Nasa S Aeronautics R D Program

Advancing the state of aviation safety is a central mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Congress requested this review of NASA's aviation safety-related research programs, seeking an assessment of whether the programs have well-defined, prioritized, and appropriate research objectives; whether resources have been allocated appropriately among these objectives; whether the programs are well coordinated with the safety research programs of the Federal Aviation Administration; and whether suitable mechanisms are in place for transitioning the research results into operational technologies and procedures and certification activities in a timely manner. Advancing Aeronautical Safety contains findings and recommendations with respect to each of the main aspects of the review sought by Congress. These findings indicate that NASA's aeronautics research enterprise has made, and continues to make, valuable contributions to aviation system safety but it is falling short and needs improvement in some key respects.

In 2006, the NRC published a Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future, which set out six strategic objectives for the next decade of civil aeronautics research and technology. To determine how NASA is implementing the decadal survey, Congress mandated in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 2005 that the NRC carry out a review of those efforts. Among other things, this report presents an assessment of how well NASA's research portfolio is addressing the recommendations and high priority R&T challenges identified in the Decadal Survey; how well NASA's aeronautic research portfolio is addressing the aeronautics research requirements; and whether the nation will have the skilled workforce and research facilities to meet the first two items.

The book covers the Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE), consisting of six aeronautical projects born out of the energy crisis of the 1970s and divided between the Lewis and Langley Research Centers in Ohio and Virginia.

In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), which instructed NASA to "Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations," among other objectives. As acknowledged in the VSE, significant technology development will be necessary to accomplish the goals it articulates. NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) is designed to support, develop, and ultimately provide the necessary technologies to meet the goals of the VSE. This book, a review of the ETDP, is broadly supportive of the intent and goals of the VSE, and finds the ETDP is making progress towards the stated goals of technology development. However, the ETDP is operating within significant constraints which limit its ability to successfully accomplish those goals-the still dynamic nature of the Constellation Program requirements, the constraints imposed by a limited budget, the aggressive time scale of early technology deliverables, and the desire to fully employ the NASA workforce.

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies was asked by NASA and the Office of Management and Budget to perform an assessment of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise. The first such review, which began in early 2002, examined Pioneering Revolutionary Technology (now known as Mission and Science Measurement Technology). The assessment presented here, of the Aeronautics Technology Programs, began in early 2003 and is the second in the review series. The Aeronautics Technology Programs has three components: the Vehicle Systems Program, the Airspace Systems Program, and the Aviation Safety Program. To conduct this review, the NRC established three panels, one for each of the component programs. The NRC also established a parent committee, consisting of the chairman and a subset of members from each panel. The committee and panels comprised a cross-section of experts from industry, academia, and government and included senior-level managers and researchers in the aeronautics field. Biographical information on the committee and panel members is found in Appendix A. Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise: An Assessment of NASA's Aeronautics Technology Programs contains the committee's assessment of the Aeronautics Technology Programs. Chapter 1 presents a top-level assessment, and Chapters 2 through 4 provide the assessments of the Vehicle Systems Program, the Airspace Systems Program, and the Aviation Safety Program, respectively.

In the five decades since NASA was created, the agency has sustained its legacy from the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) in playing a major role in U.S. aeronautics research and has contributed substantially to United States preeminence in civil and military aviation. This preeminence has contributed significantly to the overall economy and balance of trade of the United States through the sales of aircraft throughout the world. NASA's contributions have included advanced flight control systems, de-icing devices, thrust-vectoring systems, wing fuselage drag reduction configurations, aircraft noise reduction, advanced transonic airfoil and winglet designs, and flight systems. Each of these contributions was successfully demonstrated through NASA flight research programs. Equally important, the aircraft industry would not have adopted these and similar advances without NASA flight demonstration on full-scale aircraft flying in an environment identical to that which the aircraft are to operate-in other words, flight research. Flight research is a tool, not a conclusion. It often informs simulation and modeling and wind tunnel testing. Aeronautics research does not follow a linear path from simulation to wind tunnels to flying an aircraft. The loss of flight research capabilities at NASA has therefore hindered the agency's ability to make progress throughout its aeronautics program by removing a primary tool for research. Recapturing NASA's Aeronautics Flight Research Capabilities discusses the motivation for NASA to pursue flight research, addressing the aspects of the committee's task such as identifying the challenges where research program success can be achieved most effectively through flight research. The report contains three case studies chosen to illustrate the state of NASA ARMD. These include the ERA program and the Fundamental Research Program's hypersonics and supersonics projects. Following these case studies, the report describes issues with the NASA ARMD organization and management and offers solutions. In addition, the chapter discusses current impediments to progress, including demonstrating relevancy to stakeholders, leadership, and the lack of focus relative to available resources. Recapturing NASA's Aeronautics Flight Research Capabilities concludes that the type and sophistication of flight research currently being conducted by NASA today is relatively low and that the agency's overall progress in aeronautics is severely constrained by its inability to actually advance its research projects to the flight research stage, a step that is vital to bridging the confidence gap. NASA has spent much effort protecting existing research projects conducted at low levels, but it has not been able to pursue most of these projects to the point where they actually produce anything useful. Without the ability to actually take flight, NASA's aeronautics research cannot progress, cannot make new discoveries, and cannot contribute to U.S. aerospace preeminence.

The Committee for the Review of NASA's Pioneering Revolutionary Technology (PRT) Program and its three supporting panels were charged by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) with assessing the overall scientific and technical quality of the PRT program and its component programs, along with their associated elements and individual research tasks. Major issues addressed in the review include (1) research portfolios, (2) research plans, (3) technical community connections, (4) methodologies, and (5) overall capabilities. As reflected in the organization of the report, a two-pronged assessment was developed. Each panel provided a detailed assessment of the program under its purview, which was refined and updated over the course of the review. The committee, composed mainly of representatives from each panel, integrated and evaluated the panel results and provided top-level advice on issues cutting across the entire PRT program.