2009 September 21497

September 2009
A P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F A E R O N A U T I C S A N D A S T R O N A U T I C S
EASA: Moving toward proactive regulation
A conversation with Edward Weiler
FLYING
greener skies
COVER
More efficient airframes and engines and fuels derived from plants like jatropha and camelina may help lessen our
dependence on fossil fuels and allow the planet to breathe a bit more easily. Cover design by Fitzgerald Art & Design.
FEATURES
DEPARTMENTS
Aerospace America (ISSN 0740-722X) is published monthly by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. at 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Va. 20191-4344 [703/264-7577].
Subscription rate is 50% of dues for AIAA members (and is not deductible therefrom). Nonmember subscription price: U.S. and Canada, $163, foreign, $200. Single copies $20 each.
Postmaster: Send address changes and subscription orders to address above, attention AIAA Customer Service, 703/264-7500. Periodical postage paid at Herndon, VA, and at additional
mailing offices. Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., all rights reserved. The name Aerospace America is registered by the AIAA in the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office. 40,000 copies of this issue printed. This is Volume 47, No. 8.
EDITORIAL 3
The promise of thinking green.
INTERNATIONAL BEAT 4
A blueprint for defense cooperation.
WASHINGTONWATCH 8
Waiting for new directions.
CONVERSATIONS 12
With Edward J. Weiler.
AIRCRAFT UPDATE 16
Jetliners wait for hard times.
EYE ONELECTRONICS 20
JSF sensors: Dominant and delayed.
OUT OFTHE PAST 44
CAREER OPPORTUNITIES 46
September 2009
AIAA Meeting Schedule B2
AIAA Courses andTraining Program B4
AIAA News B5
Meeting Program B14
BULLETIN
Page 20
Page 4
Page 24
Page 32
Page 38
MILITARY AVIATIONGOES GREEN 24
The combination of alternative fuels,even more efficient engines, and airframe
changes should result in greater fuel efficiency.
by Mark J. Lewis
FUELINGTHE GREENAIRPLANE 32
Efforts to develop environmentally friendly fuels are yielding results, with more
and more airlines making successful flights using new biofuel blends.
by Frank Sietzen Jr.
EASA: MOVINGTOWARDPROACTIVE REGULATION 38
Working hand in hand with both manufacturers and airlines, EASAa goal is to
make flying Europes skies as safe as possible.
by Philip Butterworth-Hayes
Aerospace America
ENTERS THE DIGITAL AGE!
September 2009
Why Go Digital?
t5JNFMJOFTTPG%FMJWFSZ
t1PSUBCJMJUZ
t"DDFTTJCJMJUZ
t&OWJSPONFOUBM
'SJFOEMJOFTT
t4FBSDIBCJMJUZ
ti*O5FYUw)5.--JOLT
T
imes change, and Aerospace America is changing
with them. Beginning in September, AIAA will offer
a digital version of the magazine. This mirror image
of the print version offers several added benets:
Easy to use and search.
Instant electronic delivery.
No more wondering where your favorite issue is
youll never lose an issue again.
Want more information on an article? Click the
hyperlinks for further information.
Aerospace America will never be further away than
your personal computing device no more wishing
you had remembered to bring the print copy with you.
A M E R I C A
09-04572
.FNCFST To access the digital magazine, visit www.aiaa.org/myaiaa and log in. After
logging in, click the Aerospace America graphic on the top right to link to the digital version.
*OUFSOBUJPOBMNFNCFST Remember to visit www.aiaa.org/internationalprint if you wish to
continue to receive the print version after December 2009.
In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty
was generated at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, held
in Rio de Janeiro. Five years later, the more commonly known follow-up Kyoto
Accord was adopted, and as of January 2009, ratied by 183 parties. The treaty
and follow-up protocol committed most of the signatories to greenhouse gas emis-
sion reductions, most notably carbon dioxide, of varying degrees over the course
of time.
Today, more than 10 years later, debate continues as to the causes and
effects of climate change, especially with regard to anthropogenic contribu-
tions. Critics say the science is faulty; proponents point to the receding polar
icecaps as a bellwether of a planet in increasing peril. The debate will continue,
as we develop more and more efficient measurement tools and a deeper under-
standing of the Earth as an ecosystem.
In all of the studies of greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on cli-
mate change, aviation has always been considered to be a minor contributor.
But the sheer numbers of aircraft, both civil and military, filling the skies, and
the altitudes at which they fly, mean that they have significant impact. Aircraft
burn fossil fuels; those fuels emit carbon dioxide directly into the atmosphere.
Those fuels are also expensive, nonrenewable, and, to a great extent, hold
us hostage to foreign interests. So the growing research into the development
of alternative fuels is of great value in its own right, leaving aside the increas-
ingly heated climate change debate. Bio-derived fuels, particularly those derived
from non-food stocks; methanol; ethanol; liquid hydrogen; and synthetics may
provide the means for escaping the current chokehold oil has on the industry
and our economy. Not one is the silver bullet; they all require further study and,
frankly, more moneyat least for now.
But as we develop new fuels, particularly ones that require little or no mod-
ifications to existing engines, the potential for savings both monetary and envi-
ronmental is great. Another economic plus is the development of a new indus-
tryfarms for these stocks, for example, and refineries for processing them.
And while developing new fuels that are engine-friendly is a plus, develop-
ing new, even more fuel-efficient engines may yield even greater gains. This
effort presents great challengestodays engines are incredibly efficient ma-
chines. But several manufacturers, along with the Air Force Research Labora-
tory, are attempting to do just that.
Modifying airframes for maximum aerodynamic efficiency will also con-
tribute to the reduction in fuel consumption. Even minor changes, such as the
addition of winglets to an aircrafts wing, result in fuel savings, as might lighter
weight materials. And the Air Force, in particular, is also looking at more dra-
matic modifications, such as the blended wing, down the line.
Each of these efforts, individually, is a plus for the future of aviation and
our economy. Taken together, they are also a plus for our planet.
Elaine Camhi
Editor-in-Chief
is a publication of the American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Elaine J. Camhi
Editor-in-Chief
Patricia Jefferson
Associate Editor
Greg Wilson
Production Editor
Jerry Grey, Editor-at-Large
Christine Williams, Editor AIAA Bulletin
Correspondents
Robert F. Dorr, Washington
Philip Butterworth-Hayes, Europe
Michael Westlake, Hong Kong
Contributing Writers
Richard Aboulafia, John Binder, James
W. Canan, Marco Cceres, Edward Flinn,
Tom Jones, Tho Pirard, David Rockwell,
Frank Sietzen, J.R. Wilson
Fitzgerald Art & Design
Art Direction and Design
Craig Byl, Manufacturing and Distribution
David W. Thompson, President
Robert S. Dickman, Publisher
STEERING COMMITTEE
Michael B Bragg, University of Illinois;
Philip Hattis, Draper Laboratory; Mark S
Maurice, AFOSR; Laura McGill, Raytheon;
George Muellner, Boeing; Merri Sanchez,
National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion; Mary Snitch, Lockheed Martin
EDITORIAL BOARD
Ned Allen, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics;
Jean-Michel Contant, EADS; Eugene
Covert, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy; L.S. Skip Fletcher, Texas A&M Uni-
versity; Michael Francis, United Technologies;
Christian Mari, Teuchos; Cam Martin,
NASA Dryden; Don Richardson, Donrich
Research; Douglas Yazell, Honeywell
ADVERTISING
National Display and Classified:
Robert Silverstein, 240.498.9674
rsilverstein@AdSalesExperts.net
West Coast Display: Greg Cruse,
949.361.1870 / gcruse@AdSalesExperts.net
Send materials to Craig Byl, AIAA, 1801
Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA
20191-4344. Changes of address should be
sent to Customer Service at the same address,
by e-mail at custserv@aiaa.org, or by fax at
703/264-7606.
Send Letters to the Editor to Elaine Camhi
at the same address or elainec@aiaa.org
September 2009, Vol. 47, No. 8
The promise of thinkinggreen

Institutional cooperation began in 1952 with
the launch of the Nordic Council, comprising 87
elected members of the member countries
respective parliaments. This was followed in
1971 by the establishment of the Nordic Council
of Ministers, which has become the main insti-
tution for intergovernmental cooperation. One
of the results of this cooperation has been the
establishment of an integrated labor market
that in many respects sets the agenda for the
development of the EU internal market.
In aerospace and defense, the countries
despite different political and military affilia-
tionsare building increasingly close ties.
For example, Denmark, Sweden, and Nor-
way set up the worlds first transnational flag-
carrier airline in 1946, when Denmarks Det
Danske Luftfartselskab, Swedens Svensk In-
terkontinental Lufttrafik, and Norways Det
Norske Luftfartselskap were merged to create
SAS Airlines. More recently, Swedens Luft-
fartsverket and Denmarks NAVIAIR air naviga-
tion service providers created a single upper
airspace area managed by a single center in
the Swedish city of Malm. This should pro-
duce savings of 10.2 million over the current
system and a 27% increase in capacity once the
center is put into operation.
A more wide-ranging North European
ANS Providers (NEAP) cooperation will develop
common operating practices and systems to
support air navigation services in Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, and Estonia.
In 2008 Sweden, Finland, Norway, Ireland,
and Estonia created the Nordic Battlegroup of
around 2,800 soldiers to support EU foreign
and security policies. This was slightly unusual
in that it did not contain EU member Denmark
which has opted out of the EU common for-
eign and security policybut it did contain
Norway, which is not an EU member state.
Moreover, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Ice-
land, and Finland have set up their own com-
mon research and development area called
NORIA, the Nordic Research and Innovation
Area, with research agencies and universities
working to commonly agreed technology re-
search aims.
Institutional and defense cooperation in Nordic states
4 AEROSPACE AMERICA/SEPTEMBER 2009
THERE IS ONE SURE WAY TODEFINE A COUNTRYS
position in the world, in terms of its
technical capabilities, political afliations
and military intentlook at the type of
front-line ghter it chooses.
In June, Denmarks Defense Minister
Sren Gade announced that he was
postponing a decision on whether to re-
place the countrys eet of 48 Lockheed
Martin F-16s with either Saab JAS-39
Gripens or Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters.
The choice will have major implica-
tions not just for Denmark and the com-
panies involved but for the entire north-
ern European area. The Nordic countries
(Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland,
and Iceland) have for decades offered the
blueprint for how neighboring countries
with different political afliations can co-
operate in a wide range of aerospace,
aviation, and defense issues. The institu-
tional arrangements for cooperation
among the Nordic states have formed
the basis, in many areas, for the way the
European Union has evolved.
Challenges and collaborations
Beyond the key issues of capability,
price, and support for its domestic aero-
space industry, the Danish defense min-
istry, in considering a choice between
the Gripen and JSF, will have to consider
a number of complex and evolving chal-
lenges. For instance, there are new
threats of instability in the Baltic and Arc-
tic areas, and new commitments to in-
ternational peace-keeping missions. To
meet these challenges the Nordic states
have embarked on a new policy of de-
fense collaboration that will take the pro-
cess further and deeper than anywhere
else in the world.
In May defense ministers from the
Nordic countries met in Kotka, Finland,
to discuss ways to streamline and im-
prove cooperation. So far cooperation
has centered on three agreements: the
1994 Nordic Armaments Cooperation
(NORDAC), the 1997 Nordic Coordi-
nated Arrangement for Military Peace
Support (NORDCAPS), and the 2008
Nordic Supportive Defense Structures
(NORDSUP).
NORDAC was formed when Den-
mark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden
agreed to a closer cooperation on arma-
ments development and procurement
the countries have cooperated on pro-
curing helicopters, armored infantry
combat vehicles, artillery-locating radars,
and armored wheeled vehicles as part of
the agreement. NORDCAPS was organ-
ized to coordinate Nordic capabilities
within U.N. and other peacekeeping op-
erations. NORDSUP encompasses more
wide-ranging cooperation in defense re-
lated areas, such as procurement of de-
fense materiel, armed forces education,
and defense research.
Under the May 2009 agreement, a
new cooperative structure will be in
place starting January 2010, integrating
these different areas. The new structure
follows a report on improving coopera-
tion between the countries drawn up by
former Norwegian foreign minister
Thorvald Stoltenberg earlier this year,
and generally regarded as the blueprint
for closer cooperation. (For more infor-
mation see: http://www.regjerigenno/
en/dep/ud/press/News/2009/nord
icreport.html?id=545325.)
According to a joint ministerial state-
ment following the Kotka meeting, the
Ministers decided to merge the previ-
ously separate arrangements into one
comprehensive structure that comprises
defense policy, capability development,
and crisis management operations. The
goal since the last ministerial in Novem-
ber 2008 has been to create one stream-
lined, effectively working, and yet clear
and simple structure.
According to Stoltenberg, the large
and steadily increasing costs associated
with the procurement of modern de-
fense technology may mean the size
Ablueprint for defensecooperation
of certain units may fall below a critical
limit, and in such a situation it is natural
that small countries should consider co-
operating on, for example, procurement,
maintenance, exercises, and education.
The alternative to cooperation could be
a situation where small and medium-
sized countries lose their ability to main-
tain a credible defense. The result could
The Danes will have to consider a wide gamut of issues in choosing between the F-35 and the JAS Gripen.
NORDIC COUNTRY AFFILIATIONS ANDFIGHTER CHOICES
Country Population Affiliations Fighter aircraft
Denmark 5.4 million NATO, EU, with an opt-out on membership in the Euro and Lockheed Martin F-16
the EUs foreign and security policy
Finland 5.3 million EU Boeing F/A-18
Norway 4.8 million NATO Lockheed Martin F-16;
F-35 planned as a replacement
Sweden 9.2 million EU Saab JAS-39
be a Europe where only countries like
France, Russia, the U.K., and Germany
have their own modern defense forces.
Looking 15 to 20 years down the road,
none of the Nordic countries will be able
to maintain their armed forces at their
current size and quality without closer
Nordic cooperation.
Stoltenberg has proposed a joint ap-
proach to military transport operations
and procurement, a combined military
medical unit, joint education and training
for military personnel, wider cooperation
on equipment purchasing, joint use of
exercise ranges, and the establishment
of a Nordic amphibious unit.
In terms of military transport: The
goal should be to establish a combined
command unit, to which the Nordic
countries would make available elements
that would form part of a Nordic trans-
port unit, according to Stoltenberg. It
would pave the way for joint procure-
ment and joint negotiations for the pur-
chase of transport capacity.
In June Nordic foreign ministers met
in Reykjavik to discuss the Stoltenberg
report further. They agreed that, as mat-
ters of priority, new cooperative efforts
should be made to provide operational
air surveillance assistance to Iceland, the
development of a civilian maritime and
environmental surveillance system, and
the development of new search and res-
cue options for the Arctic and high north
areas. They will seek to enlarge this co-
operative to include other Baltic states.
These partners, however, do have
slightly different strategic defense priori-
ties. Norway and Finland have long bor-
ders with Russia and new concerns
about Russian military activities in the
high north and Arctic areas.
In general, Finland is privileged to
be located in one of the safest corners of
the world, said Finnish Minister of De-
fense Jyri Hkmies speaking in Wash-
ington in June 2009. However, given
our geographical location, the three
main security challenges for Finland to-
AEROSPACE AMERICA/SEPTEMBER 2009 5
Finland is updating its F-18s.
day are Russia, Russia, and Russia. And
not only for Finland, but for all of us.
Russia will continue to be a strong re-
gional actor in the High North. Strategic
importance of the Kola Peninsula will
wake up Russian military interests from
their decade-long hibernation, as is at-
tested by the Russian bombers showing
up again in the sea areas around Iceland
and northern Scotland. After the well-
publicized expedition to the North Pole,
the Russian interest in the polar areas is
clear, and the Baltic Sea is getting all the
more important in the next few years as
one of the main routes for Russian en-
ergy exports.
Choosing the next fighter
Finland and Norway rely on U.S. front-
line ghters. Finlands F/A-18 Hornets
are in the middle of a midlife update pro-
gram, and the government is discussing
with the U.S. gaining access to further
military technology. The Norwegian gov-
ernment has already decided to replace
its F-16 with the F-35, and its aerospace
industry is now deeply embedded in the
JSF program. In July, Northrop Grum-
man selected Norways Kongsberg to be
as a strategic partner in the program,
producing carbon ber components.
For Sweden and Denmark, their im-
mediate focus is more closely tied to the
Baltic and improving security arrange-
ments with other Baltic states such as Es-
tonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Denmark
ies the F-16, which was bought as part
of a joint arms purchase with three other
NATO countries: Norway, Netherlands,
and Belgium. It is coming under increas-
ing pressure to choose the Swedish-built
Saab Gripen for its F-16 replacement.
The Danish and Swedish defense min-
istries have signed a memorandum of
understanding regarding Gripen, which
includes the development of work on the
aircraft for the Gripen DK Team.
Danish Aerotech A/S and Saab AB
have agreed to a cooperative agreement
worth up to DK 200 million if Denmark
decides to purchase the Gripen. Danish
Aerotech is expecting to supply Saab
with mechanical, electrical and electronic
components as part of the new coopera-
tion agreement.
But the Danish government has also
invested millions of kroner in the JSF
program, and six Danish companies
E. Falck Schmidt, IFAD, Infocom Sys-
tems, Maersk Data, Systematic, and
Termahave established the Danish JSF
Team (JSFDK) to support Denmarks
continued participation in the develop-
ment and production of JSF.
Hence, the Danish government has
a series of complex issues to consider be-
fore it reaches a decision on a new front-
line ghter. So far, front-line aircraft pro-
curement has remained outside the
growing list of areas in which Nordic
countries have agreed to cooperate. But
both Gripen and the JSF have been de-
veloped to operate within a network-en-
abled communications environment in
which aircraft operators share data and
Events Calendar
SEPT. 14-17
AIAA Space 2009 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, Calif.
Contact: 703/264-7500
SEPT. 20-24
Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures, and Intelligent Systems, Oxnard, Calif.
Contact: Prof. Diann Brei, 248/891-9275; dibrei@umich.edu
SEPT. 21-23
Ninth AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference;
and Aircraft Noise and Emissions Reduction Symposium. Hilton Head, S.C.
Contact: 703/264-7500
SEPT. 22-24
Sixth AIAA Biennial National Forum on Weapon System Effectiveness,
Tucson, Ariz.
Contact: 703/264-7500
OCT. 1-2
Resolving Uncertainties in Airframe Noise Testing and CAA Code
Validation, Bucharest, Romania.
Contact: L. Koop, lars.koop@dlr.de
OCT. 12-16
Sixtieth International Astronautical Congress: Space for Sustainable
Peace and Progress, Daejeon, Korea.
Contact: http://iac2009.kr/
OCT. 19-22
Sixteenth AIAA/DLR/DGLR International Space Planes and Hypersonic
Systems and Technologies Conference, Bremen, Germany.
Contact: 703/264-7500
OCT. 21-22
International Symposium of Personal and Commercial Spaceflight,
Las Cruces, N.M.
Contact: www.ispcs.com
OCT. 25-29
IEEE/AIAA 28th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Orlando, Fla.
Contact: T. Redling, 903/457-7822; thomas.j.redling@l-3com.com
OCT. 26-28
Eighteenth International Meshing Roundtable, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Contact: Jacqueline Hunter, 505/284-6969; jafinle@sandia.gov
NOV. 3-6
NDIA Aircraft Combat Survivability Symposium, Monterey, Calif.
Contact: Meredith Geary, 703/247-9476; mgeary@ndia.org
All letters addressed to the editor are considered to be submitted for possible publication, unless
it is expressly stated otherwise. All letters are subject to editing for length and to author response.
Letters should be sent to: Correspondence, Aerospace America, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive,
Suite 500, Reston, VA 20191-4344, or by e-mail to: elainec@aiaa.org.
The editorial Asking the right ques-
tions (June, page 3) deserves comment.
We have an irrational, unreasonable,
and illogical space policy. Why?
It is irrational, unreasonable, and il-
logical to retire the space shuttle before
we have a replacement vehicle.
It is irrational, unreasonable, and il-
logical to return to the Moon or venture
to Mars before we have efcient ad-
vanced performance rocket engines
(APREs) to perform these missions.
It was premature, and irresponsible,
of the previous administration to man-
date that NASA return to the Moon and
venture to Mars.
A commission, headed by Mr. Au-
gustine, is reviewing whether we should
continue this policy using the premature
Ares vehicle or change to a comparably
inefcient, but extant, evolved expend-
able vehicle. Neither is appropriate, be-
cause both are inefcient and therefore
more costly than they should be.
There is also a large group of rocket
cognoscenti who believe existing rocket
engines, operating with fuel-rich mixture
ratios, are the ultimate in rocket engine
technology. They are misinformed. This
may be why the space shuttle was never
improved or upgraded.
Everyone should know that stoichio-
metric mixture ratios are optimum. It is a
fallacy that fuel-rich mixture ratios are
optimum, because no energy is obtained
from unused hydrogen. For every pound
of unused hydrogen carried aloft 50,000
Btu of energy are lost. Unused hydrogen
uses energy to increase its potential en-
ergy level to the potential of the rest of
the mixture. Enthalpy lost to the unused
hydrogen, in Btus per second, is equal to
specic heat times the difference in tem-
perature between the mixture and the
liquid hydrogen times the weight of ex-
cess hydrogen delivered per second.
Consequently, the greater the excess
hydrogen there is, the less energy re-
mains available that can be converted
into kinetic energy.
command/control functions with land,
sea, and other airborne platforms. For
the Nordic concept of shared defense as-
sets to function fully, neighboring coun-
tries will soon have to develop newor
evolve existingnetwork-enabled com-
munications systems.
It will take just a little longer to un-
derstand whether the process of inte-
grating automated airborne communica-
tions systems within a common Nordic
network will favor a U.S. or a European
ghter platform.
Philip Butterworth-Hayes
Brighton, U.K.
phayes@mistral.co.uk
The argument that density is less for
fuel-rich mixture ratios, is also a fallacy.
Density is a function of the specic heat
ratio times pressure divided by the gas
constant and temperature.
Temperature is a maximum for stoi-
chiometric mixture ratios, and density is
therefore minimum even though pres-
sure also increases with mixture ratio.
Because efcient APREs use less
fuel, the fuel weight is less, and the cost
is less. Because less fuel is used, the fuel
tanks are smaller. Because the tanks are
smaller, they weigh less, cost less, and
have less aerodynamic drag. This means
APREs will put a greater payload in orbit
at lesser cost. One half pound of payload
is gained for each pound of weight saved
on the vehicle. This is the benet of de-
veloping APREs. They will maintain the
U.S. leadership in space, and are a valid
reason for the expenditure of public
funds. APREs are the future of rocketry.
U.S. space policy should be to develop
APREs, operating at stoichiometric mix-
ture ratios, before we do anything else.
In the interest of full disclosure, I sub-
mitted my name to be a candidate for
the position of the NASA administrator.
Dale L. Jensen
JENTEC
A hot rod for the solar system (July-

August, page 38) provided a useful de-
scription of the VASIMR engine. Read-
ers may also want to understand why it
is useful. Higher specic impulse is bet-
ter, right? Not always! Chemical combus-
tion rockets are thrust limited. Many en-
gines for use in space, however, are
power limited. The power supply really
is the largest part of the propulsion sys-
tem for solar-electric propulsion, for ex-
ample. When such engines are used in
deep space, high specic impulse is
good. Near a planet, however, where
gravity is high, the thrust is important.
Higher thrust can reduce the gravity
losses. With limited power, higher spe-
cic impulse leads to lower thrust. The
VASIMR is unique in that it can operate
over a range of specic impulse values,
allowing the specic impulse to be se-
lected at the optimum at each point in
the mission.
James A. Martin
Huntington Beach, Calif.
Some Scandinavian nations have already replaced their aging F-16 fleet.
MANY IN WASHINGTON WHO WONDER WHAT
lies ahead for human spaceight are
looking not to NASAs new boss but to a
retired aerospace executive. Norman
Augustine is head of a presidential com-
mittee that has been reviewing options
for NASAs future and was to present a
nal report by this month.
As soon as the Senate conrmed re-
tired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles F.
Bolden as NASA administrator on July
15, it became apparent that neither the
White House nor the agency would be
making any major space policy pro-
nouncements in advance of the commis-
sions ndings. The Senate also con-
rmed Lori B. Garver as NASA deputy
administrator.
Bolden and Garver took ofce at a
Washington moment when spaceight
was in the news. The 16-day STS-127
mission by the shuttle Endeavor, which
launched from Cape Canaveral July 15
after a near-record ve postponements,
was proceeding smoothly. At the same
time, the nations capital was alive with
festivities to mark the 40th anniversary
of the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
on July 20, 1969. The new NASA lead-
ers came onto the national stage eager
to talk but apparently unsure what deci-
sions the White House would be asking
them to support.
Upon taking ofce, Bolden
said, If we choose to lead, we
must build on our investment
in the international space sta-
tion, accelerate development
of our next-generation launch
systems to enable expansion
of human exploration, en-
hance NASAs capability to
study Earths environment,
lead space science to new
achievements, continue cut-
ting-edge aeronautics research,
support the innovation of
American entrepreneurs, and
inspire a rising generation of
boys and girls to seek careers
in science, technology, engi-
neering, and math.
It was no accident that the
new administrator began with If. Pres-
ident Barack Obama had said very early
in his presidential campaign that he
would scale down the plan to build a new
family of manned spacecraft to replace
the shuttle, which now has only six re-
maining ights before retirement. After
he became the Democratic nominee,
candidate Obama reversed himself, in
part because of urging by Sen. Bill Nel-
son (D-Fla.), but as president he has said
little about space policy.
At a rare public meeting of Apollo
11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz
Aldrin, and Michael Collins, several
spaceight veterans expressed exaspera-
tion at how little progress the nation has
made since journeys to the Moon ended.
Aldrin is urging the U.S. to bypass the
Moon now by immediately mounting an
expedition to Mars. Yet even the future
of human travel to LEO seemed uncer-
tain during a summer when the nation
grappled with economic woes.
Were working every day on this,
said an engineer assigned to Constella-
tion, the NASA program to develop a
next-generation human spaceight vehi-
cle. But when we start work on Mon-
day, we dont know whether well be
here next Monday.
All eyes are on Augustine. His panel
was to offer different scenarios concern-
ing Constellation, possible alternatives,
or getting the U.S. out of human space-
ight entirely.
At a press conference, Augustine
said that when President John F.
Kennedy set the goal of putting an
American on the Moon, Congress and
the executive branch gave their full sup-
port. More important, said Augustine,
Kennedys pledge was backed up by
Waitingfor newdirections
On the eve of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11s first human
landing on the Moon, Apollo 11 crew members Buzz Aldrin, Mike
Collins, and Neil Armstrong and NASA Mission Control creator
Chris Kraft gathered at the National Air and Space Museum.
Photo courtesy NASA/Bill Ingalls.
Charles F. Bolden and Lori B. Garver
in 2015. But some at NASA headquar-
ters still wonder what marching orders
they will be following once Augustines
review is completed.
F-22 comes to a halt
A historic juncture was reached July 21
when a 58-40 Senate vote killed future
procurement of the F-22 Raptor super-
ghter. The outcome had been anything
but assured, even hours before the vote,
and was hyped as a victory for President
Obama and Defense Secretary Robert
Gates. In a giant stretch, some Washing-
ton observers said the vote was a sign
the president would succeed with other
dramatic changes, including his show-
case health care plan.
Obama had threatened to veto the
$679.8-billion FY10 defense spending
bill if it included money for additional
F-22s. No president has ever vetoed a
defense spending measure, so the threat
was seen as a sign of the White Houses
seriousness on the issue. Obama and
Gates had support from both sides of the
aisle, including from Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.), in seeking to end F-22 produc-
tion. Its the rarest occasion when a ma-
ture weapons system, with all the con-
tracts and subcontracts, is terminated by
the Congress of the United States, said
McCain in a statement.
F-22 supporters such as Sen. Saxby
Chambliss (R-Ga.) said the stealth, su-
percruise, and air-to-air maneuverability
of the aircraft would be needed in future
peer wars with modern nation-states.
They argued that ending assembly of the
aircraft would have an impact on
44,000 jobs in 44 states.
A deployment of F-22s to Kadena
Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, had begun
in May and was continuing smoothly in
midsummer. Col. Kenneth S. Wilsbach,
the commander at Kadena, said the
show of force in the neighborhood of a
newly militant North Korea demon-
strated that the F-22 can operate suc-
cessfully overseas. F-22 pilots fought
mock air-to-air combat against Kadenas
F-15C Eagles, Japan Air Self-Defense
Force F-15Js, and U.S. Navy F/A-
18E/F Super Hornets. Observers said
the F-22s defeated all comers.
But the ghter has never been used
in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other U.S.
conict. And critics were armed with a
new Pentagon report citing the planes
poor mission-capable rate of 62.9%,
its ying cost of $44,000 an hour versus
$29,000 for an Eagle, its 30 hr of main-
tenance for each hour of ight, and
problems with its stealth coating.
F-35 looms larger
Curtailing the F-22 makes the F-35
Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter more im-
portant than ever. The administration
has long assumed the JSF would com-
pensate for an abridged F-22 eet. The
JSF is a versatile aircraft, less than half
the total cost of the F-22, and can be
produced in quantity with all the advan-
tages produced by economies of scale
some 500 will be bought over the next
ve years, more than 2,400 over the life
of the program, Gates said in a speech
in July.
Barring some unexpected change,
production of the F-22 will end with de-
livery of the 187th aircraft in 2012. Bar-
ring a change in its purchasing plans, the
Navy will receive its 493rd and last F/A-
18E/F Super Hornet the same year. If
both go out of production, JSF will be-
come the only ghter assembled in the
U.S. Twenty-six production lines turned
out ghters in this country in 1955.
Defense analyst and former test pilot
Chuck Davis says the end to the F-22
debate is good reason for a new analy-
sis of the strengths and weaknesses of
the JSF. When Vietnam-era Defense
Secretary Robert S. McNamara died July
6, some in Washington remembered
him for the Tactical Fighter Experimen-
tal (TFX), a 1960s aircraft program that
had the ambitious goal of operating from
the Air Forces bases on land and the
Navys carriers at sea. Davis says it is
impossible to overlook the obvious his-
torical comparison between the TFX of
1963 and todays JSF, which has the
budget organizations and by the budget
itself. It was really a national commitment.
Augustine said that recent presidents
and Capitol Hill lawmakers have been
less willing to spend public funds to
match space goals. Polls show that the
American public now has less interest in
spaceight, and even that the decline be-
gan while the nal Apollo missions were
being own.
That puts NASA in a terrible posi-
tion, Augustine continued. We [must]
have a budget that underpins [what] we
set out to do. Anything else, I think, is a
disservice.
Bolden told CBS News he is con-
dent the Augustine review will not result
in changes that would lengthen the pro-
jected ve-year gap between next years
ending of shuttle operations and the de-
but of a new rocket system to replace it
Norman Augustine
Sen. John McMain
In a close vote, the Senate decided to kill future
procurement of the F-22.
Air Force, the F-35B short takeoff verti-
cal landing, or S/TOVL, version for the
Marine Corps and British forces, and the
carrier-based F-35C for the Navy. The
services are now forming JSF training
squadrons to operate under the 33rd
Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB in the Florida
panhandle.
But after 20 years of developmental
work, no JSF is operational, and the
Navy F-35C version has not own yet.
Some analysts argue that high-mainte-
nance stealth features are not needed
and that they compromise JSF capabili-
ties by requiring the aircraft to carry its
armament internally. But apart from its
stealth coating, the JSF promises to be
the easiest plane to maintain in the Air
Force eet. It will be easier to work with
than any previous U.S. ghter, said
British aviation analyst Jon Lake in a
telephone interview.
Proponents say production of up to
4,000 JSFs, including export versions,
will keep the cost down and ensure a
constant inux of new ideas as the plane
progresses. Detractors say TFX should
have taught us that multirole aircraft de-
mand too many engineering compro-
mises, ending with an aircraft that does
not perform any mission well.
JSF critics were handed new ammu-
nition when the press focused on a DOD
Joint Estimate Team (JET) study that
showed the JSF is two years behind in its
developmental schedule. The aircraft
wont be able to move out of [its] devel-
opment phase and into full production
until 2016, wrote Josh Rogin of Con-
gressional Quarterly. Far from meeting a
schedule of 317 test ights a year by the
end of 2009, Rogin wrote, only about
30 had been completed at midyear.
The JET is not the gospel, re-
sponded Gates public affairs spokesman
Geoff Morrell, who also called the report
new old news. Morrell said the study is
based on data from September 2008
and is but one view, albeit an important
one, of our testing program. Too late
for it to make any difference, F-22 pro-
ponents such as Chambliss point out
that the Pentagon panels pessimistic
view of JSF was not publicly released un-
til after the F-22 vote and might have al-
tered the outcome of the program had it
been known earlier. Robert F. Dorr
robert.f.dorr@cox.net
Although some growing pains still exist, the F-35 has clearly become the fighter of the future.
The JSF is intended for both missions.
John Gresham, a military consultant,
says JSF represents a good job of de-
veloping various technologies for differ-
ent missions. He says the F-35 will be
especially good for the Navy, which
wants for a state-of-the-art, stealth attack
aircraft.
The JSF program uses a template as
the basis for three very different air-
planes, the conventional F-35A for the
role of performing several missions for
several branches of the armed forces.
Davis is not certain the JSF can ll a
gap left by the F-22. Reecting the view
of many in Washington, he says the Pen-
tagon would be better advised to develop
single-mission warplanes, such as a hy-
pothetical replacement for the A-10
Thunderbolt II close-support aircraft for
air-to-ground combat only, or for the F-
15C Eagle for air-to-air combat only.
33
o
45.2' N
84
o
23.5' W
Where
manufacturing
companies go
to become
gIobaI Ieaders
Discover Georgia, and find where manufacturers of everythinQ from cars to carpetinQ Qo to succeed. OnIy
GeorQia has Ouick Start, a no-cost workforce traininQ and recruitinQ proQram that is ranked number one in the U.S. A
pro-business cIimate has Qenerated more than $23 biIIion in exports annuaIIy. !t is easy to see why more than 2,5DD
internationaIIy owned faciIities representinQ 53 countries are aIready Iocated in GeorQia. To Qet your bearinQs, caII
404.962.4122 or visit www.georgia.orgJmanufacturing.
want priorities on these programs. I
want for the rst time for the Moon to be
thrown into the mix. Because we do sci-
ence, but if we are going to spend
money on the Moon it has to be scien-
tically justied and more important than
Mars, or Europa, or comets. Because
Im taking my priorities from the na-
tional academy.
So for the rst time, the current lu-
nar program is going to be in the mix.
And Ill have to weigh that against all
other areas. Because I want to know,
what good science do I do at the Moon,
and is it more important than Europa,
Titan, Venus, Mercury. Thats the im-
portant question.
Well, some would say that they need
the lunar data to help design the Con-
stellation lunar spacecraftis that not
justication enough?
Thats an excellent point. Three
previous AAs [associate administrators]
asked, what do you
need from us scien-
tists? And all three
AAs have said the
same thing: Lunar
Reconnai ssance
Orbiter [LRO]. And
therefore any other robotic missions to
the Moon must be justied on science.
Will the science directorate be in-
volved in the archiving or distribution
of the images taken by the LRO?
Ive seen some of the blogs on that
issue! Its not an SMD [Science Mission
Directorate] mission. It does become our
mission after one year. Then we will take
over the mission and do all of the sci-
ence we can do with the mission at that
point. So right now, it is an Exploration
System Mission Directorate mission.
Howimportant was the recent Hubble
repair, and how did it change the fu-
ture of the telescope?
Theres an example of us actually
doing something the academy told us to
do! I would encourage all people to pull
out the astronomy decadal survey from
2001 and look at what they say about
servicing Hubble. The academy actually
wrote this report in 2004, when it looked
like there would be only one more servic-
ing mission, the SM4 mission. Their ex-
act words were, We urge NASA to do
one more servicing mission, and try to
keep the telescope going to 2010.
Luckily we have actually pulled off
the last servicing mission, and were go-
ing to keep it going to 2015. I am proud
to say we are going to do more than the
academy asked us to do.
Howdo the telescopes capabilities to-
day compare to those of the rst years
after its rst repair in 1993?
Wow, its a different telescope. But
it still has only a 2.4-m mirror. That
were stuck with. But because of ad-
vances in detectors and technology, its
probably [improved] by a factor of 10 or
more in terms of eld of viewmore ca-
pable than it originally was. And cer-
tainly we opened up new wavelengths
the advanced camera and WIFPIC [wide
eld and planetary camera] have more
sensitivity and larger elds of view. But
how you measure elds of view versus
sensitivity is up to the author. Theres no
question that Hubble is far more capable
today than in 1993, or in 1997.
But this is the last repair mission?
The last repair mission certainly for
Hubble.
Any prospect for another servicing
mission with Orion?
You have to evaluate the cost of an
Orion servicing mission. First of all, you
have to put servicing capability on the
Orion. Who pays for that? If the science
community has to pay for that, my own
What are NASAs science priorities?
Well, its not my prioritieswe take
our priorities from the National Acad-
emy of Sciences. Thats the highest
world of science. My priorities are to do
as much as we can do of their decadal
surveys, from those various NAS com-
mittees. Were trying to get JWST
[James Webb Space Telescope] launched
soon. Trying to get MSL [Mars Science
Laboratory] off the ground. Were trying
to nd a way that we can afford Europa,
which is the highest priority of the previ-
ous planetary decadal survey. But thats
a real problem.
Why is that?
Because a lot of expectations were
created in the planetary community in
the last few years for which there was no
money. Im still trying to dig out from
that problem. So right now, without help
from some other entity, well have a
hard time doing Europa before 2010.
And even that will require some surgery
to the current planetary program. Luck-
ily, we have two decadal [surveys] up and
running nowthe astrophysics decadal,
which will report out in 2010, and a
planetary decadal, which will report out
in 2011. Ive talked to the two chairs of
those surveys and told them they have to
give me an executable programdont
give me a list of billion-dollar missions if I
dont have that much money.
This is especially a problem in plan-
etary. It has a very large program expec-
tation, but we dont have the budget for
that expectation. Theyve got things like
the New Frontiers missions, like the Dis-
covery missions, theyve got a Mars pro-
gram. We have the outer planets we
have to do. Theyve got a lunar program
that was added last year. Now thats
great to have all these things, but we
dont have a budget to support all of
these programs.
So what can you do?
I have talked with Steve Squyres
[principal investigator of the Mars Explo-
ration Rover mission] and said, listen, I
EdwardJ.Weiler
"So for the first time, the current lunar
programis going to be in the mix. And Ill
have to weigh that against all other areas."
opinion is the academy is not going to
recommend we service Hubble again,
once they evaluate the cost. I mean,
Hubble has been fantastic for us scien-
tistsbecause we used OPM.
Whats that?
Other peoples money. Think about
it: The shuttle and Hubble were unique.
They were a merging of the human and
robotic science programs at an early
stage. The shuttle grew up with require-
ments from Hubble. Keep the bay clean,
robotic arms. And luckily the human side
paid for all of that. They paid for astro-
nauts, they paid for training the astro-
nauts, and they paid for launches. Hub-
ble has been a fantastic deal for
scientists. You really dont want to start
adding up the full cost accounting of all
those shuttle launches, all that servicing
capability, and that entire infrastructure.
It was a great deal for us.
But we live in a new world now. We
have full cost accountingwe pay for
launches, so all of that has to be evalu-
ated. And the trouble is, people who are
throwing out ideas for more servicing for
Hubble are not taking what I just said
into account. Whos going to pay for it?
And is there a business case for it? Now,
Hubble should last another ve, six,
seven years. By then well have JWST.
What is the status of the James Webb
Space Telescope project?
Were currently looking at a June
2014 launch. Were in Phase Cit sur-
vived its transformation into a develop-
ment program. There are a lot of techni-
cal milestones that have to be met. But
were running through them. Were over
the hump of peak funding. So its going
to start coming down. But the tough part
starts now. We have all this hardware
coming together.
Why wasnt the JWST designed to use
the on-orbit repair experience gained
from the Hubble servicing missions?
For a very simple reason. People
should remember that Hubble has lasted
19 years, but we really have only gotten
10 years of data out of it. Youll say
wowwhy is that? Its because it is in
low Earth orbit. Its target is blocked half
of every orbit. Hubble only operates in a
50% or less target mode. So only on
50% of every orbit is Hubble actually
gathering data.
You might ask if servicing was such
a great idea. Why is it that, of the 88
missions weve got in orbit or under de-
velopment, only one of them is service-
able? Its because that decision was
made back in the 80s. You ought to talk
to Charlie Pellerin, who was my boss
and made a fundamental decision that
there would be no servicing after Hub-
ble. Chandra was not made serviceable.
GRO was not made to be serviced. And
because of that they were allowed to go
into a much higher orbitChandra is in
a highly elliptical orbit and is close to
100% efcient.
There are a couple of reasons why
JWST wasnt made for servicing. Well
get to costs in a minute. Because making
something serviceable costs a lot of
money. JWST is an infrared telescope. It
requires extremely cold temperatures
30 K, thats 30 degrees above absolute
zero. The Earth is a huge source of in-
frared radiation. You cannot do JWST
science in Earth orbit, but [you can] way
out from that infrared source. Thats one
reasona technical reason. And a very
important one.
Interviewby Frank Sietzen
staff. He joined Princeton in 1976 and was
based at NASA Goddard as the director of
science operations for Copernicus.
Weiler received his Ph.D. in astrophysics
fromNorthwestern University in 1976.
For his role in the Hubble science program,
he was awarded the NASA Outstanding
Leadership Medal and the1994 Presidential
Rank Award of Meritorious Executive.
Other awards include the NASA Exceptional
Service Medal (1991), two additional NASA
Outstanding Leadership Medals (2002,
2004), the NASA
Distinguished Service
Medal (2000),
a second
Presidential
Rank Award
of Meritorious
Executive (2002),
and the
Presidential
Rank Award of
Distinguished
Executive
(1999).
Edward J. Weiler became associate
administrator of NASAs Science Mission
Directorate in May 2008. He had been
named as interimhead in March 2008 from
his position as director of Goddard Space
Flight Center, where he had assumed
leadership in August 2004.
Earlier, beginning in 1998, he had served as
the associate administrator for NASAs
Space Science Enterprise. His tenure had
numerous successes, including the Chandra,
NEAR, MAP, FUSE, Spitzer, Mars Odyssey, and
Mars Exploration Rover missions.
Previously, Weiler served as the
director of the Astronomical Search
for Origins Programat NASA
Headquarters. He also served as
chief scientist for the Hubble Space
Telescope from1979 until 1998.
Weiler joined NASA Headquarters in
1978 as a staff scientist and was
promoted to chief of the Ultraviolet/
Visible and Gravitational Astrophysics
Division in 1979.
Before joining NASA, he was a member of
the Princeton University research
The second reason is efciency.
JWST at L2 [the second Lagrange point]
doubles the observing time. About 100%
efciency. Youre looking at targets
100% of the time. The Earth is not get-
ting in the way. And the third reason, of
course, is cost. It might look like a nice
idea on the viewgraphs, but when you
get into the fundamental engineering
and the complications and the cost,
thats probably why Charlie Pellerin de-
cided a long time ago not to make
spacecraft serviceable.
So where does the Hubble experience
t in the designs of new spacecraft?
There are some people who said,
oh, were going to lose all of this capa-
bility. Well, I watch TV and NASA Se-
lect. I see astronauts in spacesuits servic-
ing all the timeputting on solar arrays,
rewiring things. There is a lot of servic-
ing going on beyond Hubble; we have
EVAs on the space station all the time. I
would think that would grow in the fu-
ture, as we get more astronauts up
there. And of course tools, the experi-
ence of making tools. Guys, weve got a
multibillion-dollar investment up thereI
think there are things to do.
Whats the status of your Mars pro-
gram and the Mars Science Lab?
That program has been delayed.
While its not good news, it shows that
there is management at headquarters
despite what some people think. Back in
the late summer [of 2008] I had been
here for only three or four months. We
got the cost overrun on Mars. They said
okay, we still think we can make 2009
[launch], but
well know for
sure by Janu-
ary. I asked
the question, at what point will you
reach a time where youll not be able to
stay within your budget for that scal
year? Because trying to get budgets to
change in the scal year youre in cre-
ates havoc in budget land.
So January was the drop-dead date.
JPL wanted to have a major review. We
here in SMD said thats a nice plan, but
just in case, because this program has
not had a history of milestones, we want
to put weekly milestones on it. Thats
weekly. Were going to monitor them
here. Thats unusual for headquarters.
And guess what? By about the week
before Thanksgiving it was clear were
starting to slip. JPL did their own review
over the week of Thanksgiving. So we
had a decision in early December that
were not going to make the launch.
Were not going to spend extra money
trying to make a launch. Because the
worst possible thing would be to keep
working towards launch (that launch date
would have cost literally $100 million in
that scal year). The worst scenario
would be to blow another $100 million,
get to August or September and stop
were not going to make itthen have to
slip two years. So we made the decision
not to spend one extra penny, and to ba-
sically back off two years.
Of course, that means its going to
cost $400 million-$500 million because
of the launch slip. So if theres any good
news at all, it is that it will not cost that
plus another extra $100 million. And so
thats how we got to that decision. Now
were in a mode for 2011 and still have
weekly or biweekly milestones that were
monitoring. Theoretically we should not
have to do that, because we have plenty
of reserves, right?
What technical problems put you in
that position?
Too many technologies all having to
t together. The optimistic assumptions
that contractors could build things and
make them work the rst time at cryo-
genic tempera-
tures, Mars tem-
peratures. Too
many things
coming together. What I see is a pro-
gram that started out and had a budget
that was based on a lot of hope. Hope is
not a management tool. Or a budgeting
tool, either.
The bottom line is you have a
$2-billion mission, youve already spent
70% of that money. How do you cancel
it? Or should it be canceled? Thats a
tough call. Thats not a call I will make. I
would get the view of the scientic com-
munity. I dont like to get one persons
opinionI like to hear from experts who
are there because of their expertise. And
their answer was to keep going.
How do you apply those lessons to
other NASA science missions?
Ive already applied those lessons. I
inherited an outer planets program that
was going to launch to Europe in 2016
and cost $2 billion. When I walked in
this door, that was the plan. And I said,
who on Earth thinks that an outer plan-
ets mission with RTGs can go into the
worst radiation environment in the solar
system for $2 billion? Thats half as
much as Cassini.
And sure enough, when we did in-
dependent reviews, the answer came
back [that] its more like three or four bil-
lion, if you do it right. Thats when I said
we cant do it in 2016. I will not start
programs on unrealistic budgets. Im not
God and [cant] just say I think Europa
should cost $2 billion. If you want to do
the science that the national academy
says we should do, then damn it, you
should nd out what it really costs and
not start until you are ready.
So the Mars problems have raised
your budget skepticism?
My budget skepticism has always
been there. Around here my most fa-
mous quote is, when I get a pre-Phase-A
cost, I multiply by pi! That basic hu-
man desire to be optimistic has perme-
ated all of these pre-Phase-A costs. Im
not really criticizing people, but people
tend to be humanand optimistic. Im
not telling NASA we should do missions
for what a bunch of optimists say, when
all they are is a bunch of PowerPoint
viewgraphs. Anybody who believes pre-
Phase-A costs, I have a bridge Id like to
sell them in Alaska.
What is your planned schedule for a
Mars sample return mission?
Mars sample return was another ex-
ample of lessons learned. Originally, it
was going to be done in 2018-2020 in
Hope is not a management tool.
the budget I walked in on. I said gee,
thats interesting, and for $3 billion.
Again, I had some independent reviews
done. Turns out more like $6 billion-$8
billion; which I think is low. I recognized
that a conuence of a bunch of things
happened. I was having my annual bilat-
eral meeting with my ESA counterpart.
We were meeting in Annapolis. This was
just as the MSL overrun was hitting last
summer.
Thats when I found out that MSL
was really $6 billion-$8 billion, which
was not a surprise. And Im looking at
the budgets remaining in the Mars pro-
gram, which were cut to help pay for
other programs. It dawned on me that
we really dont have a Mars program
anymore. We once had a Mars program
that was dedicated to do a launch every
two years.
We and ESA reached a joint conclu-
sion: We each want to do the same sci-
ence. I mean, its not a surprise, since
western Europe is not that different from
America. And neither of us has the
budget to do all of the stuff we want, and
neither of us has the budget to do a Mars
sample return on our own. Why dont
we get our scientists together, even if
you have to force them, and say maybe
its time to understand that our expecta-
tions on both sides of the Atlantic have
gotten so big that no mission is less than
a billion dollars anymore? And the holy
grail of Mars is a sample return mission.
Were going to have to do that together.
Maybe we ought to back off for the
present, and maybe we ought to archi-
tect a program to do that mission to-
gether. Not 50-50, because somebody
has to be in charge of every mission.
Why not look at programs that are 60-
40, or 40-60, because you can take our
two inadequate budgets and put them to-
gether, and youd have a fairly adequate
budget and a responsible program.
So we set off on that course, a hand-
shake basically. No MOU or statement.
That was in early 2009, and the culmina-
tion of where we are is that [in mid-2009]
in Plymouth, England, for our bilateral
meeting, one of the major topics is, do
we have program that we can put to-
gether for a 2016-2018-2020 Mars
sample return? And I dont know where
we will be at the end of that meeting.
"Anybody who believes pre-Phase-Acosts,
I have a bridge Id like to sell themin Alaska.
BY ANY MARKET HEALTH INDICATOR, JETLINER
production is long overdue for a signi-
cant fall. Looking at the broader econ-
omy, and at airline trafc, airline prots,
and the prices and availability of used
planes, this is a market that simply does
not need new aircraft. In fact, capacity
reductions among most major airlines in-
dicate a need for accelerated retire-
ments, not a continuation of record-level
jet production.
Yet both Airbus and Boeing continue
to insist that demand justies these high
rates. The likely reason for this insis-
tence involves broader economic uncer-
tainty. It is easy to nd possible signs of a
recovery, even as all meaningful indica-
tors stay bad. It is also easy for manufac-
turers to take solace in record backlogs
despite their lack of rmness.
Signs of hope (or not)
Any discussion of air travel demand, and
therefore jetliner demand, must start
with acknowledging that we are in the
worst economic situation since the jet
age began. There is no disguising the
magnitude of the world economic down-
turn. Until April, the International Mone-
tary Fund had tentatively forecast that
the world economy would grow at a
0.5% pace this year. But that has since
been revised, with expectations now of a
1.4% shrinkage. This means that 2009
will be the rst year without world eco-
nomic growth since WW II.
One thing that is becoming clear is
that the cause of this downturna devas-
tating near-collapse of credit markets and
nancial liquiditywas a discrete event.
Similar shocks may lie ahead, but the cri-
sis that led the worlds economy to its
current condition ended sometime in the
rst quarter of this year. But the timing of
a recovery, let alone a return to eco-
nomic growth, remains quite uncertain.
It is quite possible that the world
faces a prolonged period of structural re-
adjustment, with much lower levels of
growth for the next ve years or longer.
Several prominent economists and com-
mentators have stated the risk of this de-
velopment at about 20%. But nobody
believes that a depression of this magni-
tude is a baseline scenario. Rather, what
we are dealing with is an unusually dif-
cult cyclical downturn.
On the positive side, it is possible the
economy is better than it appears to be,
and that we will enjoy a faster than ex-
pected recovery. The last two recessions
were relatively briefboth the 1992 and
2001 downturns lasted a mere eight
months each. But the difference this
time goes beyond the mere severity of
the numbers. The previous two were
classic business cycle downturns, with
consumer and corporate demand placed
on hold and inventories built down. This
time, in addition to a massive inventory
build-down (evidenced by record air
cargo shipment reductions), we also
have a serious process of de-leveraging.
The amount of money available for in-
vestment has been severely curtailed.
Government stimulus programs, in the
U.S. and other countries, are nowhere
near enough to compensate for the fall-
off in private-sector investment cash.
As a result, this downturn has al-
ready become the longest since the
Great Depression of the 1930s. So far
(starting in early 2008 and through the
rst quarter of 2009), the net worth of
U.S. citizens has fallen by over $12 tril-
lion, almost 20%.
False starts likely
One characteristic of this business cycle
will likely be high volatility and numerous
false start recoveries. Stock markets,
especially in the U.S., have made con-
siderable gains since the precipitous
drops of late 2008 and early 2009. Also
important, corporate prots have made
a slight recovery. However, the compo-
sition of these prots tells a different
story. The only increase in prots has
Jetliners wait for hardtimes
Image courtesy www.AviationExplorer.com
come from a recovery in the nancial
sector. Some of that increase is related
to the arrival of government funds, such
as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or
TARP. Some of the recovery is also likely
due to the sectors recovery from a wave
of bankruptcies in the previous quarter.
By contrast, the manufacturing sec-
tor, what some term the Main Street
economy, is still under heavy pressure,
and manufacturing prots are still falling.
Slack demand is still translating into
lower sales. Unemployment is still rising,
pushing 10% in the U.S. There is talk of
another stimulus package, but in many
sectors there is still overcapacity, and it
is difcult to identify any particular
growth drivers in sight.
Government intervention is also
prompting growth elsewhere, with un-
certain sustainability. In July, China said
that its economy grew by 7.9% in the
second quarter of this year. But much of
this was due to a $585-billion stimulus
spending package.
Another reason to suspect that talk
of a recovery might be premature con-
cerns inventory build-downs. The Inter-
national Air Transport Association (IATA)
reports that year-over-year air cargo de-
mand, as measured in freight ton kilo-
meters, fell by over 20% starting in each
month from December through April. In
May, it declined a mere 17%. Also in
May, orders for durable goods rose 1.8%
from the previous month, a welcome af-
rmation of slightly greater demand.
However, it is important to note that af-
ter an unprecedented destocking of in-
ventories, there had to be at least a small
recovery after warehouses were com-
pletely emptied. It is quite possible that
the only good news story here involves a
slight easing of credit, helping to facili-
tate orders for goods.
Another problem that will likely hob-
ble the recovery is stagationslack de-
mand coupled with high costs for com-
modities and other key goods. The best
example of this is oil, whose price has
been growing at rates completely discon-
nected from world economic numbers.
The price of oil, of course, is the most
important variable cost for the airline in-
dustry. And compounding its relatively
high price is market volatility, whose
severity has helped to inhibit effective
price hedging.
Assuming a baseline scenario of a
longer-than-usual three-year recession
that began in late 2007 or early 2008,
we can expect world economic growth
to remain negative or weak through the
rest of 2009, and much of 2010. This
means travel demand will remain ane-
mic, with no hope for this year and only
sluggish growth in 2010.
Unpleasant numbers
Airline losses can best be described as
grievous. In 2008 the industry lost
15-20% in passenger trafc volume,
and well over 20% in value (the greater
value drop is attributable to ticket dis-
counting, another unpleasant develop-
ment). Typically, economy class travel is
more sensitive to a nancial downturn,
and premium numbers hold up better.
Because premium trafc is the source of
most airline prot, this aberration from
the norm is having a terrible impact on
the industry.
It is also noteworthy that this down-
turn, unlike the last one, offers no identi-
able safe havens. Even the fast-growth
Mideast carriers have seen some recent
market softness, with unprecedented
Market value in09 $billions
$80
60
40
20
0
Units Value
Units delivered
COMMERCIAL JETLINERS HISTORY ANDFORECAST
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1999 192001 1 92003 2 2005 20 2007 2009 04 2011 202013 6 2015 20 2017
$10.4 billion, and it is on course to lose
about the same amount this year. Al-
though some of these losses are due to
bankruptcies and other isolated prob-
lems, it is also quite clear that almost no-
body is making money in this business.
Although passenger travel demand
has not fallen as fast as the awful cargo
numbers, it has been hit hard. For the
past ve months of this year, demand
has declined about 7.7% year over year.
There are no signs of improvement
May demand fell 9.3% year over year.
The type of trafc that has fallen off
is also quite disconcerting. Business and
premium travel numbers are off by about
trafc numbers, with a 2.8% decline last
September. Russia, India, and China are
no longer beacons of hope. And this
time, low-cost carriers are not serving as
new trafc stimulants, as they did in
2001-2003.
With a market environment like this,
the only way airlines have been able to
avoid a nancial catastrophe is by merci-
lessly cutting capacity. Through May,
IATA member airline capacity had been
reduced 3.9% relative to the same period
last year. These cuts have not been deep
enough to avoid the terrible losses cited
above, so clearly additional capacity must
be eliminated.
Asset values and lease rates are
falling, particularly for slightly older
equipment. And, of course, orders have
completely collapsed. In 2005-2008,
Airbus and Boeing together booked a to-
tal of 8,099 rm orders. As of halfway
through this year, Boeing had scored a
single order, net of cancellations. Air-
buss total was 68.
In short, there is not a single industry
indicator that can be viewed as positive.
If there are indeed green shoots in the
broader economy, they have not trans-
lated into air travel demand. Jetliners are
the ultimate lagging indicator of world
economic health.
With capacity shrinking and the air-
line industry losing money, and with lim-
ited prospects of resurgent economic
growth producing air travel demand any-
time soon, all hopes for sustaining deliv-
eries lie with getting rid of the existing
eet. Last year, over 1,100 jets were
parked. As of mid-June, there were over
those older jets. Thus, ironically, govern-
ment money will be used in ways that
hurt some of the nancial institutions
that have needed government money for
bailouts.
Bizarrely, many executives and com-
mentators have blamed inadequate -
nancing for the industrys woes, implying
that they would be bringing on new
planes despite the awful market environ-
ment. Yet even with this nancial distor-
tion, much of the airline industry is talk-
ing of order deferrals, even when there
is a nancial penalty for not taking deliv-
ery of a jet.
Yet deliveries continue at a record
pace. Because of the 2008 Boeing jet
strike, deliveries this year will increase
relative to 2008 even if rates stay the
same. While production schedules have
undergone a few minor adjustments,
they primarily affect 2010 deliveries.
Therefore, output this year will easily ex-
ceed 900 jets for the two primes.
To a certain extent, Airbus and Boe-
ing are actually being rational by main-
taining high production rates. Inadequate
supply chain capacity can suppress jet
production in good times, and if the two
companies think the world economy will
make a strong return to growth in 2010,
it makes sense to stay the course. They
do not want suppliers to cut capacity.
Nonetheless, at the Paris Air Show
in July, many suppliers were quite wary,
and several implied that they were ex-
2,400 parked jets. This includes 837 rel-
atively new and competitive models, up
from 266 just 18 months ago. Yet the
industry will soon run out of obsolete jets
to retire. Indeed, many airlines are start-
ing to park some relatively new equip-
ment, such as 737 classics or 15-year-
old A320s. This too is contributing to
declining asset values and lease rates.
It is possible, however, that this pro-
cess of driving out used planes with new
models will stay intact for articial rea-
sons. U.S. and European governments,
through their export credit agencies
(ECAs), are increasing their support for
jetliner nance to an unprecedented ex-
tent, providing funding when airlines,
private banks, lessors, and manufactur-
ers balk. ECAs on both sides of the At-
lantic have announced they are prepared
to double the support they provided in
2008. As long as U.S. and European
government credit ratings stay intact, it
is quite possible that government money
will become the cash source for as much
as half of the transactions in the busi-
ness. This would broadly mirror the
cash-for-clunkers subsidies provided to
the automobile industryexcept in this
case, many of the aircraft being replaced
are far from clunkers.
In short, it is quite possible the gov-
ernment money will contribute to indus-
try overcapacity and the premature ob-
solescence of existing equipment. This
will hurt the leasing companies that own
Deliveries Net Orders
Number of aircraft
All Airbus and Boeing aircraft
2,800
2,400
2,000
1,600
1,200
800
400
0
1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2009f
HISTORICAL JETLINER ORDERS ANDDELIVERIES
pecting signicant production cuts start-
ing in 2010. They too are quite rational.
If they see little hope of that fast recov-
ery, then there is much to be lost from
having inventory, workforce, and a plant
that is suddenly idle.
No help fromthe backlog
One certainty is that sustaining produc-
tion rates depends on an economic re-
covery and greater travel demand, and
has no relation to the much-touted back-
log of unlled orders. The two big primes
alone have over 7,000 jetsseven years
of production at current rateson rm
order. Airbus CEO Tom Enders said at
the Paris Air Show that even if 1,000 jet
orders were canceled, Airbus would still
have years of production at current
rates. Both manufacturers have spoken
of overbooked backlogs, at least in the
near term, implying that they could eas-
ily compensate for demand softness
among some customers.
But in practical terms, this means lit-
tle. The backlog, like the market, tends
to behave as a surprisingly cohesive en-
tity. At the last market peak (January
2001) there were 3,200 jets on backlog;
at the bottom of the last market trough
(January 2003) there were 2,700. That
modest reduction was more than ac-
counted for by deliveries. Only 80 can-
cellations were recorded in 2002/2003,
so the core backlog remained intact.
Still, production rates fell by 30%.
Airlines deferred en masse, and the back-
log did nothing to protect the industry
from the recessions impact. It is a sim-
ple and timeless equation: When airlines
make money, they order planes. If air-
lines keep making money, they take de-
livery of those planes.
Assuming, therefore, that this back-
log has no bearing on keeping produc-
tion rates up in an economic downturn,
and also assuming that there is no recov-
ery imminent, it is a safe bet that 2009
will be the peak of the market. Some-
time later this year, the manufacturers
will announce production rate drops in
2010. Our forecast calls for narrowbody
production rates to fall by about 30%,
with a trough year in 2012. The twin
aisle products, however, will likely stay
intact, because international trafc will
probably recover faster than domestic
markets. Twin aisle numbers will also be
boosted by the technological stimulant of
new product developments, particularly
Boeings 787 and Airbuss A350 XWB.
Of course, paying for these new jets,
and the associated engines and other
components, is also a drain on Airbus,
Boeing, and supplier resources. The
need to keep revenue high to fund these
products is arguably the biggest single
factor that could keep jetliner production
rates at higher levels than market de-
mand justies. Richard Aboulafia
Teal Group
raboulafia@tealgroup.com
IN THE DETECTION AND PRECISION STRIKE
wars of today and likely tomorrow, West-
ern European and U.S. air forces no
longer rely on large numbers of plat-
forms or weight of bombs. Few reason-
able people consider peer competitor
dogghts or large-scale ghter-to-ghter
shoot-outs a possibility (although all air
forces still train for them).
Instead, the tooth-to-tail ratio has
shrunk: Dozens of support aircraftair-
borne early warning (AWACS/E-2C),
SIGINT (RC-135/EP-3), electronic war-
fare (EA-6B), tankersprecede and fol-
low just a few precision bomb carriers (F-
15, F-16, F/A-18). The next generation
is already in development or production
SIGINT (ACS/EP-X), AEW (MESA/E-
2D), EW (EA-18G), tankersbut only
Lockheed Martins F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter is planned as nearly everyones
next-generation tooth aircraft. Most of
the support aircraft procurements will be
for a few dozen aircraft each, but JSF is
expected to sell in the thousands.
Why JSF? It is the worlds only true
next-generation ghter, with a fully inte-
grated sensor suite and stealth. The Euro-
ghter/Rafale/Gripen/F-22 programs
were all begun during the 1980s. The
JSFs integrated radar/electrooptical/
EW sensor suite will allow undreamed of
coordination of multispectral RF/EO de-
tection and targeting, sharing antennas
and C4I. Stealth will provide a huge ad-
vantage for strike missions; for the rst
time, the fewer bomb-carriers may not
need as many support aircraft.
Although not faster or better in tradi-
tional ghter terms, the JSFs incredibly
sophisticated integrated electronics and
sensors will guarantee lifetime mission
superiority and constant upgradesper-
haps for 50 years or more.
First we will consider the JSFs three
primary sensors, for electrooptics, radar,
and electronic warfare, followed by a dis-
cussion of why many believe the JSF
story as advertised is all a bit too good to
be true. My forecasts are based on a
much less optimistic ramp-up of JSF
production rates than the DOD and
Lockheed Martin are planning. But this
articles title says dominant and de-
layed, not dominant or delayed, be-
cause although I believe production will
be delayed, funding will not be, and JSF
sensors will dominate the ghter elec-
tronics market for decades to come.
Electrooptics
The JSF EO suite is a fully integrated
system comprising a distributed aperture
missile warning/situational awareness/
IRST (infrared search and track) suite
Northrop Grummans distributed aper-
ture system (DAS)and a targeting FLIR
(forward-looking infrared)Lockheed
Martins electrooptical targeting system
(EOTS). My forecast of the total ghter
aircraft EO market shows how dominant
this program will be when in full-rate
production, worth more than $1 billion
annually by later next decade.
missile warning in the lower hemisphere.
EOTS shares more than 50% identical
hardware with Lockheed Martins Sniper
pod (the second most valuable EO pro-
gram in our forecast); most of the re-
mainder involve different software and
repackaged Sniper submodules to be
carried in the JSF nose.
In June 2007, EOTS made its rst
test ight, aboard a specially congured
Sabreliner aircraft. Testing continued
through 2007, followed by Phase II
aboard the Cooperative Avionics Test
Bed (CATB) aircraft in 2008, and Phase
III aboard a JSF. Ten EOTS systems
were being built for SDD (system devel-
opment and demonstration).
In January Lockheed Martin com-
pleted the rst JSF with a complete mis-
sion system, including DAS/EOTS, the
AN/APG-81 radar, and some EW com-
ponents. It carries Block 0.5 mission sys-
tems software, which incorporates more
than half of the combat-ready Block 3
software (the nal block in SDD).
JSFsensors: Dominant anddelayed
The JSF EOTS, here on a mockup of the F-35,
has a single aperture between the radome and
front wheel well.
EW suite testing is taking place aboard the
CATBird test aircraft.
Northrop Grum-
mans DAS has six
sensors providingin
all-around coverage
for full situational awareness.
Supplementing DAS is EOTS, with a
single aperture between the radome and
front wheel well. The sensor aperture
window blends into the airframe, allow-
ing full-time operation.
Used for ground surveillance and tar-
geting, EOTS also extends the range of
the DAS for situational awareness and
Avionics/radar/electronic warfare
Northrop Grummans MIRFS (multifunc-
tion integrated RF system) is the inte-
grated avionics system being developed
for the JSF. The most important and ex-
pensive sensor in MIRFS is the AN/
APG-81 MFA (multifunction nose array),
which includes an active electronically
scanned array (AESA) that will function
as the antenna for the JSF radar, as well
as for communications and electronic
support measures (ESM) systems.
The MFA will be more than just a
radar. Its AESA will generate multiple se-
quential beams to provide the pilot with
near-simultaneous air-to-ground and air-
to-air radar modes, high-gain ESM, and
wideband data links. Air-to-ground
modes will include synthetic aperture
radar (SAR) imaging, ground moving tar-
get indication, and ground mapping.
The X-band MFA will also interact with
other frequency band antennas in aper-
tures around the aircraft. The MFA is
predicted to save at least 30% in cost
and 50% in weight compared with using
individual antennas. Designed from the
start for air-to-ground missions, and
given its lesser power, the APG-81 will
have a shorter range but greater capabil-
ities than the F-22s AN/APG-77.
Over the next 10 years, the MIRFS/
MFA will earn almost half of all ghter
radar funding available to U.S. rms. By
the middle of the next decade, it will
dominate ghter radars to the same de-
gree as the EO suite, with nearly $1.5
billion a year in procurement funding
alone, comprising well over half the total
ghter radar market.
The JSF EW suite is being designed
by BAE Systems and Northrop Grum-
man. It will integrate with the stealthy
JSF design and concentrate on passive
avoidance rather than jamming (al-
though now it will also be able to jam).
Sensors will be low observable, including
a passive ESM/MWS (electronic support
measures/missile warning system) devel-
oped by Northrop Grumman (as Litton
Amecom, which Northrop Grumman
purchased), within-wing-mounted anten-
nas, and many systems based on BAE
Systems stealthy AN/ALR-94 and F-22
EW suite. The JSFs radar will provide
in-band ESM on emitters in the forward-
quadrant area covered by the AESA an-
tenna. Jamming may be transmitted
through the AESA.
A single aperture was considered for
most electronic operations on the JSF,
but instead the aircraft will have a system
similar to the F-22s 156 antenna ele-
ments in four low-observable apertures.
The EW suite will be highly digitized, em-
phasizing eld programmable gate ar-
rays and an integrated core processor.
The earlier F-22 system is built around
an application-specic integrated circuit
design, and has more analog systems.
The JSF EW system will equal the capa-
bilities of the F-22s, but at half the cost
and weight.
In December 2007, BAE Systems
opened a new 30,000-ft
2
facility in
South Nashua, N.H., for production of
F-22 and F-35 EW systems. The site will
support more than 1,400 of the 3,500
BAE employees who work in New
Hampshire, and about 60 suppliers from
that state will provide products and serv-
ices to support the programs.
In June 2008, then-Brig. Gen.
Charles Davis, USAF F-35 executive
program ofcer, discussed possibilities
for the JSF as an EW jamming aircraft,
possibly even as an EA-35. It has long
been considered that the JSFs radar
with its AESA antenna would be capable
of jamming, but now the addition of a
jamming pod similar to those on the
Navys EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G
Growler is under consideration, largely
because of the Air Forces failure to
complete an electronic countermeasures
aircraft development program.
The service currently borrows
Prowlers to see its aircraft through com-
bat zones. Perhaps still prepared to rely
on the Navy, Davis stated, the Next
Generation Jamming pod [a Navy pro-
gram] has often been mentioned as a
candidate system for the [USAF] F-35.
In February Lockheed Martin an-
nounced that Top Secret tests of the JSF
EW suite would take place aboard the
CATBird test aircraft beginning in March
2009 (all people aboard the CATBird re-
quiring top-secret clearance). Ground
tests are already under way.
The AN/APG-81 JSF radar is mounted on Northrop Grummans BAC 1-11 testbed aircraft,
with radome removed, prior to successful first flight test.
The F-22 entered full-rate production several
years after reaching the testing stage the F-35
is in now. Photo by Scott Wolfe.
per year planned for full-rate production
is still just a fraction of the U.S. defense
budget (albeit the largest fraction ever al-
lotted to one program), and could still be
increased if unit costs do not drop as
quickly as hoped. Perhaps more impor-
tant is the question of whether Lockheed
Martin can tool up to 200 aircraft a year
in just six years, even though the JSF is
still not complete today and has barely
begun ight tests.
In September 2008, Tom Burbage
(Lockheed Martin F-35 general man-
ager) and Maj. Gen. Charles Davis
(USAF F-35 PEO) proudly proclaimed
that 9 million software lines of code were
complete. Unfortunately, the JSF will
eventually need 19 million. To provide a
little historical comparison, the F-22 had
only 4 million.
In 1997 the rst F-22 EMD aircraft
ew. The F-22 nally entered full-rate
production almost 10 years later despite
relatively massive funding, which in-
creased planned program unit cost from
$184 million in 2001 to $355 million by
2008. It is currently ying off the produc-
tion line at a rate of about 20 per year
at a lesser unit cost today than planned
for early JSF production. This is a huge
problem approaching, no matter how
much money the Air Force throws at
JSF. The rst JSF SDD aircraft ew in
December 2006, and if this much more
complex aircraft than the F-22 has even
a fraction of the unforeseen problems the
F-22 had, there will be further delays.
Remarkably, DOD plans show 100%
of JSF ight testing will not be complete
until 2014, when 506 copies may al-
ready have been procured (if not actually
produced). How is this possible? The
DODs revised test plan relies on state-
of-the-art simulation labs, a ying test
bed, and desk studies to verify nearly
83% of JSF capabilities. Only 17% are
to be veried through ight testing.
Desk studies?
These issues and many others are
addressed in the GAOs March report,
Joint Strike Fighter: Accelerating Procure-
ment before Completing Development In-
creases the Governments Financial Risk.
Without being excessively antagonistic,
the GAO highly doubts DOD plans will
come off on schedule.
Lets look at it another way. Lets as-
sume the many test aircraft planned nd
no major aws that require redesign, nor
do all those ying desks. Lets assume
the JSF is just perfect as is. The sched-
ule has already slipped 30 months (initial
operational test and evaluation delayed
12 months), with serious engine, ight
control, electrical, and avionics prob-
lems; there are three different JSF ver-
sions; and fewer than 100 sorties of a
5,000-mission ight test program had
been own by March of this year.
But lets also assume that for the rst
time in modern history, all the problems
have already been xed and that ying
the 19 planned developmental test air-
craft and 20 planned production-cong-
ured operational test aircraft will be a
picnic. Of course, one wonders why
there are over 40 planned test aircraft
(not built yet) if Lockheed does not antic-
ipate a few problems, but lets ignore
that. The FY09 budget planned funding
for 118 aircraft in FY12, and we do not
want to build 118 aircraft with any prob-
lems. We have to get moving. So, lets
assume there simply are no problems in
the next three years that would result in
a delay in this incredibly optimistic ramp-
up to 118 aircraft.
There is still a problem. A major
one. The JSF is the most globalized air-
craft ever built, with hundreds of suppli-
ers in many countries. How will every
one of these suppliers ramp up at the ex-
treme rate of eight aircraft today (FY09),
32 in FY10, 47 in FY11, 118 in FY12,
and 230 in FY15? Will none of them ex-
perience internal or external problems
that slow a greater than 100% per year
growth rate (150% for FY12)? Will none
of them question building the infrastruc-
ture ahead of time to support this in-
The EW contract includes options up
to $7 billion. The aircrafts EW will com-
prise an important share of the overall
ghter and airborne EW market, but will
be less dominant than EO and radar, as
most EW will still be conducted by sup-
port aircraft rather than the shooter JSF.
Cost increase=productiondecrease?
The U.S. budget for the rst LRIP (low-
rate initial production) batch of F-35s
provides more than $200 million per
copy ($1.7 billion for eight aircraft in
FY09). Early full-rate production lots will
cost well over $100 million per aircraft.
Lockheed Martin and the U.S. hope unit
costs in later production will eventually
drop to $60 million, but this looks in-
creasingly unlikely, even if production
numbers stay extremely high (planned to
reach an amazing 215-230 aircraft per
year as soon as 2015, only six years
down the road from eight aircraft).
Planned complete-program unit costs
were already up 38-54% (depending on
how you run the numbers) from 2001 to
2008, and who honestly expects there
will be no further increases in the next
seven years? Or 14? The JSF is an ex-
tremely sophisticated aircraft, built with
cutting-edge technology and materials.
For example, Lockheed Martin was
working with Australia in June to extrude
titanium powder into metal wire, to even-
tually reduce the amount of titanium lost
in machining down to parts such as wing
frames. But no matter how much tita-
nium you save, it is still titanium and will
still be more expensive than fourth-gen-
eration ghter materials. By comparison,
the F-16 is like a Corvette Stingray, still a
pretty hot ride but based on 1970s tech-
nology and materialand costs. The JSF
spares nothing, and even the Air Force
admits much of the cost increase already
has been due to an extensive use of new
materials.
But lets agree that the funding issue
is one that can be solved with, well,
more funding. The $10 billion or more
PRODUCTIONFORECAST (JSF Electronic Suite)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
USAF + Intl. (F-35A) 8 8 12 24 40 50 56 68 86 352
USMC + Intl. (F-35B) 1 6 6 8 18 24 36 42 44 42 227
USN(F-35C) 5 2 2 4 2 15
Total 6 14 14 20 42 64 88 100 116 130 594
bers go down. This has happened on just
about every major program funded in the
past two decades. The only difference is,
before the soon-to-be-realized inexcus-
able irresponsibility of concurrence of
testing and production, these other air-
craft programs became seriously delayed
RDT&E programs. JSF may be the rst
seriously delayed procurement program,
but only because it is really still in devel-
opment and testing. What today is being
advertised as a brilliant way to reduce
costs by upping production early will
soon be seen as just a clever way to pre-
vent Congress from cutting production
because it has already occurred!
These delays may not seriously im-
pact Lockheed Martin as aircraft prime
Lockheed will simply earn more per JSF
aircraft and more for extended testing,
just as it did for F-22 and is already doing
for JSF. As long as the U.S. never at-
tacks a near-peer (remember that JSF is
primarily intended as a ground attack air-
craft), we still do not need those aircraft
just yet, and industry will continue to
make a similar amount of money.
However, this likely future would def-
initely cut the numbers and revenue for
electronics systems suppliers. Since my
forecasts are for electronics systems, I
am breaking with government aircraft
schedules and reducing expected elec-
tronics systems production rates for my
production forecasts. Aircraft top-line
budget numbers may not change much
as production ramp-up is delayed, but
EO, radar, and EW values will decrease.
If you are involved with avionics testing,
for at least the next ve years expect to
earn more than those who are subcon-
tracting hardware or components that
go into production systems.
Then again, electronics suppliers will
still benet from the cost increases. As
the JSF spending spree continues, and
costs are just not coming down, I am re-
vising my unit cost estimates for all JSF
systems. Until some semblance of com-
petition or attention to cost is enforced
(which may not be possible), I see JSF
system prices at least 50% higher (more
in the rst few years) than comparable
systems on competitive aircraft. Why
should a radar warning receiver on a
$150 million-$250 million JSFhighly
integrated and nearly impossible to
swap outcost the same as a compet-
itively marketed one bought for an F-16?
It wont, so those lower unit production
numbers will still earn more money for
electronics producers than if the JSF
were really a $40-million aircraft as orig-
inally envisioned. JSF increasingly looks
to be an aircraft without comparison, at
least regarding what the U.S. is willing to
spend on it, and pre-testing production
will also guarantee the U.S. has a park-
ing lot full of JSFs in need of immediate
(and expensive) upgrade funding.
Finally, my production forecasts still as-

sume no major or even moderate prob-
lems with either funding or testing. I have
simply included minor schedule delays.
This is already extremely optimistic in my
view. If a major problem crops up (as al-
most always happens for todays increas-
ingly sophisticated new programs), or
funding is reduced, expect a longer delay
before production exceeds 10 or 20 test
aircraft per year. Let me repeat that I sus-
pect the production numbers in my fore-
cast will fall even lower, though overall
funding may remain at budgeted levels,
and production numbers on paper may
take some time to align with reality. But I
will not speculate an even lower ramp-up
rate until more problems do occur.
David L. Rockwell
Teal Group
drockwell@tealgroup.com
credible growth, without impossible
guarantees from Lockheed Martin, fol-
lowing the two previous disastrously de-
layed and reduced stealth programs (B-2
and F-22)? Will none of them become
even a minor bottleneck that prevents a
100% per year growth rate off the JSF
production line?
Maj. Gen. Davis stated in November
2008, What worries me ishow to get
the supply chain around the world up
and running, and how to get to rate at
the right price. International second-
source suppliers are being brought on,
but there are already initial problems
with second-sourced parts, according to
Davis. He stated, however, that these
problems are normal for a development
program. And indeed they are, just as
continued delays are normal (although
JSF is no longer technically a develop-
ment program, as production has al-
ready been funded).
Problems and delays are what will
likely happen, and this is what we fore-
cast. Sustained production rate growth
of 100-150% per year before testing is
even complete will simply not happen.
Electronics systemproduction
On the other hand, since budget funding
is allocated well before aircraft reach the
production line, if delays occur and unit
costs stay up, the most likely result will be
that production is stretched out and num-
FY09 $ millions
IFTSaircraftLANTIRNaircraftLiteningaircraftATFLIRaircraftIRSTaircraftSniper+aircraftJSF EO
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
RDT&E+PROCUREMENT AVAILABLE TOTHE U.S.
$2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
CAGR: 3.4%(FY09-14), 4.8%(FY09-18). NOTE: Does not include F-22 EOfunding.
24 AEROSPACE AMERICA/SEPTEMBER 2009 Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
The combination of
alternative fuels,
even more efficient
engines, and airframe
changes both minor
and dramatic should
result in greater fuel
efficiency, a plus for
both the military and
the world it is sworn
to protect.
by Mark J. Lewis
Willis Young Professor of
Aerospace Engineering,
University of Maryland
A KC-135R refuels an F-22 with a new synthetic fuel. The test was done as part of the secretary of
the Air Forces initiative to certify the entire fleet on synthetic fuel, an effort to lessen dependence
on foreign oil. (Photo by Master Sgt. Rick Sforza.)
have a greater impact than other sources of
combustion byproducts. Because aircraft de-
liver greenhouse gases directly into the atmo-
sphere where they do the most harm, emis-
sions such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
compounds may have a relatively greater en-
vironmental impact than those from ground-
based fossil fuels.
Thus, even though aviation accounts for
just 8% of the total use of rened oil, and only
3% of greenhouse gas emissions, the overall
climate effect from aviation greenhouse gases
is about 13% of the total from fossil fuels. The
race is on to burn less fuel, or to use fuels that
have a smaller environmental impact.
ENGINEERINGTOCONSUME LESS
In 2004, the Air Force Scientic Advisory
Board, a group of about 50 scientists and en-
gineers who advise the secretary of the Air
Force and the chief of staff, initiated a six-
month study on increasing fuel efciency for
military aviation. That analysis divided poten-
tial technology solutions into four categories:
fuels, engines, airframes, and behavior.
Alternate fuels with higher energy con-
tent than conventional hydrocarbons translate
directly into less fuel consumption. Such fuels
might include everything from hydrogen
(clean burning but hard to handle) to various
synthetic propellants produced from coal, nat-
ural gas, or biomass. Synthetics have the ad-
ditional advantage of reducing dependence on
foreign sources. It remains to be seen whether
these fuels can be produced with processes
that, as a whole, do less environmental dam-
age than their fossil-derived counterparts.
Improvements in propulsion systems
engines that can consume less fuel for a given
I
n May 2008, the USAF ew its 1 mil-
lionth sortie since September 11, 2001,
just one of approximately 300 military
ights per day in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
the surrounding areas. With so many
ights, it is no surprise that the Air Force
consumes more than 2.5 billion gallons of fuel
each year. In 2008, that translated directly
into expenditures of nearly $7 billion, slightly
more than half the total fuel bill of the entire
U.S. government.
To put that into perspective, $7 billion
represents about half of Canadas entire mili-
tary expenditure; it is roughly three times
what the USAF spent internally on science
and technology work in the Air Force Re-
search Laboratory (AFRL); and it is equivalent
to the yaway cost of 51 new F-22 ghters.
And every unexpected increase in the cost of
a barrel of oil can translate directly into signi-
cant unplanned fuel costs; a $10/barrel rise in
oil prices means a $700 million cost increase
over the entire Air Force eet.
The direct cost of fuel is not the only is-
sue; there is tremendous extra cost involved in
delivering that fuel to the warghter. It has
been calculated that the average cost of fuel
delivered to a convoy is $13/gal. Put that fuel
in a tanker and pump it into a ghter in ight,
and the so-called fully burdened cost sky-
rockets to an average of over $40/gal (some
estimates place it as high as $200/gal, de-
pending on the mission). As a result, in-
creased aviation fuel efciency has become an
S&T priority for the military.
Aviation fuel consumption is not just an
economic concernthere are signicant envi-
ronmental costs. Aircraft release about 600
million tons of CO
2
each year, but those gases
On December 17, a C-17 Globemaster
III flew over New York City after
completing the first transcontinental
flight on synthetic fuel.
beat existing jet fuels, not only for cost but
also for both energy content and handling
characteristics. Burning 1 kg of jet fuel re-
leases over 40 million joules, enough energy
to power 185 standard light bulbs for an hour.
That is about 90 times more energy per kilo-
gram than the best available batteries. And a
jet fuel such as JP-8 remains a liquid down to
-47 C and has relatively high density, so it can
be stored in a relatively compact volume.
In contrast, a fuel like hydrogen can be
very environmentally friendlyits combustion
product is water (though commercial hydro-
gen is itself mostly derived from fossil fuels),
and it has three times the energy per kilogram
of jet fuel. But it must be stored as a cold liq-
uid, at temperatures below -253 C, and it
leaks out of tanks very easily. Hydrogens den-
sity is also less than one tenth that of jet fuel,
so a hydrogen-powered aircraft would require
large fuel tanks, and thus a large structure. In
addition, some atmospheric scientists point
out that water vapor is the most effective
greenhouse gas, so releasing seemingly harm-
less water exhaust at airliner altitudes could
have noticeable climate impact.
The rst alternate fuels to be adopted on
a large scale will likely be those that will work
in existing aircraft. On February 24, 2008, a
Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747 ew from London
to Amsterdam; one of its four engines was
powered by a fuel blend that included a syn-
thetic manufactured from oils derived from co-
conuts and seeds of babassu palm trees. A key
to this ight was that no modications to the
airliner or its General Electric engines were re-
quired, though the biofuel accounted for less
than 10% of the total propellant load.
Heralded as a breakthrough by Virgin
president Sir Richard Branson, the overall en-
vironmental benet of such biofuels was im-
mediately the subject of debate. As some en-
vironmentalists noted, dedicating the amount
of arable land required to grow enough co-
conut and babassu would cause its own envi-
ronmental hazards. However, the fact that
bio-derived fuels could be burned in an un-
modied gas turbine engine suggests that
other renewable sources of hydrocarbons
might offer environmental benets. But it is
one thing to run an engine for a single ight
on a new fuel; operating that engine for years
with no damage may be a harder challenge.
The Air Force had entered the synthetic
fuel arena eight months earlier. Maj. Gen. Cur-
tis Bedke, then-commander of the USAF
Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, piloted a
B-52 that burned a coal-derived synthetic fuel
rangeinvolve everything from making exist-
ing engines more energy efcient through
servicing and cleaning to entirely new systems
that maximize overall cycle efciency.
The development of new aerodynamic
congurations and aircraft structures that can
improve overall performance also offers great
promise. Lighter weight structures and higher
lift shapes could yield dramatic increases in
range for a given amount of fuel or reduce
fuel requirements for a given range.
Of course, the fourth option for using less
fuel is, y less. This can include expanded use
of simulation for training, or eliminating some
manned aircraft missions in favor of smaller,
more efcient UAVs. Migrating training from
ight to simulator is happening across the
board in the DOD and has already taken hold
in the civil sector. Modifying pilot behavior, in-
cluding paying closer attention to steps that
can reduce fuel consumption, may also help.
BREWINGNEWFUEL
The broad interest in alternative aviation fuels
was expressed in a letter from representatives
of the U.S. aviation industry, including the Air
Transport Association, the Aerospace Indus-
tries Association, and synthetic fuel organiza-
tions, to the Obama administration. Writing in
January 2009, they called for an entirely
new fuel dynamic, and promised the new
president that aviation will be an enthusiastic
purchaser of environmentally friendly alterna-
tive fuels when they become available.
These groups have been involved with the
FAA to form the Commercial Aviation Alter-
native Fuels Initiative, which seeks to enhance
energy security and environmental sustainabil-
ity for aviation through alternative fuels.
Not all alternate fuels are environmentally
friendly, and even the friendly fuels may not
work well with existing aircraft. It is hard to
More than 100 people at Edwards
AFB attend a ceremony with
Secretary of the Air Force Michael
W. Wynne certifying F-T synthetic
fuel blends for use in the B-52H.
tails of the process. Proponents argue that if
excess carbon is sequestered and returned to
the ground, the end result is a fuel environ-
mentally superior to oil-derived hydrocarbons.
In fact, the synthetic fuels produced by FT
have many environmental benets, including
minimal sulfur content, few aromatics, and a
higher combustion temperaturethus more
thermal efciency and less sooty exhaust.
However, the jury is still out as to whether that
higher overall efciency, and resulting smaller
fuel consumption, is counteracted by the
slightly higher production of ozone-destroying
nitrogen compounds associated with higher
combustion temperatures.
Since FT products lack some of the com-
plex molecules that protect engine seals, there
is also still debate as to how much fossil-de-
rived fuel, if any, should be mixed in with the
synthetic for long-term engine health, or
whether so-called aromatics can be added di-
rectly in the manufacturing process.
Extensive research into synthetics contin-
ues at the AFRL, now commanded by the
same Maj. Gen. Bedke. Others are also work-
ing in this area in ac-
ademia and industry,
with support from
government agencies
such as NASA, FAA,
DOE, and DARPA.
The latters efforts
are specically aimed
at a process that efciently uses organic living
sources to produce a surrogate for JP-8 jet
fuel, incorporating both its combustion and
physical properties, including melting and
freezing points.
The Air Force is now looking beyond F-T
fuels, to include biofuels, with a keen focus on
environmental impact. As the Air Mobility
Command Chief Scientist Don Erbschloe ex-
plains, The synthetic blend certication was
an important rst step, but ultimately as con-
sumers of jet fuel, the USAF is agnostic to the
feedstock. We need something that looks like,
performs like, and is priced competitively with
JP-8. The Air Force Certication Ofce is
planning to test both a ghter and a C-17
transport with a biofuel sometime in 2010.
On the commercial side, the FAA is lead-
ing the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative (CAAFI), which was established to
enhance energy security and environmental
sustainability for aviation through the use of
alternative fuels. CAAFI is a forum for part-
ners to interact, share data, and champion re-
search on alternative fuels.
blend in two of its eight engines over the skies
of California. This was the rst step in a sys-
tematic plan to certify the entire USAF eet on
synthetics, championed by then-Air Force Sec-
retary Michael Wynne. The long-term goal be-
gan with a plan to derive 50% of the Air
Forces domestic fuel from sources other than
traditional crude oil by 2016. The effort is
looking not only at the performance of syn-
thetic fuels, but their effect on emissions and
the long-term health of the engines.
This idea of powering the Air Force on
synthetics was certainly not new; a study by
the RAND Corporation in 1976 concluded
that uncertainties in the future availability and
economics of crude-oil-based jet fuels pose a
particular challenge to the Air Force.[To]
meet this challenge the Air Force will be
obliged to undertake measures to conserve jet
fuel in the short term and to develop a future
capability for using jet fuels derived from alter-
natives to crude oil.
Two years later in another RAND report,
Future Sources of Military Jet Fuels, William
Stanley recommended that the DOD begin a
research program into alternate hydrocarbon
fuels. Thirty years later, the Air Forces rst
candidate fuel was a hydrocarbon blend of
conventional JP-8 jet fuel with a synthetic fuel
rst produced in Germany in the 1920s.
The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process was
used by Germany and Japan during WW II to
produce fuel from coal. FT synthesis uses a
catalyst to convert hydrogen and carbon
monoxide into heavier hydrocarbons more
suitable for combustion in conventional en-
gines. The original synthesis gas can be de-
rived from coal, natural gas, or other carbon
feedstock such as biomass. In choosing the FT
product, Air Force planners were careful to
keep the door open for other alternatives.
The Air Force began ight qualication of
its eet with a B-52, and was steadily expand-
ing the range of aircraft certied to use FT
fuels to include transports, bombers, and ght-
ers. In doing so, the service was emulating the
experience of South Africas Sasol, which has
been manufacturing an FT blend since 1999
and has made it available to airlines refueling
at the Tambo Airport in Johannesburg for
over a decade. Sasol received approval to use
a 100% synthetic in the spring of 2008.
FT synthesis, especially with coal feed-
stock, has been criticized as being environ-
mentally unfriendly, with a total CO
2
output
possibly twice that of the conventional fuels it
replaces. That is only partly true, and depends
not only on the feedstock but also on the de-
[Flight certifications with F-T] allowed the USAF to
develop a thorough, structured set of procedures to
validate and test the efficacy of any alternative fuel
not just Fischer-Tropschin Air Force systems.
Don Erbschloe, Air Mobility Command chief scientist
eral Electric and Rolls-Royce Liberty Works
are working under ADVENT, each with its
own approaches to variable cycles.
A key technique involves using adaptabil-
ity to change the bypass ratio, varying the
amount of air passing around the core engine.
Especially promising is an auxiliary fan bypass
owpath, with a pressure ratio that can be
controlled independently of the core engine.
Coupled with concepts for varying the core
ow, such ADVENT concepts could result in
30% fuel savings on a typical subsonic cruise
mission and even greater savings for super-
sonic platforms.
More conventional concepts are also be-
ing pursued. For instance, those same compa-
nies are also involved with AFRLs highly ef-
cient embedded turbine engine effort. HEETE
is aiming to produce compressors with dra-
matically higher compression ratios than the
current state-of-the-art, with correspondingly
higher engine efciencies. Ultimately, HEETE
technology could be combined with ADVENT
to produce even greener engines.
GE, working with Snecma, has also res-
urrected unducted fan conceptsessentially
high-speed turbopropsbuilding on engine
programs from the late 1980s. Turbofans be-
come more efcient as their bypass ratio is in-
creased, but then as fan diameter grows, so
do the weight and drag of the outer nacelle.
Now referred to as open rotor engines, these
unducted engines would solve this problem by
eliminating the outer nacelle entirely. Fuel sav-
ings of up to 30% may be possible, though
the 1980s versions of these engines had sig-
nicant noise problems that were never com-
pletely resolved before dropping fuel prices
ended their development.
Pratt & Whitney, under its PurePower ef-
fort, is developing a geared turbofan engine in
which each stage can operate at its own opti-
mum speed. A conventional gas turbine en-
gine tends to compromise performance by
running each stage on a spool at the same
speed, but it would be more desirable to run
the forward fan stages at lower speeds and the
high-pressure stages at higher ones. A lower
speed fan could also be larger, and thus have a
larger bypass ratio compared to a gearless
counterpart. It would also be quieter.
In-ight tests on a Boeing 747 and Airbus
340 have demonstrated the concept, which
P&W claims could save 12% in fuel consump-
tion. Critics claim the addition of gears adds
weight and mechanical complexity. But run-
ning stages at optimum speeds also means
weight could be saved because fewer stages
INCREASINGENGINE EFFICIENCY
Just as the producers of greener aviation fuels
will have a difcult time surpassing, or even
matching, the performance of existing fossil
fuels, so too will the designers of new engines
have a hard time beating existing propulsion
technology. A modern gas tur-
bine engine is among the most
efcient machines ever built, con-
verting nearly 60% of the avail-
able fuel energy to useful work,
more than twice the efciency of
a typical automobile engine. The
individual components of a gas
turbine engine have efciencies
that are pushing the theoretical
limits for such devices.
How can we make some-
thing that efcient even better? Several engine
programs aim to do just that.
One approach is variabilitybuilding an
engine that has a wider range of efcient op-
erating modes because its owpath can be
varied. A modern gas turbine engine is typi-
cally most efcient in a very narrow range of
ight conditions; outside that range, efciency
or performance suffers. For instance, an en-
gine designed for efcient subsonic cruise will
not be a particularly good supersonic thruster.
Conversely, one designed to deliver very high
thrust for bursts of supersonic speed or short
takeoff will generally not be efcient for
cruise. A variable engine might be good at
both by changing the way it operates. This is
analogous to adding a transmission to an auto
powertrain, enabling an engine with a narrow
operating range that can supply high torque
at low speeds but also drive the wheels at high
speed when torque is not needed.
The ADVENT (adaptive versatile engine
technology) program, funded by the AFRL
Propulsion Directorate, is looking at technolo-
gies that will explore various approaches to
variability. Originally begun in 2006 as a pro-
gram to improve engine performance, it was
soon realized that ADVENT held the promise
of increased fuel efciency as well. Both Gen-
Without a doubt this is the high point
of my 29-year Air Force career. ADVENT
has energized the entire Air Force and
contractor propulsion community to
work together with the weapon system
folks to examine many innovative
applications for the future.
Jeffrey Stricker, chief engineer, Turbine Div.
AFRL Propulsion Directorate
PurePower is an effort to develop
a geared turbofan engine in
which each stage can operate
at its own optimum speed.
09-0530
2830 September 2010
Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, California
Call for Papers Opens in October 2009
Save
the
Date!
www.aiaa.org/events/space www.aiaa.org/events/icssc
AIAA International
Communications Satellite Systems
Conference (ICSSC 2010)
that replacing key aluminum parts
on existing aircraft with hybrid
composites would offer signicant
weight savings, which could trans-
late directly into increased range
or reduced fuel consumption. One
immediate candidate for hybrid
composites is the C-130 cargo
eet. An important added benet is that the
reduction in required maintenance inspections
alone would easily pay for the replacement
materials over the life of the eet.
Ultimately, exotic aerodynamic shapes
may offer the best improvements in aircraft
efciency. The performance of traditional
tube-and-wing designs will improve only so
far. To realize more dramatic improvements in
lift/drag ratio may require a whole new ap-
proach: blended wing-body aircraft.
may be needed, and thus far the engines have
proven very reliable in over 120 ight hours.
DESIGNINGADVANCEDAIRFRAMES
Advanced airframes are also being studied for
their ability to improve overall efciency. In
cruise, an aircrafts range is proportional to
the ratio of lift and drag forces. A Boeing 747
has a lift/drag ratio of about 18; a B-52 ratio
is over 21. Though some gliders can reach
values of up to 70, commercial jets have seen
very little increase in lift-over-drag perform-
ance since the start of the jet age, an average
of 15% since the introduction of the 707.
Changes to existing aircraft can improve
aerodynamic performance. For example, the
2004 Scientic Advisory Board study on fuel
efciency concluded that adding winglets on
certain aircraft could increase lift/drag ratios
by up to 7%, though installation costs would
not be recuperated until about 20 years of
eet operations. The USAF Air Mobility Com-
mand has undertaken a study of winglets for
the military transportation eet. And a Na-
tional Research Academy Report in 2005
reached the conclusion that relatively simple
modications such as adding aerodynamic
strakes, smooth laminar ow engine nacelles,
and proper aileron trimming could have con-
siderable savings over a large aireet.
But more dramatic improvements will re-
quire a new approach to airframe design.
Lightweight materials are one answerthe
lighter an aircraft, the farther it will go on a
tank of gas. The introduction of composites
holds considerable promise in reducing air-
frame weight, thus reducing required fuel.
Boeings 787 will use an all-composite air-
frame, an example the military is following.
Under the sponsorship of the AFRL, Lock-
heed-Martin Skunkworks, working with Au-
rora Flight Sciences, has built a smaller scale
advanced composite cargo airplane, based on
an existing aluminum-body Fairchild-Dornier
328JET. This one-of-a-kind aircraft began y-
ing in June, and is meant to pave the way for
other lightweight composite aircraft.
Standard composites are not the only
promising material for fuel-efcient airframes.
The Airbus A-380 uses a hybrid composite
material in its upper fuselage, formed from al-
ternating sandwich layers of aluminum and
glass ber. This material, originally developed
at Delft University in the Netherlands, is not
only much more crack resistant than pure alu-
minum, it is stronger and lighter than alu-
minum as well. It is also more easily reparable
than a pure composite. Studies have shown
The Advanced Composite Cargo
Aircraft is a proof of concept
technology demonstrator for
advanced composite manufac-
turing processes in a full-scale,
certified aircraft. It was developed
by AFRL and Lockheed Martin
officials.
Although winglets are being
considered for future aircraft,
retrofitting would not be
cost-effective.
In a blended-wing shape, wing and fuse-
lage are smoothly merged so that the entire
aircraft is producing lift. The idea is not new;
the German Junkers G.38 introduced ele-
ments of a blended design in the late 1920s,
and various aircraft, from the Northrop Flying
Wing to the B-2 bomber, have used the same
basic principle. NASA is presently testing a
7-m subscale radio-controlled blended-wing
demonstrator, designated X-48 at its Dryden
facility. This aircraft may be the prototype of a
next generation of fuel-efcient airliners,
cargo haulers, or military transports.
Finding alternative fuels that are friendly to

both the pocket and the environment, devel-
oping even more efcient engines, and dra-
matically broadening our notions of what an
aircraft should be made of and how it should
look will all contribute to reducing fuel con-
sumption. And coupled with nding ways to
y less, these efforts will leave our military just
as strong but a lot more green.
THE VIRGIN ATLANTIC 747 THAT TOOK OFF ON FEBRUARY
24, 2008, looked like any other commercial aircraft. But its ight
from London to Amsterdam ushered in what many hope will be the
next era of aviation. The fuel powering one of its four engines was a
mixture of 20% biofuel, making Virgin the rst airline to operate a
commercial aircraft with a biofuel blend.
Detroit automakers continue the struggle of giving birth to an en-
vironmentally friendly car, but the green revolution is not conned to
terra rma. In aviation, the quest for a lower emissions fuel source is
solidly under way. The Virgin trip was followed by an Air New
Zealand ight in December 2008, and by Continental Airlines and
JAL ights in January of this year. But the search will require un-
precedented levels of coordination between government researchers
and industry to make such a transition seamless as well as rapid.
Im afraid the odds of success will be reduced without an inte-
grated federal/private sector approach to evaluating the potential ben-
ets and costs of aviation biofuels, says Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-
Ariz.), who chairs the House subcommittee on space and aeronautics.
Giffords held a hearing this spring to review the status of the various
biofuels initiatives. She expressed some skepticism that such a unied
approach has the priority it needs. We all know the importance of
aviation to our economy and to our quality of life, she says. But that
doesnt give it a free pass.
An economic imperative
Developing a more environmentally friendly, but economical, fuel
source has become a quest to improve the bottom line for most air-
lines. In 2006, fuel became the largest element of operating costs for
U.S. carriers for the rst time in history. According to statistics as-
sembled by the Air Transport Association, during the past seven years
commercial aircraft have maintained an average consumption rate of
nearly 20 billion gallons of fuel a yearhowever, fuel prices have
more than doubled.
The search for more fuel efciencies is not new to the airline in-
dustry. Since 1997, the fuel consumption and emissions that result
from transporting a Continental main-line passenger one mile have
been reduced by 35%. Between 1997 and 2007 the U.S. airline in-
Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
by Frank Sietzen Jr.
Contributing writer
Growing
fuels
for greener skies
generations, made from energy crops like al-
gae, camelina, halophytes, and jatropha, have
come from energy stocks such as switchgrass
and woody feedstocks. These have higher pro-
ductivity, use smaller land masses to grow, and
do not raid foodstock areasa key reason for
the worldwide interest in their use as aviation
fuel additives. It was this mix that powered the
Continental ight. They also produce more en-
ergy per hectare than the traditional rst-gen-
eration fuels and are thought to be more sta-
ble and commercially viable.
What industry is hoping for is a true
drop-in fuel mixture that can replace exist-
ing pure petroleum products more or less
seamlessly, without major changes to the avi-
dustry improved fuel efciency (as measured
by revenue ton miles per gallon of fuel) by
110%, saving 2.5 billion metric tons of green-
house gasthe equivalent of removing 18.7
million cars from the road each year. U.S. air-
lines burned 3% less fuel in 2007 than in
2000, despite having own 20% more pas-
sengers and cargo during the same period.
When last years statistics become available,
they are expected to show more such gains.
Thedrop-ingoal
The rst generation of biofuels, such as
ethanol, was made from corn and soybean,
derived from foodstocks, and required large
land masses to grow. The second and third
Efforts to develop
environmentally
friendly fuels
are yielding results,
with more and more
airlines
making successful
flights using new
biofuel blends.
The number four engine of a Virgin Atlantic 747-400 bound for Amsterdam from London was fueled with a sustainable
biofuel blend composed of babassu and coconut oils blended with kerosene-based jet fuel.
The first
generation of
biofuels was derived from feed-
stock like sugar cane, which are
also food sources.
troleum-based jet fuel, with the same level of
safety. These fuels should also provide envi-
ronmental improvements and energy supply
security, and they should spur economic devel-
opment in their production and distribution.
Although CAAFI itself does not sponsor
specic biofuels research, it coordinates the
overall research being carried out by the par-
ticipant members. An improved environmen-
tal footprint is a critical objective of alternative
jet fuels, says Maurice. The FAA has funded
its share of CAAFIs environmental work, to
the tune of $1 million a year.
Along with the Air Force, the FAA is also
spearheading the creation of a framework for
life-cycle emissions standards from alternative
fuel sources, seeing how different approaches
cut the aviation greenhouse gas emissions.
The team endorsed new modeling tools for
these evaluations last October. About a half-
dozen domestic and international fuel produc-
ers are participating in the evaluations, ac-
cording to Maurice.
CAAFI is also developing a road map for
aligning the federal and private research pro-
grams. On January 27 the team updated the
overall R&D road maps after a joint meeting
hosted by the Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.
CAAFI is also trying to develop a commonly
accepted denition of exactly what alternative
jet fuels are, so that the maturity of different
research paths can be best evaluated. An ef-
fort is now under way to develop specica-
tions for synthetic alternatives to complement
existing specications for petroleum-based
fuels. It would include denitions of a wide
range of biofuels and specications that would
dene biomass-to-liquid fuel ratios for use at
blends up to 50%. That fuel-ratio mix deni-
tion is expected by early next year. The new
standards certication, derived from ight test
experience, would follow.
Maurice warned that gaining such certi-
cation may require more detailed testing, such
as full combustor rig and engine rings under
approval protocols. The Air Forces C-17
tests using biofuel mixtures can be leveraged
to apply the results to commercial aircraft
eets, but with some additions. Additional
testing to cover low emissions combustors and
advanced cycles such as those being devel-
oped at NASA should be explored, Maurice
observed. But the full combustor rig tests re-
quire 250,000 gallons of the fuelnecessitat-
ing greater nancial investments from both
developers and other research sources.
Other hurdles include qualifying environ-
mental impacts. Assessments of both air qual-
ation fuel logistics system, engine designs, or
onboard fuel tankage and delivery networks.
Whatever biomaterials are used, they most
likely must share certain common characteris-
tics: They must be high in energy, safe to use,
able to be manufactured in large quantities
and remain in a liquid state at subzero tem-
peratures, and cost effective to produce.
Several other characteristics should be
common to all potential biofuel candidates.
They should be plants that do not signicantly
impact biodiversity or jeopardize supplies of
drinking water. The total greenhouse gas
emissions from plant growth, harvesting, pro-
cessing, and end-use should be signicantly
lower than such emissions from fossil fuel ex-
traction, production, and end-use. The devel-
opment of such fuels also should improve
social/economic conditions for small-scale
farmers who rely on agriculture for food, and
should not require the involuntary displace-
ment of local populations. High conservation-
value areas and native ecosystems are not
cleared for aviation fuel production.
CAAFI
The FAA has addressed the biofuels effort by
assembling a new consortium. CAAFI, the
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Ini-
tiative, launched in 2006, is a coalition
of federal agencies including the FAA,
NASA, DOE, USDA, EPA, and the
Air Force, along with airlines, air-
ports, and aircraft and jet engine
makers. Jointly sponsored by the
FAA, the Air Transport Associa-
tion of America, the Aerospace In-
dustries Association, and the Air-
ports Council International-North
America, CAAFI aims at improve-
ments in four areas: fuel certication,
R&D, environmental impacts and costs/
benets, and the practical business of com-
mercializing biofuels.
It is clear there is no one silver bullet
global process or feedback solution, said
Lourdes Maurice, FAA chief scientic and
technical advisor in the Ofce of Environment
and Energy. Rather, there are multiple solu-
tions which we can pursue in an environmen-
tally and economically viable and safe man-
ner, she told Giffords hearing this spring.
Maurice serves as the FAAs environmental
team leader for CAAFI.
The FAAs goal with CAAFI is to promote
the development of renewable jet fuels for use
in todays existing aircraft eetfuels that offer
industry equivalent or better cost vis-`a-vis pe-
structure, a NASA initiative to align
national developments to promote
civil aviation progress in the 21st
century.
Shin cites the major chal-
lenges for the biofuels industry as
production and application. One
of the production challenges being
addressed by NASA researchers is
determining whether any biofuel can
be made sustainably, economically, and
on a scale sufcient to support the aviation
industry. This will require understanding fac-
tors affecting the growth of biomass that [will
be] economically viable and sustainable, Shin
says. Production processes that reduce energy
during the biomass-to-fuel conversion process
must be developed. The goal must be carbon
neutral, he adds.
Because of the limited testing done to
date, uncertainties remain. Research at NASA
will have to address both gaseous and particu-
late emissions characteristics from engines so
that alternative fuels can be optimized for re-
ducing emissions. As a result, the agency is
embarked on long-term foundation research
to better understand the effects of various al-
ternative fuels on engines.
This work includes laboratory combustion
tests under controlled conditions, and ground
engine testing under simulated ight condi-
tions. NASA has recently modied several
combustion test facilities to study combustion
performance and the emission characteristics
of several different alternative fuel blends and
alternatives with the petroleum-based Jet-A.
Current research using Fischer-Tropsch fuel
has begun to yield test results. A 2008 part-
nership with Pratt & Whitney using a geared
turbofan engine ran with a blend of jet fuel
and F-T. Test results showed there were no
signicant differences in gaseous emissions
and also conrmed the benets of F-T fuel in
reducing particulate emissions. In addition,
ity and greenhouse gas life-cycle emissions im-
pacts require performance models that are
constantly updated as new biomass fuels are
developed. Another issue is designing an infra-
structure for the deployment and availability of
a biofuels production industry. The best and
most promising biofuels must be accessible
through a logistics system that brings the prod-
uct to market in the vast quantities that will be
needed if, say, a 50% biofuel blend is to be
easily available to airports. Todays jet fuel de-
livery infrastructure serves more than 80% of
all jet fuel in the 35 busiest airports. Thus a
generally accepted biofuel mix could be fully
advanced by the aviation industry into more
common use and acceptance.
Another consideration is the economic
feasibility of developing biofuels in todays
rocky economy. Conventional and traditional
investment sources have been constrained by
the current market, according to experts and
CAAFI. Only moderate investments near air-
ports are needed, the FAA calculates. Re-
newable jet fuels offer the opportunity to team
the aerospace science and technology efforts
with those of agriculture, energy, and sustain-
ability to address all of these challenges,
notes Maurice.
NASA-sponsored research
At NASA, where the vast majority of aviation
research takes place, an initiative begun in
2007 aims at building on the agencys exist-
ing expertise in fuel chemistry and processing,
combustion, and gas turbine engine develop-
ment. NASA also recognizes that the wide-
spread use of biofuels for aviation will require
a concerted effort by multiple government
agencies, aerospace industries, academia, and
biofuel producers, says Jaiwon Shin, NASA
associate administrator for aeronautics re-
search. Biofuels development and commercial
deployment are one element of the National
Plan for Aeronautics R&D and Related Infra-
Technicians with the Center of
Excellence for Hazardous Materials
Management sample the water
in a stock tank being used to
grow algae at New Mexico State
Universitys Agricultural Science
Center. Researchers are working
to determine the best methods
to grow and harvest the algae,
which can be used for the
production of biodiesel fuel.
(Photo by Darrell J. Pehr.)
Flight tests develop the concept
In addition to Virgins 2008 test, three additional biofuel
test flights aboard commercial carriers have been con-
ducted. An Air New Zealand 747-400 with Rolls-Royce
engines tested a 50% biofuel blend during an engine
ground test run and on a test flight from Auckland on
December 30, 2008. The 2-hr flight tested performance
of the plane climbing, windmill restarts, and starter-
assists. Acceleration and deceleration were tested, and
a simulated approach and go-around were conducted
at 10,000 ft.
Continental Airlines flew a 737-300 with CFM
engines on January 7 of this year from Houston for 2
hr, the first sustainable biofuel flight in North America.
The flight was powered by a 50% biofuel blend. During
the test, the aircraft was put through climbs, accelera-
tions, decelerations, and an engine windmill restart.
That flight also was the first by a commercial carrier
using a biofuel mixture derived from algae, and the
first biofuel flight using a two-engine aircraft.
A JAL 747-300 using Pratt & Whitney engines tested
a 50% biofuel mixture flying from Tokyo on January 30.
The plane also conducted a ground test of the fuel mixture.
This 2-hr flight also tested the plane in climbs, accelera-
tions, decelerations, and an engine windmill restart.
As of this writing, evaluations of the test flights
were still in progress.
The data are being shared with the other
CAAFI stakeholders and will be used to rene
future ight tests. Epstein says in the next ma-
jor test, planned for 2010, a Jet Blue/Airbus/
IAE ight will use a third-generation biofuel
blend. This is expected to be the rst ight test
using a third-generation biofuel feedstock. He
also says P&W is pursuing the design and de-
velopment of a new jet engine that incorpo-
rates improved performance. By that we
mean better fuel efciency and lower engine
weight, he says, adding that There is also
synergy with military fuel requirements and
markets to foster U.S. energy independence.
Boeings approach to biofuels has built
on previous fuel improvements. Todays jet
aircraft are 70% more fuel efcient than jet
aircraft produced only 50 years ago, says
Billy Glover, managing director of environ-
mental strategy for Boeing. While the com-
pany has no interest in becoming a biofuels
producer, ight test results all revealed no ma-
jor issues with the biofuels, which were mostly
the 5% mix of second-generation biomass.
Glover says Boeing is compiling a com-
prehensive report on all the data obtained
during these tests. Fuel property tests also
took place at several locations, including Boe-
ing, Honeywell facilities, and the Air Force
Research Laboratory. Engine tests examined
control, operability, ame-out, and transient
thrust characteristics, all yielding results that
were consistent with pretest predictions.
The database being compiledstart
times, lean blow-out margins, and accelera-
tion and deceleration timeswould be key in-
NASA has studied emissions produced from a
PW308 turbofan run with 100% F-T fuel and
a blend of F-T and jet fuel.
This year a NASA-owned DC-8 aircraft
has been tested by the agency with various
biofuel mass blends. The tests provided data
that will improve understanding of the evolu-
tion of particulate emission and plume chem-
istry for engines burning alternative fuels,
Shin says. The agency is also using multiscale
modeling of uid mechanics aimed at spur-
ring the growth of second-generation biofuel
mixes. Industry can use these models in de-
signing the next generation of bioreactors to
probe reducing the cost of future biomass
production.
Industry efforts
UTCs Pratt & Whitney and the FAA, as well
as CAAFI, have embarked on a public-private
partnership in biofuels development and re-
search. We expect the worlds commercial
aviation to grow at an annual rate of 45% av-
eraged over the next 40 years. The CO
2
emissions from aviation are proportional to
the amount of fuel burned, so a public-private
partnership in aeronautical research can con-
tinue the 2-2.5% improvement in fuel econ-
omy, says Alan Epstein, vice president for
technology and environment at Pratt & Whit-
ney. Epstein says the test results from the per-
formance of the P&W engines on the JAL
test ight showed that a second-generation
biofuel mix had no impact on performance
and nothing of note was observed in the
postight inspection.
Key points about biofuels
Biofuels are produced from renew-
able biological resources such as
plant material that absorb CO
2
from
the atmosphere as they grow. When
the fuel is burned, the CO
2
is released
back into the atmosphere. In theory,
biofuels can be produced from any
renewable biological carbon mate-
rial. The two most common feedstock
sources are plants rich in sugars and
bio-derived oils. First-generation
biofuels have been used for a num-
ber of years for transport, home
heating, power generation from
stationary engines, and cooking.
Second-generation aviation
biofuels use a sustainable resource to
produce fuel that can be considered
as a replacement for traditional jet
fuel, while not consuming valuable
food, land, and water resources.
They can be mass grown in locations
almost worldwide, including deserts
and salt water. They have the poten-
tial to deliver large quantities of fuel
at more stable pricesalthough
aviation will not rely on just one
type of feedstock.
Examples include jatropha, a
plant that produces lipid oil, which
is the biofuel stock; camellia, an
energy crop; and halophytes, which
are salt marsh grasses that produce
a high-energy feedstock.
Second-generation biofuels offer
lower CO
2
emissions across their life
cycle. As a substitute for traditional
jet fuel, they provide a more diverse
geographical fuel supply and may
offer a solution to price fluctuations
related to fuel cost volatility. In
addition biofuels can provide eco-
nomic benefits to parts of the world,
especially developing nations, where
land is unviable for food crops but
suitable for second-generation
biofuel crop growth.
Algae, the most promising
feedstock being studied, is consid-
ered a third-generation biofuel.
To meet the technical require-
ments for aviation, a biofuel
candidate must be:
A high-performance fuel
that can withstand a range of
operational conditions.
Able to substitute directly for
traditional aviation jet fuel.
A fuel that does not
compromise safety.
Able to meet stringent
performance targets.
Source: Beginners Guide to Biofuels
(Boeing, Airbus), CAAFI, FAA.
cation of new civil aviation biofuels is pos-
sible within the next two or three years,
provided key steps are met. The rst is
that the cost of the biofuel must reect
the actual value it brings to the pur-
chaserthe derivative must be cost
competitive with existing petroleum-
based fuel mixtures. Second, capital
must be invested in production and distri-
bution chains, a development Epstein be-
lieves will be greatly facilitated once formal
certication of the fuels occurs. And nally,
some form of comprehensive, peer-reviewed
research is needed to establish the carbon
footprint of the different biofuel mixtures and
to document their sustainability. Government
has a role to play here, he suggests, but the
establishment of that ongoing research be-
longs in academia.
Advocates hope that by the end of the
next decade some percentage of the worlds
civil aviation fuel can be supplied by biological
sources. The nancial viability of commercial
aviation in the 21st century may well be up in
the air until then.
dicators of the viability of biofuel usage. Still,
says Glover, there were some surprises hiding
in the raw data:
The process to make bio-derived synthetic
parafnic kerosenes was feedstock agnostic.
At a 50% blend ratio, a bio-derived fuel
performed as well as, and in some cases bet-
ter than, traditional jet-fuel-based sources in
terms of performance and emissions.
No change in aircraft systems fueling in-
frastructure or engines is required for imple-
menting biofuels in civil aviation.
Large-scale production of a bio-derived
fuel appears to be possible from sustainable
sources.
Newstandards and future certification
While a greater federal regulatory and re-
search role is rarely sought by industry, several
large aerospace rms are calling for new such
standards. Boeing, GE, and other aviation
rms are urging the federal government to es-
tablish an efciency standard for the designs
of new aircraft.
Pratt & Whitneys Epstein believes certi-
As
fuel
yielding
plants, halo-
phytes such as salt
marsh grass offer the advantage of
not depending on a supply of fresh
water.
T
he European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) is set to propose a new initiative
to identify and solve some of Europes
most urgent aviation safety challenges. The
European Aviation Safety Programme (EASP)
will be drawn up with participation from the
European Commission, industry experts, and
national authorities and will prioritize safety is-
sues at the European level. Among the likely
subjects for safety action are helicopters, hu-
man factors, and improved training standards
in the aviation business.
The existing European Strategic Safety
Initiative will be one key input to the EASP.
This is a 10-year program launched in 2006
and is the European regional dimension of the
ICAO global aviation safety road map. But the
EASP is set to tackle more immediate issues
and reects the growing willingness of EASA
to take proactive measures to improve Eu-
ropes aviation safety performance.
EASA was formed in 2003. Before then,
safety regulation in Europe was managed by
national bodies with differing priorities. There
had been a long-acknowledged need to set up
a single regulatory authority within Europe to
harmonize standards and take a holistic ap-
proach to developing a European-wide avia-
tion safety system. In 1970, the Joint Airwor-
Philip Butterworth-Hayes
Contributing writer
Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
thiness Authorities (JAA) was established to
produce common certication codes for civil
aircraft and engines, mainly to support Airbus
activities. In 1987 the JAAs remit was ex-
tended to cover operations, maintenance, li-
censing, and certication/design standards for
all classes of aircraft. But the JAA was not
backed by the political power of enforcement;
the rules were voluntary and applied differ-
ently throughout Europe.
Achange in the air
With EASA all that has changed. States have
effectively pooled their efforts for aviation
safety, states John Vincent, who heads
EASAs 15-person safety analysis and re-
search group. Rules and regulations are now
drawn up at a European level and enforced by
European legislation.
This legislation can take two formsdi-
rectives and regulations. Directives are Euro-
pean Union (EU) measures, which have to be
passed into law via the national parliaments of
individual states. But this process can be long,
and the end legislation may differ from state
to state. A regulation, on the other hand, is an
immediate and binding law with which all EU
member states must comply.
In recent years, the European Commis-
sion (EC) has used these powers to support
work on aviation safety.
For example, Directive 2003/42/EC of
the European Parliament and the Council of
June 13, 2003, on occurrence reporting in
civil aviationwithout imparting blame or re-
sponsibilityestablished requirements for EU
states to set up mandatory reporting of safety-
related incidents. EASA had established a
database using ECCAIRS software (http://
eccairsportal.jrc.it/) so incident reports could
be collected, stored, and analyzed in an ICAO-
compliant format. States had been collecting
this data for many years but it was in different
formats and standards, making EU-wide
analysis extremely difcult.
The directive became applicable in 2003;
two regulations were added in 2007. Regula-
tion 1330/2007 lays down implementation
rules for the dissemination of information on
civil aviation occurrences to interested parties;
regulation 1321/2007 sets rules for integrat-
ing that information into a central repository.
But by the start of 2009 many member states
had not yet integrated their data into the
ECCAIRS reporting system; the EC has given
them until the end of this year to do so.
If wed have had this capability earlier
we would have had the chance to be more
The European Aviation Safety Agency is working to overcome aviation safety issues on a
pan-European scale. It is also reaching out to the FAAto create a joint certification process.
Working hand in hand with both manufacturers and airlines, EASAs goal is to make flying
Europes skies as safe as possible.
Moving toward
proactive regulation
proactive, Vincent points out. For example,
we might have been able to identify a trend of
landing gear failures in Dash-8 aircraft in
Scandinaviaand been able to act more
swiftly.
In 2007, EASA was given responsibility
for carrying out safety audits on all aircraft y-
ing into and out of Europe, as part of the
Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA)
program. There are now 41 European states
afliated with the program, and in 2007 a to-
tal of 8,594 inspections were carried out,
mainly on EU-registered airlines. Those in-
spections resulted in 14 entry permit reper-
cussions, 22 grounded aircraft, 1,318 cor-
rective actions before ight authorization, 126
aircraft operation restrictions, and 3,386 re-
ports provided to the aircrafts certication au-
thority and aircraft operator.
A De Havilland Canada Dash 8
taxis out from Vxj Airport. A
trend of landing gear failures in
Dash-8 aircraft in Scandinavia
could have been identified earlier
had regulations introduced in
2007 been in place. Photo by
Henrik Sendelbach.
the number of annual airliner fatalities re-
corded in EU states was 86as in all accident
statistics, the headline gures do not tell the
whole story. The fatalities came as a result of
two accidents154 people were killed when a
McDonnell Douglas MD-82 crashed on take-
off on August 20, 2008, in Madrid, and three
people died on May 30 of that year when an
Airbus A320 overran the runway in Honduras
on landing. Although this aircraft was oper-
ated by an airline from outside Europe, it was
registered in one of the EASA member states.
There were also two fatal commercial hel-
icopter accidents in Europe in 2008 (com-
pared to one in 2007). In these accidents
three people diedthis compares to an aver-
age of 10 fatalities a year over the last nine
years for this sector.
Commercial helicopter accidents in Eu-
rope are a particular concern. We need to
take action when we fail to see a continuous
improvement in safety levels, and with heli-
copter rates we have seen the rate remain at
for the last 10 years, Vincent stresses. In par-
ticular, there is a concern about the number of
helicopter incidents ferrying staff to oil and
gas rigs.
In April 2008, the European Helicopter
Safety Team (EHEST) released its rst analysis
of 168 helicopter accidents that occurred be-
tween 2000 and 2005, concluding that 68%
of the fatal accidents and 34% of all accidents
occurred during the en route phase of ight,
and in 33% of the accidents, the pilot had less
than 1,000 hours of total helicopter experi-
ence. In 26% of the accidents, the pilot had
less than 100 hours of ight experience on
the helicopter type involved in the accident.
The team made a number of recommen-
dations, mainly involving training and instruc-
tion, ight operations, safety management,
and safety culture, as well as regulations and
standards. The EHEST has a goal of reducing
the helicopter accident rate by 80% by 2016.
Building industry, and FAA, buy-in
In the last six years EASA has grown from an
aircraft certication agency with just a few
dozen staff to a wide-ranging aviation regula-
tor with nearly 500 employees. From the start
it was recognized that the organization would
only be successful if it relied on stakeholder
advisory input, was well resourced and funded
by a fair charging scheme, that it was backed
by appropriate political muscle, and success-
fully trod the delicate tightrope between over-
and underregulation.
At a safety symposium organized by the
All reported data from ramp inspections
are stored centrally in an EASA-run database.
In addition, foreign airlines ying into the
EU will, in the future, be subject to an EASA
safety audit and will be banned if they fail to
comply with ICAO standardsa system that
closely parallels the FAAs international avia-
tion safety assessment program.
EASA also gathers ramp inspection data
from national states as part of the process of
blacklisting airlines that do not comply with
ICAO standards, a process carried out by the
ECs Directorate-General for Transport.
But such measures are essentially reac-
tive. To ensure that there are continuous im-
provements in safety levels, EASA is looking
at developing more proactive measures over
the coming years.
Broadening the scope
We are now looking to do more advance
safety work, says EASAs Vincent. For ex-
ample, we are sponsoring research into dam-
age detection of composite structures. We
know that spotting damage to a composite
airframe is much more difcult than a metallic
one. So we are researching whether there is
an effective and easy way to detect damage to
composites.
Despite trafc increases, aviation safety
performance is improving throughout Eu-
ropealthough the rate of improvement is
slowing. In 2008, 157 people were killed in
airliners registered in countries where aviation
safety is regulated by EASA. Although this is a
rise over previous yearsin the last nine years
One hundred and fifty-four people
were killed in the Spanair Boeing
MD-82 incident in Madrid. Image
courtesy efeservicios.com.
For example, for aircraft and engine cer-
tication we not only have a single set of rules
to satisfy (with no national variations) but also
a single authority with a single point of con-
tact awarding a single Type Certicatewhich
covers all EU states. As it extends its remit fur-
ther, all of the activities that EASA is respon-
sible for will likely benet in a similar way.
Their development into a strong and inuen-
tial aviation authority has been achieved in a
relatively short space of time, and it is gratify-
ing to see their desire to involve stakeholders
in the development of the regulatory structure
and their determination in driving further im-
provements in safety.
At the end of June 2008 EASA and the
FAA signed a bilateral agreement that ex-
tended previous safety agreements to cover
airworthiness approvals and monitoring of
civil aeronautical products, environmental
testing and approvals, and approvals and
monitoring of maintenance facilities.
Despite this, there are still areas of almost
philosophical differences between the two
regulators. For example, EASA has not yet
sanctioned the widespread use of PMA parts
throughout the EU, although during 2010 it
will look at this issue within the scope of the
bilateral agreement. In the U.S., aircraft main-
tenance technicians are permitted to work un-
der their own certicates and approve their
own work, whereas in Europe the work has to
be authorized by the licensed maintenance or-
ganization itself.
Speed bumps
While manufacturers have generally wel-
comed the development of a single safety
agency, the airlines have, on some issues at
least, been less kind.
EASA was formed with the objective to
promote cost efciency in the regulatory and
certication processes and to avoid duplica-
tion at national and European levels, yet
U.K.s Civil Aviation Authority in January
2009, NetJets regulatory affairs director
Mark Wilson gave a personal view of how the
agency had performed.
Industry involvement is written in to the
basic regulation and has been enhanced, he
said. The involvement of the EASA advisory
board with the management board is a signi-
cant step forward but the funding, the big is-
sue of three years ago, is still not resolved.
EASA is funded partly from central EU
resources and partly from direct charges to
manufacturers for its services. However, the
fees are not xed by EASA but by the EC. Ac-
cording to Wilson, the fees and charging
scheme do not reect its costs, and the contri-
bution of the EU is too low.
The agency faced a funding gap early in
its career when a shortfall in funding threat-
ened ongoing certication work and led to
EASA proposing a temporary 40% increase
in its hourly rate for certication work, along
with substantial xed-fee rises for design or-
ganization clearance.
And many manufacturers, while happy to
see the emergence of a single strong certica-
tion agency, have questioned the principle
and the amount of certication fees. They also
cite a potential conict of interest, as just one
manufacturer, Airbus, is likely to be such a
major source of the agencys income. Wilson
calls for a long-term funding review of the
agency, especially given the new responsibili-
ties for air trafc management and airports
regulations that EASA will assume after 2012.
EASA spokesman Dan Holtgen says the
fees and charges system has, in the meantime,
been modied to reduce costs for small and
medium-sized businesses, and further revi-
sions are not excluded. But it is unlikely, he
says, that the commission will reverse its
charging policy and shift the burden from in-
dustry to taxpayers in the near future.
At the same time, manufacturers have
generally welcomed the benets that EASA
has brought, especially in the creation of an
EASA/FAA joint certication process that has
made it relatively easy for the FAA to validate
a European certication and vice versa.
European industry is now beneting
from having a single aviation authority and a
common set of regulations covering design,
manufacture, and maintenance, says Michael
C. Sanders, airworthiness manager for the
AeroSpace and Defence Industries Associa-
tion of Europe. This is extremely important
to us, particularly with the increasing multina-
tional nature of aerospace projects.
SAFA members
The 40 member states engaged in the SAFA program
are: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Georgia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United
Kingdom, Ukraine.
sociation of European Airlines (AEA)were
not particularly happy with the proposed new
rules on ight and duty time limitations (FTL)
and the process by which they were drafted.
In particular there were concerns about
the length of time airlines would have to con-
sider proposed new amendments to the rules.
EASA sponsored a scientic and medical
study into pilots rest and duty time to support
the EC in evaluating existing EU legislation
drawn up before the agency had responsibil-
ity for operational rules. According to AEA,
this employed a awed methodologyif im-
plemented it would require airlines to employ
many more pilots to the same amount of y-
ingAEA estimates an additional 15% to
20%and would render impossible many
ight routings which are operated today.
EASA says it was required by EU legisla-
tors to commission the study, but that it is un-
der no obligation to follow its recommenda-
tions. Instead, it intends to present a new
approach to FTL with stakeholders that would
allow airlines to operate individual FTL
schemes as long as they can prove there is no
risk of pilot fatigue.
EASA was given a new mandate in May to ex-

tend its competency to include safety regula-
tion of ATM and airport operations through-
out the EU, beginning in 2012. With that, the
nal piece of Europes new regulator jigsaw
puzzle will be in place, allowing for a true to-
tal-systems approach for safety regulation.
But it will not be an easy task. In the current
ATM regulatory system, an air navigation
service provider can be regulated by six differ-
ent organizations (EUROCONTROL, ICAO,
ECAC, national civil aviation administrations,
the EC, and the commissions national super-
visory authorities set up to regulate Single Eu-
ropean Sky activities). Reducing this to just
two would be regarded as a success.
At the same time EASA is continuing to
recruit staff capable of setting appropriate
regulations to an ATM technology that is mov-
ing into new domains of space, data link and
automatic dependent surveillance.
But despite issues of funding and stake-
holder involvement, EASA has in its short his-
tory shown itself capable of adapting to the
technical and political challenges of 21st cen-
tury pan-European regulation.
Over the last ve years we have seen
steady capability increases, says Vincent. In
the next ve years we will be more proactive
and that should bring future improvements.
since its inception in 2003 overall charges to
industry have increased, mainly due to dupli-
cation of activities, said European Regions
Airline Association Director General Mike
Ambrose in April. In some cases, operators
are now obliged to seek approval from both
EASA and their national aviation authority,
defeating the primary objective for which the
agency was set up in the rst place.
Holtgen says there is absolutely no over-
lap between its type-certication and national
authorities operational approvals, but con-
cedes in the special case of the Permits to Fly,
used for aircraft under maintenance or repair,
EASA has to approve specic ight condi-
tions before national authorities can issue a
permit to operators.
A second issue for airlines has been the
way EASA has consulted with its stakeholders
over new airline operating rules it is required
to draw up by EU law. When EASA started
drafting new rules on ight crew licensing, for
example, it set up a consultative group with
representatives from medical organizations,
pilot associations, business, and commercial
airlines to draft the rules. But according to the
agency, they could not agree on a common
position within the deadline for the work set
out by the European Parliament and Council.
So EASA took over responsibility for drafting
the rules itself, and then started to discuss the
proposals with the different stakeholders. The
agency arranged a number of workshops
around the continent to explain the text and
encourage comments.
Airline groupsespecially the Interna-
tional Air Transport Association and the As-
Although the A320 that overran
the runway in Honduras was
operated by TACA, an airline
headquartered in El Salvador,
it was registered in an EASA
member state.
EASAs roles
The European Aviation Safety Agency is based in Cologne, Germany, and its remit covers all
27 EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland, and has several areas
of responsibility:
Expert advice to the EU for drafting new legislation and implementing monitoring
safety rules. EASA proposes, following consultation with stakeholders, regulations that are
delivered to the EC for passage into law as part of the decision-making process with the
European Parliament. It then checks whether states have properly implemented the rules
and reports to the commission if there any infringements.
Type-certification of aircraft and components, as well as the approval of organizations
involved in the design, manufacture, and maintenance of aeronautical products. EASA also
issues airworthiness directives that demand changes to aircraft types and equipment in
cases where safety problems can occur. Member states retain the authority to check
whether aircraft registered in their country are airworthy.
Authorization of third-country (non-EU) operatorsthe Safety Assessment of Foreign
Aircraft program.
Safety analysis and research.
Negotiating aviation safety agreements with the rest of the world. EASA assists the EC
on behalf of the EU member states to negotiate technical safety agreements, such as the
recent bilateral agreement signed with the FAA.
The aerospace industrys most
powerful resource, the AIAA
Electronic Library provides
access to 78 years of the worlds
research and developments in
air and spacefrom air travels
infancy, to the birth of the Space
Age, to the breakthroughs that
propel our industry today.
Its all in the AIAA
Electronic Library. Youll
nd research by pioneers like:
Alfred Africano
Holt Ashley
Richard H. Battin
Geoffrey de Havilland
Jimmy Doolittle
Donald Douglas
Charles Stark Draper
Hugh L. Dryden
Robert Goddard
H. R. Grummann
Clarence Kelly Johnson
Wolfgang Klemperer
William Littlewood
Frank J. Malina
Glenn Martin
John Northrop
Gordon Oates
A. K. Tony Oppenheim
G. Edward Pendray
Jean Piccard
Igor I. Sikorsky
Martin Summereld
Theodore Theodorsen
Robert Truax
Hsue-Shen Tsien
Theodore von Krmn
Theodore Wright
www.aiaa.org/search
08-0447
International Institute of Space Law are approved during the 10th
|International Astronautical Congress, held in London from Aug. 30
to Sept. 5. Inauguration of the academy takes place on Aug. 16,
1960, in Stockholm. E. Emme, ed., Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1915-60, p. 12; H. Moulin, ed., IAF: The First 50 Years, pp. 42, 49, 51.
Sept. 9 The first launch of the Project Mercury unmanned test
capsule under Project Big Joe (Big Joe 1) is launched from Cape
Canaveral, Fla., for a planned 2,000-mi.-range mission. But the two
outboard booster engines of the Atlas rocket fail to separate after
burnout, and the speed and altitude are greatly reduced, although
the spacecraft is successfully recovered near Barbados, 500 mi.
short of the planned impact point. Flight, Sept. 25, 1959, p. 294.
Sept. 9 The first operational Atlas D ICBM is successfully launched by an
all-military crew in a 4,480-mi. test flight from Vandenberg AFB. It is also the
first launch of an Atlas from this base. On the same day, another Atlas ICBM is
successfully fired from Cape Canaveral. Aviation Week, Sept. 14, 1959, p. 32;
The Aeroplane, Sept. 18, 1959, p. 209.
Sept. 12 The Soviet Union launches its Lunik 2 space probe
toward the Moon on the same day Premier Nikita Khrushchev
departs for the U.S. The following day, the 858.4-lb probe
becomes the first man-made object to hit the Moon. There is
no attempt to slow it down, and it impacts in the area of the
Seas of Tranquility, Serenity, and Vapors at 7,380 mph.
However, data are radioed back during the flight on the
magnetic fields of the Earth and Moon, cosmic radiation,
micrometeors, and interplanetary gas. The Aeroplane, Sept. 18,
1959, p. 208; Aviation Week, Sept. 21, 1959, pp. 28-30.
Sept. 15 The Air Forces all-solid-fuel Minuteman ICBM undergoes its first static
firing, and the next day a full-sized Minuteman is launched from an underground
silo. E. Emme, ed., Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1915-60, pp. 12-13.
Sept. 17 The North American X-15 (No. 2) rocket research aircraft achieves its
first powered flight, piloted by A. Scott Crossfield. At 38,000 ft, the aircraft is
released from its B-52 carrier and its dual XLR-11 rocket engine is fired. This
XLR-11, of 16,000 lb total thrust, is called the interim engine because development
of the planes XLR-99 57,000-lb-thrust engine is not yet complete. The XLR-11s
and the XLR-99 are made by the Reaction Motors Div. of Thiokol Chemical. The
plane reaches 1,200 mph in a 3.5-min. powered flight and lands at Edwards AFB.
The Aeroplane, Sept. 25, 1959, p. 250; Aviation Week, Sept. 21, 1959, pp. 35,
28; and Sept. 1959, p. 109.
Sept. 17 The 265-lb Transit-1A, the worlds first navigation satellite and a
forerunner of GPS, is launched from Cape Canaveral by a Thor-Able IV. The
satellite was developed by the Navy for use with the submarine-launched Polaris
fleet ballistic missile to enable it to navigate toward its targets. However, the
rockets third stage fails to fire and the satellite is lost. The Transit finally succeeds
in 1960. D. Baker, Spaceflight and Rocketry: A Chronology, p. 93.
25 Years Ago, September 1984
Sept. 5 Discovery, NASAs newest
space shuttle, lands at Edwards AFB,
Calif., after a successful maiden
flight. Astronauts on the mission,
launched six days earlier from the
Kennedy Spaceflight Center,
successfully deploy three satellites
and film their work with an IMAX
camera for a movie, The Dream is
Alive. NASA, Astronautics and
Aeronautics, 1979-84, pp. 521-522.
Sept. 14-18 Capt. Joseph Kittinger
completes the first solo transatlantic
flight in a balloon he has named
Rosie OGrady. He flies from Caribou,
Me., to the Italian Riviera near
Savona, Italy, a distance of 3,535 mi.,
in 86 hr. The balloon contains 3,000
ft
3
of helium. U.S. Centennial of
Flight Commission Timeline Web site.
Sept. 1 The Atlas ICBM officially
becomes operational and is taken
over by the Strategic Air Command at
Vandenberg AFB, Calif. E. Emme, ed.,
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1915-60,
p. 12.
Sept. 2 The
International
Astronautical
Federation names
Theodore von
Krmn to head a
committee for
establishing an
International
Academy of Astro-
nautics. Both the
academy and the
An Aerospace Chronology
by Frank H. Winter and
Robert van der Linden
National Air and Space Museum
Sept. 18 The 52.25-lb Vanguard III is successfully
orbited. It is the sixth U.S. satellite launched during
the International Geophysical Year and the last of the
Project Vanguard series. In all, 11 attempts were made
to launch Vanguard satellites, but eight were failures.
D. Baker, Spaceflight and Rocketry: A Chronology,
pp. 93-94; The Aeroplane, Oct. 9, 1959, p. 320.
Sept. 24 An Atlas-Able Moon probe scheduled for launch in early October
explodes during a static firing at Cape Canaveral, leading NASA to re-examine
the entire space program. The Aeroplane, Oct. 2, 1959, p. 293.
Sept. 28 Ren Caudron, one of Frances earliest aviation pioneers, dies, at 75.
He started his career in aviation with his brother, Gaston, in a horse-drawn glider.
In 1909 Ren built their first monoplane. They later built an amphibian and a
biplane widely used during WW I. Caudron was noted for production of the
military planes G-3, G-4, R-4, and R-11. Up to WW II, the company also trained
more than 17,000 pilots. The Aeroplane, Oct. 9, 1959, p. 305.
Sept. 1 The Loire 46-Cl, an all-metal gull-wing monoplane single-seat fighter,
makes its first flight. Powering the plane is a Gnome Rhone 14 radial engine. The
aircrafts rate of climb and ability to dive are excellent. Following tests, 60 Loire
46s are ordered by the Armee de LAir. A. van Hoorebeeck, La Conquete de LAir,
Vol. 1, p. 267.
Sept. 4 William McCormick flies an autogyro over Antarctica. Departing from
Adm. Richard Byrds base at Little America, McCormick surveys the Bay of
Whales and the Ross Sea from an altitude of more than 7,000 ft. Flight, Sept.
13, 1934, p. 949.
Sept. 8 Built especially for the upcoming England-to-Australia race, the De
Havilland D.H. 88 Comet makes its first flight. It features two Gypsy Six R air-cooled
inline engines of 230 hp each. Maximum speed is 237 mph. A. van Hoorebeeck,
La Conquete de L'Air, Vol. 1, p. 267.
Sept. 9 Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith
establishes a new
transcontinental
record across
Australia by flying
his single-engine
Lockheed Altair
from Melbourne
to Perth in 10 hr 22 min. In 1928, Kingsford-Smith flew the same route in 22 hr.
Flight, Sept. 13, 1934, p. 948.
Sept. 9 American Airlines places the new single-engine, high-speed Vultee V-1
transport into service. The new planes fly from Chicago to Fort Worth, a distance
of 959 mi., in 6 hr 27 min. The Vultee has a single Wright Cyclone engine and
can cruise at over 240 mph. American Airlines orders four of the eight-passenger
aircraft. Aviation, October 1934,
p. 327.
Sept. 15 The Aeromedical Lab of the
Army Air Corps is founded at Wright
Field, Dayton, Ohio. E. Emme, ed.,
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1915-
60, p. 34.
Sept. 22 Sir Alan Cobham and Sqdn.
Ldr. William Helmore are forced to
end their attempt to fly nonstop from
England to India when the throttle
control on their Airspeed Courier
malfunctions. They had planned to
remain airborne continuously by means
of aerial refueling. They have refueled
twice, but the broken throttle forces
them to glide to a wheels-up landing
on the island of Malta. The Aeroplane,
Sept. 26, 1934, p. 357.
Sept. 5 Wilbur Wright and Glenn
Curtiss fly at
the New York
celebration
marking the
300th anniversary
of Henry Hudsons
voyage up the
Hudson River
in his ship the
Half Moon,
and the 102nd
anniversary of the first commercial
steamship, Robert Fultons Clermont.
Wright flies around the Statue of
Liberty accompanied by blasts from
the oceanliner Lusitania, which has
been signaled by Guglielmo Marconi
with his new wireless set. This is the
last time one of the Wrights flies in
public. D. Baker, Flights and Flying,
p. 38.
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
Faculty-Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
(Design, Solid Mechanics, and Structural Mechanics)
A tenure track faculty position at the level of
Assistant Professor or Associate Professor is
available beginning January 2010, or later, starting
date negotiable. Oklahoma State University has a
strong commitment to grow both the quantity
and quality of our engineering research programs.
With 25 faculty lines and 180 graduate students,
mechanical and aerospace engineering annual
research expenditures will soon exceed $200K per
tenure track faculty member. Applicants should
have teaching and research interests in the general
area of design, solid mechanics and structural
mechanics, with a plan for development of a
research program in an emerging or rapidly
developing area. Excellent experimental skills are
required, together with good analytical and
computational skills. It is expected that the
successful candidate will have the desire and ability
to teach courses at the undergraduate level, in
mechanical design, aircraft structures, engineering
design, and similar courses, and courses at the
graduate level commensurate with his/her research
interests. An earned Ph.D. in engineering is
required, with a preference for either mechanical
or aerospace engineering. Successful candidates
must have demonstrated potential for excellent
teaching at undergraduate and graduate levels, and
for developing a strong externally funded research
program in areas where there are excellent
possibilities for competitive extramural funding.
Good communication skills, both oral and written,
as judged by faculty and students, are essential.
Applications accepted until the position is filled.
Send letter of application, statement on teaching
interests and philosophy, statement on plan for
research and securing extramural funding for at
least two projects, curriculum vitae, and list of
five references to:
Dr. Raman P. Singh, Chair
Design/Solid Mechanics Search Committee
School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
218 Engineering North
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078-5016
Women and minority applicants are strongly encouraged.
Oklahoma State University is an affirmative action/equal
opportunity/E-Verify employer committed to diversity.
The New Mexico State University Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering has initiated undergraduate and graduate programs in aerospace
engineering. Applications are invited to fill two tenure-track aerospace
engineering faculty positions. These positions may be at the Assistant or
Associate Professor levels, depending on qualifications. The starting date
for these positions is August 2010.
Candidates must have an earned doctorate in Aerospace Engineering
or a closely related field, must be committed to teaching at the undergraduate
and graduate levels, and are expected to establish an active and externally
funded research program. We seek candidates who can effectively teach the
breadth of aerospace engineering classes offered and who can provide
leadership in developing high quality research programs. The research
specialties we seek are as follows: 1) one position is in experimental fluid
mechanics with preference for a candidate who can build on our existing
strengths in fluid-structure interaction; 2) the other position may build on
existing strengths in micromechanics, nonlinear structural dynamics, aerospace
vehicle dynamics and control, or computation or may be in other areas that
show promise for future growth. The successful candidates will have the
opportunity to shape the new aerospace engineering program in a state in
which aerospace has become a cultural and economic force.
The State, the University, and the College of Engineering have
identified aerospace engineering as a program of critical importance and
have committed significant resources for its development. In addition,
southern New Mexico has many cultural and natural attractions and a very
pleasant lifestyle. Competitive salary and start up packages are available.
Please submit applications electronically by emailing your package to
facultysearch-09@me.nmsu.edu with the words faculty position in the
subject line. Attach the following items: a current vita, a summary of teaching
interests, a statement of research goals and plans for future research, the
names and contact information of at least three references, and information
regarding eligibility for employment in the U.S. Alternately, hardcopy of
the same information can be sent to:
Aerospace Search Committee Chair
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department
New Mexico State University
PO Box 30001 MSC 3450
Las Cruces, NM, 88003
Screening will begin November 1, 2009 and will continue until the
positions are filled. Additional information about the department can be
found at http://me.nmsu.edu. Complete posting details can be viewed at
www.nmsu.edu/person (requisition numbers 2009002819 and 2009005014).
Benefits include group medical and hospital insurance, group life insurance,
state educational retirement, workmens compensation, and unemployment
compensation. Employment offer contingent upon verification of individuals
eligibility for employment in the United States.
New Mexico State University is an EEO/AA Employer.
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITYDEPARTMENT OF MECHANICALANDAEROSPACE ENGINEERING
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING PROGRAM
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING FACULTY POSITION
AIAA HEADQUARTERS
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500
Reston, VA 20191-4344
www.aiaa.org
To join AIAA; to submit address changes, mem-
ber inquiries, or renewals; to request journal
fulfillment; or to register for an AIAA conference.
Customer Service: 800/639-AIAA
AIAA Directory
SEPTEMBER 2009
AIAA Meeting Schedule B2
AIAA Courses & Training B4
Program Schedule
AIAA News B5
AIAA Call for Papers B14
20th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting
10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and
Operations (ATIO) Conference and
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and
Optimization Conference
AIAA Publications B20
AIAA Courses and Training B21
Program
Standard Conference Information B24
AIAABulletin
AIAABulletin
AIAAs Los Angeles Section, working with AIAA Fellow Dr. Buzz Aldrin, hosted an
event to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. Dr. Aldrin is shown here
with Susan Goldstein, AIAAs Southern California Section Liaison. A description
of the event is on page B8.
AIAA Western Office
999 North Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 440
El Segundo, CA 90245
800/683-AIAA or 310/726-5000
310/726-5004 FAX
* Also accessible via Internet.
Use the formula first name
last initial@aiaa.org. Example:
megans@aiaa.org.
U.S. only. International callers
should use 703/264-7500.
Addresses for Technical
Committees and Section Chairs
can be found on the AIAA Web
site at http://www.aiaa.org.
Other Important Numbers: Aerospace America / Greg Wilson, ext. 7596* AIAA Bulletin / Christine Williams,
ext. 7575* AIAA Foundation / Dave Quackenbush, ext. 7514*, Suzanne Musgrave, ext. 7518* Book Sales /
800/682-AIAA or 703/661-1595, Dept. 415 Corporate Members / Merrie Scott, ext. 7530* International
Affairs / Megan Scheidt, ext. 3842*; Emily Springer, ext. 7533* Editorial, Books / Heather Brennan, ext. 7568*
Editorial, Technical Journals / Amanda Maguire, ext. 7507* Education / Lisa Bacon, ext. 7527* Exhibits /
Cecilia Capece, ext. 7570* Honors and Awards / Carol Stewart, ext. 7623* Proceedings / 800/682-AIAA or
703/661-1595, Dept. 415 Professional Development / Patricia Carr, ext. 7523* Public Policy / Steve Howell,
ext. 7625* Section Activities / Chris Jessee, ext. 3848* Standards, Domestic / Michele Ringrose, ext. 7515*
Standards, International / Erin Kahn, ext. 7645* Student Programs / Karen Thomas, ext. 7520* Technical
Committees / Betty Guillie, ext. 7573*
We are frequently asked how to submit articles about section events, member awards, and other special interest items in the AIAA Bulletin. Please contact
the staff liaison listed above with Section, Committee, Honors and Awards, Event, or Education information. They will review and forward the information to
the AIAA Bulletin Editor.
B2 AIAA BULLETIN / SEPTEMBER 2009

2009
1417 Sep AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition (Jun) Pasadena, CA Dec 08 17 Feb 09
2024 Sep Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems (SMASIS) Oxnard, CA (Contact: Prof. Diann Brei, 248.891.9275,
dibrei@umich.edu, www.asmeconferences.org/asms2008)
2123 Sep 9th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Hilton Head, SC Sep 08 23 Feb 09
Conference (ATIO) and
Aircraft Noise and Emissions Reduction Symposium (ANERS) (Jul)
2224 Sep 6th AIAA Biennial National Forum on Weapon System Tucson, AZ Sep 08 27 Feb 09
Effectiveness (Jun)
27 Sep1 Oct Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management San Diego, CA (Contact: Dr. Kai Goebel, 650.604.4204,
Society 2009 info@phmconference.org, www.phmconference.org/phm09)
12 Oct Resolving Uncertainties in Airframe Noise Testing and Bucharest, Romania
CAA Code Validation Contact: L. Koop, lars.koop@dlr.de; www.comoti.ro/13ceasworkshop
1216 Oct 60th International Astronautical Congress: Space for Sustainable Daejeon, Korea
Peace and Progress Contact: http://iac2009.kr
1416 Oct IMAPP 2009 Hamburg, Germany 10 Jul 09
Contact: www.imapp2009.org
1922 Oct 16th AIAA/DLR/DGLR International Space Planes and Hypersonic Bremen, Germany Oct 08 12 Mar 09
Systems and Technologies Conference (Jul)
2022 Oct 20th International Conference on Adaptive Structures and Technologies Hong Kong, China
Contact: Prof. Wei Hsin Liao, icast2009@mae.cuhk.edu.hk,
www.icast2009.org
2122 Oct International Symposium of Personal and Commercial Spaceflight Las Cruces, NM (Contact: www.ispcs.com)
2628 Oct GNC Challenges for Miniature Autonomous Systems Workshop Ft Walton Beach, FL (Contact: www.ion.org/mas)
2628 Oct 18th International Meshing Roundtable Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact: Jacqueline Hunter, 505.284.6969, jafinle@sandia.gov
2529 Oct IEEE/AIAA 28th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC) Orlando, FL
Contact: T. Redling, 903.457.7822; thomas.j.redling@l-3com.com
36 Nov National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Aircraft Combat Monterey, CA
Survivability Symposium Contact: Meredith Geary, 703.247.9476, mgeary@ndia.org
1520 Nov 20th International Congress of Mechanical Engineering Gramado, Brazil (Contact: Joao Luiz Azevedo,
azevedo@iae.cta.br, www.abcm.org.br/cobem2009)
2010
47 Jan 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Orlando, FL Jan 09 3 Jun 09
Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition
2021 Jan AIAA Strategic and Tactical Missile Systems Conference Monterey, CA
(SECRET/U.S. ONLY)
2528 Jan The Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS) San Jose, CA,
Contact: Dr. Raymond Sears, 603.863.2832, r.w.sears@ieee.org
24 Feb U.S. Air Force T&E Days Nashville, TN May 09 17 Aug 09
1011 Feb 13th Annual FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference Arlington, VA
1417 Feb 20th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting San Diego, CA Sep 09 5 Oct 09
Contact: A. Trask, trask@apogeeintegration.com;
http://space-flight.org/AAS_meetings/2010_winter/2010%20winter.html
2326 Feb Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum (SPESIF-2010) Laurel, MD Jul 09 15 Jul 09
Contact: Glen Robertson, 256.694.7941, gar@ias-spes.org,
www.ias-spes.org
613 Mar 2010 IEEE Aerospace Conference Big Sky, Montana
Contact: David Woerner, 818.726.8228;
dwoerner@ieee.org; www.aeroconf.org
2224 Mar 8th U.S. Missile Defense Conference and Exhibit Washington, DC
DATE MEETING
(Issue of AIAA Bulletin in
which program appears)
LOCATION ABSTRACT
DEADLINE
CALL FOR
PAPERS
(Bulletin in
which Call
for Papers
appears)
DATE MEETING
(Issue of AIAA Bulletin in
which program appears)
LOCATION CALL FOR
PAPERS
(Bulletin in
which Call
for Papers
appears)
ABSTRACT
DEADLINE
AIAA BULLETIN / SEPTEMBER 2009 B3
To receive information on meetings listed above, write or call AIAA Customer Service, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 20191-4344;
800.639.AIAA or 703.264.7500 (outside U.S.). Also accessible via Internet at www.aiaa.org/calendar.
Meetings cosponsored by AIAA. Cosponsorship forms can be found at http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=292.
1215 Apr 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Orlando, FL May 09 10 Aug 09
Dynamics, and Materials Conference
18th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference
12th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference
11th AIAA Gossamer Systems Forum
6th AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Specialist Conference
2022 Apr AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2010 Atlanta, GA Jun 09 23 Oct 09
2530 Apr 11th International Conference on Space Operations Huntsville, AL May 09 1 Aug 09
May ASTRO 1015th CASI Conference on Astronautics Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact: G. Languedoc, 613.591.8787, www.casi.ca/conferences
1112 May Inside AerospaceAn International Forum for Aviation and Space Leaders Arlington, VA
12 May 2010 Aerospace Spotlight Awards Gala Washington, DC
1315 May Fifth Argentine Congress on Space Technology Mar del Plata, Argentina
Contact: Pablo de Leon, 701.777.2369, Deleon@aate.org,
31 May2 Jun 17th St. Petersburg International Conference on Integrated Saint Petersburg, Russia
Navigation Systems Contact: Prof V. Peshekhonov, www.elektropribor.spb.ru,
elprib@online.ru
14 Jun 4th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation Budapest, Hungary
(ICRAT 2010) Contact: Andres Zellweger, dres.z@comcast.net, www.icrat.org
79 Jun 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference Stockholm, Sweden
Contact: Hans Bodn, hansbod@kth.se
810 Jun 3rd International Symposium on System and Control in Aeronautics Harbin, Peoples Republic of China
and Astronautics (ISSCAA 2010) Contact: Zhenshen Qu, ocicq@126.com, http://isscaa.hit.edu.cn
28 Jun1 Jul 27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Chicago, IL Jun 09 5 Nov 09
Testing Conference
28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
40th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference
41st AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference
42nd AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference
5th AIAA Flow Control Conference
28 Jun2 Jul 8th International LISA Symposium Stanford, CA. (Contact: Sasha Buchman, 650.725.4110,
www.stanford.edu/group/lisasymposium)
30 Jun3 Jul ICNPAA 2010Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil
Aerospace and Sciences Contact: Prof. S. Sivasundaram, 386.761.9829, seenithi@aol.com
1115 Jul 40th International Conference on Environmental Systems Barcelona, Spain
2528 Jul 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit Nashville, TN Jul 09 19 Nov 09
2528 Jul 8th International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference & Exhibit Nashville, TN Jul 09 19 Nov 09
25 Aug AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference Toronto, Ontario, Canada Jul 09 27 Jan 10
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference
AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference
AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference
713 Aug 2010 International Heat Transfer Conference Washington, DC (Contact: Avram Bar-Cohen, 301.405.3173;
abc@umd.edu; www.nano.org/ihtc14.pdf)
1315 Sep 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Fort Worth, TX Sep 09 8 Feb 10
(ATIO) Conference and
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
1924 Sep 27th Congress of the International Council of the Nice, France 31 July 09
Aeronautical Sciences Contact: www.icas.org
2830 Sep AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference & Exposition Anaheim, CA
AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC 2010)

2009
1213 Sep Safety Management Systems for the Aerospace Industry SPACE 2009 Conference Pasadena, CA
1213 Sep Management of Space Technology SPACE 2009 Conference Pasadena, CA
1213 Sep Practical Project Management for Aerospace Professionals SPACE 2009 Conference Pasadena, CA
2224 Sep Tactical Missile Design Weapon System Effectiveness Tucson, AZ
2526 Sep Introduction to Weaponeering Weapon System Effectiveness Tucson, AZ
1 Dec30 Apr 10 Introduction to Computation Fluid Dynamics Distance Learning
1 Dec30 Apr 10 Advanced Computation Fluid Dynamics Distance Learning
1 Dec30 Apr 10 Computational Fluid Turbulence Distance Learning
1 Dec30 Apr 10 Heat Transfer* Distance Learning
2010
89 Jan Best Practices in Wind Tunnel Testing* Aerospace Sciences Conference Orlando, FL
89 Jan Computational Multiphase Flow Aerospace Sciences Conference Orlando, FL
89 Jan FluidStructure Interaction Aerospace Sciences Conference Orlando, FL
89 Jan Flow Control for Specialists Aerospace Sciences Conference Orlando, FL
89 Jan Large Eddy Simulations: Theory, Applications, and Advanced Topics Aerospace Sciences Conference Orlando, FL
89 Jan Microfluidics and Nanofluidics, Fundamentals and Applications Aerospace Sciences Conference Orlando, FL
89 Jan Modeling Flight Dynamics with Tensors Aerospace Sciences Conference Orlando, FL
89 Jan Systems Engineering Fundamentals Aerospace Sciences Conference Orlando, FL
1819 Jan Making Decisions in Missile Defense* Strategic and Tactical Missile Conf Monterey, CA
1819 Jan Tactical Missile Design-Integration Strategic and Tactical Missile Conf Monterey, CA
31 Jan1 Feb Experimentation, Validation, and Uncertainty Analysis T&E Days Conference Nashville, TN
31 Jan1 Feb Systems Engineering Fundamentals T&E Days Conference Nashville, TN
1 Feb31 Jul Introduction to Spaceflight Distance Learning
1 Feb31 Jul Fundamentals of Aircraft Performance & Design Distance Learning
1011 Apr Aeroelasticity: State-of-the-Art Practices Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
1011 Apr Modern Modeling of Aircraft Structures* Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
1011 Apr The Fundamentals of Composite Structure Design* Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
1011 Apr Introduction to Non-Deterministic Approaches Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
1011 Apr Tensegrity Systems* Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
1819 Apr Unmanned Aviation in the 21st Century Infotech@Aerospace Atlanta, GA
2627 Jun Modern Design of Experiments Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
2627 Jun Basic Fluids Modeling with Surface Evolver Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
2627 Jun Computational Heat Transfer (CHT) and Thermal Modeling Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
2627 Jun Stability and Transition: Theory, Modeling and Applications Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
2930 Jul Liquid Propulsion Systems Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
2930 Jul Hydrogen Safety Course* Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
2930 Jul NPSS: A Practical Introduction* Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
2930 Jul Advanced Solid Rockets Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
2930 Jul Air Breathing Pulse Detonation Engine Technology* Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
2930 Jul Tactical Missile Design-Integration Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
DATE COURSE LOCATION VENUE
* = New Course
A FEW THINGS
Welcome backhopefully you
were able to take some time off to
recharge over the summer, but
welcome back also to Aerospace
America and the AIAA Bulletin as
we return from our combined
JulyAugust issue.
For your AIAA staff, the big
event of the summer was the
migration of our IT infrastructure
from our homegrown, Cold Fusion-
based software systems to COTS
products. The process is largely
complete, although the transition
will continue for about a year. For
example, we are operating with Avectras netForum association
management software (AMS) for most of our in-house processes
and eCommerce, including conference registrations; the SharePoint
suite of integrated capabilities is in place and already being used
internally and by many TCs and Sections as part of our new
Extranet; weve upgraded our finance-related Solomon software;
and weve begun moving our publications and peer-review activities
to ScholarOne. Although the software architecture and many appli-
cations are in place, over the next year we will complete the migra-
tion of journals, books, and technical papers to ScholarOne and
much of the Web site function to SharePoint.
Many of you who tried to use the systems during the early sum-
mer for nominations, references, renewals, registrations, purchases,
etc., had problems for a few days. So did we! The amazing thing to
me is not that we had some hiccups, but that we were actually off-
line for only about four days (including a weekend) and for the
most part the activities of the Institute continued to function fairly
smoothly. The biggest part of the active transition was behind us
after little more than a month. The effort has been accomplished
almost exactly within the estimated cost, although above the actual
budgetDOD isnt the only place where cost and schedule opti-
mism can creep in during the budget cycle. I cant begin to express
how proud I am of our IT staff for all their work and long hours, and
of the entire AIAA staff for dealing with the many challenges, both
during the transition and in the 1218 months of preparation. I also
want to thank you, our volunteers, for your professional, were-all-in-
this-together, can-do attitude.
Over the summer, I had the opportunity to attend several events
tied to the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. They ranged
from elegant (at the Museum of Flight in Seattle), to technical (with
the Niagara Frontier Section), to much more informal /fun (the
Apollo Panel at AIAAs Joint Propulsion Conference) to the official
NASA event in Washington. The two things I heard from those
around me at every venue were pride in what had been accom-
plished and concern over whats ahead. No surprise, I guess, that I
share those emotions.
By the time this is published, we should have heard from the
Augustine panel. Sometime after that well hear from NASA, and,
hopefully, President Obama. Then well hear from Congress. And
well hear from countless letters and blogs and tweets and every
other form of communication about whether whatever is chosen as
the course of action is right. Im sure it will be a major topic of dis-
cussion at AIAAs Space 2009 (1417 September, in Pasadena)
in the Sessions and Panels and hallways and lounges. I have my
preferences, just as anyone whos been in the aerospace business
probably does, and I expect they are different than what will be
selected, at least in detail. As with most of us, I come at this sub-
ject with lots of emotion, but less good data, even less insight into
the financial pressures, and far less appreciation of the planned
role of civil space and NASA in the nations foreign and domes-
tic policies.
But regardless whats chosen, I hope it is consistent with a com-
ment reportedly made by General Charlie Bolden not long after he
and Ms. Lori Garver were confirmed and sworn-in as NASAs top
leadership. He is reported to have said that he would be: incredibly
disappointed if people arent on Marsor venturing somewhere
beyond itin my lifetime.
There are lots of paths that could get us there, and as he also
suggested, we need to come together with a coherent plan and
then press. Although couched in technical, systems, and architec-
ture terms, I think the debates over the past few years about the
exploration program have really been as much about the goal as
the path. The path to Mars may go through the moon first, but the
focus on that destination didnt capture the imagination of the
American people. Going back to the moon by 2020 didnt capture
the many kids Ive visited with over the past four years. It didnt cap-
ture my neighbors. And, I admit, it didnt capture me. BUT peo-
ple on Marsor venturing somewhere beyond itin my lifetime
now that captures my imagination! Its timelets get it done!
Bob Dickman
bobd@aiaa.org
AIAA BULLETIN /SEPTEMBER 2009 B5
REUBEN H. FLEET
SCHOLARSHIPS
AWARDED IN MAY
At the AIAA San Diego
Section Honors and
Awards Banquet on 21
May, the 2009 AIAA San
Diego Section Reuben
H. Fleet Scholarships
were awarded. Since
1983, 127 students have
received the scholarship,
which is made possible
by the Reuben H. Fleet
Foundation at the San
Diego Foundation.
The 2009 Reuben H. Fleet Scholarship recipients: (back row, from left to right) Greg Marien (Scholarship Coordinator), Jason
Hale (UCSD), Octavio Ortiz (SDSU), Jerami Martin (UCSD), Jennifer Rhymer (UCSD), Jared Myers (Rancho Buena Vista High
School), Brian Preedanon (UCSD), Kevin Willett (AIAA San Diego Section Chair). (Front row) Raquel Weitl (SDSU), Monique
Fine (SDSU), Timothy Palmer (UCSD), Daniel Nelson (SDSU), Richard Krutop (SDSU).
AIAA INITIATES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AIAA initiated an assessment of its environmental footprint with
twin goals: reducing the environmental impact of its activities and
gaining an understanding of the environmental impact assessment
process, which is becoming increasingly important throughout the
aerospace industry. The results will help reduce AIAAs carbon
footprint while simultaneously saving money.
Background
One of three Strategic Imperatives embraced by the Institute as
part of its 20092013 Strategic Plan is to Advance Technologies
to Monitor and Reduce Environmental Impacts. This reflects the
broad, publicly voiced concern about technologys effect on our
environment and the current administrations efforts to enact legis-
lation on emission reductions and environmental awareness.
To stay abreast of current regulatory issues, understand what is
involved in environmental assessment, and be prepared for poten-
tial future legislation, AIAA decided to walk the walk. AIAA tasked
our two engineering students serving as summer interns, Tasia
Paraskevopoulos of the University of Virginia and Geoffrey Austin
of James Madison University, with assessing the environmental
impact of selected AIAA product production. They conducted a
variety of Life Cycle Assessments to understand the environmental
impact of AIAA products and to determine what possible process
changes could be beneficial. AIAA has already implemented some
of their recommended modifications to the Institutes production
process, making the Institute greener while reducing costs.
Life Cycle Assessment
The goal of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is twofold: 1) to
analyze the full range of environmental impacts attributable to a
specific product or service; and 2) to determine process modifica-
tions that can reduce the overall impact. Despite the availability of
ISO standards 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 for assessment of life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions, this type of analysis still lacks
industrial standardization. Nevertheless, it is an effective way to
consider representative impacts of multiple variables by assigning
accountability to each phase of a products life, from the extraction
of raw materials through the products manufacture, use, and dis-
posal. This assessment method allows for an understanding of the
sources of all types of emissions.
AIAAs interns conducted the LCA through the use of GaBi 4
sustainability software, a leading LCA product from PE
International, a German-based developer and provider of LCA and
sustainability consulting, software, and services. The softwares
graphical user interface enables accurate modeling, easy data
handling, and visualization of the inputs and outputs of processes.
Paraskevopoulos and Austin quickly analyzed and evaluated
selected Institute products through the use of GaBis broad data-
bases, materials, and analysis methods (including toxicity,
resource depletion, and cost benefit analysis). With limited time
and resources available for the summer project, the LCA focused
on the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from production and
distribution of various publications.
The first product analyzed was a typical AIAA conference
brochure, such as a call for papers or a preliminary program.
Subsequently, the analysis was expanded to encompass the publi-
cation of Aerospace America. The analysis began with the develop-
ment of comprehensive bills of materials, first for the brochure and
then for the magazine. Paraskevopoulos and Austin assigned each
material to its respective process step and organized the steps into
a process map with inputs and outputs flowing from one step to the
next. The analysis incorporated simplifying assumptions concerning
the production process, such as average distribution distances and
the use of average power sources in the United States. After con-
ducting extensive what if trades, it was concluded that these
assumptions did not significantly affect the overall results.
Figure 1 depicts some results of these analyses, showing that
the majority of greenhouse gas emissions are produced during the
material production phase. The only other significant contributions
came from power production and transportation.
Applications
The project, although primarily conducted to gain familiarity with
the process, has already had an impact on AIAA operations. The
LCA results showed the potential for implementing changes that
reduce environmental impacts from greenhouse gases, not only in
the Institute but also industrywide. AIAA is using the results of this
LCA to take its first steps toward a greener publication process.
Figure 2 shows the effects that various changes would have on
the overall emissions due to brochure production, the most feasible
of which is switching to recycled paper, resulting in a 26% decrease
in gaseous emissions. The Institute plans to implement this easy
change as soon as practical. Another change currently under way
is a reduction in the quantity of printed material, with a heavier
reliance on electronic dissemination of information (i.e., as PDFs).
AIAA expects to reduce Aerospace Americas environmental
impact by 12% as it becomes available in PDF format, by eliminat-
ing airborne shipping for international members who do not specifi-
cally request and pay for a hard copy of the magazine.
As the Institute strives to become more ecofriendly, it also
advocates the use of Life Cycle Assessments by its members.
These assessments allow companies in the aerospace community
to understand what effects their business products and services
have on the environment, and to identify feasible strategies to
reduce their environmental impact. Through meaningful steps such
as these to reduce emissions and to work smarter and greener, the
aerospace industry can become a leader in global sustainability.
AIAA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
WINNERS VISIT WASHINGTON, DC
In May, the AIAA Foundation Educator Achievement Award win-
ners and their guests arrived in Washington, DC, to participate in
specially arranged tours, culminating in the Aerospace Spotlight
Gala at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade
Center, where they received their awards in front of aerospace
luminaries attending the gala.
Upon their arrival, the teachers were whisked away to the
Lockheed Martin Space Exploration Center, where they were
greeted by astronaut Ken Reightler, Jr, who narrated the launch of
STS-125, and David Brandt. The group then went to Ronald
Reagan National Airport, where they were treated to a tour of the
FAA Control tower, as a guest of James Brough, AVSED Manager
for the FAA. This was followed by a visit to the Air Force Memorial,
where Pete Lindquist conducted a tour of how the memorial came
to be and the special memorials contained on the property.
The next day started early, the teachers went to Orbital
Sciences and met with Raymond Crough and their team of engi-
neers, including astronaut Frank Culbertson. They toured the
Orbital campus, getting an opportunity to see their Mission Control
and high-bay facilities. It was onto the FAA Command facility next,
where the group met with senior air traffic control managers who
explained the ins and outs of daily air traffic control. The group
had a new appreciation for weather and its importance to share
with their students. Finally, they visited both National Air & Space
Museum facilities, as a guest of Doug Baldwin of the Office of
Education.
Each teacher received flags for their classroom and gifts from
AIAA corporate members and educational partners, The
Aerospace Corporation, The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin,
GE Aviation, Ball Aerospace, Booz Allen Hamilton, CSC, Johns
Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, NASA, the National Institutes of
Aerospace, AGI, and the National Air & Space Museum. They
also participated in a focus group to determine how AIAA can best
assist K12 educators to inspire students to choose STEM
careers. This information and a spring survey of current Educator
Associates will guide the Precollege Outreach Committee as they
work to develop programs suited for teachers and their students.
Julie Albertson, chair of AIAAs Pre-College Outreach
Committee, stated: In the over ten years of Educator
Achievement Award presentation, AIAA has benefited from the
significant participation of awardees on committees at the local,
national, and international level. This lasting contribution is critical
to the health of the industry, and the future of aerospace, and it is
fitting that the community has gone above and beyond to recog-
nize their hard work and efforts.
This award is supported by the AIAA Foundation, which was
formed to enhance and support the viability of the future aero-
space professional, practicing aerospace professionals, and the
organizations and institutions involved in aerospace by devoting
resources to the education of both practicing and future aerospace
professionals, and by recognizing professional achievement, we
are influencing the future of the aerospace profession.
The AIAA Foundation Educator Achievement Award is present-
ed every two years, so nominations will begin in May 2010 for the
next award. For more information about the award, please contact
Lisa Bacon at lisab@aiaa.org.
2009 AIAA Foundation Educator Achievement Award winners and their
guests at the Air Force Memorial.
2009 AIAA Foundation Educator Achievement Award winners with astro-
naut Ken Reightler, Jr, at Lockheed Martin.
GNC CHALLENGES FOR MINIATURE AUTONOMOUS
SYSTEMS WORKSHOP TO BE PRESENTED IN FLORIDA
The Northwest Florida Section will co-host the GNC
Challenges for Miniature Autonomous Systems Workshop
to be held 2628 October 2009, at the Emerald Coast
Conference Center, Fort Walton Beach, FL. This workshop
is intended to bring the DoD technical and user community,
academia, and industry together to review and discuss
advances in guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) for
Miniature Autonomous Systems. Miniature autonomous sys-
tems capable of agile locomotion or flight in urban, forested,
and indoor (including transitions from outdoor to indoor)
environments present many unique technical challenges to
the controls and systems engineer. It is envisioned that the
military use of miniature systems will include acquiring,
tracking, and engaging non-traditional targets.
The workshop will feature presentations from leaders in
the DoD technical and user communities, academia, and
industry. The first day of the workshop will feature perspec-
tives from the operations community, and GNC research
challenge talks from senior research representatives of the
Air Force, Navy, Army, and DARPA. The afternoon of the
first day will feature For Official Use Only presentations. The
second and third days of the workshop will feature public
forum presentations and discussions including a variety of
topics including Multi-use Miniature Seekers/Sensors;
Advanced Navigation Sensors and Techniques; System
Integration Challenges; and Multi-vehicle Cooperative
Operations. Visit www.ion.org/mas for more information.
AIAA HAMPTON ROADS SECTION AWARDS
SCHOLARSHIPS
Paresh Parikh, Ph.D., Chair, AIAA HRS Scholarship
During its Annual Awards Banquet on 28 May, the Hampton
Roads Section (HRS) of AIAA awarded $2,000 scholarships each
to two outstanding graduating high school seniors. The AIAA HRS
Futures in Aerospace scholarship program is funded through a
fully endowed scholarship fund and by proceeds from a yearly golf
tournament. Beginning with a single scholarship award of $1,000
in 1985, to date 49 awards have been made totaling $74,100. The
scholarship is open to graduating seniors from all high schools
located in the area served by the Hampton Roads Section, who
plan to pursue undergraduate studies in the field of engineering,
physical or applied sciences.
This year, the committee received 14 applications. The qualifica-
tions and academic and extracurricular achievements of the appli-
cant pool were spectacular. Average weighted GPA of this pool of
applicants was 4.14 and an average SAT score of 1925 out of the
possible 2400. The two winners were Katelyn Christein, a gradu-
ating senior from Tabb High School, Yorktown, VA, and Jonathan
(Chris) Lee from Mills Godwin High School, Richmond, VA. Both of
the winners plan to study Aerospace Engineering at Virginia Tech.
In addition to the scholarship check, the winners each received a
certificate, and their names were added to a plaque that is on per-
manent display at NASA Langley Research Center. A representa-
tive from each winners high school, as well as the parents of the
winners, were also recognized during the awards banquet.
Hampton Roads Section Futures in Aerospace scholarship award win-
ners pose with banquet presenters. Left to right: Dr. Paresh Parikh,
(Scholarship Award Chair), winner Jonathan (Chris) Lee (Mills Godwin
High School), winner Katelyn Christein (Tabb High School), and former
Astronaut Jon A. McBride (Banquet Guest Speaker). The scholarship
evaluators (not in the picture) were Linda Bangert, Suresh Joshi, Tray
Arthur, Richard White, and Anna Robinson.
AIAA FELLOW RECEIVES AACC CONTROL
ENGINEERING AWARD
Suresh M. Joshi, AIAA Fellow, received
the American Automatic Control
Councils (AACCs) 2009 Control
Engineering Practice (CEP) Award on 11
June at the awards ceremony of the
American Control Conference in St.
Louis. The AACC is a federation of eight
member societies (including AIAA, the
IEEE, and the ASME), which have a
strong interest in control theory and
applications. The CEP award represents
a significant national recognition in the
field of control systems engineering, and
is given to one individual or one team
selected from those nominated for significant contribution to the
advancement of control practice. The primary criterion for selection
is the application and implementation of innovative control con-
cepts, methodology, and technology, for the planning, design,
manufacture, and operation of control systems.
Joshi is Senior Scientist for Control Theory at NASAs Langley
Research Center in Hampton, VA. He received his B.S. and M.S.
degrees from India (Banaras University and IIT-Kanpur) and his
Ph.D in electrical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, NY (1973). His research interests have been vari-
ous aspects of multivariable control theory and design with appli-
cations to advanced aerospace vehicles and systems, including
high-performance space-based pointing systems; attitude control,
vibration suppression, and maneuvering of flexible space struc-
tures; integrated spacecraft design to accommodate control-struc-
ture interaction; active control of noise; and adaptive control of air-
craft under anomaly and failures. He is the author/coauthor of over
200 publications including 3 books in control engineering and
aerospace applications. He is a Fellow of the IEEE (1993), AIAA
(1994), and the ASME (1998), and a recipient of the IEEE Control
System Technology Award (1995), IEEE Judith A. Resnik Award
(2003), ASME-DSCD Charles S. Draper Innovative Practice Award
(2006), and IEEE-Region 3 (Southeastern US) Outstanding
Engineer Award (2007).
CALL FOR PAPERS
ICNPAA 2010 World Congress: Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, Sciences and Aerospace
INPE, Brazil, 30 June3 July 2010
On behalf of the International Organizing Committee, it gives
us great pleasure to invite you to the ICNPAA 2010 World
Congress: 8th International Conference on Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, Aerospace and Sciences, which will
be held at INPE (National Institute for Space Research), Sao
Jose dos Campos (SP), Brazil, during 30 June3 July 2010.
This is an AIAA cosponsored event.
Please visit the Web site: www.icnpaa.com for all details.
LOS ANGELES SECTION CELEBRATES APOLLO 11
ANNIVERSARY
Kyle Yang, AIAA Los Angeles Section Technical Co-Chair
On 23 July, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of man first setting
foot on the moon, the Los Angeles Section of AIAA, working with
AIAA Fellow Dr. Buzz Aldrin, hosted over 400 people at the
California Science Center in Los Angeles at an event that paid trib-
ute to the past while looking to the future. The event featured view-
ing of the Centers Sketch Foundation aerospace collection, includ-
ing capsules from the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, as
well as a fragment of a moon rock. The event culminated in a
panel discussion on future exploration issues with Aldrin; Educator
Associate Hal Walker, Tech Plus; Albion Bowers, NASA Dryden;
Associate Fellow John Stammreich, Boeing (ret.); Associate
Fellow Michael Sander, NASA JPL; Maj Gen Thomas Taverney,
USAF (Ret), SAIC; and moderated by Dr. Howard McCurdy,
University of Washington.
Among the audience were some 50 engineers who had worked
on Apollo systems. Discussion ranged from issues such as travel-
ling to Mars, how to invigorate math and science education in our
secondary schools, and the potential interplay between future
manned and unmanned missions. Afterward, Aldrin provided a
personal introduction to the 3-D IMAX film that takes its name from
his words uttered on the surface moon, Magnificent Desolation.
NURTURING THE SPARK OF INSPIRATION
David Thompson, Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder, Orbital Sciences
Corporation
Dave Thompson, currently serving as AIAA President, has been an
AIAA member since 1972. He was the recipient of AIAA awards dur-
ing his student years, and is now an AIAA Fellow. He has been
awarded the National Medal of Technology, the National Air and
Space Museum Trophy, and the World Technology Award for
Space, and has been named the High-Technology Entrepreneur of
the Year. Here, he talks about his beginnings in aerospace:
My obsession with space began when I was three years old.
Early one evening in the fall of 1957, my dad took me out-
side, where we stood in our backyard and looked up into the
sky. I saw something that looked like a star shoot across the
horizon; I didnt know what it was, but I was fascinated by
the sight.
That shooting star was Sputnik II, and I have loved rockets
and satellites ever since. A toy rocket became my prized pos-
session, and when I went to grade school, my buddies and I
tried to build real rockets. Our creations would occasionally fly
for a few seconds, more by happy accident than anything
else. This was in the 1960s, when the Space Race captured
the attention of the public, and rocketry was a growing national
interest.
In high school, I built bigger and bigger amateur rockets
until I had exhausted all of the information I could find on
them. In my research, I discovered AIAA, and asked the
Institute to send me any available materials about rockets.
Some kind person at the AIAA office sent me several books,
including The Guide to Model Rocketry, which was my Bible
for years. That was my first contact with AIAA, which has influ-
enced my education and subsequent career ever since.
It took a leap of imagination to think that aerospace engi-
neering was something that I could pursue, as no one in my
family had ever considered such ambitions, but they support-
ed my efforts. I was further helped along by a series of schol-
arships and fellowships.
A scholarship not only helps with the cost of education, but
also opens a students eyes to possibilities. As important as
the money was, there was also the sense of recognition, an
assurance that I was on the right path. That meant more to
me, and to my future in the space industry, than the money.
Thompson recently pledged $100,000 to the AIAA
Foundation for the David and Catherine Thompson Space
Technology Scholarship to support undergraduate student edu-
cation. Giving back the support that others provided for me is
one of the most rewarding things I can do, says Thompson.
And one of the most important things all of us can do to secure
the future of our profession is to give recognition to deserving
students early on, providing them with both the funds and the
encouragement to master the field. When it is my time to retire,
I want to make sure that todays students will be ready, since
they are our future.
To learn more about the David and Catherine Thompson Space
Technology Scholarship, or the AIAA Foundation, please visit
www.aiaafoundation.org.
ASKPOLARIS LAUNCHED FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS
Over the last year, a dedicated group of volunteers from several dif-
ferent aerospace organizations has come together to assist stu-
dents and their parents in the pursuit of college programs that will
lead them to careers in the aerospace industry. Julie Albertson,
Chair, AIAA Precollege Outreach Committee states, This website
provides a phenomenal resource for students, parents, teachers
and counselors to navigate the sometimes complex world of
Aerospace Engineering academics. The new Web site,
www.askpolaris.org, offers guidance on college selection, various
types of aerospace programs that are available, what types of ques-
tions students and their parents should be asking as they prepare
for college visits, and advice on how to fund a college education.
Daphne Dador, Manager, Workforce Programs, Aerospace
Industry Association, pointed out that The aerospace industry is
actively looking for young people to join its ranks to replace work-
ers who are getting ready to retire and AskPolaris is a useful tool
to connect young people and their parents to these opportunities.
AIAA Precollege Committee member Prof. Edgar Bering of the
University of Houston said, AskPolaris was developed by a dedi-
cated team of experts that included current students and parents
working together with professional educators to craft a Web site
that provides a range of excellent advice to prospective engineer-
ing students.
The Web site was designed and is maintained by AIAA staff
with content for the Web site contributed by the FAA, the
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), the Junior Engineering
Technical Society (JETS), and Careers in Aviation. This unique
collaborative effort will give the students and their parents a one-
stop place to obtain much information. AskPolaris provides
answers to the most commonly asked questions about the engi-
neering professionWhat is engineering?, What type of work do
aerospace engineers accomplish? The site also answers the
types of questions that students have about preparing for the pro-
fession: What types of courses should I be taking in high
school?, What should I look for in a college engineering pro-
gram? As well as answering the questions that parents normally
have about college: How can I help my child adjust to college
life?, How do I navigate the college application process?
Caroline Twomey Lamb, former Student Liaison to the AIAA
Board of Directors notes, As AIAA Student Liaison, Ive fielded
several questions from students trying to select a college and spo-
ken with many professional members asking my advice relative to
their kids high school coursework and college searches. Its grati-
fying to have worked with a group of knowledgeable individuals to
create this resource that will reach so many more students and
parents than could we on our own.
Over 30 AIAA Student members have volunteered to answer
questions asked of AskPolaris, so that students can get a student
perspective on college life and the opportunities available to them
at the college level for course of study, competitions, research pro-
jects and life as a college student.
AIAA and its collaborative partners hope that AskPolaris
becomes a most visited Web site, which will provide a gateway to
the aerospace workforce. For more information about AIAA
Precollege Initiatives, please contact Lisa Bacon at lisab@aiaa.org.
SPACE AND MISSILE GROUP RECOGNIZES HELLMAN
FOR EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE
The Space and Missile Group recog-
nized Barry Hellman for his outstanding
service as the Associate Chair of the
AIAA Space Logistics Technical
Committee. The exceptional service
award is given in recognition of his
exemplary initiative and performance in
greatly improving the TC by implement-
ing such features as a TC newsletter
and other communication services.
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
Nominations are being accepted for the following awards, and
must be received at AIAA Headquarters no later than 1 October
2009. A nomination form can be downloaded from www.aiaa.org,
or AIAA members may submit nominations online using
www.aiaa.org, MY AIAA.
Major Awards & Lectureships
Distinguished Service Award gives unique recognition to an
individual member of AIAA who has distinguished himself or her-
self over a period of years by service to the Institute. (Current
national officers and directors are ineligible for this award.)
Goddard Astronautics Award is the highest honor AIAA
bestows for notable achievement in the field of astronautics.
International Cooperation Award recognizes individuals who
have made significant contributions to the initiation, organization,
implementation, and/or management of activities with significant
U.S. involvement that includes extensive international cooperative
activities in space, aeronautics, or both.
Public Service Award honors a person outside the aerospace
community who has shown consistent and visible support for
national aviation and space goals.
Reed Aeronautics Award is the highest award an individual
can receive for achievements in the field of aeronautical science
and engineering.
Dryden Lectureship in Research emphasizes the great impor-
tance of basic research to the advancement in aeronautics and
astronautics and is a salute to research scientists and engineers.
Durand Lectureship for Public Service is presented for
notable achievements by a scientific or technical leader whose
contributions have led directly to the understanding and application
of the science and technology of aeronautics and astronautics for
the betterment of mankind.
von Krmn Lectureship in Astronautics recognizes an indi-
vidual who has performed notably and distinguished himself tech-
nically in the field of astronautics.
Joint Society Awards
The Daniel Guggenheim Medal honors persons who make
notable achievements in the advancement of aeronautics. This
award is jointly sponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and AHS.
Jay Hollingsworth Speas Airport Award is presented to the
person or persons judged to have contributed most outstandingly
during the recent past toward achieving compatible relationships
between airports and/or heliports and adjacent environments.
William Littlewood Memorial Lecture highlights a broad
phase of civil air transportation considered of current interest and
major importance.
Technical Awards
Aeroacoustics Award is presented for an outstanding techni-
cal or scientific achievement resulting from an individuals contribu-
tion to the field of aircraft community noise reduction.
Aerodynamics Award is presented for meritorious achieve-
ment in the field of applied aerodynamics, recognizing notable con-
tributions in the development, application, and evaluation of aero-
dynamic concepts and methods.
Aerodynamic Measurement Technology Award is presented
for continued contributions and achievements toward the advance-
ment of advanced aerodynamic flowfield and surface measure-
ment techniques for research in flight and ground test applications.
Aerospace Communications Award is presented for an out-
standing contribution in the field of aerospace communications.
Aerospace Design Engineering Award recognizes design
engineers who have made outstanding technical, educational, or
creative achievements that exemplifies the quality and elements of
design engineering.
Air Breathing Propulsion Award is presented for meritorious
accomplishment in the science of air breathing propulsion.
Chanute Flight Test Award recognizes significant lifetime
achievements in the advancement of the art, science, and technol-
ogy of flight test engineering.
Fluid Dynamics Award is presented for outstanding contribu-
tions to the understanding of the behavior of liquids and gases in
motion as related to need in aeronautics and astronautics.
Ground Testing Award is presented for outstanding achieve-
ment in the development or effective utilization of technology, pro-
cedures, facilities, or modeling techniques or flight simulation,
space simulation, propulsion testing, aerodynamic testing, or other
ground testing associated with aeronautics and astronautics.
Jeffries Aerospace Medicine & Life Sciences Research
Award is presented for outstanding research accomplishments in
aerospace medicine and space life sciences.
Plasmadynamics and Lasers Award is presented for out-
standing contributions to the understanding of the physical proper-
ties and dynamical behavior of matter in the plasma state and
lasers as related to need in aeronautics and astronautics.
Propellants and Combustion Award is presented for out-
standing technical contributions to aeronautical or astronautical
combustion engineering.
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Award is pre-
sented for an outstanding sustsained technical or scientific contri-
bution in aerospace structures, structural dynamics, or materials.
Survivability Award recognizes outstanding achievement or
contribution in design, analysis implementation, and/or education
of survivability in an aerospace system.
Theodor W. Knacke Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems
Award recognizes significant contributions to the effectiveness
and/or safety of aeronautical or aerospace systems through devel-
opment or application of the art and science of aerodynamic decel-
erator technology.
Thermophysics Award is presented for an outstanding singu-
lar or sustained technical or scientific contribution by an individual
in thermophysics, specifically as related to the study and applica-
tion of the properties and mechanisms involved in thermal energy
transfer and the study of environmental effects on such properties
and mechanisms.
Wyld Propulsion Award is given for outstanding achievement
in the development or application of rocket propulsion systems.
Service Awards
Engineer of the Year is presented To an individual member of
AIAA who has made a recent significant contribution that is worthy
of national recognition. Nominations begin at the AIAA Section
level and are due 1 October to the appropriate Regional Director.
Sustained Service Award recognizes sustained, significant
service and contributions to AIAA by members of the Institute.
For further information, please contact Carol Stewart, Manager,
AIAA Honors and Awards, at 703.264.7623 or at carols@aiaa.org.
MEMBERSHIP ANNIVERSARIES
AIAA would like to acknowledge the following members on their continuing membership with the organization.
James W Johnson Cape Canaveral
Jeremy B Jones San Gabriel Valley
Stanley J Kaplan Connecticut
Henry Katz Northern New Jersey
David L Kohlman Rocky Mountain
Peter R Kurzhals Orange County
Robert L Larson Los Angeles
James P Loomis Columbus
Azriel K Lorber Israel
Frank E Lowther
William R Lucas Alabama/Mississippi
G Lennart Magnusson Sweden
M W Mandel Long Island
Guy R Manger Switzerland
Charles Martin Albuquerque
Larry B Mattson Los Angeles
Daniel Mc Keown San Diego
Allan J McDonald Utah
Stanley C Mellin Los Angeles
Tomio Mitsunaga Utah
John J Nestor Orange County
Conrad F Newberry Point Lobos
Richard A Oman Long Island
Ralph B Owen Pacific Northwest
Paul A Penzo San Gabriel Valley
Aldo A Peracchio Connecticut
Pierre C Perrier France
Bobby W Phillips San Gabriel Valley
Mauro Pierucci San Diego
Jay D Pinson San Francisco
Alex Pisciotta Jr San Diego
Robert V Plank Arrowhead
Ernie W Pope Baltimore
Gerald A Pounds Atlanta
Louis A Povinelli Northern Ohio
James L Rand Southwest Texas
Kenneth W Randle Utah
John W Rockensies Long Island
M David Rosenberg Delaware
Joseph Rosener Jr Orange County
Stanley G Rubin Palm Beach
James E Sadler Orange County
George R Schneiter Hampton Roads
Arnold E Seigel National Capital
Richard H Sforzini Alabama/Mississippi
Leslie M Sheppard Adelaide
Martin P Sherman Albuquerque
Wayne E Simon Rocky Mountain
Charles A Sinclair San Francisco
Philip W Smith Dayton/Cincinnati
Robert C Speiser Orange County
Raymond J Stalker Australia
Morris A Steinberg Los Angeles
Paul M Steiner Phoenix
John G Tietz Pacific Northwest
Laurence B Trollen Pacific Northwest
Frederick L Tuttle St. Louis
Robert T Uda San Diego
Reginald I Vachon Atlanta
Woodward Waesche National Capital
George D Waldman New England
Howard L Wesoky National Capital
Kenneth Weston Oklahoma
Charles D White Jr Baltimore
Stanley C White,MD Cape Canaveral
Chester L Whitehair Los Angeles
Edward Wolf Illinois
James C Young Southwest Texas
Nathaniel K Zelazo Wisconsin
Ronald A Zollner New England
60-Year Anniversaries
Barnet R Adelman San Francisco
Edward M Allen Southern New Jersey
William H Anderson Pacific Northwest
M W Bell Los Angeles
David Bevan Greater Philadelphia
James S Bowman Jr Hampton Roads
James D Burke San Gabriel Valley
Eugene W Cairns Carolina
Cleophas M Clark Tennessee
Peter W DAnna Baltimore
Richard A Deutsch Central Florida
Edward G Dorsey Jr Carolina
Darshan S Dosanjh Central New York
Charles M Ehresman Indiana
Ned R Foster Central Florida
William A French Central Florida
George C Gatje Hampton Roads
Calvin A Gongwer San Gabriel Valley
Quentin J Goss San Diego
Glenn C Grimes San Francisco
Louis O Gueldner Jr Southwest Texas
Lloyd E Hackman Palm Beach
Palmer O Hanson Jr Central Florida
Wayne A Harmening Southern New Jersey
G W Hawk Niagara Frontier
George R Huson National Capital
Gordon W Johnson Orange County
Eldon L Knuth San Fernando Pacific
Joseph Mallen Greater Philadelphia
Richard E Martin San Diego
Bernard P Miller Northern New Jersey
John Mockovciak Jr North Texas
H D Moran Rocky Mountain
Richard C Much San Francisco
Tony Passera New England
Richard A Pride Hampton Roads
Milton L Rand St. Louis
Thomas R Rooney Los Angeles
Harold E Royston Phoenix
Joaquin A Saavedr National Capital
Harris M Schurmeier San Diego
Clifford J Shaver Long Island
Richard S Snedeker Northern New Jersey
Charles R Stone Twin Cities
Frederic E Titus Pacific Northwest
Robert L Trimpi Hampton Roads
Harris C True Northern Ohio
Richard R Tumlinson Wichita
Thomas Vrebalovich Los Angeles
Reginald J Wallace Canada
George R Weinbrenner Southwest Texas
Frank A Woodward Pacific Northwest
G V Amico Central Florida
W T Bell Arrowhead
Conbert H Benneck Connecticut
Ray T Chevedden Los Angeles
Edward E Francisco J Phoenix
George S Graff St. Louis
Eustace P Hetzel Los Angeles
Jerry Pavelka Connecticut
Louis A Payne San Diego
John Voge Atlanta
Dwigh Abbott Los Angeles
L A Adkins Atlanta
Alfred A Amann Vandenberg
Robert J Arenz Los Angeles
Paul K Arthur White Sands Space Harbor
William B Baker Jr Tennessee
Gordon B Bakken Alabama/Mississippi
Richard H Berks New England
William R Bertelsen Illinois
Richard P Bobco Los Angeles
Barry W Boehm Los Angeles
William J Brandel National Capital
Jere G Castor Phoenix
Earl D Chaney Jr San Diego
Robert L Chapkis Los Angeles
Michael V Ciminera Los Angeles
T J Cokonis Greater Philadelphia
M Alan A Covington San Francisco
Roger A Crawford Tennessee
Ernest J Cross Jr Hampton Roads
Lloyd W Curtis Wichita
Paul J De Fries San Diego
Richard R Denno Los Angeles
John N Dickson Alabama/Mississippi
Donald M Dix National Capital
Jerry Doniger Palm Beach
Donald B Doolittle Baltimore
Robert E Duffy Northeastern New York
Robert W Farquhar National Capital
Rowland G Freeman III Hampton Roads
Donald J Fressie Indiana
John A Ganger Dayton/Cincinnati
William A Gaubatz Los Angeles
John A George St. Louis
Ralph J Gerke Northern Ohio
Joshua E Greenspon Baltimore
Ian M Hall Great Britain
Philip T Harsha San Diego
Thomas J Heal Sacramento
Laurence J Heidelberg Northern Ohio
Bastian Hello National Capital
Raymond G Hemann San Gabriel Valley
Charles A Henry Orange County
Charles A Huebner Hungary
Latif M Jiji Long Island
OBITUARY
AIAA Senior Member Died in June
Richard P. Dick Edwards died 3 June. He was 75.
Mr. Edwards earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of Arizona, and served as an Air Force pilot. He later
earned an M.S. in Systems Engineering from UCLA and studied
toward a Doctorate of Business Administration.
In the 1960s, he worked for several aerospace companies in
Southern California, initially on the Atlas launch vehicle and later
for North American Aviation on the S-II stage of Saturn rockets.
In 1980, he joined the Space Shuttle program at Rockwell
International, later Boeing, and moved with the program to
Houston, where he was serving as Principal Engineer in System
Integration at the time of his death.
Among his accomplishments was co-authorship of a report to
the U.S. President regarding changes after the Challenger acci-
dent. Mr. Edwards was very active in AIAA. His other volunteer
service included establishing judging policy for the California
State Science Fair and Co-Founding Space Settlement Design
Competitions, which involve over 1000 high school students
annually worldwide.
AIAA CORPORATE MEMBER SPOTLIGHT:
HALLGREN ASSOCIATES, INC. PARTNERS WITH
PRACTICAL AERONAUTICS, INC.
Practical Aeronautics, Inc. offers professional development and
continuing education short courses in fundamental aeronautics
and propulsion. By partnering with Hallgren Associates, Inc.,
Practical Aeronautics is building on seven years of success and
the experience of teaching nearly 2000 students from audiences
across DoD, NASA, FAA, and industry. Courses are taught by
award-winning educators and highly experienced pilots.
Application of theory is emphasized, providing students the req-
uisite aeronautics to appreciate the design tradeoffs inherent in
any air vehicle. While course topics are technical by nature,
small class size and a building-block approach allow those with
limited or no technical background to gain the same benefit as
those with a formal engineering education.
Past students represent a broad range of professionals work-
ing directly or indirectly in the field of aviationprogram man-
agers, engineers, aircraft operations and support personnel,
wind tunnel and flight test technicians, administrative personnel,
new hires, and aircraft enthusiasts. For detailed information
please visit the Practical Aeronautics Web site at
www.PracticalAero.com.
AIAA WELCOMES NEW MEMBERS, JOINED JUNE 2009
REGION I
Baltimore
Timothy G. McGee
Erin Mcmahon
Timothy Trenkle
Connecticut
Thomas G. Johnson
Jun Shi
Greater Philadelphia
John Hartenstine
Robab Safa-Bakhsh
Hampton Roads
Ji Su
National Capital
Harry M. Elmendorf
Tom Foust
Christopher Henry
Timothy R. Hughes
Wiener Kernisan
Yasmine Landin
Aaron Lewis
Nancy Nolting
Robert Searle
Roya Shambayati
New England
Lucinda M. Fleury
John E. Gerrish
Northern New Jersey
Gene J. Mikulka, II
Southern New Jersey
Corey R. Menzer
Andrew Wakefield
Southern Tier
James M. Doehring
REGION II
Alabama/Mississippi
Nathan C. Alday
Karen Altino
Benton Derrick
Chris C. Fulton
Steven L. Gordon
Jeff Montgomery
Patrick A. Tobbe
David R. Walker
Douglas G. Westra
Heath E. Wilson
Atlanta
Robert J. Brackin
Edmund Leigh
David Spencer
Cape Canaveral
Anders P. Bergmann
Central Florida
Timothy L. Ford
Kevin T. Rigby
Greater New Orleans
Mounir Z. Sabbagh
Palm Beach
David Giel
No Section Assignment
Emmanuel Sanchez
REGION III
Indiana
Ning Chai
Northern Ohio
David J. Anderson
Daniel A. Herman
REGION IV
Houston
Pamela J. Britton
Robert L. Wilson
North Texas
Larry B. Taylor
Holloman/Alamogordo
Sandra A. McIntosh
REGION V
Rocky Mountain
Richard Baumeister
Robert E. Chambers, III
Jacob Dembeck
Colette M. Hallgren
Allan T. Kirkpatrick
Marc Saunders
Paul Washington
David Wilson, Jr.
St. Louis
Richard A. Hudson
Tim Smith
Twin Cities
Kristopher W. Gerber
REGION VI
Antelope Valley
Marty Brenner
Frank A. Lepore
Andrew J. Rowe
Arrowhead
Joseph R. Pasek
China Lake
Anna R. Merritt
Los Angeles
Garrett J. Murphy
Tomoya T. Ochinero
Derek Saddler
Orange County
Mark A. Huebner
Mike Louie
Carlos H. Torres
Pacific Northwest
Erica L. Lannoye
Anibal Lozada
Paul J. Willoughby
Phoenix
Chad Devere
Edwin L. Harvey
Sacramento
Charles P. Bruner
San Diego
Christian E. Contreras
Petar D. Simich
Tricia Sur
San Francisco
Alexandre M. Bayen
Joseph C. Brooks
Andrea G. Hsu
San Gabriel Valley
Corrine E. Gatto
E. David Skulsky
Tucson
Daniel V. Macinnis
Johnny Williams
Utah
Fred Brasfield
Vandenberg
David B. Langan
REGION VII
Belgium
Christophe R. Paridaens
Bayindir H. Saracoglu
Brazil
Rodrigo P. De La Fuente
Jose Franca
Canada
Awot M. Berhe
Stuart Eagleson
Patrick Marmillod
Andrew E. Simms
Timothy S. Waung
China (PRC)
Ying Huai
Xie Kan
France
Gregory Gelly
Jean-Philippe Heliot
Gaetan Le Forestier
Laurent Tixier
Germany
Fabio Almeida
Christoph Aulitzky
Erich Schuelein
Guido Sperl
Great Britain
Mehdi Ghoreyshi
Shaun R. Kenyon
Eduardo A. Pena
India
P. V. Ravi
Iran
S. M. Nima Shojaee
Israel
Omry Einav
Aharon Klaiman
Italy
Adriano P. Ceccherini
Silvio Cocuzza
Japan
Yoshiyuki Fujitsuna
Katsuyoshi Fukiba
Kaname Kawatsu
Kenichi Kushiki
Dongyoun Kwak
Tatsuo Minohara
Mitsuhiro Murayama
Mexico
Catalina E. Stern
Poland
Tomasz Goetzendorf-
Grabowski
South Africa
Ferdi Herbst
South Korea
Jongho Choi
Sweden
Richard B. Crowe
Johan Revstedt
Switzerland
Marcus Ramalho
Taiwan
Cheng-Chiang Hsu
The Bahamas
Sattesh Rattan
Information for Authors
The official conference Web site is located at: www.space-
flight.org/AAS_meetings/2010_winter/2010%20winter.html,
which is accessible from the AAS Web site at www.space-
flight.org. Conference information, rules, and regulations are
maintained and updated via the web; authors should refer to the
official Web site for the most current information.
The abstract submission deadline is 5 October 2009. Please
be aware that this date has been set at the latest possible date
for the convenience of contributors and that there are no plans
to defer this deadline due to the constraints of the conference
planning schedule. Should the number of submissions exceed
the limited number of presentation slots, preference will be given
to the earliest submissions. Notification of acceptance will be
sent via e-mail by 16 November 2009.
To submit an abstract, use the web-based submission system
accessible from the official conference Web site. By submitting
an abstract, the author affirms that the papers majority content
has not been previously presented or published elsewhere.
Detailed author instructions will be sent by e-mail after the
abstract has been submitted. As part of the online submission
process, authors are expected to provide:
1) A paper title, as well as the name, affiliation, postal
address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the corre-
sponding author.
2) A two-page extended abstract of at least 500 words, in the
Portable Document File (PDF) format. The extended abstract
should provide a clear and concise statement of the problem to
be addressed, an explanation of its significance, the proposed
method of solution, the results expected or obtained, and sup-
porting tables and figures as appropriate. A list of pertinent refer-
ences should be included.
3) A condensed abstract (100 words maximum) to be included
in the printed conference program. The condensed abstract is to
be entered into the text box provided on the web page, and must
avoid the use of special symbols or characters, such as Greek
letters.
Technology Transfer Warning
Technology transfer guidelines substantially extend the time
required to review abstracts and papers by private enterprises
and government agencies. These reviews can require four
months or more. Plan accordingly to preclude late submissions
and paper withdrawals. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to
determine the extent of necessary approvals prior to submitting
an abstract.
Visas
Foreign contributors requiring an official letter of acceptance
for a visa application should contact the Technical Chairmen by
e-mail at their earliest opportunity.
No Paper / No Podium Policy
Completed manuscripts are to be electronically uploaded to
the Web site prior to the conference in PDF format, be no more
than 20 pages in length, and conform to the AAS paper format.
If the completed manuscript is not contributed on time, then it
will not be presented at the conference and will not appear in the
conference proceedings. Any paper that is not presented for any
reason will be considered to be withdrawn and will not appear in
the conference proceedings. Prior to presentation, the present-
ing author will provide the session chair with a short biographical
sketch and, if requested, a paper copy of the manuscript and
presentation.
20th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting
1417 February 2010
San Diego Marriott Mission Valley
San Diego, California
Abstract Deadline: 5 October 2009
The 20th Space Flight Mechanics Meeting will be held 1417
February 2010, at the San Diego Marriott Mission Valley in
San Diego, CA. The conference is organized by the American
Astronautical Society (AAS) Space Flight Mechanics Committee
and cosponsored by the AIAA Astrodynamics Technical
Committee. Papers are solicited on topics related to space flight
mechanics and astrodynamics, including, but not limited to:
Artificial and natural space debris
Asteroid and non-Earth orbiting missions
Atmospheric re-entry guidance and control
Attitude dynamics, determination and control
Dynamical systems theory as applied to space flight problems
Dynamics and control of large space structures and tethers
Earth orbital and planetary mission studies
Flight dynamics operations and spacecraft autonomy
Orbit determination and space surveillance tracking
Orbital dynamics, perturbations, and stability
Rendezvous, relative motion, proximity missions, and forma-
tion flying
Satellite constellations
Spacecraft guidance, navigation and control
Trajectory/mission/maneuver design and optimization
Papers will be accepted based on the quality of an extended
abstract (see below), the originality of the work and ideas, and
the anticipated interest in the proposed subject. Papers that
contain experimental results or current data, or report on ongo-
ing missions, are especially encouraged.
Final manuscripts are required before the conference. The
working language for the conference is English.
Special Sessions
Proposals are solicited for appropriate special sessions, such
as panel discussions, invited sessions, workshops, and mini-
symposia. Potential special session organizers should submit
a proposal to the Technical Chairs. For a panel discussion, this
proposal should include a title of the discussion, a brief descrip-
tion of the topics to be discussed, and a list of the speakers
and their qualifications. For an invited session, workshop, or
mini-symposium, the proposal should consist of the title of the
session, a brief description, and a list of proposed activities and/
or invited speakers and paper titles.
Updated and additional information on the conference will
be posted at the AAS Space Flight Mechanics Committee Web
site: www.space-flight.org.
Breakwell Student Travel Award
The AAS Space Flight Mechanics Technical Committee
also announces the John V. Breakwell Student Travel Award.
This award will provide travel expenses for up to three U.S.
and Canadian students presenting papers at this conference.
Students wishing to obtain this award are strongly advised to
submit their completed paper by the abstract submittal deadline
to allow for judging. The maximum coverage per student is lim-
ited to $1000. Further details and applications may be obtained
at www.space-flight.org.
Questions concerning the submission of papers should be
addressed to the technical chairs.
AAS Technical Chair
Daniele Mortari
Texas A&M University
Department of Aerospace Engineering
H.R. Bright Building, Rm. 611C
Ross Street - TAMU 3141
College Station, TX 77843-3141
979.845.0734 979.845.6051 FAX
E-mail: mortari@aero.tamu.edu
AIAA Technical Chair
Thomas F. Starchville, Jr.
The Aerospace Corporation
M/S: CH4-500
15049 Conference Center Drive
Chantilly, VA 20151
571.307.4203 571.307.4217 FAX
E-mail: thomas.f.starchville@aero.org
For all other questions regarding the conference, please con-
tact the General Chairs:
AAS General Chair
Aaron Trask
Apogee Integration
11654 Plaza America Drive, #634
Reston, VA 20190
703.808.0609
E-mail: atrask@apogeeintegration.com
AIAA General Chair
James K. Miller
19265 Braemore Road
Northridge, CA 91326
818.488.1873
E-mail: jkm1997@verizon.net
Check Out How AIAA Membership
Works for You!
AIAA Special Benefits and Money-Saving Opportunities
In addition to supporting your professional requirements, AIAA can also help with your personal, financial, and
health care needs. AIAA has partnered with various service providers to offer members discounts on home, health
and auto insurance, and travel services. See the savings for yourself!
09-0438_1/2
Credit Card
The AIAA WorldPoints MasterCard
Credit Card: The Most Rewarding
Card of All. Earn points and get
the rewards you want, cash, travel,
merchandise, and gift certificates, now
with easy online redemption, too! Only
the WorldPoints card gives you the
freedom to choose so much, so easily
and with no annual fee.
Home and Auto Insurance
Purchase high-quality auto,home, and
renters insurance at low group rates.
Group Medical Insurance
Find competitively priced insurance
including: Comprehensive Health Care,
Catastrophe Major Medical, Cancer
Insurance, Disability Insurance, Medicare
Supplement, and Life.
Long Term Care Insurance
Long Term Care Resources (LTCR), an
elite network of LTC Specialists repre-
senting the industrys leading product
providers with unmatched exibility
and carrier options to get the protec-
tion that is right for you and superior
benets that emphasize customized
care plans.
Car Rental
Reduce your travel costs with substantial
discounts.
These extra benefits and money-
saving services are just a few more
examples of how AIAA membership
works for you around the clock,
throughout the year.
For more information about additional benefits of
AIAA membership, contact Customer Service at:
Phone: 800.3P.2422 * 703.264.7500 (outside the U.S.)
Fox: Z03.24.ZZ * Emoll: cuslserv@oloo.org
Or visit the Membership section
of the AIAA Web site
www.aiaa.org
10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and
Operations (ATIO) Conference and
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and
Optimization Conference
1315 September 2010
Renaissance Worthington Hotel
Fort Worth, Texas
Abstract Deadline: 8 February 2010
Final Manuscript Deadline: 26 August 2010
Introduction
From cell phones to automobiles, from energy generation to
air transportation systems, we live in a world of complex sys-
tems. Our daily lives depend on the reliability and ease of use of
such products and systems. The dominant role of complex sys-
tems in the modern technological society is demanding increas-
ingly sophisticated analysis and design methods from the engi-
neering and scientific communities. AIAA is bringing together two
of its premier conferences to explore and showcase the best of
these sophisticated design tools and methods and the products
they generate. Practicing engineers, researchers, and policymak-
ers will interact to explore ideas, share research, and discuss the
foremost issues in complex systems design and analysis.
General Conference Information
Joint Sessions
Given the critical importance of the design of complex sys-
tems to global interests and technological competitiveness, the
10th AIAA ATIO Conference and the 13th AIAA/ISSMO MDO
Conference have identified synergistic topics for joint sessions,
aimed at promoting collaboration between communities as well
as providing a venue for dissemination to a much broader audi-
ence. The topics for these sessions include:
Aircraft Design
Aerospace System Applications of MDO
Complex System Design Methodologies
Decision Support Processes and Tools for Complex Systems
Enabling Technologies for Complex System Design
Abstract Submittal Procedures
Abstract submissions will be accepted electronically through
the AIAA Web site at www.aiaa.org/events/atio and www.aiaa.
org/events/mao. Once you have entered the conference Web
site, on the right-hand side, click Submit a Paper and follow
the instructions listed. This Web site will be open for abstract
submittal starting 1 September 2009. The deadline for receipt of
abstracts via electronic submittal is 8 February 2010.
If you have questions regarding the submission crite-
ria or questions about AIAA policy, please contact Society
Administrator Ann Ames at anna@aiaa.org or 703.264.7549. If
you have any difficulty with the submittal process, please e-mail
ScholarOne Technical Support at ts.acsupport@thomson.com
or call 434.964.4100 or 888.503.1050 (toll-free, U.S. only).
Questions pertaining to the abstract or technical topics should
be referred to the corresponding Technical Program Chair.
General inquiries concerning the program format or policies of
the conference should be directed to the corresponding confer-
ence General Chair.
Authors will be notified of paper acceptance or rejection on or
about 22 April 2010. Instructions for preparation of final manu-
scripts will be provided for accepted papers.
Extended Abstract Submittal Requirements
In order to strengthen these technical conferences, paper
selection will be based on extended abstracts of at least 1500
words. Extended abstracts must include the motivation/signifi-
cance of the works technical approach and a preliminary version
of actual results/findings, along with key figures and references.
Submissions that do not comply with these requirements will not
be accepted.
No Paper, No Podium and No Podium, No Paper
Policies
If a written paper is not submitted by the final manuscript
deadline, authors will not be permitted to present the paper at
the conference. It is the responsibility of those authors whose
papers or presentations are accepted to ensure that a represen-
tative attends the conference to present the paper. If a paper is
not presented at the conference, it will be withdrawn from the
conference proceedings. These policies are intended to elimi-
nate no-shows and to improve the quality of the conference for
attendees.
Publication Policy
AIAA will not consider for presentation or publication any
paper that has been or will be presented or published elsewhere.
Authors will be required to sign a statement to this effect.
Final Manuscript Guidelines
An Authors Kit containing detailed instructions and guide-
lines for submitting papers will be made available to authors of
accepted papers. Authors must submit their final manuscripts via
the conference Web site no later than 26 August 2010.
WarningTechnology Transfer Considerations
Prospective authors are reminded that technology transfer
guidelines have considerably extended the time required for
review of abstracts and completed papers by U.S. government
agencies. Internal (company) plus external (government) reviews
can consume 16 weeks or more. Government review if required
is the responsibility of the author. Authors should determine the
extent of approval necessary early in the paper preparation pro-
cess to preclude paper withdrawals and late submissions. The
conference technical committee will assume that all abstracts
papers and presentations are appropriately cleared.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
AIAA speakers and attendees are reminded that some top-
ics discussed in the conference could be controlled by the
Aircraft Design and Design Methodologies
Air Transportation Systems/Air Traffic Management Systems
Systems & System Integration
Papers describing innovations in technology or methods are
now being solicited to support these conference themes, particu-
larly those which will stimulate discussion and invoke new ideas
for the aviation community.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). U.S. nation-
als (U.S. citizens and permanent residents) are responsible for
ensuring that technical data they present in open sessions to
non-U.S. nationals in attendance or in conference proceedings
are not export restricted by the ITAR. U.S. nationals are likewise
responsible for ensuring that they do not discuss ITAR export-
trestricted information with non-U.S. nationals in attendance.
10TH AIAA AVIATION TECHNOLOGY, INTEGRATION,
AND OPERATIONS (ATIO) CONFERENCE: THE FUTURE
OF GLOBAL AVIATIONCOMPLEX ANALYSIS FOR A
COMPLEX SYSTEM
Synopsis
Societys dependence on complex systems is exemplified by
our modern air transportation system. From airframe design to
air traffic control to baggage handling, the technologies and sys-
tems we rely on are becoming increasingly sophisticated. The
increasing demand for air travel is resulting in more aircraft, new
airports, and new challenges on the infrastructure that supports
them. The design of aircraft and the systems in which they oper-
ate require advanced multidisciplinary design tools and method-
ologies. New paradigms in technology, innovative aircraft con-
figurations and design solutions, and new operational systems
are emerging for this future, sympathetic aviation world.
The AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations
(ATIO) Conference has an established reputation for bringing
together aviation professionals, practicing engineers, researchers,
and policymakers to explore ideas, share research, and create
interactive opportunities in response to these issues. On its land-
mark 10th anniversary, the conference has chosen the theme of
The Future of Global AviationComplex Analysis for a Complex
System and is seeking the views of the community on how we
can take aviation to the next plateau. Particular emphasis is
placed on relevant aircraft design and design methodologies.
Who Should Attend?
Every aviation professional who is interested in understanding
how the latest technologies and methods are being exploited to
develop the next generation of air vehicles, how the air transpor-
tation system works, and how a more economically and environ-
mentally efficient system can be created, through enhancements
and innovations in vehicle and air traffic control technology, with-
in the context of the next generation system of systems.
Why Should You Attend?
No matter where you are in the spectrum of aviation profes-
sionalswhether a designer or an operator, a disciplinary scien-
tist or a system engineer, a technologist or a policymakerATIO
is the place where everyone comes together to discuss the criti-
cal aviation issues of our time and our future.
What is the Hot Topic?
The Design, Analysis, and Operation of Complex Systems.
The capability to integrate disciplines as disparate as economics,
noise and acoustics, and advanced materials, and then to under-
stand their behavior and assess their impact at the aircraft and
air traffic system levels, is paramount in creating and ensuring a
safe, secure, efficient, and economic air transportation system.
What Will My Takeaway Be?
A network and knowledge base covering the breadth of the
aviation field. You will have an awareness of the dominant
issues and technologies of our time, the key technologists and
experts in these areas, and what goals we are all striving toward.
There are three main streams to this call for papers:
ATIO General Chair
Dimitri Mavris
Professor
Boeing Professor of Advanced Aerospace Systems Analysis
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
E-mail: dimitri.mavris@aerospace.gatech.edu
ATIO Technical Program Chairs
David R. Maroney
Lead Systems Engineer
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD)
The MITRE Corporation
McLean, VA
E-mail: dmaroney@mitre.org
Danielle Soban
Senior Research Engineer
Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
E-mail: danielle.soban@ae.gatech.edu
Theme Chair
Mark Price
Professor of Aeronautics
Director of Research Integrated Aircraft Technologies
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Queens University
Belfast, UK
E-mail: m.price@qub.ac.uk
ATIO TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEES
Aircraft Design Technical Committee
Dennis Carter, Air Force Research Laboratory
William Crossley, Purdue University
Gil Crouse, Auburn University
Aircraft Operations Technical Committee
Brian Baxley, NASA Langley Research Center
Parimal Kopardekar, NASA Ames Research Center
Air Transportation Systems Technical Committee
Daniel DeLaurentis, Purdue University
Joe Post, Federal Aviation Administration
Kapil Sheth, NASA Ames Research Committee
Economics Technical Committee
Richard Curran, Delft University of Technology
General Aviation Technical Committee
Brian Richardet, Cessna Aircraft Company
Technical Activities Committee
Satish Mohleji, MITRE CAASD
Value Driven Design Program Committee
Paul Collopy, DFM Consulting
Peter Hollingsworth, University of Manchester
13TH AIAA/ISSMO MULTIDISCIPLINARY ANALYSIS AND
OPTIMIZATION CONFERENCE: ENABLING COMPLEX
DESIGN FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Synopsis
This conference will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the first
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (MA&O) conference.
Key advances in methodology, process, and tool development
will be presented. Of particular interest are the continuing chal-
lenges associated with the design and optimization of large-
scale coupled design problems, and the ways in which recent
technological advancesparticularly in modeling, simulation,
and visualizationprovide an enabling platform for achieving
a truly integrated system design. A retrospective panel session
with Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) Award winners
and leaders in key MA&O areas will assess past contributions
to the field, the present state of the art, and the challenges and
opportunities that now face the MA&O community.
Who Should Attend and Why?
The prevalence of complex engineered systems in our daily
lives and the dependence of national interests on such engi-
neered systems demand theories, methodologies, processes,
and tools that can enable the implementation of an optimal sys-
tematic design approach to maximize economic benefits. The
MAO conference provides a platform for practitioners, research-
ers, and policymakers to explore the most cutting-edge develop-
ments to accomplish this goal. Rapid developments in enabling
technologies will be a major focus of the conference.

MAO Technical Topics
Abstract submissions are invited for multidisciplinary applica-
tions ranging from aerospace to automotive to power systems.
Of interest are contributions that address topics in MDO meth-
odology development, optimization method development, uncer-
tainty quantification and incorporation in MDO, design methods
with a focus on complex system and vehicle design, MA&O
applications and tools, and enabling technologies for MA&O
(modeling, simulation, and visualization). Topics of interest
include but are not limited to:
Enabling Technologies for MA&O
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design Optimization Software
Algorithms
Architectures and Frameworks
Visual Design Steering
Design Space Exploration
Visualization and Interfaces for Decision Support in MDO
Modeling Methods
Meta-Modeling Methods
High-Performance Computing for MDO
Data Handling in Distributed Computing for Complex Design
Web-Based Computing and Collaboration
Multidisciplinary Analysis Methods that Enable Design and
Optimization
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Methodologies
Decomposition Methods for MDO
Value Driven Design Methods
Design for X in MDO
Decision Theory in MDO
Game Theory in MDO
Complex System Design
Aerospace Vehicle Design
Technical Topics
Aircraft Design and Design Methodologies
The capabilities provided by advanced computational and
analysis methods are being matched by developments in tech-
nologies, such as materials and propulsion systems in both
military and civil sectors. Papers are sought on everything from
design methods to case studies, from system and vehicle level
down to detail subsystems. Topic areas include but are not lim-
ited to:
Design Synthesis and Multi-Disciplinary Optimization
Advanced Systems Integration
Innovative Concepts and Technologies (including Energy
Optimized Systems, All-Electric Aircraft)
Cost Effectiveness of Aerospace Systems
Air Transportation: Aircraft Operations and Air Traffic
Management Systems
Also playing a vital role in addressing environmental concerns
and transportation issues are the air traffic systems that guide
aircraft around the globe. Research in technologies to increase
system and aircraft efficiency and to manage aircraft operations
at optimal levels are topics of interest for this conference. Papers
are sought that discuss research and analyses on any of a broad
range of topics, including (but not limited to):
Enterprise Architecture systems for communications, naviga-
tion, surveillance, flight planning, and air traffic control
Integrated Net-Centric Operations for air traffic management
Safety Certification of commercial, military, and general avia-
tion aircraft, both manned and unmanned Security Systems
for airports and aircraft
System Operational Efficiency with increased demand and
new aircraft types
Systems and Systems Integration
The supporting technologies and applications needed to facili-
tate developments in complex systems are key elements in the
future of aviation, including those relating to future vehicle sys-
tem concepts such as electric aircraft or fuel cell power systems,
and operationally, as expounded by NextGen and the Single
European Sky ATM Research (SESAR). Papers are sought
which describe methodologies for systems analysis and applica-
tions in the context of these future concepts and technologies.
Topic areas include but are not limited to:
Analysis of complex aviation systems
System-wide methodologies
Application of systems analysis to aerospace design
Integration of advanced technologies in vehicle and opera-
tional systems
Educational Outreach
AIAA has a strong commitment to supporting the education
of the next generation of aerospace engineers. Following this
years technical portion of the conference will be a unique edu-
cational outreach event that brings together local students and
aerospace professionals. The event will feature presentations
given by members of the aerospace community, as well as a
variety of relevant hands-on activities, including possible tours of
local aerospace facilities. If you, as an aerospace professional
or a local educator, would like to contribute ideas or resources,
or otherwise be involved in the planning of this effort, contact
Dennis Carter at dennis.carter@wpafb.af.mil or Danielle Soban
at danielle.soban@ae.gatech.edu.
Aeroelastic/Aeroservoelastic Optimization and Design
Emerging MDO Areas
Optimization Methods and Algorithms
Sensitivity Analysis Methods
Discrete Variable Optimization
Non-Deterministic Optimization
Evolutionary Methods
MAO General Chair
Christina L. Bloebaum
Professor
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY
E-mail: clb2010mdo@gmail.com
MAO Technical Program Chairs
Eliot Winer
Associate Director and Associate Professor
Virtual Reality Applications Center
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Iowa State University
Ames, IA
E-mail: ewiner@iastate.edu
Scott Zink
Structural Engineer Staff
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Fort Worth, TX
E-mail: scott.zink@lmco.com
MAO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
International Chair (ISSMO)
Vassili Toropov
University of Leeds
E-mail: v.v.toropov@leeds.ac.uk
International Chair (Asia)
Semyung Wang
Professor and Head
School of Information and Mechatronics
Gwangju Institute of Science & Technology (GIST)
Gwangju, Korea
E-mail: smwang@gist.ac.kr
International Chair (South America)
Emlio Carlos Nelli Silva
Professor
Department of Mechatronics and Mechanical Systems Engineering
Escola Politcnica of the University of So Paulo
So Paulo, Brazil
E-mail: ecnsilva@usp.br
Student Paper Competition Chair
Samy Missoum
Assistant Professor
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
E-mail: smissoum@email.arizona.edu
Multi-Criteria Optimization
Gradient-Based Optimization
Multi-Scale Optimization
Shape and Topology Optimization
Structural Optimization
Aerodynamic Optimization
Uncertainty and Reliability Methods in MA&O
Uncertainty Quantification and Analysis
Methods for Capturing Uncertainty
Methods for Representing Reliability
Reliability in Complex Systems Design
Risk Analysis
Robust Design
Applications of MA&O
Aerospace Systems
Space Launch Systems
Automotive Systems
Structural Applications
Manufacturing Applications
Weapon Design and Optimization
Consumer Products
Renewable Energy Systems
Micro- and Nano-technology
Material Design
Bio-Technology
Chemical Processes
MDO Benchmark Problems
Specially Organized Sessions and Panels
The conference organizers welcome individuals who wish
to organize a special panel or technical paper session. Those
who wish to do so should submit a short proposal describing the
nature of the session as it relates to the topics of interest speci-
fied in this call for papers. Importantly, the proposal should also
include the names of the organizers and participants. Those
interested in submitting proposals may contact Eliot Winer at
ewiner@iastate.edu or Scott Zink at scott.zink@lmco.com.
Please note that any paper proposed as part of a special ses-
sion must have an abstract submitted by the abstract deadline
and will be reviewed under AIAA guidelines.
Student Paper Competition
Undergraduate and graduate students are encouraged to
submit papers in the technical topics listed in the call for papers.
Co-authored papers are welcome. However, the first author must
be a student, and the conference presentation should be made
by a student author. The student must have played a key role in
the research and writing of the paper, and must be a registered
student at the time the final paper is submitted. Student authors
of the top papers will be presented an award from the AIAA
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Technical Committee at the
conference. Each submission will be judged on the paper and
a poster presentation at the conference. Judging criteria are: 1)
the originality of work; 2) the papers potential importance to the
field; and 3) its clarity. Student paper competition abstracts may
be submitted via the conference Web site and are due by the
abstract deadline. For more information, contact Samy Missoum
at smissoum@email.arizona.edu.
Fundamentals and Applications of Modern Flow Control
Ronald D. Joslin and Daniel Miller
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series, Vol. 231
2009, 231 pages, Hardback
ISBN: 978-1-56347-983-0
AIAA Member Price: $79.95
List Price: $104.95
Fundamentals of Ground Combat System Ballistic
Vulnerability/Lethality
Paul H. Deitz, Harry L. Reed, Jr., J. Terrence Klopcic, James
N. Walbert , Eric W. Edwards, William L. Hacker, William L.
Kincheloe , and Dennis C. Bely
ISBN: 978-1-60086-015-7
List Price: $119.95
Fundamentals of Kalman Filtering: A Practical Approach,
Third Edition
Paul Zarchan and Howard Musoff, MIT Lincoln Laboratory
ISBN: 978-1-60086-718-7
List Price: $134.95
Hypervelocity Gouging Impacts
John D. Cinnamon, Air Force Institute of Technology
Online E-Book at http://ebooks.aiaa.org
Selected Aerothermodynamic Design Problems of
Hypersonic Flight Vehicles
Ernst H. Hirschel and Claus Weiland
ISBN: 978-1-56347-990-8
List Price: $119.95
Small Satellites: Past, Present, and Future
H. Helvajian and S. Janson, The Aerospace Corporation
Aerospace Press Series
ISBN: 978-1-884989-22-3
List Price: $149.95
New and
Forthcoming Titles
Aircraft Engine Controls: Design, System Analysis, and
Health Monitoring Link
Link C. Jaw, Scientific Monitoring, Inc. and Jack D.
Mattingly, Mattingly Consulting
AIAA Education Series
ISBN: 978-1-60086-705-7
List Price: $99.95
Aircraft Fuel Systems
Roy Langton, Chuck Clark, Martin Hewitt, and Lonnie
Richards
ISBN: 978-1-56347-963-2
List Price: $149.95
Analytical Mechanics of Space Systems, Second Edition
Hanspeter Schaub, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University and John L. Junkins, Texas A&M University
ISBN: 978-1-60086-721-7
List Price: $104.95
Computational Modelling and Simulation of Aircraft and
the Environment: Volume I: Platform Kinematics and
Synthetic Environment
Dominic J. Diston
ISBN: 978-1-60086-704-0
List Price: $94.95
Finite Element Structural Analysis: New Concepts
J.S. Przemieniecki, Air Force Institute of Technology (Ret.)
August 2009, 138 pages, Hardback
ISBN-13: 978-1-56347-997-7
List Price: $89.95
View complete descriptions and
order 24 hours a day at www.aiaa.org/new
AIAA eBooks!
More than 200 AIAA booksincluding formerly out-of-print titlesare now available in e-book format for viewing online
or downloading to your computer. Purchase chapters or the entire book. Check them out today at http://ebooks.aiaa.org.
1213 September 2009
Free Conference Registration to the AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition, in Pasadena, California,
when you sign up for one of these Courses!
Management of Space Technology (Instructor: Eligar Sadeh)
This course examines political, organizational, and technical factors of management of space technology programs. The interrelationships among these
factors influence management processes and outcomes that determine whether implementation of complex space programs is met with success or failure.
From a political standpoint, the ways in which program and project leaders navigate among accountability practices is scrutinized. The relevant practices
encompass political factors, like cost and schedule; organizational factors, such as standard operating procedures; and technical factors concerning the
inherent nature of how complex technology functions. For the organizational level, how technical professionals at the supervisory level navigate decision-
making structures and organizational cultures is investigated. This establishes the ways in which risk, high-reliability, and high-performance are under-
stood and managed. At the technical level, how project practitioners dealing with systems architecturing and systems integration work navigate between
the development of complex space technology and systems management methods and systems engineering is explored.
Practical Project Management for Aerospace Professionals (Instructors: Ronald S McCandless, PMP, and Roland Scott, PMP)
The aerospace industry is project focused and new technology intensive, from small R&D efforts to large-scale spacecraft systems integration. No mat-
ter the project type or size, sound application of project management skills leads to better chances of project and program success. This short course will
enable participants directly to apply the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) to typical project situations aerospace professionals face on a
daily basis. In particular, attention will be paid to the soft skill sets enabling effective collaboration, communication, and problem solving among engineers,
technicians, scientists, managers, and stakeholders. Participants will work through realistic aerospace project scenarios such as spacecraft build and
launch, new technology research and development, systems integration, software development, and spaceport planning and construction. Finally, partici-
pants will have the opportunity to apply the knowledge learned directly to their projects.
Safety Management Systems for the Aerospace Industry (Instructor: Guido Fuentes)
This course provides the basic doctrine and practical guidelines for the application of Safety Management Systems (SMS) throughout the aerospace
industry. The SMS approach stresses the practice of managing safety with a process-oriented system safety approach emphasizing not only the applica-
tion of strict and comprehensive technical standards, but also the effective application of management systems that ensure risk management and safety
assurance. This SMS doctrine applies to products and service life cycles in all areas of the aerospace system such as the design, manufacture, testing,
operation, maintenance, and management of all kinds of air and space vehicle systems and components.
2526 September 2009
Free Conference Registration to the Weapon System Effectiveness, in Tucson, Arizona,
Introduction to Weaponeering (Instructor: Morris Driels)
This course is based on a very successful graduate-level weaponeering course developed by Professor Driels and taught at the Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, CA. The course will give an overview of the fundamentals of the weaponeering process and its application to air-to-surface and surface-
to-surface engagements. The course explains the analytical basis of current weaponeering tools known as the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals
(JMEMs) produced by the Joint Technical Coordinating Committee for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME). The JMEMs are used by all services to plan
offensive missions, and allow the planners to predict the effectiveness of selected weapon systems against a variety of targets.
Tactical Missile Design (Instructor: Eugene L. Fleeman)
This is a self-contained short course on the fundamentals of tactical missile design and integration. The course provides a system-level, integrated method
for missile aerodynamic configuration/propulsion design and analysis. It addresses the broad range of alternatives in meeting performance, cost, and other
measures of merit requirements such as robustness, lethality, accuracy, observables, survivability, and reliability. Methods are generally simple closed-
form analytical expressions that are physics-based, to provide insight into the primary driving parameters. Configuration sizing examples are presented for
rocket, turbojet, and ramjet-powered missiles. Typical values of missile parameters and the characteristics of current operational missiles are discussed.
Also discussed are the enabling subsystems and technologies for tactical missiles, the current/projected state of the art, and launch platform integration.
Videos illustrate missile development activities and performance. Attendees will vote on the relative emphasis of types of targets, types of launch plat-
forms, topics, and one-on-one/round-table discussion.
1 December 200930 April 2010
Distance Learning Courses
Four self-paced courses available in the convenience of your home or office. Students receive instructions for completing the course, a course notebook,
problem sets, and accompanying texts. Over five months, youll follow a proven curriculum of reading and homework assignments.
Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics (Instructor: Klaus A. Hoffmann)
This comprehensive, three-part series of courses will prepare you for a career in the rapidly expanding field of computational fluid dynamics and fluid turbulence.
Advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics (Instructor: Klaus A. Hoffmann)
The aim of this course is to extend the concepts of numerical schemes to a system of equations typically expressed in a vector form. The content of this
course is equivalent to a one-semester graduate course. Furthermore, you must have had an introductory course in CFD, e.g., the AIAA Introduction to
Computational Fluid Dynamics Course.
Computational Fluid Turbulence (Instructor: Klaus A. Hoffmann)
A course in intermediate/advanced CFD and a course in fluid mechanics at upper division undergraduate or graduate level are required.
Heat Transfer (Instructor: Robert K McMordie)
Heat Transfer provides the basics of heat transfer along with information on numerical techniques used in heat transfer analyses. Numerous automated
analyses including radiation view factor calculations, film coefficient computations, and fluid flow analysis. There is a large data base of thermal physical
properties. Much of this data is given as a function of temperature in the form of polynomial equations.
Upcoming AIAA Professional Development Courses
89 January 2010
Free Conference Registration to the Aerospace Sciences Conference, Orlando, Florida,
Best Practices in Wind Tunnel Testing (Instructors: Allen Arrington; David Cahill; and Mark Melanson)
This course provides an overview of important concepts that are used in many wind tunnel test projects. The course is based largely on AIAA standards
documents that focus on ground testing concepts. In particular, the course will address project management aspects of executing a testing project, the use
and calibration of strain gage balances, the use of measurement uncertainty in ground testing, and the calibration of wind tunnels.
Computational Multiphase Flow (Instructors: S. Balachandar; Eric Loth; and Kyle Quires)
This course will include a survey of multiphase flow computational fluid dynamics, with particular attention to turbulent flows. This will include comparison
of various tools (numerical methods) in terms of performance (accuracy with respect to specific predicted characteristics) and cost (required computa-
tional resources). The course will first examine multiphase applications, fluid physics, models, and governing equations. This will be followed by an over-
view of numerical methods as a function of flow conditions and desired results. Detailed discussion of the numerical approaches will be discussed in order
of increasing particle size ranging from mixed-fluid and Fast Eulerian for small particles to point-force techniques for non-equilibrium intermediate-size
particles, to resolved-surface techniques for large particles.
Flow Control for Specialists (Instructors: Louis Cattafesta; Clancy Rowley; David Williams; Daniel N. Miller)
The techniques of active flow control are becoming more sophisticated as fluid dynamics, control, and dynamical systems theory merge to design control
architectures capable of solving challenging flow control applications. The two-day course will examine advanced topics in active flow control, placing
particular emphasis on how to do flow control. This course complements the AIAA Modern Flow Control I Short Course, but Flow Control I is not a pre-
requisite. A brief history of flow control, modern dynamical systems, and control theory related to closed-loop flow control and performance limitations will
be discussed. State-of-the-art actuator and sensor design techniques will be covered. Case studies will be presented that describe recent success stories
about the implementation of active flow control on advanced aircraft. The course lecturers, coming from industry and academia, have extensive back-
grounds in flow control.

Fluid-Structure Interaction (Instructor: Rainald Lhner)
This course will give an overview of the phenomena that govern fluid-structure interaction, as well as numerical methods that can be used to predict them.
A wide range of phenomena, ranging from aeroelasticity to weapon fragmentation, will be covered.
Large Eddy Simulations: Theory, Applications, and Advanced Topics (Instructors: Fernando F. Grinstein; Ugo Piomelli; and Jack R. Edwards)
This course will provide an introduction to the large-eddy simulation of turbulent flows, as well as the discussion of some advanced topics. The first day
will be devoted to the introductory discussion, including theory and applications of this method. During the second day, two special topics will be dis-
cussed, namely LES techniques based on alternative (non-conventional) approaches to subgrid-scale modeling and hybrid RANS/LES methods.
Modeling Flight Dynamics With Tensors (Instructor: Peter H. Zipfel)
Establishing a new trend in flight dynamics, this two-day course introduces you to the modeling of flight dynamics with tensors. Instead of using the clas-
sical vector mechanics technique, the kinematics and dynamics of aerospace vehicles are formulated by Cartesian tensors that are invariant under time-
dependent coordinate transformations.
This course builds on your general understanding of flight mechanics, but requires no prior knowledge of tensors. It introduces Cartesian tensors,
reviews coordinate systems, formulates tensorial kinematics, and applies Newtons and Eulers laws to build the general six-degrees-of-freedom equations
of motion. For stability and control applications, the perturbation equations are derived with their linear and nonlinear aerodynamic derivatives. After taking
the course you will have an appreciation of the powerful new tensor flight dynamics, and you should be able to model the dynamics of your own aero-
space vehicle.
Microfluidics and Nanofluidics: Fundamentals and Applications (Instructors: A. T. Conlisk; Minami Yoda; David Mott; Arfaan Rampersaud; and Thomas
Doligalski)
Microfluidics is rapidly emerging as an enabling technology, having applications ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles to ink jet printing to biochemical
sensing, filtration and purification processes, to drug discovery and delivery. Given the emerging importance of micro- and nanoscale transport phenom-
ena, this course will provide working level engineers, faculty and managers with an overview and understanding of the fundamental fluid mechanics, heat
and mass transfer, and chemistry involved in such devices, as well as the chemistry and engineering principles governing the design of micro- and nano-
fluidic devices. Case studies will be presented in which the fundamental flow physics at micron and nanometer length scales is used to design innovative
devices that could not function at larger length scales.
Systems Engineering Fundamentals (Instructor: John C. Hsu)
In todays globalized environment, manufacturing and designing companies compete for business. To be successful, companies need to practice strate-
gies that minimize the possibility of degradation of product quality, cost overrun, schedule slippage, customer dissatisfaction, and system development
failures. In this course, you will learn why we need systems engineering; the systems engineering fundamentals, including requirements analysis and
development, functional analysis and allocation, and design decision analysis based on requirements; risk, opportunity and issue management throughout
the development and design cycle; Integrated Master Plan/Integrated Master Schedule and Work Breakdown Structure for development and design man-
agement; technical performance measurement for measuring, tracking, and validating design; interface management across in-house disciplines, supplier,
and customer; and verification and validation of your products.
2
REGISTRATION FORM (or register online at www.aiaa.org)
Select your registration options below. Payment by
check, credit card, or money orderpayable to AIAA
must accompany registration. To pay the member rate,
your membership must be in good standing.
All registrants please complete the information below.
B0909
AIAA Courses and Training Program
Registration Form
1 Conference Badge Name First/Given Name M.I. Last/Family Name
Organization Name/Division/Mailstop
Address
City State Country/Zip/Postal Code
E-mail Address Daytime Phone Number
Fax Number (include country code) Job Title/Rank
AIAA MEMBERSHIP: If you are registering for one of the collocated professional
development short courses at the nonmember rate, included with your registration fee is
one year of AIAA membership.
Included in your AIAA membership will be periodic communications about AIAA
benets, products, and services. Check here if you prefer not to receive membership
information via e-mail.
From time to time, we make member information available to companies whose products
or services may be of interest to you. Check here if you prefer not to have your name
and address used for non-AIAA mailings.
Signature_____________________________________________Date__________________
Check here if you are renewing or reinstating your membership. (You must pay the full
nonmember conference fee.)
RETURN FORM TO:
1) For fastest, easiest 2) By mail: return completed 3) By fax: send the signed,
service, register form with payment to completed form with credit
online at AIAA, Professional Development card payment to
www.aiaa.org/courses 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Ste 500 703.264.7657
Reston, VA, 20191
Cancellations Substitutions may be made at any time. Cancellations must be postmarked
four weeks before the course start date and are subject to a $100 cancellation fee to cover
administrative overhead. AIAA reserves the right to cancel any program due to insufficient
registration or any situation beyond its control. Each course will be reviewed three weeks
prior to the start date and may be canceled if a minimum enrollment has not been reached.
Participants will be notified immediately and a full refund will be issued. AIAA cannot be
responsible for expenses incurred because of course cancellation. AIAA reserves the right
to substitute speakers in the event of unusual circumstances. For additional information, call
Dan Medina at 703.264.7642 or 800.639.2422; FAX 703.264.7657; E-mail: danielm@
aiaa.org.
Check here if you need to make special arrangements due to a disability.
Attach requirements on a separate sheet of paper.
FORM OF PAYMENT:
AIAA Member Number: ___________________________
Purchase Order American Express
Check VISA
Travelers Check MasterCard
Wire Transfer Diners Club
Credit Card Number:
______________________________________________
Expiration Date: _________Month _______ Year _____
Signature: _____________________________________
E-mail address of cardholder for receipt:
______________________________________________
5% Group
Discounts
Deduct 5% for three
or more students from
the same organiza-
tion, if registered
simultaneously, pre-
paid, and postmarked
four weeks before the
first day of the course.
Please register each
person on a separate
form. Photocopies are
acceptable.
REGISTRATION OPTIONS

COURSES OFFERED AT THE SPACE 2009 CONFERENCE
Attend any professional development course and receive free registration to the conference sessions only
Early Bird by 21 Aug 09 Late by 11 Sep 09 On-site Beginning 12 Sep 09
Management of Space Technology
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1200 $1300
Practical Project Management for Aerospace Professionals
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1200 $1300
Safety Management Systems for the Aerospace Industry
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1200 $1300
COURSES OFFERED AT THE WEAPON SYSTEM
EFFECTIVENESS CONFERENCE
Early Bird by 3 Sep 09 Late by 21 Sep 09 On-site Beginning 22 Sep 09
Introduction to Weaponeering
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1200 $1300
Tactical Missile Design
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1200 $1300
DISTANCE LEARNING COURSES (1 DECEMBER30 APRIL 2010)
Early Bird by 1 Nov 09 Late by 1 Dec 09 On-site Beginning 1 Dec 09
Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1200 $1300
Advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics
$1145 $1245 $1250 $1350 $1250 $1350
Computational Fluid Turbulence
$1195 $1295 $1250 $1350 $1250 $1350
Heat Transfer
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1200 $1300
COURSES OFFERED AT THE ASM 2010 CONFERENCE
Early Bird by 9 Dec 09 Late by 5 Jan 10 On-site Beginning 8 Jan 10
Best Practices in Wind Tunnel Testing
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Computational Multiphase Flow
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Flow Control for Specialists
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Fluid-Structure Interaction
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Large Eddy Simulations: Theory, Applications, and Advanced Topics
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Modeling Flight Dynamics with Tensors
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Microuidics and Nanouidics: Fundamentals and Applications
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Systems Engineering Fundamentals
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Please indicate if you qualify for the:
__ Prepaid Group Discount (One 5% discount per registrant)

TOTAL DUE: $ _______________________
AIAA Non- AIAA Non- AIAA Non-
Member Member Member Member Member Member
3
4
5
6
Conference Proceedings
This years conference proceedings will be available in two for-
mats: after-meeting DVD and online proceedings. The cost is
included in the registration fee where indicated. If you register in
advance for the online papers, you will be provided with instruc-
tions on how to access the conference technical papers. For those
registering on-site, you will be provided with instructions at registra-
tion. The after-meeting DVD will be mailed six to eight weeks after
the conference.
Journal Publication
Authors of appropriate papers are encouraged to submit them
for possible publication in one of the Institutes archival journals:
AIAA Journal; Journal of Aircraft; Journal of Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics; Journal of Propulsion and Power; Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets; Journal of Thermophysics and Heat
Transfer; or Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and
Communication. WriteTrack will be replaced by ScholarOne
Manuscripts (Thomson Reuters) during 2009. More information
about the transition is available on the WriteTrack home page.
Speakers Briefing
Authors who are presenting papers, session chairs, and co-
chairs will meet for a short briefing at 0700 hrs on the mornings of
the conference. Continental breakfast will be provided. Please
plan to attend only on the day of your session(s). Location will be
in final program.
Speakers Practice
A speaker practice room will be available for speakers wishing
to practice their presentations. A sign-up sheet will be posted on
the door for half-hour increments.
Timing of Presentations
Each paper will be allotted 30 minutes (including introduction
and question-and-answer period) except where noted.
Audiovisual
Each session room will be preset with the following: one LCD
projector, one screen, and one microphone (if needed). A 1/2
VHS VCR and monitor, an overhead projector, and/or a 35-mm
slide projector will only be provided if requested by presenters on
their abstract submittal forms. AIAA does not provide computers or
technicians to connect LCD projectors to the laptops. Should pre-
senters wish to use the LCD projectors, it is their responsibility to
bring or arrange for a computer on their own. Please note that
AIAA does not provide security in the session rooms and recom-
mends that items of value, including computers, not be left unat-
tended. Any additional audiovisual requirements, or equipment not
requested by the date provided in the preliminary conference infor-
mation, will be at cost to the presenter.
Employment Opportunities
AIAA is assisting members who are searching for employment
by providing a bulletin board at the technical meetings. This bulletin
board is solely for open position and available for employment
postings. Employers are encouraged to have personnel who are
attending an AIAA technical conference bring open position job
postings. Individual unemployed members may post available for
employment notices. AIAA reserves the right to remove inappro-
priate notices, and cannot assume responsibility for notices for-
warded to AIAA Headquarters. AIAA members can post and
browse resumes and job listings, and access other online employ-
ment resources, by visiting the AIAA Career Center at
http://careercenter.aiaa.org.
Committee Meetings
Meeting room locations for AIAA committees will be posted on
the message board and will be available upon request in the reg-
istration area.
Messages and Information
Messages will be recorded and posted on a bulletin board in
the registration area. It is not possible to page conferees. A tele-
phone number will be provided in the final program.
Membership
Nonmembers who pay the full nonmember registration fee will
receive their first year's membership at no additional cost.
Members who wish to renew or reinstate their membership must
also pay the full nonmember conference registration fee.
Students who are not members may apply their registration fee
toward their first year's student member dues.
Nondiscriminatory Practices
The AIAA accepts registrations irrespective of race, creed, sex,
color, physical handicap, and national or ethnic origin.
Smoking Policy
As a courtesy to others, smoking is not permitted in the techni-
cal sessions.
Restrictions
Videotaping or audio recording of sessions or technical exhibits
as well as the unauthorized sale of AIAA-copyrighted material is
prohibited.
Department of Defense Approval
The DoD Public Affairs Office has determined that, for purpos-
es of accepting a gift of reduced or free attendance, these events
are widely attended gatherings pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.204(g).
This determination is not a DoD endorsement of the events nor
approval for widespread attendance. If individual DoD Component
commands or organizations determine that attendance by particu-
lar personnel is in DoD interest, those personnel may accept the
gift of free or reduced attendance. As other exceptions under 5
CFR 2635.204 may allow the acceptance of gifts, DoD personnel
are urged to consult their Ethics Counselor.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
AIAA speakers and attendees are reminded that some topics
discussed in the conference could be controlled by the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). U.S. Nationals
(U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents) are responsible for
ensuring that technical data they present in open sessions to non-
U.S. Nationals in attendance or in conference proceedings are not
export restricted by the ITAR. U.S. Nationals are likewise respon-
sible for ensuring that they do not discuss ITAR export-restricted
information with non-U.S. Nationals in attendance.
Standard Information for all AIAA Conferences
This is general conference information, except as noted in the individual
conference preliminary program information to address exceptions.
HIL Testing Rapid Prototyping Autocoding HIL Testing Rapid Prototyping Autocoding

2009 September 21497

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009 September 21497

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009 September 21497

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

September 2009

The promise of thinkinggreen

A hot rod for the solar system (July-

Finally, my production forecasts still as-

Finding alternative fuels that are friendly to

EASA was given a new mandate in May to ex-

You might also like