and Power
ALAN C. ECKBRETH, Chair,
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, Hartford
ROBERT BAKOS, ATK GASL,
Ronkonkoma, New York*
MEYER J. BENZAKEIN (NAE),
Ohio State University, Columbus
JAMES L. BETTNER,
Rolls-Royce Corporation (retired), Pittsboro, Indiana
DAVID E. CROW (NAE),
University of Connecticut, Glastonbury
MEHRDAD EHSANI,
Texas A&M University, College Station
JEFFREY W. HAMSTRA,
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, Texas
IVETT A. LEYVA,
Microcosm, Inc., El Segundo, California
TIMOTHY LIEUWEN,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
LOURDES QUINTANA MAURICE,
Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
JAMES C. McDANIEL, JR.,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville
TRESA M. POLLOCK (NAE),
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
WILLIAM TUMAS,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
Panel C: Materials and Structures
DIANNE S. WILEY, Chair,
The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, California
SATYA N. ATLURI (NAE),
University of California at Irvine*
GREGORY CARMAN,
University of California at Los Angeles
INDERJIT CHOPRA,
University of Maryland, College Park
JANET DAVIS,
Rockwell Scientific, Thousand Oaks, California
RAVI B. DEO,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, El Segundo, California
PRABHAT HAJELA,
Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
MARK K. HINDERS,
College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
ROBERT SCHAFRIK,
GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, Ohio
NANCY R. SOTTOS,
University of Illinois, Urbana
GREGORY WASHINGTON,
Ohio State University, Columbus
TERRENCE A. WEISSHAAR,
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia
Panel D: Dynamics, Navigation, and Control, and Avionics
NANCY G. LEVESON (NAE), Chair,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
RICHARD ABBOTT,
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Palmdale, California
CLARK R. BADIE,
Honeywell International, Phoenix, Arizona
JEFFERY ERICKSON,
Boeing Phantom Works, Huntington Beach, California
EPHRAHIM GARCIA,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
CHARLES L. GUTHRIE,
Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems, Long Beach, California
ELLIS F. HITT,
Strategic Systems Solutions, Inc., Westerville, Ohio
JAMES C. NEIDHOEFER,
Aerotonomy, Inc., Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
DARRYLL J. PINES,
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia
JAMES RANKIN,
Avionics Engineering Center, Ohio University, Athens
JASON L. SPEYER (NAE),
University of California at Los Angeles
JOHN VALASEK,
Texas A&M University, College Station
Panel E: Intelligent and Autonomous Systems, Operations and Decision Making, Human Integrated Systems, and Networking and Communications
EDMOND L. SOLIDAY, Chair,
United Airlines (retired), Valparaiso, Indiana
ELLA ATKINS,
University of Maryland, College Park
TAMER BASAR (NAE),
University of Illinois, Urbana
THOMAS Q. CARNEY,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
JOHN-PAUL CLARKE,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
MICHAEL DeWALT,
Aviation Systems Certification Services, Eastbound, Washington
FRANK L. FRISBIE,
Apptis Inc., Washington, D.C.
ANDREW LACHER,
MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia
RAYMOND R. LaFREY,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (retired), New Braunfels, Texas
CARL McCULLOUGH,
U.S. Air Force Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
AMY PRITCHETT,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
DONALD W. RICHARDSON,
West Palm Beach, Florida
NADINE SARTER,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Staff
ELIZABETH ALBRIGO,
Senior Program Assistant
ALAN ANGLEMAN,
Study Director (from December 2005)
ANNA FARRAR,
Financial Associate
JAMES GREGORY,
NRC Science and Technology Policy Fellow (through December 2005)
KAREN HARWELL,
Study Director (through December 2005)
GEORGE LEVIN,
Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
HEIDI MURRAY,
Senior Program Assistant
JOHN SISLIN,
Program Officer
KERRIE SMITH,
Co-Study Director
JOHN WENDT,
Senior Program Officer
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, Chair,
Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired), Golden, Colorado
WILLIAM L. BALLHAUS,
BAE Systems National Security Solutions, Reston, Virginia
CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR.,
Jack and Panther, LLC, Houston, Texas
EDWARD M. BOLEN,
National Aviation Association, Washington, D.C.
ANTHONY J. BRODERICK,
Aviation Safety Consultant, Catlett, Virginia
JOHN-PAUL CLARKE,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
PHILIP M. CONDIT (NAE),
The Boeing Company, Redmond, Washington
ROBERT L. CRIPPEN,
Thiokol Propulsion (retired), Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
RICHARD M. GOODY (NAS),
Harvard University (emeritus), Falmouth, Massachusetts
PRESTON HENNE (NAE),
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Savannah, Georgia
WILLIAM W. HOOVER,
U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
SYDNEY MICHAEL HUDSON,
Rolls-Royce North America (retired), Indianapolis, Indiana
JOHN M. KLINEBERG,
Space Systems/Loral (retired), Redwood City, California
ILAN KROO (NAE),
Stanford University, Stanford, California
MOLLY K. MACAULEY,
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
FORREST S. McCARTNEY,
Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired), Indian Harbour Beach, Florida
ELON MUSK,
Space Exploration Development Corporation–SpaceX, El Segundo, California
AMY PRITCHETT,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
ROBERT R. RANKINE, JR.,
Hughes Space and Communications Company (retired), Clearwater, Florida
DEBRA L. RUB-ZENKO,
The Boeing Company, Anaheim, California
CYNTHIA SAMUELSON,
Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia
PETER STAUDHAMMER (NAE),
University of Southern California, La Quinta
HANSEL E. TOOKES II,
Raytheon International, Inc. (retired), Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
RAY VALEIKA,
Delta Airlines, Inc. (retired), Powder Springs, Georgia
ROBERT S. WALKER,
Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT E. WHITEHEAD,
National Institute of Aerospace, Henrico, North Carolina
THOMAS L. WILLIAMS,
Northrop Grumman, El Segundo, California
Staff
GEORGE LEVIN, Director
Preface
The air transportation system is important to the economic vitality, public well-being, and national security of the United States. The aerospace industry has historically made a large contribution to the positive balance of trade for the U.S. economy. In 2005, it had a $37 billion positive balance of trade, of which $29 billion was for civil aeronautics.1 In addition, the United States has had a long history as the unchallenged world leader in civil and military aeronautics, though this position is now in jeopardy in areas such as research capability, technological expertise, and the performance of civil aircraft and air traffic management systems.
With leadership comes opportunity, particularly with regard to setting international standards for aircraft certification and operations. A position of continued leadership would allow the United States to ensure that viable global standards continue to be established for the application of emerging technologies and operational concepts. Without such standards the global aviation market and the global transportation system will be fractured into separate fiefdoms ruled by national and regional aviation authorities acting independently. This would impede the ability of passengers and cargo to move seamlessly—and safely—from country to country. The United States needs “world-class science and engineering—not simply as an end in itself, but as the principal means of creating new jobs for its citizenry as a whole as it seeks to prosper in the global marketplace of the 21st century.”2 Strong action is needed to ensure that U.S. leadership continues to assure the future of the domestic and global air transportation systems.3
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is explicitly chartered to preserve the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautics technology. To pursue that goal, NASA contracted with the National Research Council’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) to complete a decadal survey of civil aeronautics, to prioritize research projects to be undertaken in the next 10 years. For the last 50 years, the National Research Council has conducted decadal surveys in astronomy. The idea of conducting a decadal survey of aeronautics originated in discussions among the ASEB, the Office of Management and Budget, and congressional committees with an interest in civil aviation. Although this study takes special note of NASA’s priorities for civil aeronautics research, it also identifies national priorities for non-NASA researchers. Additionally, the study points out synergies between civil aeronautics research and research objectives associated with national defense, homeland security, and the space program.
In FY 2004, NASA’s budget for aeronautics was just over $1 billion. NASA’s aeronautics budget for FY 2006 was $884 million, and it will be reduced to $724 million in FY 2007 if Congress accepts the President’s budget. If that happens, in just 3 years NASA’s budget for aeronautics will have sustained a reduction of 32 percent, even as NASA’s total budget increases by 9 percent. This budgetary trend will make it increasingly difficult for NASA to build a solid foundation for the future. However, regardless of the overall funding level, NASA’s aeronautics program should focus on the key strategic objectives,
1 |
D. Napier. 2005. 2005 Year-End Review and 2006 Forecast—An Analysis. Arlington, Va.: Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). Available online at <www.aia-aerospace.org/stats/yr_ender/yrendr2005_text.pdf>. |
2 |
National Research Council. 2005. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, p. 30. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Available online at <http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html>. |
3 |
National Research Council. 2003. Securing the Future of U.S. Air Transportation: A System in Peril, p. 11. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Available online at <http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/10815.html>. |
themes, and high-priority research and technology challenges described herein. The present survey was completed in parallel with ongoing efforts to create a national policy on aviation and separate efforts by NASA Headquarters to assess the aeronautics program. The authors of this report are confident that all three efforts will work toward the common goal of assuring that long-term national investments in aeronautics research and technology substantially improve the air transportation system and achieve other appropriate national objectives.
Paul Kaminski, Chair
Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics Steering Committee
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 Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). 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:
Tony Broderick, Aviation Safety Consultant
Dianne Chong, The Boeing Company
Raymond Colladay, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired)
John Douglass, Aerospace Industries Association of America
Alan Epstein, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kenneth Rosen, NAE, General Aero-Science Consultants, LLC
David Schmidt, University of Colorado
Gunter Stein, NAE, Honeywell (retired)
Tom Williams, Northrop Grumman
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 Sheila E. Widnall, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Appointed by the NRC, she 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.
Tables, Figures, and Boxes
TABLES
ES-1 |
Fifty-one Highest Priority Research and Technology Challenges for NASA Aeronautics, Prioritized by R&T Area, |
|||
2-1 |
Sample QFD Prioritization, |
|||
3-1 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area A: Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics, |
|||
3-2 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area B: Propulsion and Power, |
|||
3-3 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area C: Materials and Structures, |
|||
3-4 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area D: Dynamics, Navigation, and Control, and Avionics, |
|||
3-5 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area E: Intelligent and Autonomous Systems, Operations and Decision Making, Human Integrated Systems, and Networking and Communications, |
|||
5-1 |
Fifty-one Highest Priority Research and Technology Challenges for NASA Aeronautics, Prioritized by R&T Area, |
|||
5-2 |
NASA Technology Readiness Levels 1 to 9 for Aeronautics Research, |
|||
A-1 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area A: Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics, |
|||
B-1 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area B: Propulsion and Power, |
|||
C-1 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area C: Materials and Structures, |
|||
D-1 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area D: Dynamics, Navigation, and Control, and Avionics, |
|||
E-1 |
Prioritization of R&T Challenges for Area E: Intelligent and Autonomous Systems, Operations and Decision Making, Human Integrated Systems, and Networking and Communications, |
FIGURES
1-1 |
Terminology breakdown tree, |
|||
3-1 |
NASA and national priorities for Area A: aerodynamics and aeroacoustics, |
|||
3-2 |
NASA and national priorities for Area B: propulsion and power, |
|||
3-3 |
Actual and predicted exposure to significant noise (65-dB day-night average sound level) and enplanement trends forthe United States, 1975-2005, |
|||
3-4 |
Considerable gas turbine fuel efficiency improvements are still possible, |
|||
3-5 |
NASA and national priorities for Area C: materials and structures, |
3-6 |
NASA and national priorities for Area D: dynamics, navigation, and control, and avionics, |
|||
3-7 |
NASA and national priorities for Area E: intelligent and autonomous systems, operations and decision making, human-integrated systems, and networking and communications, |
|||
3-8 |
R&T Thrusts related to Area E: intelligent and autonomous systems, operations and decision making, human integrated systems, and networking and communications, |
|||
B-1 |
Actual and predicted exposure to significant noise (65-dB day-night average sound level) and enplanement trends for the United States, 1975-2005, |
|||
B-2 |
Considerable gas turbine fuel efficiency improvements are still possible, |
|||
B-3 |
Technology issues in supersonic combustion ramjets, |
BOXES