MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST-CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
The National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street NW 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 project was conducted under Contract No. MDA972-01-D-001 from the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number: 0-309-08700-7
Available in limited supply from:
National Materials Advisory Board
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Copyright 2003 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 MATERIALS RESEARCH FOR DEFENSE AFTER NEXT
HARVEY SCHADLER (Chair),
General Electric Corporate Research and Development Center (retired), Schenectady, New York
ALAN LOVELACE (Vice Chair),
General Dynamics Corporation (retired), La Jolla, California
JAMES BASKERVILLE,
Bath Iron Works (General Dynamics), Bath, Maine
FEDERICO CAPASSO,
Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey (until June 2000)
MILLARD FIREBAUGH,
Electric Boat Corporation (General Dynamics), Groton, Connecticut
JOHN GASSNER,
U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center, Natick, Massachusetts
MICHAEL JAFFE,
New Jersey Center for Biomaterials and Medical Devices, Newark
FRANK KARASZ,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
HARRY A. LIPSITT,
Wright State University (emeritus), Dayton, Ohio
MEYYA MEYYAPPAN,
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
GEORGE PETERSON,
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (retired), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
JULIA M. PHILLIPS,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
RICHARD TRESSLER,
Pennsylvania State University (emeritus), University Park
Panel on Structural and Multifunctional Materials
HARRY A. LIPSITT (Chair),
Wright State University (emeritus), Dayton, Ohio
MILLARD FIREBAUGH (Vice Chair),
Electric Boat Corporation, Groton, Connecticut
MICHAEL I. BASKES,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
L. CATHERINE BRINSON,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
THOMAS W. EAGAR,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
RICHARD J. FARRIS,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
D. DAVID NEWLIN,
General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Michigan
GEORGE PETERSON,
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (retired), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
RICHARD TRESSLER,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Panel on Energy and Power Materials
JOHN GASSNER (Co-chair),
U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center, Natick, Massachusetts
JAMES BASKERVILLE (Co-chair),
Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine
DANIEL H. DOUGHTY,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
SOSSINA M. HAILE,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
ROBERT N. KATZ,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts
Panel on Electronic and Photonic Materials
JULIA M. PHILLIPS (Co-chair),
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
MEYYA MEYYAPPAN (Co-chair),
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
HAROLD G. CRAIGHEAD,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
NARSINGH B. SINGH,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, Linthicum, Maryland
MING C. WU,
University of California, Los Angeles
EDWARD ZELLERS,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Panel on Functional Organic and Hybrid Materials
FRANK KARASZ (Chair),
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
LISA KLEIN,
Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey
VINCENT D. McGINNISS,
Optimer Photonics, Columbus, Ohio
GARY E. WNEK,
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond
LUPING YU,
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Panel on Bioderived and Bioinspired Materials
MICHAEL JAFFE (Chair),
New Jersey Center for Biomaterials and Medical Devices, Newark
ILHAN AKSAY,
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
MARK ALPER,
University of California, Berkeley
PAUL CALVERT,
University of Arizona, Tucson
MAURO FERRARI,
Ohio State University, Columbus
ERIK VIIRRE,
University of California, San Diego
National Materials Advisory Board Liaisons
ROBERT C. PFAHL, JR.,
Motorola (retired), Glen Ellyn, Illinois
KENNETH L. REIFSNIDER,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg
EDGAR A. STARKE,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Government Liaisons
ROBERT POHANKA,
Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia
ROBERT L. RAPSON, U.S.
Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
LEWIS SLOTER,
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science and Technology), Washington, D.C.
DENNIS J. VIECHNICKI,
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
STEVEN WAX,
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia
National Materials Advisory Board Staff
ARUL MOZHI, Study Director
SHARON YEUNG DRESSEN, Program Officer (until July 2002)
JULIUS CHANG, Program Officer (until April 2002)
PAT WILLIAMS, Administrative Assistant
NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD
JULIA M. PHILLIPS (Chair),
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
JOHN ALLISON,
Ford Research Laboratories, Dearborn, Michigan
FIONA DOYLE,
University of California, Berkeley
THOMAS EAGAR,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
GARY FISCHMAN, Consultant,
Palatine, Illinois
HAMISH L. FRASER,
Ohio State University, Columbus
THOMAS S. HARTWICK,
TRW (retired), Snohomish, Washington
ALLAN J. JACOBSON,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas
SYLVIA M. JOHNSON,
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California
FRANK E. KARASZ,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
SHEILA F. KIA,
General Motors, Warren, Michigan
ENRIQUE LAVERNIA,
University of California, Davis
HARRY A. LIPSITT,
Wright State University (emeritus), Dayton, Ohio
TERRY LOWE,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
ALAN G. MILLER,
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington
ROBERT C. PFAHL, JR.,
National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative, Herndon, Virginia
HENRY J. RACK,
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
KENNETH L. REIFSNIDER,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg
T.S. SUDARSHAN,
Materials Modification, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia
JULIA WEERTMAN,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
National Materials Advisory Board Staff
TONI MARECHAUX, Director
Preface
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) requested that the National Research Council, through the National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB), conduct a study to identify and prioritize critical materials and processing research and development (R&D) that will be needed to meet 21st-century defense needs. The Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next was established to investigate investments in R&D required to meet long-term (~2020) DoD needs. Its purpose was to explore revolutionary materials concepts that would provide an advantage to U.S. forces in weapons, logistics, deployment, and cost.
The committee was charged to address the following specific tasks:
-
Review DoD planning documents and input from DoD systems development experts to identify long-term technical requirements for weapons system development and support.
-
Develop materials needs and priorities based on DoD requirements.
-
Establish and guide approximately five study panels to investigate identified priority areas and recommend specific research opportunities.
-
Integrate and prioritize the research opportunities recommended by the study panels.
-
Recommend ways to integrate materials and processes advances into new system designs.
The results of the initial phase, begun in December 1999, were documented in the January 2001 interim report.1 In that initial phase the committee (13 scientists and engineers) met with technical representatives of the military services and DoD agencies, directors of service laboratories, and managers of DoD agencies (see Appendix A for a list of invited speakers). The objective of those meetings was to understand DoD’s vision of current and future weapons, systems, and logistics requirements and its long-term cost targets. Although this aspect of the committee’s study was not exhaustive, learning the status of current R&D supported by DoD, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation provided a context for organizing subsequent meetings. The committee then met with materials experts from industry, academia, and national laboratories to identify research that could be brought to fruition in the 20- to 30-year time frame specified for the study. At a later meeting, the committee analyzed the data gathered and drafted the interim report.
In the next phase of the study, five technical panels were established (see Appendix B for the panel members’ biographies):
-
Structural and Multifunctional Materials,
-
Energy and Power Materials,
-
Electronic and Photonic Materials,
-
Functional Organic and Hybrid Materials, and
-
Bioderived and Bioinspired Materials.
These panels explored in depth the new opportunities in their areas of materials research and related them to DoD needs. Many of the concepts are still in their infancy. The questions the panels addressed were (1) What will be the impact of a successful materials R&D effort on future defense systems? and (2) How can the application of materials R&D be accelerated to meet DoD time constraints?
The organization of the panels by function encouraged technical experts to participate. Each panel was responsible for quantifying the impact of new materials and processes and for identifying technical roadblocks to their development. The technical panels were led by members of the study committee. NMAB liaisons to the study committee also served as
liaisons to the technical panels. This structure helped to ensure coherence of purpose, continuity of effort, and the rapid exchange of information.
We thank the committee and panel members for their participation in meetings and for their efforts and dedication in the preparation of this final report. We also thank the meeting speakers (listed in Appendix A) and participants and DoD study sponsors and liaisons, including Joseph Wells, Army Research Laboratory (retired), and Julie Christodoulou, Office of Naval Research. We thank the NMAB staff, especially Arul Mozhi, study director; Sharon Yeung Dressen, program officer; Julius Chang, program officer; Richard Chait, former staff director; Kevin Kyle, 2002 spring intern; Alan Lund, 2002 summer intern; Vikram Kaku, 2002 fall intern; and Pat Williams, administrative assistant.
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’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 participation in the review of this report:
Shaw Chen, University of Rochester;
David Clarke, University of California-Santa Barbara;
David Johnson, Jr., Agere Systems (retired);
David Kaplan, Tufts University;
James McBreen, Brookhaven National Laboratory;
Mark Reed, Yale University;
James Richardson, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies;
David Srolovitz, Princeton University;
Julia Weertman, Northwestern University;
Albert Westwood, Sandia National Laboratories (retired);
Mark Williams, National Energy Technology Laboratory; and
Yang Yang, University of California-Los Angeles.
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 George Dieter, University of Maryland. Appointed by the National Research Council, 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.
Comments and suggestions can be sent via e-mail to NMAB@nas.edu or by fax to (202) 334-3718.
Harvey Schadler, Chair
Alan Lovelace, Vice Chair
Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next
Figures and Tables
FIGURES
3-1 |
Schematic of materials and systems interactions through a series of models at various size scales, |
|||
4-1 |
Energy and power materials addressed by panels of the committee, |
|||
4-2 |
Ragone plot comparing nominal performance of batteries, electrochemical capacitors, and dielectric capacitors, |
|||
4-3 |
Schematic of a fuel cell, |
|||
4-4 |
Fossil-fuel-independent power generation in a fuel cell, |
|||
5-1 |
Relationships in the Future Combat System, |
|||
5-2 |
Generalized concept incorporating oscillators, filters, phase shifters, and circulators for a multilayer package with integrated circuits to improve quality and impedance matching, |
|||
5-3 |
Schematic of nanoscopic photonic integrated circuits made of photonic crystals, |
|||
6-1 |
Superconducting organic polymer, |
|||
6-2 |
Potential molecular wire material that takes advantage of σ bonds in polyorganosilane materials, |
|||
6-3 |
Molecular rectifier, |
|||
6-4 |
Representation of a polymer field-effect transistor, |
|||
6-5 |
Photonic devices in the telecommunications industry, |
6-6 |
Potential photonic components for incorporation into all- or hybrid-optical computers, |
|||
6-7 |
Basic structures of electro-optic chromophores, |
|||
6-8 |
EO polymer-chromophore waveguide electro-optical modulator or switch, |
|||
6-9 |
Potential military information gathering, analysis, and activation of another system, |
|||
6-10 |
Schematic representation of optical limiting and switching, |
|||
7-1 |
Schematic overview of subject matter and disciplines covered in this chapter, |
|||
7-2 |
Mechanical properties of natural and synthetic materials, |
|||
7-3 |
Calcite crystals grown on self-assembled monolayers on a patterned surface, |
|||
7-4 |
Tactile hairs on a spider leg, |
|||
C-1 |
Price-volume relationship for annual U.S. consumption of structural materials, |
|||
D-1 |
Military systems power requirements often follow a “step function,” so different power sources are needed for different applications, |
|||
D-2 |
Military versus commercial requirements for batteries, |
|||
D-3 |
Power versus energy density for selected mechanisms for electrical energy storage, |
|||
D-4 |
Is there room for improvement for energetic materials? Energy density per unit mass, |
|||
D-5 |
Schematic of a membrane reactor, using the water gas shift reaction as an example, |
|||
E-1 |
Electro-optic chromophore building blocks, |
|||
E-2 |
Typical electro-optic chromophore structures and their first molecular hyperpolarizability values, |
|||
E-3 |
Polymers and molecules used in preparing photorefractive composite films, |
|||
E-4 |
Functional photorefractive polymers, |
|||
E-5 |
Monolithic molecular photorefractive materials, |
|||
E-6 |
Photochromic switch, |
|||
E-7 |
Bead-on-a-thread molecular switch, |
E-8 |
The photo-induced electron transfer from a conjugated polymer (MEH-PPV) to C60, |
TABLES
3-1 |
Potential for Achieving Property Improvements of 20 to 25 Percent over Current State of the Art for Various Classes of Materials by 2020, |
|||
3-2 |
Market for Structural Materials, |
|||
3-3 |
Examples of Multifunctional Capabilities of Targeted Structural Materials, |
|||
3-4 |
Examples of Military Applications Likely to Benefit from Revolutionary Advances in Multifunctional Structural Materials, |
|||
4-1 |
Fuel Cell Types and Selected Features, |
|||
4-2 |
Comparison of Initial Performance of Macro Gas Turbines and of a MEMS Microturbine, |
|||
4-3 |
Properties of Armor Ceramics, |
|||
5-1 |
Microsystems for (Bio)chemical Targets, |
|||
6-1 |
Summary of Where Research Is Needed to Develop Practical Molecular Electronics, |
|||
6-2 |
Summary of Where Organic and Polymeric Materials Might Be Used in Military Photonic Devices in 2020, |
|||
7-1 |
Energy Density and Other Properties of Glucose, Compared with Chemicals More Commonly Considered for Producing Power, |
|||
7-2 |
Current Human Enhancements and the Materials Enhancements They Depend On, |
|||
7-3 |
Human Body Functions That Could Potentially Be Enhanced and the Materials Advances Required, |
|||
C-1 |
Typical Costs of a Fabricated Structure Made from Monolithic (Noncomposite) Materials, |
|||
C-2 |
Structural Materials Selection Based on Value of Weight Savings over the Life of a Structure, |