Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology Committee on Strategic Assessment of U.S. Aeronautics Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council
OCR for page R2
Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology 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 competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. 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. William 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. Kenneth I.Shine 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. William A.Wulf is chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This study was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract No. NASW-4938. 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. Available in limited supply from: Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, HA 292, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418. (202) 334–2855 Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF U.S. AERONAUTICS ROBERT G.LOEWY, chair, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta KATHY ABBOTT, Federal Aviation Administration, Hampton, Virginia EUGENE COVERT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge EARL DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina JOHN FABIAN, Analytic Services Inc. (retired), Port Ludlow, Washington ULF G.GORANSON, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington MICHAEL S.HUDSON, Rolls-Royce Allison, Indianapolis, Indiana CLYDE KIZER, Airbus Service Company, Herndon, Virginia DAVID MOWERY, University of California, Berkeley G.KEITH RICHEY, Universal Technology Corporation, Dayton, Ohio Staff ALAN ANGLEMAN, Study Director GEORGE M.LEVIN, Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board JENNIFER PINKERMAN, Assistant Study Director DOUGLAS BENNETT, Research Associate LINDA VOSS, Technical Writer CHRIS JONES, Administrative Assistant MARVIN WEEKS, Administrative Assistant
OCR for page R4
Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD WILLIAM W.HOOVER, chair, U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia A.DWIGHT ABBOTT, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California RUZENA BAJSCY, NAE, IOM, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia AARON COHEN, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station RAYMOND S.COLLADAY, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, Colorado DONALD C.FRASER, NAE, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland ROBERT C.GOETZ, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, California RICHARD GOLASZEWSKI, GRA Inc., Jenkintown, Pennsylvania JAMES M.GUYETTE, Rolls-Royce North American, Reston, Virginia FREDERICK HAUCK, AXA Space, Bethesda, Maryland BENJAMIN HUBERMAN, Huberman Consulting Group, Washington, D.C. JOHN K.LAUBER, Airbus Service Company, Miami Springs, Florida DAVA J.NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge JAMES G.O’CONNOR, NAE, Pratt & Whitney (retired), Coventry, Connecticut GEORGE SPRINGER, NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California KATHRYN C.THORNTON, University of Virginia, Charlottesville DIANNE S.WILEY, Northrop Grumman, Pico Rivera, California RAY A.WILLIAMSON, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Staff GEORGE M.LEVIN, Director
OCR for page R5
Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology Preface In 1999, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) commissioned the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) of the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a four-month evaluation of the U.S. aeronautics program. Accordingly, an ad hoc Committee on Strategic Assessment of U.S. Aeronautics was convened to assess recent trends in the U.S. aeronautics research and technology (R&T) program. The assessment included work supported by government agencies and industry. The resulting report contains a summary of the information collected by the committee, findings on the impact of program trends on current programs, and recommendations for enhancing their effectiveness. The complete statement of task appears in Appendix B. As specified in the statement of task, the intent of this study was to provide a timely review of national support of R&T in traditional aeronautics. Traditional aeronautics was defined as including both fixed- and rotary-wing aviation but excluding space operations, space launch and reentry, and some of the new air-breathing hybrid technologies proposed for hypersonic entry into space flight. Time constraints limited data collection and analysis and precluded site visits. In addition, NASA, which supplied much of the data upon which the committee based its deliberations, provided data that focused on topics of highest priority to NASA. In some cases, the priorities reflected in the statement of task had changed by the time the committee first met. The findings and recommendations of the committee, therefore, relied heavily on the collective knowledge, expertise, and judgment of the committee members and their combined experience. Also, the committee was unable to respond to all elements of the statement of task as thoroughly as it would have liked. For example, the committee did not obtain adequate information on how funds have been allocated to government, industry, and university researchers, and it was limited in its ability to undertake a comparable assessment of foreign investment in aeronautics R&T because of difficulty in obtaining relevant data. The committee also did not obtain enough information to develop a comprehensive view of the current content of aeronautics R&T programs, and so it made no findings in this area. 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 authors and the NRC in making the 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 content of 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: Alexander Flax, Aerospace Consultant John Hansman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
OCR for page R6
Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology Hans Mark, Department of Defense James Mattice, Universal Technology Corporation Brian Rowe, GE Aircraft Engines Robert Spitzer, The Boeing Company Gregory Tassey, National Institute of Science and Technology Ronald Yates, U.S. Air Force (retired) While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the NRC. The committee is grateful to everyone who supported this study, especially those who took the time to participate in committee meetings (see Appendix C). Robert G.Loewy, Chairman Committee on Strategic Assessment of U.S. Aeronautics
OCR for page R7
Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology Contents A STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 1 Symptoms of a Serious National Problem, 1 A Clear Influence: Trends in Aeronautics Research and Technology, 5 Likely Consequences if Trends are not Reversed, 11 Recommendations, 14 APPENDICES A ADDITIONAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 Impact of Aeronautics on National Security, 17 Impact of Aeronautics on the National Economy, 17 Impact of Aeronautics on the Quality of Life, 18 Globalization, 18 Impact of Industry Consolidation, 20 Aeronautics as a “Mature Industry”, 20 B STATEMENT OF TASK 23 C STUDY PARTICIPANTS 24 ACRONYMS 25
OCR for page R8
Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology Tables, Figures, and Boxes TABLE 1 Economic Impact of the Aeronautics Industry-1999, 18 FIGURES 1 Market shares of international aerospace manufacturing, 2 2 European vs. U.S. orders for large commercial transport aircraft, 3 3 Aeronautics sales history, 4 4 Total R&D performed by industry as a percentage of net sales, 6 5 Aeronautics industry trends, 1988–1997, 7 6 NASA aeronautics and R&D funding history, 8 7 Department of Defense aeronautics R&T funding (total and fixed wing vehicles), 9 8 Public support for European Union aerospace R&D, 10 9 Trade balance by industry, 1997, 12 10 Projected world aircraft market by segment: 1999–2008, 13 11 Percentage of the U.S. population that has flown commercially, 19 12 On-time rate for U.S. Air Force airlift missions during the 1999 Balkan Campaign, 22 BOX 1 NASA’s Aeronautics Goals, 16