[Senate Hearing 108-816]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-816
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN AEROSPACE RESEARCH
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-511 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 27, 2003................................ 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 3
Letters dated February 5,7,10, and 25, 2003 in support of the
Allen-Dodd bill............................................ 4,5,6
Statement of Senator Brownback................................... 1
Witnesses
Bolen, Edward M., President and CEO, General Aviation
Manufacturers Association...................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Creedon, Dr. Jeremiah, Associate Administrator, Office of
Aerospace Technology, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration................................................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Dietz, Dennis, Director, Manufacturing Research and Development,
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Wichita Division.................. 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut......... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Tomblin, John, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Institute for
Aviation Research, Wichita State University.................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Walker, Hon. Robert, S., Chairman, Commission on the Future of
the U.S. Aerospace Industry, and Chairman, Wexler and Walker
Public Policy Associates....................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Appendix
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
prepared statement............................................. 61
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN AEROSPACE RESEARCH
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam
Brownback, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. I call the hearing to order. Thank you
all for joining us here today on the opening hearing about the
U.S. involvement in the aerospace research area. I anticipate
holding several hearings on this, and I think there will be
some other members joining us throughout the hearing time. I am
pleased that those of you here could join us today.
A hundred years ago, a great journey with unlimited promise
began in this country, and that was the journey of powered
flight. Through this journey we have led the world in amazing
technological advances and the development of innovative
products and services. As we celebrate the great successes of
the past one-hundred years, let us reflect on where we have
been and turn to where we need to go.
On December 17th, 1903, the Wright Brothers made history
with a 12-second flight over the sand dunes of Kitty Hawk,
North Carolina. Since then, flight has gone through the plains
of Kansas and out across America. In the 1920s and early 1930s,
some of the original aviation entrepreneurs, Clyde Cessna,
Walter and Olive Ann Beach, Lloyd Steerman, formed the
companies that continue to be the leaders in general aviation
today. The industry continued to soar over the plains with the
addition of the Boeing Company through its purchase of the
Steerman aircraft in 1929 and a major expansion of a Kansas
presence during World War II. This journey encompassed the
continued development of U.S. military, commercial, and general
aviation industries throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s that
set the standard for the world.
The journey of flight continued as Americans continued to
push the envelope. In 1947, Chuck Yeager broke the sound
barrier and established a leadership role in the infancy of the
jet aircraft age. This propelled us to the next step that leads
us to the stars with the establishment of NASA in 1958, and the
journey continued, eventually taking us to the moon and the
triumph of July 20th, 1969, with Neil Armstrong's steps on the
surface of the moon.
These wonders of space flight continued through the space
shuttle, its first flight in 1981, and our current involvement
with the International Space Station. And while NASA has
suffered a recent tragedy with the Columbia Shuttle accident,
we will continue to be the leader in aeronautics and
astronauts. We must not back down.
U.S. commercial and general aviation manufacturers have
made the world open for business with unlimited opportunities
for travel and commerce. This tells only a fraction of the
wonderful success story of the U.S. aerospace industry and the
significant role it plays in our leadership security posture,
the strength of our economy, and our leadership role in the
world.
The current downturn in the U.S. aircraft industry, and I
have certainly felt it, and my State has felt it, with some
11,000 jobs lost in my State alone, and the increasingly
competitive challenges we face in the global marketplace only
elevates the importance of today's subject matter of aerospace
research. Aerospace is a technology-driven industry, and U.S.
leadership in aerospace industry is a direct result of our
preeminence in research and innovation.
Government policies and investments in long-term research
are vital to the maintenance of the United States global
aerospace leadership. The relationship between industry,
government, and academia is crucial to the production of new
products and services.
With a renewed focus and bold commitment by government,
industry, and academia, we can help propel this industry to
even greater heights during the next hundred years of this
incredible journey. A new era of innovation lies ahead. The
U.S. must continue to blaze the trail in the areas of
developing advanced materials and propulsion systems for
commercial and general aviation, new and innovative air-traffic
management systems that utilize network-centric systems of
satellites and ground-based stations, as well as a new
generation of space vehicles and propulsion.
I want to welcome our witnesses here today, and I am
excited to hear what they have to say. Senator Chris Dodd has a
proposal that he wants to put forward and will speak first, and
we will have Bob Walker and Ed Bolen, who will share with us
their thoughts from the Commission on the future of the U.S.
aerospace industry. Dr. Creedon will enlighten us on the
position of the Administration. And I am also pleased to
welcome Dennis Dietz and Bob Tomblin here from my State of
Kansas. Mr. Dietz will comment on the perspective of industry,
and Mr. Tomblin will highlight the successful involvement of
academia in the process. I look forward to their input, and I
look forward to this leading us towards legislative and some
hopefully research solutions as to what we should be doing to
keep the United States' leadership in this aerospace industry.
I thank my colleague from Virginia for joining us today,
and I will turn the microphone to him for an opening statement.
Senator Allen?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing is very timely, and it is going to provide all
of us, a wonderful opportunity to discuss the current state of
the U.S. aeronautics industry as well as what will be necessary
to ensure the U.S. continues to lead the world in all aspects
of aeronautics technology. I very much agree with your bottom
line assessment, and I am glad to see that there are some in
the Senate who share the views of Senator Dodd and myself.
I will talk about the measure that Senator Dodd and I
introduced last year and have reintroduced again, which we
think goes a long way towards addressing our competitiveness,
the importance of our military superiority, as well as how
important it is for our economy that we make the proper
investments in our aeronautics research and development.
We have seen, in the last five years, that NASA's budget
for aeronautics research and development have been literally
cut in half, from $1 billion to its current level of $500
million. In making these cuts, the United States has been
rendered more vulnerable to foreign competition in the field of
aeronautics. There is nothing wrong with competition. I am
competitive. But if you are going to compete, you had better be
investing right and making the right decisions; otherwise, you
are going to get left behind.
The nations of Europe, have moved in the exact opposite
direction, dramatically increasing such funding in an effort to
enhance their competitiveness in the world's aviation market.
I commend the commission on the future of the U.S.
aerospace industry for crafting a comprehensive and frank
report on the state of the U.S. aerospace industry. I do find
it disturbing that our aerospace industry is still living off
research and development initiatives that began during the Cold
War. If the United States is going to develop the stealth
aircraft of the 21st century, it must make the commitment to
research and development.
This country's ability to lead the world in innovation and
technological breakthroughs are a direct result of our
commitment in the past, and it is obviously essential that
there needs to be significant investment in research and
development on a sustained and strategic basis. And to make the
research and development initiatives as beneficial as possible,
there must be consensus amongst all parties involved on
priorities and goals and the best path to achieve those goals.
A commitment to an integrated aerospace policy will also be
necessary for the United States to remain the global leader in
cutting-edge aeronautic technology.
Senator Dodd and I have a great concern with the growing
atrophy of the Federal commitment to funding for aeronautics
research. After reviewing the commission's report and
discussing the pressing issues with many in the aeronautics
community, I have joined with Senator Dodd to introduce, this
session again, the Aeronautics Research and Development
Revitalization Act. This legislation will provide aggressive
funding authorizations to provide NASA aeronautics program with
the resources it needs to keep the United States on the cutting
edge on all aspects of aeronautics and aviation. The United
States complacency must change now to prevent further damage to
our competitiveness in aviation.
The bill that Senator Dodd and I have developed is
aggressive, and it will require a commitment of significant
funding for the next five years. However, I believe this money
will be well spent when considering the positive impact
aeronautics research and development has on both the U.S.
economy and on our military.
We have received strong support for this initiative, Mr.
Chairman, and I ask consent that the letters in support of the
Allen-Dodd bill from the Aerospace Industries Association, the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Boeing Company,
and Airbus be made part of the record.
Senator Brownback. Without objection.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.
Washington, DC., February 7, 2003
Hon. George Allen,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allen:
On behalf of the member companies of the Aerospace Industries
Association of America (AIA), I am writing to thank you for your
leadership in introducing the Aeronautics Research and Development
Revitalization Act of 2003. We are solidly behind your effort. If
enacted, your legislation will help to reverse the long-standing
decline in Federal aeronautics research funding and help the United
States preserve its leadership in aerospace technology.
A measure of the future competitiveness of any high technology
industry such as aerospace is the degree of investment in research and
development. AIA has been examining the issue of trends in aerospace
research and development for the last several years. We have documented
a significant decline in investment by both the government and industry
since the mid l980's, which has already begun to undercut the U.S.
aerospace industry's future contribution to national security and
national economic prosperity.
By ramping up aeronautics research and development funding
increases in NASA and the FAA each year to over $1 billion by fiscal
year 2007, your bill would reverse these troubling investment trends
and help set the U.S. aerospace industry on a course of continued
preeminence in the global market for both the civil and military
aerospace products. Furthermore, we are pleased that provisions in your
bill correlate with recommendations in the final report of the U.S.
Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry.
We urge you to keep up this effort that is so vital to our national
interest. We stand ready to support you in any way.
Sincerely,
John W. Douglass,
President and Chief Executive Officer
______
U.S. Aviation Research and Technology
February 5, 2003
Hon. Christopher Dodd and Hon. George Allen
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dodd and Senator Allen:
As leaders in the nation's aerospace, aviation and aeronautics
community, our organizations, representing major manufacturers and more
than 1 million scientists, engineers, researchers and professionals,
strongly endorse the ``Aeronautics Research and Development Act of
2003.''
In recent years, we have expressed concerns that reducing federal
funding for aviation and aeronautics research and technology will
jeopardize the nation's leadership in providing the technologies needed
to develop the next generation aircraft, improve aviation safety, and
security, and attract the next generation of aerospace scientists and
engineers. Assuring the nation's ability to develop advanced
technologies for our air defense network is of paramount importance.
The November 2002 report of the Presidential Commission on the
Future of the United States Aerospace Industry states, ``The United
States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and
innovation to be a global aerospace leader in the 21st century,'' and
that ``Government policies and investments in long-term research have
not kept pace with the changing world.'' The Commission report
recommends that ``the federal government significantly increase its
investment in basic aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national
security, enables breakthrough capabilities, and fosters an efficient,
and secure and safe aerospace transportation system'' and that ``the
Administration and Congress work together to fund a new R&D initiative
to develop a new 2lst Century air transportation system for the
nation.''
According to a recent report on ``The National Economic Impact of
Civil Aviation,'' the total economic impact of civil aviation exceeded
more than $900 billion and 11 million jobs to the U.S. economy in the
year 2000, roughly 9 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) and Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA's) budget should reflect this by
striving for a strong national commitment to aeronautical research. If
the American public expects the U.S. aviation industry to continue to
be the largest positive contributor to U.S. balance of trade, then we
must have the ability to develop the next generation of aircraft that
will enable it to compete internationally.
Over the last decade, funding for NASA's aeronautics research and
development (R&D) program has fallen by approximately 50 percent, and
unfortunately this trend is continuing, The ``Aeronautics Research and
Development Act of 2003'' will provide the necessary funding resources
for NASA to compete with the European Union by implementing a program
plan for their ``Aeronautics Blueprint-Toward a Bold New Era of
Aviation.'' We strongly support your efforts to counter the dramatic
decline in U.S. research and development spending in aeronautics.
As we approach the centennial of the Wright Brother's first flight,
it is more important than ever that America renew its national
commitment to leadership in aviation. We commend you for your
leadership in introducing this important legislation, and we look
forward to working with you and other Members of Congress, in re-
establishing the investment in aeronautics research and development as
a national priority.
______
The Boeing Company
Chicago, IL, February 10, 2003
Hon. George Allen,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allen:
We at Boeing want to commend you on your foresight with Senator
Dodd, in the introduction of the ``Aeronautics Research arid
Development Investment Act of 2003.''
Your leadership in ensuring that the United States maintains its
aerospace leadership is greatly appreciated by this aviation industry,
which contributes $900 billion annually to the United States economy.
Together the Federal government and the aerospace industry, working
hand in hand, can assure our Nation a robust economy, a strong national
defense, and a better quality of life for our citizens.
Your bill will enable long-term progress in aeronautics and
aviation with a continued Federal investment in fundamental
aeronautical research In addition, growth in productivity and our gross
domestic product are directly related to an efficient and growing air
transportation system. Your bill also proposes to aggressively move out
to modernize our air traffic management system for improved capability.
We thank you for your vision and foresight and look forward to
working with you in these areas of great importance to both the Boeing
Company and our great Nation.
Sincerely,
David Swain
______
AIRBUS
Herndon VA, February 25, 2003
Hon. George Allen,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator:
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to review legislation
recently introduced by you, Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman John
Larson that strives to reinvigorate the U.S. aerospace industry.
Airbus is very interested in, and supportive of, many aspects of
the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act bill. This
interest is based on the fact that Airbus, though headquartered in
Europe, is a global company that has long depended on a vibrant,
creative and innovative American aerospace industry.
Today, we are a key player in the U.S. industry--both through our
U.S. operations in four locations in three states and through our
investments and procurement with our American business partners. Last
year, for instance, as a result of the great aerospace engineering
talent that exists in this country, Airbus established an engineering
office in Kansas. In Airbus North America Engineering, Inc., based in
Wichita, American engineers are making vital contributions to the
design work for the Airbus A380 aircraft. Furthermore, Airbus spent 40
percent of Its global procurement budget last year in the United
States--with American aerospace manufacturers--to provide key
components for our full range of aircraft. This $5.6 billion
expenditure (greater than Airbus procurement expenses in any other
country in the world) is recognition of the fact that American
companies are successfully competing and successfully producing
valuable components of high quality and competitive costs.
Your bill aims to help ensure that American aerospace companies
continue to compete successfully, and we support that aim. There are
several key provisions in this bill that we find compelling and
positive for advancing the aerospace industry generally--and the
industry in the U.S. particularly.
Your legislation recognizes that adequate investment in
education, training and research is crucial.
It focuses on some of the most vexing problems facing
commercial aviation today, putting needed resources into
reducing noise and emissions.
When the aviation industry fully recovers from the economic
downturn and the events surrounding 9/11, we will be back to
the old problem of congestion of the airspace. Again, your
legislation would attack this problem head on, by investing in
weather research and air traffic control systems.
Without dramatic improvements in all these areas, commercial
aviation will not be able to meet the demands of tomorrow's
marketplace.
Senator, we salute your efforts, and those of your colleagues, to
maintain the competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace industry--one
comprised largely of our business partners and one clearly integral to
our own business success as well.
Sincerely,
T. Allan McArtor,
Chairman
Senator Allen. I would advise my colleagues that the U.S.
aviation industry is the largest contributor to the U.S.
balance of trade and directly accounts for $343 billion to the
U.S. economy and 4.2 million positions in our job market. These
workers earn an average income that is 35 percent higher than
the average income in this country. Continued reductions and
stagnation in aeronautics funding would lead to a continued
loss in highly-trained human resources to countries that are
placing a greater emphasis on aeronautics.
We must also consider the impact aeronautics research has
on our military. Every military aircraft design the United
States military currently flies incorporates advanced
technologies that were developed at NASA research centers.
Aeronautics research has made the United States the dominant
air power in the world, with technologies years in advance of
our closest pursuers. As a result of these advancements, U.S.
troops are placed in far less harm and more precise in their
strikes against enemy targets, and that is important, as well,
so that there is not as much collateral damage with less
precision in the aeronautics.
In the future, our troops need to continue to have the most
technologically advanced equipment and armaments for their
safety when protecting our freedoms and our interests. Making
the United States the clear leader in aeronautics research and
development, in my view, is in the best interest of our
military, it is in the best interest of our civilian airline
industry, and means a great deal for quality jobs and also our
balance of trade. The aviation industry affects the lives of
almost every American, and I am hopeful that this hearing will
highlight the importance--and I believe it will--of aeronautics
research and facilitate positive changes to our aeronautics
policies.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your leadership
and your insight in organizing this important hearing, and I
look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Senator Allen.
Senator Dodd, welcome to the Subcommittee. Delighted to
have you here, your interest and your leadership on this topic.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will ask
unanimous consent my remarks be included in the record, but I
suppose I could just testify by saying, ``Amen.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. As you both have----
Senator Brownback. We will recognize that in this
Committee.
Senator Dodd. Yeah, go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. It is terrific. Both of your statements
really say it very, very well and very comprehensively.
What brings me to the Committee is obviously the comments
of our colleague from Virginia, who I am pleased once again to
be co-authoring a proposal that he has outlined very thoroughly
for you. We think it is worthy of the Committee's
consideration, the full Senate's consideration.
I was thinking as I was coming in and testifying before
this Subcommittee, as both of you are aware, my father served
in the Senate back in late 1950s, early 1960s, and one of the
committees I used to love going to was a freestanding committee
called the Committee on Space and Aeronautics. It was an
individual committee.
There was a time when we placed such a priority on this
subject matter that there was a free, separate committee that
dealt with these issues. And I am not here to suggest--I do not
see the chairman of the full committee around, so do not tell
him I said this, because there is an always an argument to be
made that, given the importance of this--and Senator Allen has
just laid out the economics, put aside some of the other very
legitimate issues of national security--why we have full
standing committees in certain areas which have a marginal
impact on our economic and long-term security, and subject
matters like this, putting aside the issue of appropriations
and the like, just the priority we in the Congress give to this
subject matter seem to have been higher in times past than it
is today. And it is reflected, obviously, in what has happened
over the last decade in budget allocations. But maybe we ought
to think at some point about how we might revive again the
notion and the Senate of the United States placing a greater
emphasis on this subject matter.
Competition is healthy. It absolutely is. We are all better
off for it. But if you are going to compete, you have got to be
in a position to do so. And we have declined in our capacity to
compete effectively. We are all making note--I do in my
statement--about December 17th, 1903, of course, the Wright
Brothers' famous powered flight in Kitty Hawk.
I recently was in Ireland and visited a site that I never
knew existed before. It was the site where a couple of guys
named Alcock and Brown, in 1919, flew a plane from
Newfoundland, and it crash landed in Ireland. It was the first
successful transatlantic flight. Obviously, Lindbergh's flight
some years later is the one that has got all the attention. I
had never heard of Alcock and Brown before. They flew that
plane, imagine, 16 years, only 16 years, after the Wright
Brothers' 12 seconds--flew a plane, an open-cockpit plane, the
two of them, with twin engines. They were Rolls-Royce engines,
I noted when I read the plaque.
So early on, there has been competition from the European
community and elsewhere, and that is not a bad thing. We
welcome that. But we have maintained, as you both have pointed
out, in the 20th century, really the dominant position in the
world, particularly the area of commercial aircraft, of course,
and in our defense structures, as well.
We have been the world leader, and not just in terms of
market share, but also of innovation. The great ideas, the most
breakthrough technologies that occurred, occurred in the United
States. There were obviously ones that occurred off our shores,
as well, but the bulk of them occurred here.
There has been a dramatic change in the U.S. aeronautics
priority in the last ten years. In 1985, in commercial
aircraft, we controlled about 73 percent of the world market.
That has declined now to less than 50 percent of the world
market in the past decade. I do not know that much needs to be
said, I mean, just in what has happened. Now, there are a lot
of reasons for it--a united Europe, they are beginning to work
more closely together, various other reasons. But the fact of
the matter is, we are declining. And if you look at the budgets
during that same period of time, the research budgets out of
NASA's Aeronautics Research and Development Program have fallen
to about 50 percent of what they were. So you do not need to
have to connect a lot of dots here to understand what has
happened.
Now, again, there are a lot of pressures, and very
legitimate pressures, on scarce dollars, but you both have made
the point that from an economic standpoint, from a national
security standpoint, this is not an area where we ought to be
losing market share.
I think we all accept the notion that we are going to face
a far more difficult time in competing when there are low-value
products out there. Given wage rates in developing countries,
it is awfully difficult for the United States to maintain a
competitive position in those market areas. Why in the world we
would ever, ever, ever allow our Nation to fall as far behind
as we are doing so, in this particular area, would be
unforgivable. The indictment, historically, will be pronounced
and severe if we do, in my view.
So we owe it to future generations--just as previous
generations have bequeathed this generation a very strong and
vibrant aerospace industry--we owe a common commitment to the
future generations to be no less than what we have been left.
In fact, the commission, which you have referenced to, I think
said it very, very, well and even more concisely. And I quote
them when they said, ``We stand dangerously close to
squandering the advantage bequeathed to us by prior generations
of aerospace leaders,'' end of quote. I think that is about as
concise and to the point.
Now, we have not lost it yet, but it is waning, and I think
the warning signs are all there. And so it is going to be
extremely important that we do everything we can to respond to
it.
In contrast--as, again, Senator Allen has made the case
that maybe deserves repeating here--contrasts our disappointing
trend line in this area. Two years ago the European commission
unveiled a report entitled ``European Aeronautics, A Vision for
2020,'' to show you how far they are thinking. We are talking
about a five-year bill, Senator Allen and I are; and they are
talking in generations. We are talking in increments of five
years. Remember, there was a country not long ago that used to
talk about five-year plans. And they have committed $93 billion
by 2020, and outlined ambitious goals of attaining global
leadership in aeronautics and creating a world-class air
transport system for Europe and ultimately the entire
industrialized world. That is their plan and vision. The U.S.
is now in a position where it must catch up in an effort not to
lose its economic and technological dominance over the
international aeronautics market.
It is important to point out, as well, that the declining
investment in aviation R&D is causing real economic pain right
now. And, again, both of you made this point, Senator Allen
very directly when he cited the numbers and statistics. In my
State of Connecticut, and across the Nation, highly-trained
workers are being laid off, engineering jobs are being
outsourced to other nations where labor costs are obviously
lower. I find this to be an unacceptable threat to our Nation's
long-term economic future and national security issues.
That institutional memory, that synergy that occurs when
you have people who have the experience and background that
bring all of that wealth together, when we start losing that
and start relying on others to provide it for us, it gets very,
very dangerous, indeed.
Again, the industries of civil aeronautics and civil
aviation bring about $900 billion and 11 million jobs to our
economy. Senator Allen has made this point. Again, it is an
important piece of our economy that should be strengthened and
continued. Just in the year 2000, roughly 9 percent of the
total U.S. gross domestic product was directly related to this
industry. And we are now finding ourselves in a very shaky
position.
So our bill has been laid out for you. You understand what
it does. We know there are a lot of ideas you will be getting,
Mr. Chairman. The good news is, you are going to do something
about it. I am confident you will, confident the full Committee
will. We are confident the Senate will. We introduced our bill,
I think a little late probably, last year to kind of get the
kind of attention. But we are in early this year. This is a
great hearing to be having, here in the early weeks of
February, to get us going.
Lastly, I would just mention--and it is not the subject
matter of the Subcommittee directly, but just the very notion
of basic research, Mr. Chairman. The one area that we have been
very good at in the last few years in basic research is in
health, and I think the evidence is so overwhelming, what has
happened in medical devices and products, there are miracle
drugs that are appearing, because we in the public sector made
a commitment to basic research. And you cannot rely on the
private sector to pick up the slack on basic research. Applied
research, they can do, but basic research, there are so many
empty holes in basic research that just do not produce anything
at all, and you would have a hard time explaining to
shareholders and boards of directors if you invested hard-
earned money as often as you have to in basic research and to
come up empty. But it is something we ought to be able to do
more of, because it has been a critical component of our
economic success in developing new technologies and being on
the cutting edge, internationally.
And so, as a general matter, I wish we could find some way
to reignite the interest in basic research in this country. And
this is, of course, one area where I think we can do something
about it, but I would like to excite you imagination about
looking at the basic research component that we used to play a
far more critical role in, and I think that role contributed,
in no small measure, to the success we enjoyed throughout the
20th century. So I raise that just as a subject matter for your
consideration in future conversations and debates.
But I am delighted to be joining my colleague from Virginia
as his cosponsor in this very exciting proposal, and we hope
you will find it worthy of your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Chairman Brownback, Ranking Member Breaux, and Members of this
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief remarks
today regarding the importance of U.S. involvement in aerospace
research.
Aerospace and aviation are important assets for America and for my
home state of Connecticut. In addition to its obvious national security
benefits, the aeronautics industry makes a critical contribution to our
nation's economic growth and standard of living. As all of you are
aware, this year marks the 100th anniversary of Wilbur and Orville
Wright's first successful powered flight. Since those humble
beginnings, aviation technology in the United States has reached
remarkable heights. In the 20th century, the U.S. became the world
leader in the aerospace market. Some say that the age of American
preeminence in this field is on the wane. They point to the fact that
in 1985, the United States controlled more than 73 percent of the
commercial aircraft industry--while today we control less than 50
percent of the global market.
Over the last decade, funding for the NASA's Aeronautics Research
and Development program has fallen by approximately 50 percent.
Recently the Presidential Commission on the Future of the Aerospace
Industry confirmed these concerns by concluding that government
policies and investments in long-term research have not kept pace with
the changing world, and in order to do so, the Federal government must
invest in aerospace research. I think the Commission said it well when
it stated that ``We stand dangerously close to squandering the
advantage bequeathed to us by prior generations of aerospace leaders.''
In contrast to this disappointing trend in the United States, two
years ago, the European Commission and aerospace industry executives
unveiled a report entitled ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020''
which commits more than $93 billion by 2020 and outlines ambitious
goals of attaining global leadership in aeronautics and creating a
world class air transport system for Europe and ultimately the entire
industrialized world. The U.S. is now in a position where it must catch
up in an effort not to lose its economic and technological dominance
over the international aeronautics market.
It is important to also point out that the declining investment in
aviation R&D is causing real economic pain right now to American
workers. Right now, in Connecticut and across America, highly trained
workers are being laid off. Right now, engineering jobs are being
outsourced to other countries where labor costs are lower. I find this
to be an unacceptable threat to our nation's long term economic future.
How do we turn this around? Obviously, we cannot order a company to
keep people on a payroll, and we would be hard-pressed to try to
redirect the flow of intellectual capital into and out of the country.
As the Wright Brothers so vividly showed, our country has always had a
competitive edge in the world economy: the ingenuity of our people.
This ingenuity has been cultivated by two factors above all others:
one, the quality and funding of education; two, by investments in
research and development. Obviously education is within the
jurisdiction of another committee, but R&D is in the control of this
Committee and specifically this Subcommittee. It is critical that we
invest in our research and development and technology sectors so that
American workers will lead the world in developing and building the
technologies of tomorrow. The importance of civil aviation to our
economy cannot be underestimated. It generated more than 900 billion
dollars and 11 million jobs for the U.S. economy in the year 2000,
roughly 9 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product. This is not
a sector that we can afford to continue to ignore.
Our colleague Senator Allen and I recently reintroduced legislation
addressing this very issue. The Aeronautics Research & Development
Revitalization Act of 2003, S. 309, establishes a broad-based agenda to
reinvigorate America's aeronautics and aviation R&D enterprise and
maintain America's competitive leadership in aviation.
Our bill doubles NASA and FAA research and development funding by
2008 to $1.15 billion and $550 million respectively. It sets new
research goals for supersonic transport, rotorcraft, high-efficiency
and other technologies that the private sector has identified as
critical to future success in this industry. In addition, it
establishes professional training and scholarship programs to cultivate
the talent of tomorrow.
I am pleased that you are holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman,
because it is important that all of Congress, the Administration, and
America know that these are the facts, and the affects of losing this
leadership will be detrimental to this nation as a whole. I hope that
members of this Committee will take a look at our bill in the coming
weeks. Senator Allen and I believe that this legislation merits the
support of our colleagues. I look forward to working with you and other
of our colleagues in the future. Thank you.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Chris, and I
appreciate your thoughts and your comments. And I would say
amen to yours, as well, because I really think that is where we
are in my State, where we have so many of these manufacturing
jobs in the aviation sector. These are the highest-waged,
highest-skilled manufacturing jobs in the world, and so it is
obvious why others would want them, and it is also obvious why
we should do everything we can to protect them.
And I appreciate your last comment about basic research. We
are going to hold some hearings with the head of NSF and other
groups. And I have asked her about what is her real focus and
interest, and she--we talk about nano-technology and a number
areas, but she says, you know, really we need to put money into
physics, mathematics, and she was really digging at that same
point, as well, that there is a feeling like you are just not
planting the seed corn that you need to in those areas.
We have moved forward in a lot of nice areas very strongly,
NIH's doubling of budget over the last five years, great
investment producing great results, human genome project,
beautiful technology, beautiful information. Almost weekly you
are seeing something, we have found for the gene for this or
for that. I wonder how many of those bad genes I have, but I
have not asked yet, and I do not know if I want to know. But it
is really going to help us a lot in the future. But I do not
know that we have invested in the same sense in those basic
physics, mathematics that we need to. So I appreciate your
comments backing those up, as well.
Senator Dodd. Thanks very much. Thank you both.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much for joining us.
The first panel we will have up, Honorable Robert S.
Walker, chairman, Wexler and Walker Public Policy Associates
here in Washington, DC Bob Walker, as former Congressman Bob
Walker, was chairman of the Science Committee in the House side
a number of years, a long-time advocate or research and
specific research agendas to be able to help and build the
strength and might of the United States. And also Dr. Jeremiah
Creedon, associate administrator, Office of Aerospace
Technology of NASA here in Washington, DC.
Gentlemen, thank you very much, both, for joining us. Your
full statements will be put into the record if you want to
summarize. It is your choice. We are delighted you are here.
Mr. Walker, Congressman Walker, we are delighted to have
you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. WALKER, CHAIRMAN,
COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. AEROSPACE
INDUSTRY, AND CHAIRMAN, WEXLER AND WALKER
PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATES
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much. Delighted to be with you
today, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the opportunity to come
before you to talk a little bit about the work that the
Aerospace Commission has been doing over the last year to 18
months.
Obviously, we meet here under some tragic circumstances. We
never would have anticipated when we were doing our work that
we would lose the Columbia, but in our grief and as we struggle
to comprehend that loss, the real issue here is how do we move
on, and I think that what you will see and what the commission
brought forward were some ideas for moving on.
In our view, nations aspiring to global leadership in the
21st century must be space faring. Freedom, mobility, quality
of life, and the ability to do the difficult things that define
leadership will be enhanced and discovered on the space
frontier. For the vision and commitment that leadership
requires, manned space flight is an imperative.
I would like to briefly summarize where we are with the
work of the Aerospace Commission for you and give you some
thoughts that come out of that report.
The Aerospace Commission was chartered by President Bush
and by the Congress to study the future of the U.S. aerospace
industry in the global economy and to make policy
recommendations to ensure that the United States maintains its
economic and technological leadership. The commission was
comprised of 12 commissioners, six appointed by President and
six appointed by the Congress. Our final report was issued to
President Bush and the Congress on November 18th of 2002, but
although we have completed our work, we hope that you will take
our recommendations and findings into consideration as we face
some of the hurdles ahead of us in the aerospace industry.
I come before you today to address two of the key
recommendations that are linked together--one, aerospace
research and development, and the special significance of the
space enterprise.
When you ask a small child what excites them, what makes
them want to learn, they usually answer ``dinosaurs and
space.'' The concept of space exploration and reaching beyond
the stars comes from our American birthright as explorers and
adventurers. Children do not want to just send their mechanical
toys into space; they want to go themselves, and they think
about it in those kinds of terms.
That American quest for knowledge brings with it the need
for technological and engineering feats that make discovery
possible. Basic science can produce more insights about our
relationship to the universe for increasingly sophisticated
astronomical missions. But the lack of sufficient and sustained
public funding for research, development, tests, and evaluation
infrastructure limits the Nation's ability to address critical
national challenges and to foster breakthrough aerospace
capabilities that could enable a new era of aerospace
leadership in America.
Chapter 9 of the Aerospace Commissions report discusses our
recommendation that the Federal Government significantly
increase its investment in basic aerospace research, which
enhances U.S. national security, enables breakthrough
capabilities, and fosters an efficient, secure, and safe
aerospace transportation system. We also make it clear that the
U.S. aerospace industry should take a leading role in applying
research to product development. Here are the transformational
issues that we identified.
Propulsion and power. Development of more advanced
propulsion systems will lead to faster transit times, improve
operational flexibility, and reduce the impact of radiation for
long-duration human exploration missions. Nuclear energy could
produce high-temperature plasma that would potentially reduce
the transit time for a manned mission to Mars from seven or
eight months to about 12 weeks. The commission believes that
once the time to explore many parts of the solar system has
been reduced to reasonable durations, months instead of years,
the political imperative to do those missions will follow.
Increasing available power, both on orbit or beyond orbit,
could expand opportunities in military, civilian, and
commercial space applications.
The second thing is breakthrough energy sources. In the
21st century, new energy sources must be developed in order to
achieve revolutionary new air and space capabilities. As
President Bush recently outlined in his State of the Union
Address, we are moving towards a hydrogen economy. Use of
hydrogen fuel cells as auxiliary power in aircraft technology
can be an important step in establishing a hydrogen economy
that could free the U.S. from dependence on foreign sources of
energy. Hydrogen fuel cells, of course, have always been an
important part of our human space technology.
Another area is nano-technology. Not only did microchip
technology lead to computers and the Internet during the second
half of the 20th century, but it also brought us to the
beginning of an exciting scientific revolution we now know as
nano-technology. Recent discoveries indicate that, at the nano
scale, devices and systems have completely different
electrical, mechanical, magnetic and optical properties from
those of the same material in bulk form. This could lead to
such an increase in material strength that it could really
revolutionize aerospace vehicle structural design and
performance. The benefits of research may not be realized for
decades, but are critical to innovation and keeping the
Nation's intellectual capital fresh and vibrant.
The obstacle we face is to move forward with these
advancements. We also, though, need to look at the underlying
infrastructure. Testimony before the commission and the studies
conducted by the Federal Government over the last decade have
found that the Nation's research infrastructure is aging and
unable to meet future needs. Transformational research and
associated RDT&E infrastructure are the building blocks for
developing breakthrough aerospace capabilities and are
indispensable parts of the U.S. innovation process.
But in order to achieve true technological progress,
industry has a great role and some responsibility. The
commission believes that the U.S. aerospace industry must take
the leadership in transitioning research into products and
services. The transition of government research to the
aerospace sector has been slow. The industry must aggressively
develop business strategies that can incorporate government-
funded research into application.
I would also like to take a moment to address another
subject that the commission report spoke to and which is under
the jurisdiction of this Committee. The Columbia tragedy has
presented new challenges and questions about the advisability
of human space flight. I believe that there is no more
important mission than to extend our reach beyond the known
into the unknown. We do that by investing in basic research,
but we also do it on the frontiers of space.
Some may say that we can learn all we need to know by
sending robots in our place. I would say that robots have their
place, but it is not the same as ours.
I contend that there are three main reasons for us to
continue to press forward with human space flight. The manned
space program challenges us, pushes the envelope of technology
to achieve the breakthroughs only made possible by humans. To
those who say that robots are cheaper, better, and faster than
humans, I say humans bring curiosity and ingenuity. Robots
merely see the expected. Their successes and discoveries are
based upon past experiences. Humans, however, when we are
confronted with the unexpected, can produce greater
discoveries.
We cannot allow out international competitors to surpass
us. Japan, China, India, and France all see space as a
strategic and economic frontier that should be aggressively
pursued. China is poised to launch a moon mission in a few
short years, and I believe their intentions are not just to fly
to the moon, but to stay there and set up a permanent base.
Whenever I consider why we travel in space, I have seen the
hand of God beckoning us to the heavens. We stand in a moment
in history when we can either respond to that call or retreat
from it. I believe, for own generation and for those to follow,
we must be willing to invest the resources and summon the
courage to reach as far as we can into the universe.
I thank you for the opportunity to make this address.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert S. Walker, Chairman, Commission on
the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry, and Chairman, Wexler and
Walker Public Policy Associates
We meet today under tragic circumstances. Words cannot describe the
depths of our grief as we struggle to comprehend the loss we suffered
on Saturday, February 1, 2003. Our prayers are with the families of the
STS-107 crew as we pick up our hearts and move on.
And move on we must. The answer to the question why do we take the
risks must be answered with how we take the risk. Nations aspiring to
global leadership in the 21st century must be space faring. Freedom,
mobility, quality of life and the ability to do the difficult things
that define leadership will be enhanced and discovered on the space
frontier. For the vision and the commitment that leadership requires,
manned space flight is an imperative.
I would like to briefly summarize where we are with the work of the
Aerospace Commission.
The Aerospace Commission was chartered by President Bush and
Congress to study the future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry in the
global economy, and make policy recommendations to ensure that the
United States maintain its economic and technological leadership. The
Commission was comprised of 12 Commissioners--six appointed by
President Bush and six appointed by Congress. We issued three interim
reports and our final report contained nine key recommendations which
outlined an aerospace vision for our nation and addressed the areas of
air transportation, space, national security, government, global
markets, business, workforce and research.
The Commission's final report was issued to President Bush and
Congress on November 18, 2002 but although we have completed our work,
we hope you will take our recommendations and findings into
consideration as we face another hurdle in aerospace history.
I come before you today to address two of those key recommendations
that are inextricably linked--aerospace research and development and
the special significance of space.
When you ask a small child what excites them, what makes them want
to learn, they answer dinosaurs and space. The concept of space
exploration and reaching beyond the stars comes from our American
birthright as explorers and adventurers. Children do not dream of
sending their mechanical toys into space, they want to go into space
themselves. They want to experience space travel and respond to visits
and interact with astronauts through NASA programs and such wonderful
institutions like the Challenger Center.
That American quest for knowledge brings with it the need for
technological and engineering feats that make discovery possible. Basic
science can produce more insights about our relationship to the
universe through increasingly sophisticated astronomical missions.
In 1908, Wilbur Wright stated, ``But it is not really necessary to
look too far into the future; we see enough already to be certain that
it will be magnificent. Only let us hurry up and open the roads.''
Research and development are the roads that lead to revolutionary
aerospace capabilities. In the past, aerospace led the technology
revolution because of large public investment in research directed at
national security imperatives and goals. Today, we do not have an
integrated national aerospace consensus to guide policies and programs.
This has resulted in unfocused government and industry investments
spread over a range of research programs and aging infrastructure.
The lack of sufficient, sustained public funding for research,
development, tests, and evaluation infrastructure limits the nation's
ability to address critical national challenges and to foster
breakthrough aerospace capabilities that could enable a new era in
aerospace leadership for America.
Chapter 9 of the Aerospace Commission's report discusses our
recommendation that the federal government significantly increase its
investment in basic aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national
security, enables breakthrough capabilities, and fosters an efficient,
secure, and safe aerospace transportation system. We also make it clear
that the U.S. aerospace industry should take a leading role in applying
research to product development.
Transformational Issues
Propulsion and Power
Development of more advanced propulsion systems will lead to faster
transit times, improve operational flexibility and reduce the impact of
radiation for long duration human exploration missions. Nuclear energy
could produce a high-temperature plasma that would potentially reduce
the transit time for a manned mission to Mars from seven or eight
months to about twelve weeks. The Commission believes that once the
time to explore many parts of the solar system has been reduced to
reasonable durations--months instead of years--the political imperative
to do so will follow. Increasing available power, both on orbit and
beyond orbit, could expand opportunities in military, civil, and
commercial space applications.
Breakthrough Energy Sources
In the 21st century, new energy sources must be developed in order
to achieve revolutionary new air and space capabilities. As President
Bush recently outlined in his State of the Union address, we are moving
towards a hydrogen economy. Use of hydrogen fuel cells in aircraft
technology can be an important step in establishing a hydrogen economy
that could free the U.S. from dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Nanotechnology
Not only did microtechnology lead to computers and the Internet
during the second half of the 20th century, but it also brought us to
the beginning of an exciting scientific revolution we now know as
Nanotechnology. Recent discoveries indicate that at the nano scale,
devices and systems have completely different electrical, mechanical,
magnetic and optical properties from those of the same material in bulk
form. This could lead to such an increase in material strength that
could revolutionize aerospace vehicle structural design and
performance.
The benefits of research may not be realized for decades but are
critical to innovation and to keeping the nation's intellectual capital
fresh and vibrant.
The obstacle we face is to move forward with these advancements; we
need to change the underlying infrastructure. Testimony before the
Commission and studies conducted by the federal government over the
last decade have found that the nation's research infrastructure is
aging and unable to meet our future needs.
Much of the U.S. RDT&E infrastructure is 40-50 years old. We need
to identify and invest in a new infrastructure that supports U.S.
government and aerospace industry needs so our infrastructure does not
become a constraint on our country's technological advancement.
Transformational research and the associated RDT&E infrastructure
are the building blocks for developing breakthrough aerospace
capabilities and are indispensable parts of the U.S. innovation
process. But in order to achieve true technological prowess, industry
has a great role and responsibility.
The Commission believes that the U.S. aerospace industry must take
the leadership in transitioning research into products and services.
The transition of government research to the aerospace sector has been
slow. The industry must aggressively develop business strategies that
can incorporate government-funded research into application.
I would like to take a moment to address another subject of the
Commission report, which is under the jurisdiction of this
Subcommittee. The Columbia tragedy has presented new challenges and
questions about the advisability of human space flight. I believe there
is no more important mission than to extend our reach beyond the known
into the unknown. We do that by investing in basic research but we also
do that on the frontiers of space.
Some may say we can learn all we need to know by sending robots in
our place. I would say that robots have their place, but it is not the
same as ours. I contend that there are three main reasons for us to
continue to press forward with human space flight:
The manned space program challenges us--pushes the envelope of
technology to achieve the breakthroughs only made possible by humans.
To those who say that robots are cheaper, better, and faster than
humans, I say humans bring curiosity and ingenuity. Robots merely see
the expected--their success and discoveries are based on past
experiences. Humans however, when we are confronted with the unexpected
can produce greater discoveries.
We cannot allow our international competitors to surpass us. Japan,
China, India and France all see space as a strategic and economic
frontier that should be aggressively pursued. China is poised to launch
a moon mission in a few short years and I believe that their intentions
are not to just fly to the moon, but to stay there and set up a
permanent base.
Whenever I have considered why we travel to space, I have seen the
hand of God beckoning us into the heavens. We stand in a moment in
history when we either respond to that call or retreat from it. I
believe for our own generation and for those to follow, we must be
willing to invest the resources and summon the courage to reach as far
as we can into the universe.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Congressman Walker,
we appreciate that very thoughtful and stimulating and poetic
statement.
Dr. Creedon, delighted to have you here in the Committee.
And do not pay attention here to the clock. I guess we will try
to stymie that. Take whatever time you need to testify.
STATEMENT OF DR. JEREMIAH CREEDON, ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Creedon. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the members of the----
Senator Brownback. We should get that microphone over to
you, if you will. While we are tech and technology, we are not
particularly high-tech here. Talk right into it.
Dr. Creedon. Okay, thank you. I want to thank the Members
of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on aerospace
research and development.
Before I begin, however, I would like to express the
overwhelming sense of loss felt by the people of NASA in the
wake of the Columbia tragedy. We are determined to find the
cause, fix the problem, and move on.
Turning to the subject of today's hearing, I want to
recognize the work of Chairman Walker and the Commission on the
Future of the United States Aerospace Industry and congratulate
them on their thorough analysis of the issues.
The Commission was asked to identify actions that the
United States could take to ensure the future health of the
United States aerospace industry. Of the nine recommendations
of the Commission, five have a very strong focus on research
and technology. The Commission clearly stated that research and
technology is the foundation for the future of the aerospace
industry.
Quoting directly from Chapter 9 of the report, and I quote,
``Aerospace is a technology-driven industry. Long-term research
and innovation are the fuel for technology. U.S. aerospace
leadership is a direct result of our preeminence in research
and innovation.''
The Commission recommends investments in this country's
future. NASA's programs are the type of investment that the
commission recommends. We believe NASA's current and planned
research and development efforts are in alignment with the
thrust and intent of the Commission's findings and
recommendations. In particular, we are dedicated to providing
technologies for leadership in aviation and in space
transportation, to working with the educational community in
growing and sustaining a technical workforce in our Nation, and
in conducting the research that is needed to fuel the
innovations of the future.
I have here a copy of our recently published strategic plan
at NASA. This plan articulates NASA's mission, vision, and ten
strategic goals. One of the goals is to enable a safer, more
secure, efficient, and environmentally friendly air
transportation system. We are investing in technologies to
support the transformation of the National Airspace System, as
is recommended in Chapter 2 of the commission's report. In
fact, through reprioritization of activities within our budget,
we propose to expand our investment in this area, and we are
working closely in partnership with the FAA on this critical
issue.
As Chapter 2 of the Commission's report also notes,
security is a key requirement of the future air space system.
We certainly agree and have been working since September 11th
to develop a responsive program that draws on and reflects
NASA's unique strengths. We also propose to initiate an
aviation security project that seeks to enable long-term, high-
leverage solutions to eliminate key vulnerabilities within the
aviation system.
Another one of our goals is to ensure the provision of
space access, and improve it by increasing safety, reliability,
and affordability. This goal is responsive to Chapter 3 of the
Commission report.
We have developed a new, integrated space transportation
plan that addresses our space access needs. The plan fully
funds the space station, sustains the space shuttle,
aggressively pursues crew rescue and crew transfer
capabilities, and also develops technologies for future launch
systems. As recommended in the report, we are collaborating
very closely with the Department of Defense on the National
Aerospace Initiative, and we will have an integrated program
with the DoD that will end up demonstrating key technologies in
flight.
In addition, we are continuing our long-term collaboration
with the DoD in aeronautics. NASA has requested funding for
Project Prometheus to develop nuclear power and propulsion for
space exploration. This will significantly reduce travel time
and increase the available power to support science instruments
in space. This, again, is in alignment with the Commission
recommendation.
Many of our efforts address the specific recommendations on
breakthrough aerospace capabilities that are noted in Chapter 9
of the report. In fact, we have some level of investment in
each of the areas addressed. We have efforts to reduce nitrous
oxides by 70 percent and CO2 by 25 percent. Our investments in
aviation safety will develop technologies that will contribute
to a 50 percent reduction in the aviation fatal accident rate,
and we plan follow-on projects that will take that reduction to
an even greater extent. Our investments in small aircraft
transportation will significantly contribute to opening up
aviation to smaller communities and reduce door-to-door transit
time.
In the case of noise reduction, our budget request
increases our investment over the next few years to ensure that
the noise reduction technology is aggressively transferred.
Finally, the commission is justifiably concerned about the
time it takes to transition research and development into
products. At NASA, we measure our success in technology by the
extent to which our results are transferred and are applied. In
recent years, we have transferred and seen the application of
noise and emission reduction technologies, decision-support
tools for air-traffic management, aviation safety technologies,
and more.
In summary, we congratulate the Commission on a thorough
and insightful report. We believe that the research and
technology efforts are the key to the future health of the U.S.
aerospace industry. We believe the NASA mission goals and
technology programs are in very close alignment with the
commission's recommendations, and we are committed to
technology innovation and transferring of our technology into
applications that benefit the quality of life in this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Creedon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Jeremiah Creedon, Associate Administrator,
Office of Aerospace Technology, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the recommendations
found in the Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United
States Aerospace Industry. We appreciate the diligence and thoroughness
of the Commissioners and the recommendations they have brought forward.
We support the Commission's overall message that Aerospace will be at
the core of America's leadership in the 21st century and that for this
industry to remain healthy, the critical underpinnings of this nation's
aerospace industry must be strong.
To achieve their stated vision, the Commission makes several
recommendations that have a strong focus on research and technology.
NASA is an investment in this country's future of the type that the
commission recommends. In particular we are dedicated to providing
technologies for leadership in aviation and space transportation,
working with the educational community in growing and sustaining a
technical workforce in our nation, and conducting the research needed
to fuel the innovations of the future.
NASA Strategic Plan is in alignment with the Commission's Report
Under Administrator Sean O'Keefe's leadership, we have just
released a new NASA Strategic Plan that is responsive to national needs
and is very much in agreement with the thrust of the Commission's
report. All members of Congress should have recently received a copy of
this Strategic Plan. Our new Agency Mission Statement reads: ``To
understand and protect our home planet, To explore the universe and
search for life, To inspire the next generation of explorers . . . as
only NASA can.''
I want to paraphrase this Mission Statement slightly to point to
the Strategic and Enabling goals that NASA developed to support each
element, and from there, discuss the work we do in specific support of
the Commission's recommendations in Chapters 2, 3, 8 and 9.
To Understand and protect Our Home Planet . . . leads to specific
NASA goals for enabling a safer, more secure, more efficient and more
environmentally friendly aviation system, and improving security and
quality of life. As NASA works with the FAA and others to achieve these
goals, we are in direct support of the Commission's report, especially
the Chapter 2 recommendation to transform the U.S. air transportation
system and the Chapter 9 recommendation to enable breakthrough
aerospace capabilities.
To Explore the Universe and search for life . . . leads to
specific NASA goals of assuring access to space, and developing
revolutionary technologies that enable the agency's science missions of
the future, which in turn, open new opportunities to science,
exploration and commercial space endeavors. These efforts support the
view in Chapter 3 of the Commission report.
To Inspire the Next Generation of Explorers . . . leads us to NASA
goals for working with educators, K-12 students, and the university
community, to ensure that the aerospace industry has access to a
scientifically and technically trained workforce as recommended in
Chapter 8 of the Commission report.
As only NASA can . . . leads us to the unique basic research and
technology development NASA performs to fulfill our Mission,
particularly in areas that offer the potential for breakthroughs in
critical aerospace capabilities such as propulsion and power,
information technology, and nanotechnology as recommended in Chapter 9
of the Commission report.
Early last year NASA unveiled an Aeronautics Blueprint that
outlined a new and revolutionary technology vision to address the
aviation challenges we face in the 21st Century. The four critical
areas for technological investment identified in the Blueprint and also
included in the Commission's areas of emphasis are: a Digital Airspace,
Revolutionary Vehicles, Aviation Safety and Security, and a State-of-
the-Art Educated Workforce. These Blueprint elements have been
incorporated in NASA's 2003 Strategic Plan.
Specific NASA activities in alignment with the Commission's
Recommendations
Through our Mission and goals, we have set the priorities that
guide our investment of the taxpayers' money, and clearly inform our
Enterprises, Centers, and most importantly, each of our employees, how
they contribute with their particular talents and capabilities to meet
the nation's critical needs. This hearing is a timely opportunity to
highlight changes Administrator O'Keefe has made within NASA, as well
as elements in the President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget that speak
directly to the Commission's recommendations. Recent highlights
include:
NASA has an Education initiative to turn the tide on
declined interest in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics.
NASA has a new Integrated Space Transportation Plan to more
fully integrate its efforts in the International Space Station,
the Space Shuttle and the Space Launch Initiative to support
Science activities in space.
NASA developed (with industry, academia, the FAA, and DoD)
an Aeronautics Blueprint to define technologies that have the
potential to open a completely new era in aviation by providing
unprecedented air transportation safety and efficiency, a
transformed national defense, new markets and economic growth,
and enhanced quality of life.
Overall NASA has aligned its programs to better represent and
reflect national priorities and to better concentrate our efforts. What
follows is a summary of some of our key activities.
AVIATION
The Commission has called for, in Recommendation #2, an air
transportation system that meets the needs of civil aviation, homeland
security and national defense. The President's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget
reprioritizes investments and increases funding for three new
initiatives focused on National Airspace System Transition, Quiet
Aircraft Technology, and Aviation Security.
A critical element for the work in aviation is the need to set up
an interagency organization to guide and coordinate efforts for a
National Aviation System Transformation. FAA, NASA, and OSTP have
coordinated a proposal for such an organization that would set goals
and align missions across government to ensure that the United States
can meet future system demands, and stay at the forefront of the global
aviation industry.
National Airspace System Transition: Prior to the attacks of
September 11, 2001, the aviation system was showing unmistakable signs
of gridlock. Most air travelers had experienced congested airports,
flight delays, and unreliable service. Since deregulation of the
airline industry in the United States in 1978, air travel has tripled
while the air transportation support infrastructure has remained
relatively unchanged. Only one large hub airport and seven new runways
have been opened in the past decade, while the number of departures had
grown nearly 30 percent from 7 million to 9 million per year.
As a result of the impact of September 11th on the economy and air
transport system, the current demand has been reduced but we believe
that the capacity issues that we faced prior to the attacks will
return. Specifically, the growth in delays in the years 2000 and 2001
significantly outpaced the growth in air traffic. Our existing airspace
management system clearly cannot accommodate projected growth. We need
to continue the development of technology to solve the problem of
limited capacity of the National Airspace System (NAS). We do not want
to have a situation where the capacity of the system constrains
national economic growth.
Safety and security have taken on a whole new perspective since the
terrorist attacks. NASA is committed to working with airlines,
airports, and other Federal agencies to develop concepts and
technologies, which will reduce the vulnerability of aircraft and the
NAS to criminal and terrorist attacks.
I am pleased to report that through reprioritization within the
President's FY 2004 budget, there is increased funding to address these
critical aviation issues and begin the development of technology to
increase the efficiency and capacity of the National Airspace System
(NAS).
We will invest $27 million in FY 2004 for this initiative, which we
call the National Airspace System Transition ($100 million over 5
years). The major challenges are to accommodate the projected growth in
air traffic while preserving and enhancing safety; providing all
airspace system users more flexibility, efficiency and access in the
use of airports, airspace and aircraft; enable new modes of operation
that support the FAA commitment to ``Free Flight'' and the Operational
Evolution Plan (OEP); and develop technology to enable transition to a
next generation National Airspace System beyond the OEP horizon.
The research within this program will be focused on developing a
more flexible and efficient operational approach to air traffic
management. For example, together with the FAA, NASA will investigate
and solve the technical challenges of increasing runway capacity in
inclement weather to eliminate the biggest source of delays--poor
visibility. We will also develop totally new concepts that allow the
system to scale with increasing traffic levels. We are developing
sophisticated new modeling capabilities of the nation's air traffic
system so we can test out our tools and concepts.
As the Commission has pointed out, the transfer of technology--to
ensure its application--is essential to realize its value. Through
efforts such as an interagency program office we will strengthen ties
between the member agencies, and work similarly with academia and
industry to transition the research into technologies, products and
services useful to the nation.
Quiet Aircraft Technology: Noise is typically a primary objection
that communities have to airport or runway expansions. Airports located
in remote areas when they were built are now located in the midst of
sprawling communities. They are subject to an increasing number of
noise restrictions affecting airport and aircraft operations. Since
1980, noise restrictions at airports grew worldwide from 250 to over
800 airports with specific additional restrictions beyond normal
regulations.
The U.S. has spent more than $4 billion from the Aviation Trust
Fund and Passenger Facility Charges over the last 20 years to mitigate
airport noise (e.g., sound-insulating nearby homes, building protective
barriers). Reducing the noise impact on communities is a key issue for
21st Century aviation.
To illustrate this challenge of reducing aircraft-generated noise,
we have conducted analyses of aircraft noise at Chicago O'Hare
International Airport. Using the baseline 1997 aviation fleet noise-
level contours, objectionable noise levels extend many miles from the
airport and affect approximately 600,000 people in the surrounding
community. A quieter fleet of aircraft with a 10-decibel reduction in
noise will reduce that impact on all but approximately 55,000 people.
NASA's research and technology development continues to be focused on
how to eliminate noise as an issue--by confining any objectionable
noise to within the airport boundaries.
The President's FY 2004 budget has increased the funding to address
this critical aviation issue. NASA's Quiet Aircraft Technology Program
is the primary source of technology to achieving the noise goal and
includes an increase of $15 million in FY 2004 (an increase of $100
million over 5 years) for this work.
NASA is developing technologies that can directly change the noise
produced by jet engines. Through an understanding of the basic physics
of noise production we are able to interfere with the way that sound is
produced, creating quieter aircraft for future travelers. We have also
determined that a large part of the objectionable noise comes from
parts of the aircraft other than the engines when the aircraft are
approaching the runway. NASA is developing concepts for landing gear
and wing configurations to reduce this objectionable noise. Physics-
based tools for noise propagation allow us to test the benefits of new
flight profiles to bring the aircraft noise closer to the airport while
maintaining flight safety.
In FY 2001, NASA was able to conduct full-scale demonstrations of
noise reduction technologies that would result in a 5 decibels
reduction in perceived noise. This technology has been transferred to
industry and is already being offered on production aircraft and
engines. Based on these results and the increased funding provided in
the President's Budget for research, we will be able to work in
partnership with the engine and aircraft manufacturers to bring
additional noise reduction technology to new aircraft more quickly than
had been otherwise planned. We are expecting to demonstrate an
additional 5-decibel reduction in perceived noise by the end of FY2007,
leading to a total of 10dB reduction in comparison to the 1997 state of
the art. To better understand the significance of this accomplishment,
we can refer back to the illustration of Chicago's O'Hare airport. With
a 5-decibel reduction the area encompassed by the contour of
objectionable noise was reduced by 40 percent, with a 10-decibel
reduction, the effected area is reduced almost 70 percent.
Aviation Security and Safety: Aviation has a long-standing
tradition of being the safest among all modes of transportation. The
rate of accidents and fatalities on a per-passenger-mile basis for
commercial aviation is at least a factor of two lower than that
achieved by any other mode of transportation. However, as aviation
continues to grow, there are concerns that unless steps are taken to
drastically reduce accident rates, increased flights will lead to more
accidents. Any incident receives visibility, and some are deemed
national tragedies. Each affects the public's faith and confidence in
aviation as a whole. Thus in 1997 the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission endorsed a goal to cut the fatal accident rate by 80 percent
by 2007. Much progress has been made in NASA technology development for
aviation safety. In particular we have seen the transition of advanced
cockpit weather technology into operational practice--both forecast and
real-time. In the area of security for aviation there is a lot of
synergy with the technologies for safety.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, safety and
security have taken on a whole new perspective. NASA is committed to
working with airlines, airports, and other Federal agencies to develop
concepts and technologies that will reduce the vulnerability of
aircraft and the national airspace system to criminal and terrorist
attacks
As part of the President's FY 2004 Budget request, NASA will begin
a new effort in Aviation Security. We will invest $21 million in FY
2004 for this initiative ($225 million over 5 years). Research in this
program will focus on concepts and technologies that can protect
aircraft and the airspace system from criminal and terrorist attacks
while dramatically improving the efficiency of security. In the near-
term, NASA will develop and demonstrate decision support technologies
for ground-based air traffic management systems that detect and assist
in the management of threatening situations. Other areas include
technologies to reconfigure the aircraft to fly safely in the event of
damage, and flight controls technology that would prevent the aircraft
from being purposefully crashed. While details of the program are in
formulation, it is currently expected that the long-term research will
address:
Protection of Aircraft & Airborne Systems from Electro-
Magnetic Interference
Airspace Operations
Transfer of Fundamental Information Technology to Security
Applications
Transfer of Fundamental Sensor Technology to Security
Applications
NASA has and will continue to work closely and partner with the
Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Transportation (DOT),
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Department of Homeland
Security, academia, and industry to ensure that the research that NASA
pursues is deliberately and methodically integrated into useful and
timely products and processes.
ACCESS TO SPACE
The Commission has called for ensuring our nation's ability to
explore and utilize space, in Recommendation #3, as well as in
Recommendation #9, which calls for increasing federal investments in
basic aerospace research with the goal of reducing the expense and time
to reach space safely and reliably.
NASA agrees with the need to ensure and improve access to space. In
the President's Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2003, NASA has
formulated the revised Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP) to
ensure that safe, affordable, capable, and reliable space
transportation systems are provided to support NASA's missions. The
Space Launch Initiative (SLI), which began in 2001 as a key component
of the ISTP, will provide the necessary technology development, risk
reduction, and systems analysis to enable future space access
capabilities. Based on recent system analyses, the ISTP has been
updated and SLI has been refocused. As a result, NASA has a more
tightly integrated plan to support its science driven missions. We
believe the revised ISTP is a good plan, but we are committed to re-
examining it if necessary in light of future investigation findings on
the Columbia accident. The Space Launch Initiative budget is now
focused on the highest agency space transportation priorities:
investing in an Orbital Space Plane (OSP) for assured access to the ISS
and the Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Program that focuses
on the most critical technology development activities, such as
propulsion, vehicle health monitoring, and high temperature structures.
The OSP Program will develop a human-crewed vehicle with multi-
purpose utility for the Agency. Initially serving as an ISS Crew Return
Vehicle launched on an Expendable Launch Vehicle, the OSP will also
provide crew transfer and limited cargo capability. The results of the
OSP will enable a transition path to future space launch vehicle
systems under development in NGLT.
The NGLT Program will be NASA's research arm for access-to-space
technologies. As in aeronautics, access to space will require
interagency partnerships to meet common needs. NASA is in the beginning
of a cooperative effort with the Department of Defense, through the
National Aerospace Initiative (NAI), jointly working to build a
technology roadmap for hypersonics research and access to space
technologies. We will also work with the Air Force Space Command on
analyses for alternatives, and towards developing requirements for the
next-generation launcher.
In-Space Propulsion Research
Consistent with the Recommendation #9 of the Commission, to reduce
the transit time between two points in space by 50 percent, NASA
supports the Aerospace Commission's recommendation that more research
is needed in power and propulsion systems. These systems have the
potential for enabling missions that are not currently feasible. High
performance propulsion systems will allow spacecraft to explore regions
of space currently out of our reach, carry significantly greater
scientific payloads, and will significantly reduce the time required to
travel to destinations within the Solar System. This technology is
needed to undertake sophisticated science operations in the outer Solar
System that support the search for life. Moreover, this technology can
greatly increase the speed, robustness, and science return of future
robotic missions, while also serving as a stepping-stone to potential
future human exploration beyond Earth orbit.
The NASA Research Centers successfully pioneered the basic research
on ion propulsion that led to the first demonstration of this
technology on Deep Space One in 1998. They also developed the pulsed
plasma thrusters demonstrated on the Earth Observing One spacecraft in
2001. The President's budget continues the development of the next
generation of propulsion technologies. Our goals are to increase the
operating power of electric thrusters, to extend thruster lifetime, and
to develop analytical models for optimizing thruster performance. The
President's budget request for NASA also includes funding for an
augmented nuclear program--now called Project Prometheus--as one of the
agency's top priorities. Project Prometheus enables robust and flexible
missions to explore areas of our Solar System where solar power is not
practical, and it opens the door to a new generation of space
exploration missions. Project Prometheus will focus on two major areas
of nuclear power and propulsion research and development: improved
versions of traditional radioisotope systems and development of a
fission reactor to provide the necessary electricity to power electric
engines and more capable science instruments.
The first demonstration of this capability is planned for the
rovers of the Mars Science Lander, scheduled for launch in 2009. This
new generation of radioisotope power systems will allow spacecraft,
landers, and probes to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with
increased mobility and reconnaissance capabilities.
NASA will also complete research and development of the first
reactor-powered spacecraft and demonstrate safe and reliable operations
on long-duration, deep space missions. The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter
(JIMO) has been identified as the first space science mission to
demonstrate this capability. Scheduled for launch in the next decade,
this ambitious mission will orbit three of Jupiter's moons, Callisto,
Ganymede, and Europa, to explore their makeup, history, and potential
for sustaining life. This mission not only demonstrates a valuable new
technology, it addresses a highest priority science objective from the
National Academy of Sciences--going to Europa to confirm growing
evidence that a global ocean is hiding beneath its icy surface.
``Europa is likely to contain the three things necessary for life to
evolve--liquid water, a source of heat, and organic material.'' \1\
This technology makes it possible to realistically consider missions
that orbit multiple targets sequentially. Such a capability is
tremendously advantageous, and it paves the way for an entirely new
generation of space exploration missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Press Release, July 11, 2002 Missions to Kuiper Belt Now,
Europa Within the Decade are Key to Space Discoveries, National Academy
of Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Vision of the Future
Finally, to bring this together as a system, an approach we like at
NASA, I would like to take you into the future to envision how these
investments will help enable the aerospace system of the future.
The impact of information technology cannot be overstated--from the
tools that help engineers develop the highly complex air traffic
management system of the future, to the design of the new vehicles that
will fly in it. To achieve unprecedented safety, information
technologies will be critical in transforming data into knowledge to
give pilots precise situational awareness of weather conditions, other
aircraft, and terrain, as well as knowledge of their aircraft through
``intelligent'' and autonomous hardware and software systems that can
adapt, self-improve, self-repair and self-reconfigure in response to
component faults and failures. The application towards aviation
security is equally powerful. It can detect aircraft that do not
conform to normal operating patterns and determine whether there is
malicious intent or help is needed. In either case, strategies would be
in place to land the aircraft safely. Airports in the future are
increasingly busy centers of commerce as businesses cluster there for
the environment conducive for increased productivity, now free from the
noise of aircraft operations and emissions, and the convenience of
reliable and affordable service.
Industry-sponsored research on the Space Station will have created
a constellation of commercial space platforms, some inhabited, others
autonomously operated, meeting the needs of industry research,
development, and production for space-based products. The Next
Generation Launch Technologies research will have paved the way for
reliable and affordable airline-like service transporting cargo and
passengers to and from orbit on a routine basis. These new vehicles
will diagnose their own ``health'' status, scheduling maintenance,
identifying anomalies that require attention, self-correct and repair
minor faults, and track trends that could lead to anomalies. Nano- and
information technologies will have made these capabilities possible.
New space research vehicles will combine new propulsion and power
technologies, high-strength low-mass structural materials, and sensors
with dramatically increased sensitivity and low power consumption.
High-speed transport to the outer planets and beyond, for science
missions, will take weeks and months, not years and decades. Nano-
technology will have exploited physical phenomena at the nanometer
scale, creating ``healing'' metals for spacecraft skin to repair damage
such as micrometeorite hits on long duration missions. Scientific
returns per mission will increase 100-fold as research equipment and
payloads are more capable and comprise the majority of launch mass.
NASA will be conducting missions that go beyond our solar system.
Robots will work collaboratively with humans to maximize scientific
returns. Research in automated reasoning will have enabled these
robotic assistants to contend with uncertainty, making them
significantly more mobile, and more scientifically capable. Space
communications will allow scientists high-data rate access to space
assets, wherever they are, retrieving their data from extreme
environments, over interplanetary distances and long mission lifetimes.
We also envision a vibrant educational system in the U.S.. Grade
schools and high schools now have new teaching tools and curricula
inspired by NASA's programs, and our efforts including the cadre of
Teacher-Astronauts have inspired thousands of students to pursue
scientific and technical careers. The universities with specialties in
engineering and the sciences have full enrollment with growing
programs, and their graduates will be finding exciting opportunities in
both government research and the private sector job market.
These are only snapshots of the possibilities. As the last century
of advances made possible by investments in aerospace research has
shown, we are hard-pressed to imagine what is truly possible in an
environment that nurtures innovation.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Dr. Creedon,
appreciate that.
Let us run the clock at seven minutes and we can bounce
back and forth here if we have a series of questions. But I
want to ask a few here.
Dr. Creedon, to start off, one of the things that really
drew me to this hearing today was, in December I met with the
leaders of the general aviation industry in Wichita. And, as
you know, a number of companies are headquartered there, major
manufacturing facilities, and the thing that really struck me
was not that we are having a current downturn in the economic
activity and the employment--as I noted, 11,000 lost jobs in my
State alone, and these are--this is in Cessna, Raytheon,
Bombardier-Learjet, Boeing, I mean, it is across the board, all
of the companies. That is there, that is a problem. But what
was really troubling me was, they said, as you look out in the
future in developing the next wave of aeronautics, the next
wave of planes, they are being approached by various countries
and saying that, ``Okay, we will pay for the research on the
development of a new wing, new engine, for general aviation,
and we will help you develop that as a company. Now, if we do
that, we want to build that product, then, in our country.'' So
that they are saying, we have got a near-term problem, and we
have a cyclical nature of business. We understand that. But we
are really concerned about this industry moving offshore with
the researching pulling it offshore to other places or other
parts.
One, are you familiar with that taking place? And if you
would comment about what you feel like we should be doing as a
country to stop it.
Dr. Creedon. Thank you for the question, Senator. I would
say two things. In NASA, we have had a series of three programs
aimed at the general aviation industry. The first was an AGATE
program that was aimed at developing some technologies that
would improve the capabilities of general aviation vehicles,
the kind of research of the nature that you were talking about.
In addition to that, we had a program that would develop
engines specifically suited for general aviation aircraft.
Within the budget constraints that we have had, we have
directed the research funds that we have in this area now
towards a small aircraft transportation system, which is
dedicated towards coming up with the ability to operate these
aircraft and offload the hub-and-spoke system and provide
greater access to smaller communities and more ability to be
able to make point-to-point travel plans and not have to go
through the hubs by using the general aviation aircraft.
I think, as is evident in the Commission's report and the
statements of everyone that has spoken today, that if you do
not do the requisite research to provide the capability to
compete, that in a competitive world you will soon not be able
to compete.
In our funds, we pride ourselves in NASA and came up with a
responsible and credible program. And within the funds that we
had available, we have dedicated them, at this time, to
operation of the general aviation aircraft in the
transportation system, and, therefore, we are not funding the
kind of research that you talk about.
Senator Brownback. Chairman Walker, I am sure this topic
came up at the commission. What were the narrow recommendations
that would most befit the industry to try to address this topic
of some of this research and then manufacturing moving
offshore?
Mr. Walker. Yeah, we were very fortunate, though, on the
commission to have able representation of the general aviation
industry from Ed Bolen, who is going to testify here later on
today. And a number of these topics did come up.
I will tell you that the one thing that we found to be very
true is that throughout the world there are countries
aggressively looking to develop aircraft manufacturing
capabilities. When we were in both Japan and China, we found
there that they are really looking to move into building of
regional jets. Why do they want to do that? Is there really a
global market for regional jets? No. The Chinese could point to
at least some domestic market. The Japanese could not even
point to that. But they want the ability to do that kind of
technological integration work, because they know that that
will have reverberative effects out into the future and will
allow them to be competitive not only in the aerospace area,
but in lots of other areas. And so it is a great challenge to
us.
And so what you will see in a number of the recommendations
of the commission is our attempts to deal with that kind of
technological challenge and that kind of policy challenge.
One of the reasons why we have to reform the export control
policy of this country is because we have to do something that
allows us to compete globally with our aerospace products. At
the present time, what is happening is, as a result of our
control policy, many of our companies are unable to market
beyond our own shores. And the export control policy
recommendation was aimed at assuring that as we develop good
products here, they are marketable on a global scale. That
assures not only that you keep the ability to manufacture, but
also you keep the supplier base in this country that underpins
that entire manufacturing capability. We will lose both
manufacturing capabilities and we will lose supplier base if we
do not do something about an export control policy that simply
is not working at the present time.
Senator Brownback. You know, I ran into that, particularly
India, who is a strong ally of the United States, saying that,
``We are getting all these dual-use requirements that is
keeping product from us that we would like to get from the
United States.'' And they are saying, ``And we are working with
you. You know, what can we do to get those off ?'' And here is
an economy that is growing and it is quite vibrant.
Chairman Walker, have we lost the leadership in the
aerospace industry, in your estimation?
Mr. Walker. No, we have not lost it, but we are on a slope
where we could lose it in the future if we do not take the
steps necessary to compete. I mean, what we saw is, in the
aeronautics area, particularly in commercial aviation, we are
being heavily challenged from the Europeans, who, as Senator
Dodd pointed out, have laid out their vision of where they are
headed in that area in their 2020 report and some AIR 21
reports and some subsequent reports since then. There is no
doubt that they have an entire plan for challenging our
supremacy.
We are being challenged in space on the Pacific Rim. There
is no doubt that the Chinese have an aggressive space program.
They are willing to put substantial dollars into it. And if you
do not believe that, all you have to do is talk to the Japanese
and the Indians who believe thoroughly that Chinese have a
substantial program in that area.
So the challenges are real. The question is whether or not
we are willing to step up to the plate, do the R&D necessary to
do transformational products, and then move forward. And that
is the question of the development of resources that is
throughout the report. It is resources not only of government
funding, but the ability for industries to attract more
investment money, because we revised the business model that
allows them to have more capital flow into those business, and,
therefore, allows us to remain more competitive.
Senator Brownback. When would you expect the Chinese to put
an astronaut in space?
Mr. Walker. This year. This year.
Senator Brownback. And you do not have much question about
that?
Mr. Walker. No question that they will fly. It may be a
``spam in the can'' kind of mission that they do, but the fact
is that they will probably orbit someone this year.
I think the real challenge comes--I believe--and this is
strictly me speaking, it was not in the commission report--I
believe that they plan to be on the moon within a decade and
that they will announce that they are there to stay
permanently.
And I will tell you, as a little anecdotal information, I
had a Japanese parliamentarian in my office the other day, and
I related to him that that was my belief coming off this
particular study that we had done, and he looked at me, and he
said, ``No, you are wrong.'' And I was kind of surprised,
because some of the information we had gathered about this we
had gathered in Japan. And then he smiled and said, ``You are
not wrong in your conclusion; you are wrong in your timing.''
He said they will be on the moon within three or four years.
Now, I think that has huge implications for us as a country
if they truly have an aggressive program of that type. But I
believe it is that aggressive, and I certainly think that they
will fly humans inside this year.
Senator Brownback. Dr. Creedon, do you agree with that
assessment?
Dr. Creedon. I think that----
Senator Brownback. Please speak into the mike there, if you
would.
Dr. Creedon.--Across the board, it is very, very
competitive. I do not have the insight or the information that
Chairman Walker has, but I have no reason to doubt the
conclusions that he came to.
Senator Brownback. Senator Allen?
Senator Allen. I would love to follow up on some of these.
Thank you both for your testimony.
In the event that the Chinese do get on the moon, whether
it is three years or five years, and want to stay there, what
are the implications of that? What are they going to be doing
by being on the moon that we cannot presently do? It is
generally not considered a habitable planet. They may have a
lot of people but do not value human life anywhere as much as
we do.
Mr. Walker. Well, for example----
Senator Allen. But what would that--how would that affect
us?
Mr. Walker. Yeah. For example, in order to survive on the
moon, you basically have to develop close-looped environmental
systems.
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Walker. That could be a technology that would have a
great deal of application here on earth and, you know, that the
spinoffs of that could be very, very useful in a global
marketplace. And so that is one thing I see.
There are apparently vast supplies of H3 on the moon. H3
allows you to have far more efficient fusion reactors. The
ability to bring back H3 from the moon and utilize is inside
fusion reactors may prove to be a huge benefit to the country
that is there doing it.
So, I mean, there are some things like that that you could
imagine. I also think that there is a psychological impact that
comes from it. I think the American people believe that we went
to the moon, we planted our flag, it is our, and----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walker.--you know, nobody else should be able to go
there. And I think once it is realized that we not only have
not gone back, but now someone else has gone there, and our
ability to go there in the near term is dramatically limited,
that we simply would not be able to stand up a program and get
there quickly in competition with that, would have a huge
impact in this country.
And I believe there are people inside our security programs
who believe that a Chinese capability to go to the moon has
vast security implications for this country, as well.
Senator Allen. Let me get a little bit closer to earth here
and the focus of this hearing, which has to do with
aeronautics. As far as that competition is concerned, and this
is maybe a more pointed question than the chairman's. It is an
international competition. And in aeronautics, is the United
States winning, or are we losing?
Mr. Walker. Well, I think at the present time, that your
description earlier today of us living off of developments of
the 1960s is pretty accurate, that--and we have done a pretty
good job of that. I mean, we have advanced the state of the
art, we have done new things as a result of our new computer
technologies, we have been able to do some remarkable things
building off of that platform. And in that sense, we continue
to lead the world.
There is nobody that builds better, for instance, military
aircraft than we do. The rest of the world is well behind our
capabilities in that arena. In the commercial aircraft area, we
have not moved ahead as aggressively, in large part because the
investment money has not been there to do it. And in that
arena, there is no doubt that Airbus is extremely competitive
with Boeing at the present time and that Boeing does feel the
need to come with a new generation of aircraft that will be
more competitive than they are now with Airbus.
And the question is whether or not we have not only a
research and development plan, but also a business plan that
allows them to do that.
Senator Allen. Dr. Creedon?
Dr. Creedon. To use your analogy of winning and losing----
Senator Allen. Or losing.
Dr. Creedon. We were winning by a wide margin, and if we
are still winning, it is by a much smaller margin. So the gap
has closed, and I think Senator Dodd had some statistical
examples of a closing of that gap in his statement.
Senator Allen. Well, my view is, if you look at all the
trends, particularly in the commercial aviation market, you
look at the jobs, you look at the investment, you can put a
bright face on it and say it is not the end of the game, that
is true. But all the trends are negative. That is the reason
for this hearing. And hopefully we will be able to work on a
bipartisan basis, not just here, but also private sector and
the government, to reverse it.
You talk about losing manufacturers and suppliers and so
forth. It is not as if you can find people just like this to be
involved in aeronautics. We are losing--would you not both
agree?--losing the aeronautics engineers. It is an aging
workforce. Because there is less research, less investment in
it, there are fewer students coming out of our universities in
aeronautical engineering because there simply are not the jobs
there. Would you agree with that, as well?
Mr. Walker. Well, we speak to the workforce issues pretty
broadly----
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Walker.--in the commission report. We felt very
strongly that there needs to be an investment in education to
produce a more technologically competent society out of which
you can draw then----
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Walker.--more aerospace engineers. And there is no
doubt that we need to do that in the future.
I will say to you honestly that the record is mixed with
regard to whether or not there are enough aerospace engineers
available. The fact is, we are still graduating a significant
number of aerospace engineers. The problem is, they are unable
to find jobs in the industry----
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Walker.--and they move off into computer industry and
other places.
But the fact is, if we have made the industry healthy, we
do have the ability to bring engineers into it, but they are
not going to come for an industry where they think they are
going to get laid off within a few months----
Senator Allen. Yeah.
Mr. Walker.--or where seniority rules guarantee that the
last hired is the first gone, where the health of the industry
is in question. I mean, those are all things that affect young
people's decisions about where they are going to go, both with
education and with----
Senator Allen. Employment.
Mr. Walker.--jobs. With employment, that is right.
Senator Allen. You mentioned, Congressman Walker, the nano-
technology. That is something Senator Wyden, who is also a
Member of this Committee, both of us worked on that, making
sure--that is very basic broad science, everything from health
to material of sciences in a variety of ways. We were able to
get it through the Senate. Now we have got to get it through
again this year. So we are working on that, as well.
Dr. Creedon, let me ask you just specifically, insofar as
the NASA budget, now I understand your role and your answer to
our chairman's question, and you are a good, loyal leader and
understand that funds are allocated to NASA. You make those
priorities, and I understand that. I was governor; I wanted all
my agency heads to say these are the approaches and also did
respect the fact that the legislative branch also could have
their own priorities in that area. The NASA budget, the way I
see it, at least the way it is being presented, you have
changed the way that you address your aeronautics budget. It is
not just unique to aeronautics. You have done it across the
board. That makes it harder for some of us to track what is
actually going on. So could you tell me whether the research
and development programs will receive more funding in the
coming years, and can you tell me, and tell us, how much of the
$559 million contained in the President's budget has been
allocated for research, specifically?
Dr. Creedon. Okay, there are several questions----
Senator Allen. Right.
Dr. Creedon.--in there.
Senator Allen. Understood. And I understand your role and
responsibility.
Dr. Creedon. First of all, you had a question about the
structure of the budget. And this year, as you correctly point
out, we have structured our budget differently. We have five
mission areas, and aeronautics is one of those mission areas,
and so its budget is book-kept separately. I believe that that
will make it easier this year and in the future to determine
the amount of funds that are actually going into aeronautics
research, because there will be a line item that can be looked
at and will contain that amount of money. That has not been the
case in the past. So this year, for the first time, there is
that budget, and I think it will make it more readily apparent
how much money is going into that research.
Also this year, we are switching to a full-cost budget, so
the numbers will jump around a little bit. But the $500 million
that you are using is the way that we portrayed the budget in
fiscal 2003. In 2004, it will be a different-looking number,
but it is the same amount of work.
As far as the budget, there has been a number of comments
that have been made about the budget decreasing dramatically
over the past decade. And it looks like, for the future, that
the budget will continue to decline some 5 percent for the
coming five years. But the NASA administrator testified this
morning that he felt that there were things that had not yet
been taken into account in that five year budget run-out, one
of which is our working very, very, closely with the FAA and
jointly working with them on transforming the National Airspace
System to make the capacity of that system much greater and
things such as that, and that, could contribute to a increase
in the budget in the future years.
Senator Allen. Well, the point is, comparing budgets, you
foresee, in this budget, level funding; and, in the future, a 5
percent decrease in research in----
Dr. Creedon. I think it will----
Senator Allen.--aeronautics.
Dr. Creedon.--be easier to tell, because we have a separate
budget and----
Senator Allen. Understood.
Dr. Creedon.--and the current projections. The current plan
is for 5 percent decrease in the future, but this morning in
testimony, the administrator said that there was a--the work
that we were doing with the FAA could be taken into account and
may yet result in a increase over that 5 percent decrease.
Senator Allen. That is if you include--there is nothing
wrong with including that specific program, but----
Dr. Creedon. Except that the plans have not yet been
finalized, I think, is why it is not in the budget at this
time.
Senator Allen. Well, you will understand why there will be
some of us senators--myself, Senator Dodd, and hopefully
others--who will be working to increase that.
Dr. Creedon. I certainly do. And we certainly support the
intent of the bill that you and Senator Dodd have introduced to
point out the importance of investment in aeronautical research
and the role that research and technology play in this whole
area.
Senator Allen. I am sorry, I have exceeded this. If I may--
on the SATS program for general aviation, I want to commend you
in what you all are doing there, working with FAA, for small
airports and for general aviation. I was there at the unveiling
of it in Danville, and I think that that has a great deal of
potential for not only general aviation; it is great for those
communities to have access, much easier access. I even like the
idea because I always like to look at what the price of fuel
is. It even gives you information as to what the price of fuel
is, and that does change from facility to facility, and it is,
I think, an outstanding program that will really be beneficial
to many smaller markets and rural areas.
Dr. Creedon. Thank you.
Senator Allen. So I want to commend you on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Brownback. Go ahead.
Mr. Walker. Could I comment for just a moment on the
interagency--
Senator Brownback. Yes, please.
Mr. Walker.--that Mr. Creedon was talking about, because I
think that it is important to understand, coming off the
commission report, that the interagency cooperation that he
referenced with FAA is extremely important, we believe, for the
long-term funding of a lot of these programs.
And I would reference one other program. NASA is
cooperating with DoD in the National Aerospace Initiative that
DoD is bringing forward. That probably has more potential for
huge breakthroughs in the aeronautical area than any other
things that is being done. And the cooperative program between
those two agencies in that arena could very well produce some
of the breakthroughs and can assure that we have funding
streams from a couple of different places that can move the
program forward.
Senator Brownback. Yeah, it seemed like to me when you were
talking about our superiority in military aircraft, that taking
some of that technology that is developed there and getting it
out to our private side would really be helpful.
Chairman Walker, you have been around government a good
period of time. You have seen us lose market share to Airbus
from, well, it was not probably five years ago, maybe seven,
when we were at 73 percent; now Airbus is passing us up, or
projected, for the first time, and that is in a down market.
They are expanding in a difficult market.
What are we going to have to do? Are we going to have to
heavily subsidize the way Airbus is to get back into a stronger
position? Are we going to have to do different business model
plans or try to attract more investment dollars into the
aircraft manufacturing business?
Mr. Walker. We certainly have to do some things about
changing the business model. And some of that probably does
involve at least being competitive with them in the favorable
financing plans that they offer to airlines and the nations
around the world as they are doing it. I hope that we do not
have to go to government subsidies to do that, but we certainly
ought to have a financial plan that works that allows Boeing to
be competitive in those areas.
The other thing that we certainly found with Airbus is that
they just--they have an aggressive plan moving forward. The
question that you have to ask yourself, and it is a worthwhile
question, is whether or not they have bet right. I mean, they
are betting on the A380, which is a huge new airplane that is
going to fly lots of passengers from hub to hub. The question
is whether or not the travel in the future is going to be hub
to hub or whether it is going to be point to point.
And one of the ways in which we can compete in this country
is by developing the point-to-point airplanes that allow us to
have a generation of aircraft that would be competitive because
of a very different kind of business model. And some of those
will be very small airplanes. Some of those will be more
general aviation-type airplanes than they will be even the
regional jet capacities.
But I can imagine the business people of the future, who
will not fly hub to hub, who will want to get up in the town
where they live and fly to the town where they are doing
business and come right back, and do so in a time frame that
fits inside their business pattern. That is a huge challenge
for our airlines, because that means a lot of the people that
have flown in the front of their cabin and paid the big fees
may be transferred off into some other mode of transportation
in the future. And so that has to be taken into account.
But there is a changing business model that is already
being observed. And insofar as we can get in front of that, we
have a chance of being very competitive with the Europeans in
the future.
Senator Brownback. I cannot resist asking you this. Bob, do
we go back to the moon? What is your sense? You chaired the
commission, you have chaired the committee over on the House
side, you have been involved in this business review policy-
setting for some period of time. Should the United States be
going back to the moon?
Mr. Walker. The conclusion I have come to is--what I want
us to do is have the technologies that give us all kinds of
options. I want us to be able to go to the moon. I want us to
be able to go to Mars. I want us to be able to go to Europa.
You know, I want a lot of options out there and that we can
pick and choose among those options.
And I believe that what NASA is attempting to do with
Project Prometheus, in giving us the ability to fly much
faster, allows you then to look at a variety of options for the
future, both robotic and human options. And I think that there
would be probably good reasons for people to design missions to
the moon or to Mars or to Europa or to a lot of--to the
asteroids, to a lot of other places. But what we have lacked up
until now is the technological capabilities to explore those
options realistically and in a time frame that Congress is
willing to fund. And the new technologies will, in fact, permit
us that kind of option, and it is where I think we should go in
the near term.
Senator Brownback. Anything else, Senator Allen?
Senator Allen. Yes, one follow-up series here.
What you are saying--I love your spirit, and that is what
is great about you and why you are such a wonderful leader.
In all of these areas that Dr. Creedon mentioned, you have
to have priorities. We do not have unlimited resources. That is
why I think when you talk about nano-technology, when you
talk--which, again, it is the material sciences, it is a
variety of things. The same with the hydrogen fuel cell
capabilities. Those are the sort of things that are important
for space, for aeronautics, important here on earth. Those you
can easily, with a modicum of imagination, see the value in
that, and that is what we have to sell. You all can help.
I know where Europe is. Most people probably do not. It is
not relevant to them. But there are questions. I mean, there
are choices. Do you go to Pluto or you go to Europa, and you do
it under $750 billion or whatever the limit--price tag may be,
or do you go to Mars, and first, obviously, with robotics
before you start putting people there. So these are the tough
decisions.
And what I like about this Subcommittee and this discussion
is what can we do, and where do we need to go? Whether it is
the research, whether it is development, whether it is
education, all important, working with the private sectors.
What are our business models here? What are our tax and
regulatory policies as a country that may make us less
competitive with the Europeans? Or Bombardier does a great job
in Canada, and many of their planes that they make are fit in
for those regional jets.
Senator Brownback. And Wichita. They are in Wichita.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. All right, well--and Wichita. Bombardier--
they make great jet boats, too.
But regardless, it is a heck of a good company. I visited
it when they were in Canada, but I am glad they are Jayhawkers,
as well. It is a Quebecois.
The question, though, is, is this a sustained effort? And
that absolutely essential. We need to educate the American
public on the importance of it.
The one area--and since everything is so positive here,
generally speaking--the one thing I was looking at, NASA's
budget and the use of nuclear as an engine may make great
physics sense for all those reasons. After the Columbia
disaster, people just are going to easily imagine some problem
on a takeoff, such as what happened with the Challenger, or in
the event that that was a nuclear-powered plane coming in--that
the Columbia was nuclear powered--what would that have
impacted? Would that have the impact--would have that had a
pattern of debris that we saw? Would that be a pattern of
radioactive waste? That is something, insofar as nuclear, it is
something that people, I think, are going to have some concerns
with. If you are able to address it here, you can. But that is
just one that is just a gut reaction that I think would be--it
is not just viscerally felt by me. But I think that as that
goes forward, I think there will be a lot of people in this
country saying, well, that was debris coming down, it was
tragic, if that were nuclear powered, what would have been the
impact of it? And that probably, whether you want to address it
right now or in the future----
Mr. Walker. Well, I am not a technologist, but I can simply
tell you what we heard, in terms----
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Walker.--of some of those issues. First of all, I mean,
you would not have an active nuclear reactor at launch. And
what you would have is a reactor that would activated once you
got on orbit. You would shield it very, very heavily so that
any kind of tragedy and so on would not take any of the nuclear
materials that were being launched into orbit out of
containment.
Senator Allen. You would have in such a container that it
would be safe.
Mr. Walker. Yeah, that is exactly right. I mean, and those
things all seem to be well inside the box of technological
feasibility at the present time. I do not think we feel as
though we have to do much in the way of breakthrough. A lot of
what we have learned in shielding of nuclear submarines, for
example, give you a pretty good base of experience for doing
some of those kinds of missions.
So I think that we can address some of those things. Will
there will still be people who have concerns about it? Sure.
Senator Allen. Well, it is logical----
Mr. Walker. Yeah, sure.
Senator Allen.--because you have seen an explosion in the
sky----
Mr. Walker. Sure.
Dr. Creedon. Exactly. I agree totally with the chairman's
answer. People will be concerned, but Project Prometheus is
intended to provide nuclear for one point in space to another,
not in getting us from earth to space.
Senator Allen. Nevertheless, you are carrying radioactive--
--
Dr. Creedon. Right, but as the chairman said, it could be--
--
Senator Brownback. Encased.
Dr. Creedon.--until you get to the first point in space.
Senator Brownback. Thank you both very much for joining us,
Chairman Walker and Dr. Creedon. It was very good. Appreciate
that.
Our next panel will be Mr. Ed Bolen, president and chief
executive officer of the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association, Mr. Dennis Dietz, director of Manufacturing
Research and Development, Boeing Commercial Airplanes out of
Wichita, Kansas, and Dr. John Tomblin, interim executive
director of The National Institute for Aviation Research at
Wichita State University, where much of the aviation
manufacturing business is headquartered in Wichita, and the
university strives to serve them.
Gentleman, thank you all very much for joining us. We will
put your full written statements into the record. If you would
like to summarize, it is your choice. We appreciate your being
here.
Mr. Bolen?
STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GENERAL
AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bolen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like
to begin my remarks kind of picking up where the last panel
left off, and that is on the issue of coordination.
I think one of the really exciting things about the
commission on aerospace is that it was tasked at looking at the
entire aerospace industry, not just the civil aviation part of
it, not just the space part of it, not just the defense part of
it. But one of the things that we had going for us is, we had
people who were very familiar with each of those disciplines.
And so when we talked about issues like technology or we talked
about workforce or we talked about investment or we talked
about requirements, you found over and over again that
representatives from civil aviation would say, ``Well, here is
what we need in a future communication navigation surveillance
system.'' And the space people said the same thing. And the
military people said the same thing. And we all talked about,
``Well, NASA has got a program for this,'' or, ``The FAA has
got a program for that,'' or, ``The military has already done
this.'' And one of the things that became very clear to us
right up front is that aerospace is critical to the future of
the United States. And both you senators have talked eloquently
about that today, and we agree emphatically.
We also know that we are operating in very tight budgets
today. And we know that, as a country, we cannot afford to have
redundant or conflicting research programs. We cannot afford to
waste technology. We have got to be coordinated as a group. And
I think that one of the things that we have going for us by
having both this Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on aviation
both being part of a broad committee is that you have an
opportunity to make sure that NASA and the FAA are coordinated.
And I would hope that as we look at how well coordinated those
two research organizations can be, that we can tie the military
into that, too, so that we can make sure, as a country, we are
not taking U.S. taxpayer dollars and having redundant programs
or wasted programs.
I also think that it is incumbent upon us, as an aerospace
community, to look at what some of our needs are not just in
terms of research, but also in terms of facilities and
capabilities and to see how we, as a country, can use or not
use the different facilities.
One of the things that came to my attention late last week,
for example, was that Eglin Air Force Base, in Florida, the Air
Force has decided that it really does not need its climactic
center there, which his a hanger at Eglin Air Force Base which
has the ability to be made very hot or very, very cold, and it
is used by civil aviation to go and test products and see how
they will respond in extreme cold for prolonged periods of time
or extreme heat. It is the only facility like it anywhere n the
world. Well, the Air Force has decided the Air Force does not
need it, so the Air Force is going to close it. That is going
to work to the detriment of our civil aviation community, and
we do not have anyone saying, ``Wait a minute, that is a
national research asset. Federal taxpayers have paid for that.
We need to preserve it.''
So I think that, in a whole host of instances like that,
there is a role to be played not just in adding new money, but
in coordinating the research that is being done, coordinating
the facilities we have to make sure that we are getting the
most bang for the buck. And I think that the Commission on
Aerospace felt very strongly on that.
We want to make sure that aerospace decisions are not
really made on an ad hoc basis by a patchwork of Federal
agencies, that we have some type of organizing authority that
looks at it. And I think that this Committee is particularly
well situated to look at aerospace in its totality, and I would
urge you to do so.
The specific purpose of today's hearing is to look at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's research
requirements. And I think that it is very important that we
stress ``aeronautics'' when we refer to NASA. Sometimes the
aeronautics program gets overshadowed at NASA by the space
program and we lose sight of the fact that the first ``A'' in
NASA is ``aeronautics,'' and they do have as a goal, and they
do have as a mission, and they do have as a core capability,
aeronautics research. And I think that we need to make sure
that that is understood by the public, understood by the
legislature, and funded accordingly. It is a tremendous
capability and one that we need to focus on intently.
Now, as president of the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association, my primary focus is really the health of the
general aviation industry. But I also want to point out that
research in aviation, research that benefits the entire
aviation industry, does benefit general aviation, because
general aviation is not a separate segment of the whole, it is
part of the whole, an extricable part of the whole.
And so what I wanted to do today was to talk a little bit
about some of the programs that NASA is involved in that are
not necessarily just for general aviation, but that I think
would be particularly helpful, and I think is particularly
helpful, for the entire aviation industry, and certainly
general aviation can participate in that. And so I want to list
a couple of specific things that I think are very much needed.
I think, first of all, software certification is a critical
issue for everyone involved in aviation. I think everyone in
today's society recognizes the tremendous advances that are
being made as a part of the computer world. And what we are
seeing in aviation, including general aviation, is a transfer
of those computational advances, working their way into the
cockpit and improving the situational awareness of pilots,
giving them better information about weather, where they are,
helping us better understand where they are going.
But one of the great hurdles on trying to get the computer
advances into the aviation field is trying to get it certified,
because if you get, you know, the latest kind of phone, well,
they are great, but at times you drop the phone call, sometimes
your computer crashes. And that is fine, but it is not good
enough when you are in aviation. In aviation, we demand that
you have reliability 99.999--go out seven nines--it is got to
be that good.
The problem that we have is, with software, it is very hard
to prove that, it is very hard to understand that. And what we
have found at the FAA is that it is really more of a subjective
art than it is an objective science.
So one of the things that we think would be very helpful at
improving the aviation technology would be for NASA to look at
a tool that would help us certify software--in other words,
something that we could plug software into and understand it
passes or it fails, in terms of accuracy, reliability, and
integrity. And I think that would be one of the great benefits
moving forward, because it would allow us to more quickly get
the computational advances from the computer world into the
aviation world, and that certainty in the process, I think,
would spur technological investment. I think more people would
be willing to invest in breakthroughs if they thought the path
through certification was more objective and more certain.
I think another area that would be very helpful is in the
area of weather sensors. I think most of you know that weather
today is understood, from the dew point and some other
important aeronautical areas, as a result of either tethered
balloons or sensors that are on commercial aircraft which fly
at altitudes of 30,000, 35,000 feet. But one of the things that
we are missing is, we do not have particularly good weather
sensors in the area from 10,000 get to 29,000 feet, an area
where general aviation airplanes often are. And we are very
interested in NASA technologies that would take satellites and
focus weather sensors in that range. We think that would help
us in terms of understanding general aviation weather, but also
weather patterns across the United States, not just for air
transportation, but for weather patterns as a whole.
We are very interested in air traffic modeling. NASA has a
program right now. It is a VAMS program, which looks at air
traffic modeling. We have got a particular concern on that,
because it is kind of a broad model, and we would suggest that
that program focus more on, kind of, known areas. For example,
look at the New York airspace and focus on the New York
airspace at modeling problems to that, known problems, rather
than as a whole. But I think that that is an area where NASA
can be particularly helpful for us as we try to move forward on
having a more efficient air traffic system as we go forward.
Vehicle systems program. This is something that NASA is
developing. It is something that they are referring to as their
``vehicle enabling technologies.'' I think that that is very,
very important. And I also think that Dr. Creedon touched on
NASA's transformation program, the program that they are
working with the FAA to try to determine the beyond operational
evolution plan of the FAA. Where do we go in the next
generation of air traffic management? I think that is
critically important.
Supersonic flight is something that continues to be
important to the general aviation community. And I think
propulsion systems are particularly important. I think if you
go and look at all of the real great breakthroughs that we have
seen in aviation over the past hundred years, they are pretty
closely aligned to tremendous breakthroughs in the propulsion
area. When we went from radial engines to piston engines, and
piston engines to turbine engines, we always saw tremendous new
airplane models built around that technology, and we saw safety
rates improve. And I think that investing in propulsion is
extremely important.
We have engines today which are very reliable, but I think
that there is still room for improvement in terms of noise, and
I think there is still room for improvement in terms of
emissions. And NASA has got programs like the Quiet Aircraft
Technology Program, or the Ultra Efficient Engine Program,
which are exciting programs, but I would simply point out to
the Committee that they are, in my opinion, inadequately
funded.
Today we are spending tens of million dollars per year on
quiet-engine technology. We are spending hundreds of millions
of dollars a year going around and soundproofing homes near
busy airports. And to me, that is like going and buying a lot
of mops instead of figuring out how to plug the leak.
And I think we want to look at that as we go forward. I
think that is important to everyone, because, as airplane
technology becomes more and more environmentally friendly, I
think we are going to see communities demand to have airports
among their midst, instead of what you have now, which is, in
some areas, some community opposition. So I think that that is
important technology, going forward.
We are encouraged by NASA's commitment to technology, the
capabilities that they bring to it, and we are particularly
excited about their focus on general aviation. They have a
strong track record of investing in general aviation,
understanding general aviation, and we hope they will continue
that as we go forward.
Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward M. Bolen, President and CEO, General
Aviation Manufacturers Association
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Edward M.
Bolen and I am President and CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA). Recently, I have also had the privilege to serve as
one of the presidential appointees to the Commission of the Future of
the U.S. Aerospace Industry.
General Aviation
As everyone on this Subcommittee knows, general aviation is
technically defined as all aviation other than commercial airlines and
military aviation. Our aircraft range from small, single-engine planes
to mid-size turboprops to the larger turbofans capable of flying non-
stop from New York to Tokyo. These planes are used for business
purposes and recreation, as well as everything from emergency medical
evacuations to border patrols and fire fighting. General aviation
aircraft are also used by individuals, companies, state governments,
universities and other interests to quickly and efficiently reach the
more than 5,000 small and rural communities in the United States that
are not served by commercial airlines.
General aviation is the backbone of our air transportation system
and the primary training ground for the commercial airline industry.
The U.S. general aviation fleet consists of over 214,000 aircraft that
fly more than 29 million hours per year and carry more than 166 million
passengers. According to a recent study by Global Insight, general
aviation contributes more than $41 billion to our nation's GDP each
year and generates over a half million jobs.
Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry
Mr. Chairman, serving on the Commission on the Future of the U.S.
Aerospace Industry was an honor and a tremendous educational
experience. Unlike previous commissions, this one looked at the
totality of the aerospace industry--not just one of its individual
segments like civil aviation or space or military. As a result, the
Commission was not limited to viewing the industry through the prism of
a single federal agency like NASA, the FAA or the DoD. Instead, we had
the opportunity to see how the Federal Government as a whole treated
aerospace.
What we found was that the United States did not have a unifying
aerospace vision or a coordinated aerospace policy. Instead, our
nation's aerospace programs, including research efforts, were the
result of ad hoc decisions made by a patchwork of federal agencies.
The Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry
believes this situation needs to change if our nation is to continue to
be the world leader in aerospace. We can no longer afford to have
redundant federal research programs. We can no longer afford for one
federal agency to keep taxpayer funded technology from another. We can
no longer afford to have research programs that industry does not
value. And, we can no longer afford to work on technologies that have
no chance of being certified for use in the national airspace system.
To remedy this situation, we need better coordination between
Congressional Committees, government agencies and industry. There is
some coordination today but it is generally fragmented and tactical. We
need to be more strategic. We also need to start looking at federally
funded facilities and capabilities as national assets rather than as
proprietary assets of the civil aviation system or the space program or
the military.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.
Recently, the Air Force announced that it would close its one-of-a-
kind Climatic-test Center at Eglin Air Force Base because it was no
longer serving an Air Force function. The problem with that decision is
that the Climatic Center, which is a technologically advanced hangar
that can simulate harsh environmental conditions, is used by more than
just the Air Force. Domestic manufacturers of civil aviation products
use the facility to test their products in extreme heat or extreme cold
so that they can determine the environmental operating envelope for
their products and obtain FAA certification.
The Climatic Center is an extremely valuable facility but one that
would be too expensive for a single manufacturer to maintain. Its
imminent closure represents the lost of an important national aerospace
asset. The closure may be a good decision for the Air Force, but it is
clearly not in the best interest of the U.S. aerospace industry and the
U.S. taxpayer.
Situations like the one at Eglin Air Force Base can only be
remedied with better coordination and cooperation between the various
parts of the Federal Government. I urge this Subcommittee to use its
power to facilitate that coordination and cooperation.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
As everyone knows, one of our nation's foremost aerospace agencies
is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA. I would
like to focus the remainder of my remarks today on NASA's aeronautics
research programs.
Let me begin by saying that NASA's research is fundamental to
achieving significant breakthroughs in aeronautics. That is partially
because NASA has many unique core competencies, but also because its
research horizon is long term, very high risk, and not the kind of
research that could be justified by a commercial enterprise.
NASA research is focused at the ``pre-competitive'' stage, well
before commercial products are developed. In fact, experience has shown
that a company may still need to invest hundreds of million of dollars
to bring to the marketplace a technology NASA has designated as ready
for commercialization.
NASA's Aeronautics Programs
Today NASA is involved in a number of important research programs
that have the potential to benefits the entire aviation industry,
including general aviation. I would like to highlight some of these
programs.
Propulsion
Historically, propulsion has been a key aerospace technology.
Dramatic advances in airplane capabilities are often the result of
breakthroughs in engine technology, such as when went from heavy radial
engines, to light weight piston engines, to turbojets and then to fuel-
efficient turbofans.
Today, the environmental impact of aviation operations is a
significant constraint on aviation growth because many communities are
concerned about aircraft noise and emissions. These concerns prevent
the expansion of airport infrastructures that could reduce or eliminate
delays. They also force our Federal Government to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars per year soundproofing individual homes around
large airports. This kind of federal approach to noise mitigation is a
little like responding to a water problem by buying mops rather than
fixing the leak. As a country, we need to spend more on NASA Quiet
Aircraft Technology and Ultra-Efficient Engine programs.
The NASA Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) Noise Reduction Program
has resulted in technologies that are already being used on today's
airplanes to lower noise at the source. This includes engine noise
reduction from advanced inlet liners and exit nozzles and airplane
noise reduction from advancements in aerodynamic wing design and
reduced-weight composite materials. The Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT)
Program will build upon the AST research into the next decade in
support of NASA's goal to significantly reducing the environmental
impact of aircraft noise on the community. In 2002, NASA and FAA
initiated a new memorandum of agreement (MOA) to coordinate research
activities and increase funding in support of the QAT program to speed
up the introduction of lower noise aircraft technologies. GAMA strongly
supports the coordination of FAA's Research Engineering & Development
Program for Environment and Energy and NASA's noise and emissions
research programs to remove barriers to the growth of the aviation
industry and accelerate environmental benefits to the community.
Vehicle Program
NASA has envisioned expanding their Vehicles Program to develop
technologies that will remove roadblocks to a vast range of aircraft,
bring significant new capabilities and benefits to our air
transportation system. But unless NASA is authorized to spend
significantly more to develop these vehicle-enabling technologies, we
will continue to lose our technology edge.
NAS Transformation
While the FAA has done an admirable job of planning upgrades to the
NAS for the next ten years, NASA should undertake the types of research
that will meet the needs of our air transportation system beyond the
FAA's planning horizon. Key to this process would be establishing a
joint program office to coordinate the aviation-related research
activities of NASA, FAA, DOT, DoD and other government agencies.
Air Traffic Management
No where is the need for a coordinated national vision for
aerospace more apparent than in the work NASA does in the air traffic
control area. The Multi-Center Traffic Management Area is an example
where common goals and objectives have resulted in excellent products
that can be rapidly implemented by the FAA. But other areas, such as
airspace modeling, the lack of coordination and a shared vision is
quite apparent. We are especially concerned that the Virtual Airspace
Modeling and Simulation Project, known as VAMS, will consume an
inordinate amount of NASA's resources, and many of these resources seem
to duplicate those within the FAA.
Clearly, NASA has capabilities and facilities that FAA does not
have, and it makes no sense to duplicate these capabilities and
facilities within our government. In the area of air traffic control,
NASA is essentially a longer-term research agency for the FAA. But
FAA's horizon is, and should be much shorter-term than NASA's. So it is
essential that NASA's role should include ``pushing the envelope'' in
air traffic control technologies, often beyond what can been seen from
today's perspectives. This role is often difficult for the FAA.
Without a single, clear roadmap for aeronautics that cuts across
all parts of our government, resources will be wasted and time lost.
In addition to the current NASA programs, we believe there is
additional NASA research which would be extremely beneficial to the
aeronautics industry.
Software Certification
One new area where NASA's expertise would be especially useful is
development of software tools that could be used by the FAA and
avionics manufacturers to test avionics and other computer software
used in the NAS to ascertain that it meets appropriate certification
levels of reliability and integrity. NASA research in this area should
be greatly accelerated and closely coordinated with the FAA, which is
the organization that determines the minimum performance standards.
Weather Sensors
Another area where NASA research has great value is advanced
weather sensors that can measure temperature and dew point from
satellites at altitudes not typically traveled by airline aircraft. At
lower altitudes, specially-equipped balloons are used to gather this
data. And above 29,000 feet, many airline aircraft are equipped with
sensors and automatic datalink of temperature, dew point and other
data. But between approximately 10,000 to 29,000 feet, weather data is
very sparse.
It is not economically feasible to equip smaller general aviation
aircraft that normally fly between 10,000 and 29,000 feet altitudes
with sensors and data link, and balloons are not feasible at these
altitudes. And although the weather forecast models employed by the
National Weather Service have greatly improved, they are still impaired
by the fact that measurements of temperature and dew point in the
middle altitudes are sparse. Forecasts derived from these models would
be greatly enhanced if more accurate, real-time temperature and dew
point data was available. Nearly all of the weather products produced
by the National Weather Service would be enhanced, including many for
non-aviation purposes. But most importantly to GAMA, general aviation
safety would be improved.
NASA's General Aviation Research
As a representative of the general aviation industry, I would also
like to take the opportunity today to mention some of the NASA programs
which have been specifically focused on general aviation.
The Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiment (AGATE) was a
NASA cost sharing partnership with industry to recreate and speed-up
the technological basis for revitalization of the U.S. general aviation
industry. The goal of the program was to develop affordable new
technology, as well as the industry standards and certification methods
for airframe, cockpit and flight training systems for next generation,
single pilot, 4-6 place, near all-weather light airplanes.
AGATE focused attention on moving technology that had been
available only to commercial air carriers into general aviation
aircraft. NASA and industry worked closely with FAA to bring electronic
display regulations into line with current technology. As a result of
this government-industry partnership, many new technologies were either
brought to the market, or they were commercialized much sooner than
would have been the case without AGATE. For a detailed discussion of
how effectively this research was commercialized, I have attached a
copy of the ``AGATE Alliance Commercialization Impact Report''. *
Perhaps the biggest lesson learned from AGATE was that NASA can be an
effective research partner with industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to can be found on the Internet at:
http://www.gama.aero/dloads/
AGATEAllianceCommmercializationImpactReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another success was NASA's General Aviation Propulsion (GAP)
program aimed at developing revolutionary new propulsion systems for
general aviation. Historically, it is new engines that have brought
about the greatest changes in aircraft design and performance. At the
entry level of general aviation, some very exciting new engines are on
the verge of reaching the market.
NASA's GAP program is an excellent example of how NASA research
brings technologies to the point where industry can later refine NASA
breakthrough technologies and develop commercially-viable products.
Small Aircraft Transportation System
NASA's Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) initiative is a
program to demonstrate how the integration of many next-generation
technologies can improve air access to small communities. This program
envisions travel between remote communities and urban areas by
utilizing a new generation of single-pilot light aircraft for personal
and business transportation between the nation's 5,400 public use
general aviation airports.
Current NASA investments in aircraft technologies are enabling
industry to bring affordable, safe, and easy-to-use technologies to the
marketplace, including advanced flight controls, innovative avionics,
crashworthy composite airframes, more efficient IFR flight training,
and revolutionary engines.
The SATS program is focusing on four key operating capabilities,
which we fully support:
Safe, high-volume operations at airports without control
towers or terminal radar facilities;
Lower adverse weather landing minimums at minimally-equipped
landing facilities;
Integration of advanced general aviation aircraft into a
higher en route capacity air traffic control system, with
complex flows that can safely and efficiently accommodate a
wide range of aircraft with diverse performance
characteristics;
Improved single-pilot ability to function safely and
competently in complex airspace in the evolving National
Airspace System.
It should go without saying that NASA's technical expertise is an
essential element of the SATS initiative. Only NASA can cut across
traditional technical boundaries and integrate research benefiting
general aviation vehicles, air traffic control procedures, airspace
design and safety. And more than any other government agency, NASA has
already demonstrated an ability to implement an effective consortium of
government and industry that can produce results. This ability is due
in large part to various collaborative research structures that are
uniquely at NASA's disposal.
We believe that at the conclusion of the SATS program in FY05, many
of these technologies will be mature enough to be handed-off to the FAA
for final development and deployment, and we are working with the FAA
to develop such a program. Technologies that result from the SATS
program will greatly enhance the capacity of the National Airspace
system.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, NASA is a preeminent research agency with much to
contribute to the future of the aerospace industry. The challenge for
all of us as stakeholders, including this Subcommittee, will be to make
sure NASA programs fit into a broad national aerospace plan and are of
value to the industry.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Bolen.
Appreciate that and I will have some questions for you, as
well.
Mr. Dietz, welcome to you here. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS DIETZ, DIRECTOR, MANUFACTURING RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, BOEING COMMERCIAL
AIRPLANES, WICHITA DIVISION
Mr. Dietz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Allen.
I am Dennis Dietz. I am director of Manufacturing Research
and Development for the Wichita Division of the Boeing Company,
and I appreciate the opportunity to bring Boeing's perspective
on this very, very important issue here today.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Dietz, pull that microphone a little
closer to you, if you will.
Mr. Dietz. I also want to express our appreciation to you,
Mr. Chairman, for taking the leadership to move this forward
toward implementation. As in all activities, that is a key
important part.
Kansas certainly is a key center for military, commercial,
and general aviation activities, and employs many thousands of
people, including the 13,000 people at Boeing and their
families who are very directly impacted by the influence of the
activity we are talking about today.
On behalf of the Boeing Company, I also want to acknowledge
the tremendous effort by Chairman Walker and the members of the
commission for the comprehensive report of great quality with
great recommendations. After being here today, I can see his
passion for this subject can only inspire such good output.
I also commend the Committee's initiative as reflected in
today's hearing, in going forward with the implementation
process.
I also commend Senator Allen and Senator Dodd for their
strong support of aerospace technology, as reflected in the
recently introduced legislation.
For the remainder of the time, though, I would like to
address really two fundamental issues that are interrelated
that come out of the recommendations in that report. And first
is, and it is one we have been talking about from the very
beginning, is that the Federal Government should increase
significantly its investment in basic aerospace research, which
enhances our national security, enables breakthrough
capabilities, and fosters an efficient, secure, and safe
aerospace transportation system. This is a high priority for
Boeing.
Second, I want to address the commission's recommendation
to effect the transformation of the U.S. air transportation
system as a national priority. This must result in reducing
door-to-door travel times for our citizens. Implementation of
this recommendation is Boeing's highest aerospace research
priority.
Mr. Chairman, the Boeing Company strongly supports the
conclusion of the Aerospace Commission that an aggressive
initiative by the Federal Government to invest in aerospace
leadership would benefit the United States. There are broad
public benefits. Many of them have already been spoken to--
certainly Federal investment in our technology infrastructure,
an advance of our test facilities, propulsion, fuel systems,
fuel efficiency technologies, advanced materials and
structures, safety and security-related technologies and
environmentally friendly technologies that address noise,
emissions, and cabin comfort, in the case of aircraft, and
those technologies primarily related to subsonic and, in the
longer term, perhaps supersonic flight.
A key step in maturing and improving advanced aeronautical
technology is through the use of demonstrators and prototype
units, and it is one of the ways you get a very quick feedback
process in the work you are doing, and we would like to propose
that it would be another avenue by which to make the return on
investment, on our research investment, happen at a much faster
pace.
Turning to a related key finding, and this is one I feel
very strongly about, on the President's commission, is future
industry productivity growth and gross domestic product that
are directly related to an efficiently growing air
transportation system. Aviation is highly dependent upon an
airport and airspace infrastructure that does not meet future
efficiency, capacity, and security requirements. When we talk
about productivity, that is the way we bring this industry up
to provide those jobs in the future that we have talked about.
They are high-paying jobs, they are the kind of jobs that draw
the interest of our students and our institutions, and upgrade
the level of education in our institutions. And we believe that
is really critical in terms of productivity for the future to
create those jobs for the future, as well.
We support the recommendation of the Aerospace Commission
on a national program led by the Department of Transportation
with multi-agency participation. The goal of this initiative
would be to define and develop a new air traffic management
system to meet our long-term aviation, security, safety, and
efficiency and capacity needs. And, of course, we have
addressed competitiveness in this business, which means, we
have to make this business such that we satisfy customer
demand.
A national traffic management initiative should build upon
current air traffic management and infrastructure initiatives,
including the OEP. It should use a requirements-driven
approach, and it should be highly integrated, using secure
network-centric architecture to really enhance common
situational awareness and ensure seamless global operations.
While not focused on space today, fundamental technology
challenges in space should continue to be supported, as that is
an important part of the whole activity within NASA, as well.
We believe that investment of public funds demands a return
to the public, and I believe that I have outlined some of those
in my submitted testimony, and that those benefits will go on
into the future. As you rightly said in the very beginning, we
are looking at a five-year plan, our competitor's looking at a
twenty-year plan, and there are those in the world who look at
hundred-year plans. We have really got to focus on a long-term
stable investment, as well.
Finally, I would like to suggest that Congress engage as a
full partner in this activity to maintain the implementation
activity. In a year in which we celebrate the 100th anniversary
of our pioneers, the Wright Brothers first flight, as well as a
year in which we have had the loss of the Shuttle Columbia
astronauts, we can pay no greater tribute to our aviation
pioneers than to move forward in this activity and make great
strides for the future that our future pioneers might be
supported, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my written testimony be
included in the record, and I look forward to responding to
questions.
Senator Brownback. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dietz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis Dietz, Director, Manufacturing Research
and Development, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Wichita Division
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Dennis
Dietz, Director of Research & Development for the Boeing Company's
Wichita facility. I appreciate the opportunity to share Boeing's
perspective on the importance of significantly increasing federal
investment in basic aerospace research. I want to express my
appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on these issues.
Kansas is center for military, commercial and private aviation.
Thousands of employees and their families in Kansas, including Boeing's
13,000 employees, are directly impacted by the challenges we will
address today.
On behalf of the Boeing Company, I also acknowledge the tremendous
contribution of Chairman Walker and the members of the Commission on
the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry. Their comprehensive
report highlights the integral role aerospace plays in our economy, our
security, our mobility and our values, and concludes that global
leadership in aerospace is a national imperative for the 21st century.
The challenge ahead of us is to work together to secure global
aerospace leadership by implementing the Commission's recommendations.
I commend the Committee's initiative, as reflected in today's hearing,
to begin the important implementation process. I also commend Senator
Allen and Senator Dodd for their strong support of aerospace technology
and their recently introduced legislation in this area.
For the remainder of my time, I will address two, interrelated
recommendations of the Aerospace Commission. First, the Federal
Government should significantly increase its investment in basic
aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national security, enables
breakthrough capabilities, and fosters an efficient, secure and safe
aerospace transportation system. This is a very high priority for the
Boeing Company. Second, I will address the Commission recommendation to
effect the transformation of the U.S. air transportation system as a
national priority. This must result in reducing door-to-door travel
times of our citizens, and implementation of this recommendation is
Boeing's highest aerospace research priority.
Aerospace systems protect us from those who would do us harm, and
connect us to our loved ones across the country and around the globe.
The Aerospace Commission observed that the aerospace industry is a
powerful force within the U.S. economy, contributing over 15 percent to
our Gross Domestic Product, supporting over 15 million high quality
American jobs, while generating the largest trade surplus of any
manufacturing sector.
There are a great many challenges affecting aerospace today. These
include new national security threats around the globe, cyclical
commercial aviation markets, the need for a more secure, efficient,
environmentally-friendly and capable aviation system, and safer, lower
cost and more reliable access to space--a challenge underscored by the
recent Shuttle Columbia tragedy, to name but a few. Government and
industry are both doing their best to deal with these issues and to
respond to the needs of their stakeholders. Our nation needs to remain
a leader in space, and investment is required to take our nation to a
new level of safety, affordability and scientific research.
In our free enterprise economy, there is a proper role for
government in each of these challenges. The Commission correctly
defined government's role as recognizing the importance of aerospace
leadership, creating a supportive policy framework, and increasing
federal investment.
For national security, aviation system security, and civil space,
the government investment role extends from funding enabling technology
to procuring and operating systems. Let me note that The Boeing Company
believes providing for the security of the air transportation system is
a proper role of government, with resources coming from the general
fund rather than the aviation trust fund.
For commercial products, the government role is properly limited to
its historical role of supporting break-through, pre-competitive,
fundamental research that has a longer time horizon--generally more
than three to five years--than industry can support before it is mature
enough to be considered for transition to product development.
Government, including NASA, the DoD, FAA and the new Department of
Homeland Security, must continue to strengthen its partnerships so that
the benefits of aeronautics and space technologies can be leveraged,
transferred, and applied swiftly where they are needed to meet our
economic and security needs.
Mr. Chairman, the Boeing Company strongly supports the conclusion
of the Aerospace Commission that an aggressive initiative by the
Federal Government to invest in aerospace leadership would benefit the
United States. There are broad public benefits to be derived from
federal investment in advanced test facilities, propulsion, fuel
systems, and fuel efficiency technologies, advanced materials, advanced
structures, safety and security related technologies, environmentally
friendly technologies related to noise, emissions and cabins, and
technologies related to subsonic and, in the longer term, supersonic
flight. I understand the pressures on the overall federal budget in
this time of national crisis. Nonetheless, I am disappointed that the
FY 2004 NASA request for the Aerospace Technology Enterprise in the
NASA budget continues the trend of declining investment in real terms
for the future of America's aerospace leadership.
A key step in maturing and proving advanced aeronautical technology
is to incorporate it into scaled, prototype flight demonstrators.
Demonstrators are particularly valuable in that they provide a test bed
to mature technologies that, in turn, maximize the potential for
deploying technological advances to serve the nation's pressing
aviation needs. High priority demonstrators, for example, are needed
for technologies that greatly (1) improve overall performance
efficiency and, thereby, reduce travel time and air transportation's
impact on the environment: (2) enhance access and mobility to stimulate
economic growth; and (3) improve our economic security by decreasing
our dependency on fossil fuels through the development of alternative
fuel systems such as hydrogen. By focusing on a range of technologies
that can be applied to demonstrators, a more significant and timely
return on investment is achieved.
Turning to a related key finding of the President's Commission on
the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, productivity growth
and our gross domestic product are directly related to an efficient and
growing air transportation system. As I noted at the beginning,
implementation of this finding is Boeing's highest priority for federal
research investment.
Aviation system delays are projected to increase, creating a severe
drag on economic growth in coming years. U.S. aviation system delays in
2000, as measured by the FAA, resulted in a $9.4 billion loss in U.S.
economic activity.
The decline in air travel and system delays following 9/11 is
temporary. Forecasters agree that growth in demand for air
transportation ultimately will return to much higher historic levels,
and will outpace available and currently planned capacity.
The U.S. economy will suffer without adequate government action to
improve the air transportation system. Aviation is highly dependent on
an airport and airspace infrastructure financed primarily by system
users and controlled and regulated by the government. This
infrastructure does not meet future efficiency, capacity, or security
requirements.
The Commission concluded that the FAA's Operational Evolution Plan
(OEP) is a necessary starting point, but insufficient for enhancing the
U.S. air transportation system and maintaining global aviation
leadership. The one billion dollar annual investment in the OEP will
not produce sufficient capacity to meet long-term demand, nor will it
take full advantage of technologies that can enhance the security of
the overall aviation system. According to a DRI-WEFA study, if all
projects envisioned by the OEP were completed on schedule, airspace
delays in 2012 would be greater than in 2000, and the economic cost of
delays between 2000 and 2012 would be an estimated $157 billion.
The Boeing Company strongly supports the recommendation of the
Aerospace Commission for a national program office led by the
Department of Transportation with multi-agency participation. The goal
of this initiative is to define and develop a new air traffic
management system to meet our long-term aviation security, safety,
efficiency and capacity needs.
A national air traffic management initiative should build upon
current air traffic management and infrastructure initiatives,
including the OEP, use a requirements driven systems approach, develop
a highly integrated, secure ``network centric'' architecture to enhance
common situational awareness for all valid system users, and ensure
seamless global operations. New and clearly identified funding for this
initiative is needed. In light of current economic crisis and declining
aviation trust fund revenues, the initiative should leverage
investments and capabilities from non-traditional sources such as NASA,
DoD, TSA, and DOT.
While I have not focused on space today, NASA aerospace research
also contributes to safer, more reliable and lower cost access to
space. President Bush told a mourning nation that our journey into
space will continue despite the tragic events of February 1st.
Fundamental technology challenges remain in the space flight arena,
including lighter weight, lower cost airframes, propulsion, and health
management systems. The FY 2004 NASA Aerospace budget proposals to
address these needs should be supported, and necessarily will receive
more emphasis when we better understand the causes of the catastrophic
loss of Space Shuttle Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, the investment of public funds demands public benefit
in return. I will close by citing some of the public benefits of
federal investment in aerospace research. They include improving the
quality of life for our citizens by drastically reducing the level of
noise due to aircraft operations; reducing the congestion of the air
transportation system; reducing the rate at which fossil fuels are
consumed and greenhouse gases and other harmful gases and particulates
are added to the atmosphere by aircraft; allowing for more rapid, cost-
effective development of safer, lower cost, more efficient aerospace,
automotive and energy producing products; enabling low-cost, safe, and
low-emission propulsion systems; improving performance for operators,
and in turn reducing costs to the flying public; reducing the aircraft
accident rate by 50 percent over the next ten years; increasing the
mobility of our population that, in turn, stimulates economic growth;
and advancing flight, and with it, aerospace leadership.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the Congress for its
willingness to consider the recommendations of the Aerospace
Commission. I respectfully suggest that the Congress engage as a full
partner in their implementation. This partnership will require a long-
term view of the Nation's investment in aerospace technology and the
return on that investment to the American taxpayer. Past investments
have surely improved the lives of all Americans. In a year in which we
celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Flight and mourn the loss of the
Shuttle Columbia astronauts, we can pay no greater tribute to America's
aerospace pioneers than by securing America's economic and physical
security with another century of aerospace leadership.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to responding to your
questions and questions from other Members of the Committee.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, and I look forward
to our discussion.
Next will be Dr. John Tomblin. He is the executive director
of the National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita
State University.
Dr. Tomblin, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN TOMBLIN, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR AVIATION RESEARCH, WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Tomblin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. And you might tell Senator Allen not
everybody in Kansas is a Jayhawker, right? There are
Wheatshockers and Wildcats and a lot of other----
Dr. Tomblin. That is correct.
Senator Brownback.--a lot of other beasts, too.
Senator Allen. That is understood.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. Not everyone in Virginia is a Cavalier.
[Laughter.]
Senator Brownback. Please.
Dr. Tomblin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Allen, I appreciate the opportunity
to share my observations and vision on the future of the United
States aerospace industry with you today. My comments this
afternoon will focus on the role of academia in partnership
with government and industry and how that effective
collaboration can contribute to the future of the United States
aerospace industry.
The United States has been the world leader in aviation
throughout the 20th century. Today, the aviation industry
competes in a global economic environment that is far different
from that in the past. New challenges to our leadership are
arising from aircraft manufacturers in Europe, the Pacific Rim,
and Brazil.
To address this competition, the Nation's research and
development base for aircraft design and manufacturing must be
expanded with support from the Federal Government in
partnership with industry. It is only through research and the
application of new technology that the U.S. will maintain its
leadership position in aviation in the 21st century.
The mission of The National Institute of Aviation Research
at Wichita State University is to conduct research, transfer
technology, and enhance education for the purpose of advancing
the Nation's aviation industries. Located in a cluster of
aviation industries, which include Boeing, Bombardier-Learjet,
Cessna, and Raytheon, the institute must be able to meet
research, testing, and technology transfer needs of these
industries as well as Federal agencies that support aviation
and establish certification regulations for the industry.
The institute has established thrust areas that are of
primary importance to the aviation research. They include
aerodynamics, aging aircraft, composite and advanced materials,
crash worthiness, icing, manufacturing, structures, and virtual
reality.
Permit me to review only a few of those institute's success
stories which involve forming a strong collaboration between
industry, government, and academia.
One of our most successful partnerships developed as a
result of the NASA AGATE program. I chaired the Advanced
Materials Working Group of AGATE from 1994 until the program
ended in 2001. During this time, the partnership between
academia, industry, and government helped establish
certification methods for composite materials that
revolutionized the way in which composite materials are
certified and used on aircraft. Through the joint
collaboration, we were able to reduce the time and costs
required for certification of new composite materials. This
model of composite material insertion into applications and
products has recently been adopted in commercial, transport,
and military airspace as well.
In crash worthiness and safety, a 1995 survey revealed that
the perceived lack of safety was the primary reason for the
general public not wanting to travel in light airplanes. If
general aviation is to grow significantly and become the
alternative to the hub-and-spoke transportation system that the
commission report envisions, perceived and real safety must
improve.
The general public has come to expect crash safety in their
cars and will likely demand the same from light airplanes.
Furthermore, crash safety at aviation velocities has been
demonstrated in race cars and in full-scale small airplane and
helicopter tests. The automobile industry has accepted the
unlikelihood of a zero accident rate and designed crash
worthiness into its cars. Consequently, thousands of lives are
saved each year. By designing crash worthiness into airplanes,
aviation can see similar results.
The institute is currently working with the FAA, NASA, and
the aerospace industry to develop and validate analytical tools
necessary to incorporate crash worthiness features into
aircraft during the concept phase of aircraft development.
In conclusion, I know we all agree the future of the
aerospace is critical to our national security, transportation
mobility and freedom, economic well-being, and quality of life
for all Americans. The commission's sense of urgency to address
the needs of the aerospace industry should not be ignored.
America's leadership in aerospace is becoming threatened.
As many witnesses here have mentioned in the testimony today, a
hundred years ago, Wilbur and Orville Wright flew the Wright
Flyer and made aviation history for the United States. It would
be historically appropriate if the world dominance of the
United States aerospace industry could be assured for the next
one-hundred years through new and dynamic Federal programs and
policies, and stronger government, industry, and university
interaction and cooperation.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify with you today. My
prepared statement is more thorough and provides additional
details. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tomblin follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Tomblin, Ph.D., Executive Director, National
Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to share my observations and vision on the future of the
United States Aerospace Industry with you today. My comments this
afternoon will focus on the role of academia in partnership with
government and industry and how that effective collaboration can propel
the future of the United States Aerospace Industry.
Aviation and the Global Economy
The United States has been the world leader in aviation throughout
the 20th Century. America's aviation industry has designed and built
commercial, general aviation, and military aircraft used around the
world, with exports resulting in a net favorable trade balance. Today
the aviation industry competes in a global economic environment that is
far different from that of the past. New challenges to our leadership
are arising from aircraft manufacturers in Europe, the Pacific Rim, and
Brazil. For example, the commercial airplane industry must now compete
against the European Union (13 countries). The balance of trade in the
aviation industry has shrunk from $41 billion in 1998 to $26 billion in
2001. Furthermore, new foreign government-supported research and test
facilities, particularly in Europe, are attracting business from United
States aircraft companies because of availability, quality of results,
rapid response, and low costs.
To address this competition, the nation's research and development
base for aircraft design and manufacturing must be expanded with
support from the Federal Government in partnership with industry. The
need for federal support of new research and test facilities and
equipment is as acute as it is for basic and applied research. It is
only through research and the application of new technology in
aerodynamics, materials and structures, and aviation safety that the
U.S. will maintain its leadership position in aviation throughout the
21st Century.
According to the Milken Institute's report of July 1999, entitled
America's High-Tech Economy, Wichita, Kansas ranks 19th in the nation
among high-tech metropolitan areas because of the city's high
concentration of aviation industry. Wichita is second in the nation
among aircraft and parts metros on the same basis. Prior to September
11, 2001, Boeing, Bombardier-Learjet, Cessna Aircraft, and Raytheon
Aircraft provided more than 43,000 jobs and a $2.1 billion annual
payroll to the Kansas economy. The public is returning to commercial
aviation as the only viable choice for long-distance travel, and both
commercial and general aviation are expected to recover from the recent
economic downturn.
While the four major aviation manufacturers dominate employment in
south central Kansas, there are 1,800 smaller manufacturing shops in
the 13-county region surrounding Wichita. In addition, economists
estimate that there are 2.6 jobs outside aerospace for every direct job
within aerospace.
Wichita State University and the National Institute for Aviation
Research
Wichita State University (WSU) is located in the metropolitan
setting of Wichita, Kansas and has partnered with local industry for
the past 65 years. According to the National Science Foundation, WSU
ranked seventh in the nation in aerospace research expenditures in
2000. The National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) was
established on campus in 1985 to help address the aviation industry's
research needs and has become a model for federal-state-industry-
university partnerships.
NIAR is designated as a Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation
(KTEC) Center of Excellence, and is a partner in two FAA centers, the
Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence and the Center of
Excellence for General Aviation Research. The Institute was the
recipient of the 2001 FAA Excellence in Research Award for its
continuing contributions to aviation research, and its ability to
partner with industry, academia, and government. NIAR, through its ties
with industry, other universities, KTEC, and federal agencies provides
an ideal focus for federal and state support to accomplish mutual goals
for world leadership in aviation.
NIAR's mission is to conduct research, transfer technology, and
enhance education for the purpose of advancing the nation's aviation
industries. Located in a cluster of aviation industries, the Institute
must be able to meet the research, testing, and technology transfer
needs of these industries and the federal agencies that support
aviation and establish certification regulations for the industry. With
the assistance of an industry advisory board consisting of vice
presidents of engineering of the local aviation manufacturers, NIAR has
established thrust areas that are of primary importance to the
industries, and plans to upgrade and expand its capabilities within
these thrust areas. The thrust areas are as follows:
Aerodynamics
Aging Aircraft
Composites & Advanced Materials
Crashworthiness
Icing
Manufacturing
Structures
Virtual Reality
Partnerships With Industry and Government
Permit me to review some of the Institute's previous success
stories which involved forming a strong collaboration between academia,
industry and government. One of the most successful partnerships
developed as a result of NASA's focus on general aviation. The Advanced
General Aviation Transport Experiment (AGATE) was a NASA cost-sharing
partnership with industry to create the technological basis for
revitalization of the general aviation industry in the United States.
The goal of the program was to develop affordable new technology as
well as the industry standards and certification methods for airframe,
cockpit and flight training systems for next generation single pilot,
4-6 place, near all-weather light airplanes. I was chairman of the
advanced materials working group from 1994 until the program ended in
2001.
During this time, the partnership with academia, industry, the FAA,
and NASA helped establish certification standards for composite
materials that revolutionized the way in which they are certified and
used on aircraft by creating a series of composite material databases.
Through these shared databases, a manufacturer can select an approved
composite material system to fabricate parts and perform a smaller
subset of testing for a specific application. Through the joint
collaboration of two government agencies, the FAA and NASA, we were
able to reduce the time required for certification of new composite
materials by a factor of four and the cost of certification by a factor
of ten. This model of composite material incorporation in applications
and products has recently been adopted in the commercial transport and
military aerospace industry as well.
Typically, each company desiring to use a composite material in a
product design must conduct a qualification process for the material in
order to verify its properties and characteristics. Even for identical
material systems, each company usually selects a different
``customized'' qualification process leading to a very detailed and
expensive procedure for each company. This cost increases further as
other procedures must be established for structural testing,
manufacturing control and repair procedures.
Thus, most programs are limited to using materials previously
qualified for other programs which leads to using older, out-dated
material and not taking advantage of the latest technology and material
advances in the industry. A solution to this problem, as witnessed by
the AGATE program is to establish a national localized center for
composite material validation and quality assurance.
It is also worthwhile to note the paradigm shift that occurred as
part of the AGATE program. Typically, one would think it better to
spend federal research and development funding on larger commercial or
military programs to advance the state-of-the-art. However, from
collaboration with industry, government and academia, the AGATE program
was able to achieve a paradigm shift by spending fewer research dollars
in the general aviation market and applying the technology to large
commercial transport and military programs. This is the case of small
aircraft technology ``spinning up'' into large, complex aircraft
designs and providing more cost-effective ways to achieve advanced
performance as well as reduced costs. The application and transfer of
these advanced technologies are easier and faster in the general
aviation and business jet community than in the large transport and
military community.
Currently, Raytheon Aircraft Company is applying these advanced
composite technologies on a new line of business jets, one of which is
already certified and being produced. Cessna Aircraft Company, even in
the present economic hardship of the aerospace world, announced at the
National Business Aircraft Association meeting in September that it
would be producing three new business jets. Using new technologies in
applications that improve product performance and safety is essential
in the 21st century's global market.
Another important research area in the aerospace industry is
aircraft crashworthiness. In a 1995 aircraft market survey, analysts
determined that safety is the primary concern among of general aviation
aircraft pilots and passengers. For pilots, the level of safety offered
by the aircraft was said to be the primary decision factor when
purchasing a light airplane. For potential pilots (the ``latent
market'' for airplanes and flight services), a lack of safety was the
primary reason for not piloting light airplanes. And for potential
passengers, a perceived lack of safety was the primary reason for not
wanting to travel in light airplanes. The respondents of this survey
were not given a definition of the term safety; they were allowed to
use their own definition in formulating their response. Even though
there were nearly as many concepts defining safety as there were people
surveyed, safety can be broadly categorized into two areas. The first
is control and minimization of factors that cause accidents, or
accident prevention. The second is control and minimization of the
factors that cause injury once an accident occurs, or injury
mitigation. Designing for crashworthiness addresses this second
category of safety.
Customer concern over the safety of general aviation aircraft is
warranted, to some extent. Although declining, the accident rate of
general aviation aircraft remains relatively high and the average
number of general aviation accident-related fatalities remains
significantly higher than other forms of air transportation. If general
aviation or air transportation is to grow significantly and become the
alternative to the hub and spoke air transportation system that the
Commission report envisions, perceived and real safety must improve.
The latent market (people interested in general aviation but not
currently using it) will not participate without a stronger perception
of safety. The general public has come to expect crash safety in their
cars, and will likely demand the same from light airplanes.
Furthermore, crash safety at aviation velocities has been
demonstrated in racecars and in full-scale small airplane and
helicopter tests. While many of the improvements in overall safety
should come from accident prevention through such areas as enhancements
in the airspace infrastructure, flight systems, training, etc., the
automotive experience has shown that privately owned and operated
vehicles will continue to crash. A zero accident rate is not likely.
The automotive industry has accepted this reality and designed
crashworthiness into its cars; consequently, thousands of lives are
saved each year. By designing crashworthiness into light airplanes,
general aviation can see similar results. NIAR is currently working
with the FAA, NASA and the aerospace industry to develop and validate
the analytical tools necessary to incorporate crashworthiness features
into aircraft during the concept phase of development.
One of the most successful crashworthiness stories occurred just
three months ago in Texas where a pilot in a Cirrus Design SR22 lost
control of his aircraft mid-flight due to an aileron failure.
Typically, this would have resulted in a fatality but instead resulted
in an uninjured pilot who was able to walk away from the crash. Using a
ballistic recovery parachute, which is a relatively new technology for
small aircraft and was developed in a partnership with the FAA and the
NASA-SBIR program, the pilot was able to safely deploy the parachute
over an unpopulated area and turn an otherwise fatal event into an
unfortunate accident.
In-flight icing also has a significant impact on the safety,
operation, development and certification of helicopters and fixed-wing
aircraft. In addition, icing hampers the operation of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles used for commercial and military applications. Recent
accidents, such as the American Eagle ATR-72 in Roselawn, Indiana, in
October 1994, and the Delta Connection (Comair) Embraer 120, near Ida,
Michigan, in January 1997, which resulted in 97 fatalities, show that
icing continues to be a serious safety concern. In fact since 1986,
more than 300 fatalities have been attributed to icing-related airline
accidents. Furthermore, the costs associated with aircraft design,
testing and certification for icing are very high, especially for
general aviation aircraft manufacturers. These costs are typically in
the range of $5 to $10 million for a business jet aircraft. Research is
needed to enhance aircraft safety and to reduce aircraft icing design
and certification costs.
Wichita State University is currently one of the leading
universities in the U.S. in aircraft icing research and continues to
collaborate with government and industry to enhance aircraft safety and
utility and to provide industry with the tools needed for reducing
aircraft development and certification costs. During the last 20 years,
researchers at WSU have been conducted more than 18 collaborative icing
research programs involving NASA, FAA and the aviation industry. A
number of these research efforts were in direct response to the 1997
NASA Aviation Safety Program, of which the goal is to reduce the
aviation fatal accident rate by a factor of 10 by the year 2022.
Collaborative icing research programs have resulted in a number of
products ranging from aircraft ice protection systems, databases for
aircraft design and certification, aircraft test methodologies,
simulation tools for aircraft design, and pilot training aids.
As noted in the Commission report, human factors research must be a
continued consideration. The Institute is presently focused on
investigating ways to improve maintenance documentation available to
personnel. Maintenance errors have been identified as a major
contributing cause in approximately 12 percent of major aircraft
accidents. The perception was that maintenance manuals are laden with
errors. However, results from a study funded by the FAA Airworthiness
Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE) showed that airline companies
adequately provide valid and appropriate content. The problem lies in
the cumbersome way in which the material is presented. Manuals should
be prepared in a more ``user-friendly'' format, allowing ease in
finding the relevant technical documentation and improved sequencing of
information for complex maintenance procedures. Technical writers must
be familiar with how aviation maintenance is performed in order to
effectively describe complex procedures.
One of the unexpected outcomes the human factors research program
was the development of an education program to offer an Associate of
Arts degree specializing in aviation technical writing. This new
program at Wichita State University is designed to provide students
with special aviation training so they can better understand how to
effectively communicate maintenance instruction in the manuals. The
program was created through a joint effort of WSU, the Wichita Area
Chamber of Commerce and the Wichita Area Technical College (WATC).
Local aviation manufacturers including Cessna, Raytheon and Bombardier,
supported the program through research and program development that
designed the curriculum and coursework.
In another collaborative effort, the Institute and Boeing
Commercial Airplanes--Wichita Division are currently in the process of
completing research on the effects of manufacturing defects on
composite nacelle structure. This program was successful in reducing
the cost of repairs and improving the first pass yield. It has also
provided a substantial database for assessing damage that occurs in the
fleet.
A relatively new quality assurance inspection technology has been
investigated in the research and appears attractive for in-process
manufacturing inspection. Further research aimed at facilitizing the
technique for use in aircraft production may result in a small business
opportunity for producing associated equipment.
Another important area that requires serious investigation is the
current aging aircraft problem. Economic and market conditions of
present-day airline companies are requiring the use of commercial and
military airplanes far beyond their original design life expectancies.
The general aviation fleet consists of more than 215,000 aircraft, of
which more than 25,000 are over 50 years of age and are still flying
and being resold. This aging airplane concern is being amplified as
more airline companies use aged aircraft and rely on standard
inspection practices for a guarantee of airworthiness assurance. NIAR
recently opened a new laboratory that will focus on the integrity and
aging aspects of small airplanes in commuter service. With funding
through the FAA Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence and in
partnership with several original equipment manufacturers and airline
companies, this new laboratory will explore aging concerns in the
commuter aircraft fleet and establish guidance to ensure that current
maintenance programs of small general aviation airplanes are providing
acceptable levels of continued airworthiness.
Commission Report on the Future of the Aeropsace Industry
In conclusion, I know we all agree that the future of aerospace is
critical to national security, transportation mobility and freedom,
economic well-being and quality of life for the American people. The
Commission's sense of urgency to address the needs of the aerospace
industry cannot be ignored. America's leadership in aerospace is
becoming threatened.
On December 17th, 1903, the brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright flew
their Wright Flyer from level ground under engine power alone and made
aviation history for the United States. It would be historically
appropriate if the world dominance of the United States Aerospace
Industry could be assured for the next 100 years through new and
dynamic federal programs and policies.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Dr. Tomblin.
Let me ask both you and Mr. Dietz at the outset here. Let
us run the clock for ten minutes. Are we doing today what we
need to on making the research to marketplace connections that
we have in the past in the aviation industry? You mentioned
that you worked the materials working group up until--I cannot
remember the date you said it ended, but are we doing today
what we need to to make those transitions from the research to
the marketplace?
Dr. Tomblin. It is funny you ask that question, because
what we did in the AGATE program was kind a paradigm shift to
what usually is done. If you look at commercial, military, and
general aviation, and you want to apply technology, most people
would say start at military, then to go commercial, and then go
to general aviation, that it works down. But what we found,
that it was more effective to work from essentially--saying
general aviation is the bottom--going from the bottom up,
because I can get a new technology implemented faster on
general aviation models that turn over year after year after
year, rather than commercial transports that have very few
models. And military aircraft have greater models, but,
unfortunately, some of that technology does not transfer into
Federal policy and regulation, so it cannot be used cost
effectively like the general aviation industry, because then
they have to go redo some of the research to actually get it
into Federal policy and regulation.
Senator Brownback. So do you feel like we are doing what we
need to in the match between Federal research and getting this
to the marketplace today, or is it--I mean, this is a model
program that you are talking about, and that one has worked
well. Are we doing that enough? Are we doing it across the
board sufficiently?
Dr. Tomblin. I think we can do more by--I think Mr. Bolen
mentioned it--as some of the certification methods. Currently,
when I go to a general aviation manufacturer and we have a new
technology that we want to implement, they have to consider
cost, risk, and certification time. And that new model, they
have customers, 300 airplanes already sold, and unfortunately,
the new technology has to earn its way onto the aircraft. So
that is unfortunate, because a lot of times that technology
gets old and it is not implemented, because----
Senator Brownback. What do you mean ``it has got to earn
its way onto the aircraft''?
Dr. Tomblin. By cost and risk reduction and certification
time.
So if I was going to implement, let us just say, my
expertise, a composite material technology, like we did in the
Raytheon Premier 1. We had various parts of that aircraft that
we could have put it on, and only one part made it because of
the new application and the technology. They would not bet the
whole aircraft technology on that specific technology.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Dietz, same question. Are we doing
the partnership right that we need between the government and
the private sector to get this research utilized as rapidly and
as well as possible?
Mr. Dietz. I am in the transition business, so I understand
that word, and that is a very, very important word in our
business. The problem, as both the gentlemen have alluded to is
the timing and the fact that it does have to make itself pay,
from a financial standpoint. And it goes back to the basic
research. The basic research has to be out in front of the
applied research and the actual transition on to the product.
Senator Brownback. Well, let me put it a little
differently. Were we much better in the past at getting the
information and the help and the research, or were we just much
bigger investment from the government in this basic research to
be able to use it in the private sector in the past then we are
now?
Mr. Dietz. I think there are two answers to the question. I
think one answer to the question is, yes, there was, I think,
in some cases in the past, a more steady and predictable
research activity that was out in front. The other thing I
think needs to be recognized, we are talking very significant
material properties from the materials/processes historically
used in building airplanes. We are now working with materials
and matrixes of those materials that are whole new materials
systems. They create all new challenges for the structures they
are used in. And, therefore, the ability to create the basic
research that is substantial enough to transition to a product
is a greater jump than it has been historically because of
significant changes.
It goes back again to changing that productivity model. We
cannot just make incremental improvements to the same old
process, and it is time we have to make step-function
improvements, and that is driving some of these new material,
process and system changes.
Senator Brownback. Ed, did you have some comment on this?
Mr. Bolen?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think when we looked at this from the
commission, one of the things that we saw as somewhat of a
historical shift. I think we felt that 30 years ago a lot of
the goals of the space program, the military, the civil
aviation, were roughly the same. We wanted to fly a little bit
further, we wanted to fly higher, we wanted to fly faster. I
think what we have seen more recently is that the end goals of
some of our different disciplines are different.
The military, for example, is now very interested in
stealth technology. That is not something that spins off well
to the commercial side.
Senator Brownback. I am particularly interested in that.
Mr. Bolen. The commercial side--no, I mean, the commercial
side is very interested in flying quieter and flying cleaner.
Well, that is not to say the military does not care about it,
but that is certainly not their first priority. That is not how
we have set it up. So I think we have had a divergence of goals
so they do not naturally--the technology does not naturally
flow back and forth as well as it could.
But I think we do have--certainly with the general aviation
community and NASA, I think we learned through the program, the
AGATE program that was discussed, we did learn that
collaboration and cost sharing was very, very helpful. But I do
not think you can ever have too much collaboration
communication.
What we need to do is have the industry talking to NASA
about the type of basic research, pre-competitive level
research, that we need done. Then let the companies themselves
try to take those products and make them marketable, but also
working with the FAA to know that, hey, if we got this
technology----
Senator Brownback. It could be certified.
Mr. Bolen.--could it be certified? And we do not know that.
And so I think what we need is--we have got better
communication now, but we need to have all the Federal agencies
talking to each other, and we need to have industry involved,
and I think that is a fundamental part of the commission report
at every level--better Federal coordination, better industry
involvement and interface with the government.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Dietz and Dr. Tomblin, Mr. Bolen
mentioned about propulsion systems. And I take really from what
you are saying is that at the root of all this is the engine of
it, and we need most to focus there. Would that be correct, Mr.
Bolen, in summarizing your comment on propulsion?
Mr. Bolen. Yeah, I think history is pretty clear on that
from a civil aviation standpoint. If you go back to the
comments that Chairman Walker made about space, the propulsion
systems in space are there, as well. It is figuring out how to
get someplace reliably, quickly, cleanly. All of those things
matter. And I think propulsion research is at the heart of
that. That is the engine. And we can certainly build the
aerodynamic systems around that.
Senator Brownback. Do you agree that that is really where
we need to focus, that most of the effort will be in that
propulsion system?
Dr. Tomblin. I agree that, like Mr. Bolen said, the
aircraft is usually built around the engine. If you look in the
commission's report, they mention the number of aircraft
companies, and of new aircraft companies that hopefully will
revolutionize their world with their cost and their speed.
Those aircraft are essentially built around a new engine.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Dietz?
Mr. Dietz. I do not know I would characterize that all the
research needs to be focused around propulsion. I would agree--
--
Senator Brownback. Well, I am not--and I am not saying
that, either, but I am just saying that your dominant area--you
have always--you have got a number of parts in that plane, but
your dominant focus right now really needs to be that
propulsion----
Mr. Dietz. Propulsion is certainly needs to be a key item,
from the standpoint of we continue to need greater efficiencies
but, at the same time, have to handle the noise, the emissions,
and the other aspects that go along with that. So, yes, it
creates some special challenges that certainly need to be
addressed and will continue to make products more competitive.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Dietz, you mentioned, too, about the
systems, whereby air traffic systems--I think Boeing's done
quite a bit of investment in the air traffic systems. Do you
feel like that the current system in this country, air traffic
system, is an antiquated one that really needs to have a lot
more focus? And, if so, we will be able to have a much more
efficient, be able to land more aircraft, takeoff more aircraft
per airport?
Mr. Dietz. I will go back to what I said was our highest
priority, and that is the door-to-door travel time for our
citizens. If you can make it convenient and low cost for people
to travel, and they feel safe and secure in doing that travel,
you will have more demand for travel, and this research can
provide the enablers. And, therefore, we feel it is a really
critical element of this initiative to provide that whole
infrastructure of the transportation system that creates the
environment for air transportation.
Senator Brownback. Let me ask you this. If--and I have had
some discussions with Boeing and some other people about, now
you have to go to a Point A and then to B to where your final
destination is. You are not going the most direct route, and
there are issues of safety. But if you could go directly from
Point A to B, instead of Point A to C and then to B in the
process, how much travel time could we take off of flights
going middle of the country, from the East or West Coast to the
middle of the country, or--how much time are you talking about
if we just use current technology and did it very safely,
though, in a safe way?
Mr. Dietz. The point-to-point, obviously, eliminates
congestion in the hubs. And so that, in and of itself, creates
some opportunities to make a more manageable airspace. So that
is certainly an element of the capacity. But the other part of
the capacity is managing that capacity, as well, dealing with
the human factors that air traffic controllers and others have
to deal with in managing that and really linking all the
elements of the system together to where it is a truly network-
centric type of operation.
Senator Brownback. Like how much could we cut off the
travel time from Washington National to Kansas City if you had
a more efficient air traffic system? Just to make it personal.
[Laughter.]
Senator Brownback. Just for example. I am calculating,
here, my weekly commute.
Mr. Dietz. Well, obviously, if it is a direct flight, the
whole issue with door-to-door time is how soon do you have to
get to the airport ahead of time, what kind of security issues
do you have to deal with at the airport, what kind of issues
does congestion in the airport deal with leaving on time and
arriving on time? So it is a little difficult to speculate----
Senator Brownback. Just the air travel from once we take
off to once we land?
Mr. Dietz. I believe the air travel would be relatively the
same.
Senator Brownback. Okay. Is that the case of most that is
point-to-point, and the hubs----
Mr. Dietz. Obviously, as you talk about longer distances,
the ability to go point to point versus through a hub now
enables you to stop the whole landing/takeoff pattern and the
whole wait time in the airport and everything else, so that is
when you begin to really affect the travel time, is by
eliminating that stop in between.
Senator Brownback. Senator Allen?
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, all
three gentlemen, for your insightful testimony. It is great to
hear the various perspectives. And, Mr. Dietz, thank you for
your support of the measure that Senator Dodd and I are
introducing. And it is good to hear your views. There are
different aspects of this, not just funding just across the
board, there is focus on aircraft noise, fuel efficiency,
emissions, research and development for civil supersonic
transport which will necessarily be a function of propulsion if
you are going to get up to supersonic. Sure, you can do the
aeronautic aspect of it or the avionics and so forth, but you
need to have the engine, whatever the propulsion system is.
We do have rotor-craft research and development, as well,
not something brought up here, scholarships for those who are
studying in masters degree programs, and aeronautical
engineering, weather, air traffic management--it is very
important. And I have seen at NASA-Langley how some of the
ideas on noise and better air traffic management and how they
are working, that they--take O'Hare Airport; it is not theory
how the noise pattern or the amount of noise, areas affected by
noise, would be reduced--as well as better air traffic
management, because it is getting more and more crowded. It is
not just commercial aviation. It is general aviation, as well.
And all of these, I think, are very important, and we have to
increase our funding there and work in collaboration with the
private sector, with colleges and universities, as well as a
variety of governmental organizations, whether it is NASA,
whether it is FAA, whether it is the Department of Defense.
Dr. Tomblin, let me ask you this question. You summarized
your remarks. In your written testimony that I was reading
before, and you alluded to it, that the aviation industry today
competes internationally. We have been talking about that and
competition and how that is important and that it is different
than it was in the past. Could you share with us or discuss
with us the differences that you see, as far as that
competition? And also, in doing so, could you share with us any
observations you may have where others outside of the United
States do a better job somehow than we do, and can we learn
from that, or does it really matter?
Dr. Tomblin. I think that a lot of the people that have
testified here today have touched on this. And my experience in
dealing with this actually comes personally. I mean, doing some
consulting with foreign aircraft companies.
And as Ed mentioned and Dennis mentioned, too, I see the
United States industry, when I personally look at it, having a
five-year vision. They have a five-year vision out. What
changes is that I see the global competition having the
hundred-year vision. And they will send a research product back
that is ready to go to market--they will send it completely
back--that, in my opinion, is totally new technology--back to
the drawing board to get more cost out and greatly affect the
performance when they already have a superior product to
anything we produce. So that worries me, that not only do they
have this step, but they are making this step-function
approach. So that we still have the leadership now, I think,
but it is becoming threatened if we do not do something.
Senator Allen. Now, is that a function of corporate
strategy or the? As you say, well, we look at it for five
years, they look at it a hundred years.
Dr. Tomblin. And I think it is----
Senator Allen. Is that governmental? Is that corporate? Or
is it?
Dr. Tomblin. I think it is--personally, I see it as
corporate. I mean, they have the money to throw into the
research and development, where our companies do not put that
much basic research funding in, not as much as, like, the--like
you see from the automobile industry.
Senator Allen. Well, I cannot recollect which one of you--I
was going through the testimony. Maybe it was Mr. Bolen, or
maybe you, yourself, pointing out where NASA's value is, is the
basic research, and then the private sector comes in and
figures out how to adapt that research to some commercial
value.
Now, it is not as if what--NASA's research would not have
any application. Much of it will. But sometimes you get
adaptations of utilization of that research, basic research,
which maybe it is something that has nothing to do at all with
aeronautics. But, nevertheless, if you have that predictability
and stability in research and development funding, and it is
not going to be a year or two-year fight--businesses will say,
``Oh, gosh, I worry about the quarterly shareholders report or
the annual report,'' let us say. If we have a plan that is
clear in here, our goals in the supersonic transport is going
to be not five years, that is 20 years, but regardless, if we
have that credibility and stability of funding, rather than
just fussing and fighting every appropriations year, that
might--would you all think that could help in the private
sector in your long-term vision, as opposed to saying, ``Gosh,
we have done this. We have got to turn around and get some bang
for this research''?
Mr. Bolen. Yeah, I think that would be extraordinarily
helpful, to have some certainty in the process. You have talked
about nano-technology, for example. Well, if private-sector
companies can be aware of what NASA is doing in nano-
technology, they can think to themselves, ``Well, if they get
this, what would we do with it? How would we market it? How
would set up? What would the production facilities look like?''
And if you know that it was not a basic research program that
was subject to starts and stops, if you knew it was going to go
on year after year, and you could make an assessment taking the
funding out of the issue and getting down to the technical
equation----
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Bolen.--then you can build a business plan that says,
you know, ``Four years from now we want to be able to position
our company to take advantage of nano-technologies. Here is how
we would do it. We would take that basic research, we would
turn it into this product. Here is how we would certify it.''
It would change the world an awful lot. So it would be
extraordinarily helpful to have predictability in terms of the
research programs and not have to go to the ups and downs of
not knowing program starts and stops.
I also wanted to point out, when you had asked a question
earlier about the foreign competition, I think one of the
things that we do here in the United States is that NASA does
its research and then it is available to everybody. In Europe,
they often do their research on a type of cost-sharing program
with a company, and then that--it becomes proprietary to that
company, that European company. So the U.S. companies cannot
take advantage of European basic research, but European
companies can take advantage of U.S. NASA research after a very
short period of time. And I think, you know, that is an example
of how other countries, other regions, that are interested in a
long-term aerospace industry are looking at it.
Senator Allen. Mr. Dietz?
Mr. Dietz. I would just add, again, going to the stability,
I believe that is a critical issue in the whole thing. If you
know you have got a program that is planned, it is funded, it
is not going to be chopped off, corporations can then do
parallel research to start the application and driving the
costs down and all the things it takes to put it in a product
development program at the same time. Furthermore, you do not
have the problems of staffing up, staffing down, and trying to
retain those skills.
We talked about the effect on our universities and
institutions. One of the ways that you drive very high
priorities in the institution is to turn out very well-educated
people who see a long-term commitment that they know will be
there when they graduate and can go into the industry. So I
think in a lot of ways that long-term stability has a positive
effect on what we do.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Dr. Tomblin? It seems like you want to say something on
this.
Dr. Tomblin. I would just like to reiterate what Mr. Bolen
said. That was probably one of the great successes of AGATE, is
this cost sharing and knowing the funding was going to be
there. The industry worked with the universities and with the
government organizations, and we did not just stop when the
final report came out, when the technology was in a report.
Being an academic person, you know I love to write journal
papers, and a lot of those journal papers, unfortunately, no
one reads but other academics. So the nice thing about this
program was that it took an academic study and turned it into
an FAA policy and turned it into a part on a plane. That was
the nice thing about that program.
Senator Allen. Well, I think you all have given us the
insight we need. What we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is not just
listen to a journal report or read it, we need to take action
on the variety of comments that have been made here, all very
insightful.
And I am one who is competitive, but this competition is
not just business competition. This is important for the jobs
of the future, for national security. The same applies in nano-
technology, where if we do not make the proper long-term
investments there, the Europeans and the Japanese will be ahead
of us. And that is a $1 trillion economic benefit there which
has applications across all sorts of disciplines and fields.
So count me as one of your allies. But mostly count me as
an admirer of each and every one of you all and all our
witnesses today. We are going to work hard together for the
future, which is important for our jobs, for our economy, and
our security.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. Thank goodness we
have your leadership making sure that this Congress pays
attention to this vital issue for our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brownback. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Allen. I
want to thank the panelists.
And would just note that as we conclude the hearing, we
will leave the record open for the requisite number of days so
you can submit further statement if you would like, but I leave
this hearing uneasy. It is like we are celebrating a hundred
years, a hundred years ago, the Wright Brothers took off Kitty
Hawk. We had that short flight with lots of successes along the
way, broke the sound barrier here, the first people on the
moon, the space shuttle program, the things that we have done,
and yet I am uneasy that we are losing the edge. I mean, I
guess that is the cumulative of what I am hearing from
everybody here, is we have not lost it yet, but if we are
turning around and looking back, they are gaining on us. And we
have not developed necessarily the strategy that takes us on
forward to the next century of American dominance in the
aerospace industry, which I want to see it be. And you have
provided us good thoughts and good food for thought.
We have several legislative vehicles that will be looked
at. It was mentioned here today, the Allen-Dodd bill. There
will be some view towards funding for research efforts. And
please feel free to contact our office--others, the Committee--
about where you think the best placement of effort and sources
would be so that we can be secure in moving forward and
maintaining the lead in this very, very vital field for our
economy, for our future, for our safety and our travel, and
also for our security.
Thank you for coming. Thank you for traveling here. Thank
you all for attending.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator from South Carolina
The United States has long enjoyed a preeminent position in the
aerospace industry. This position is now being challenged by Europe and
other countries. Aerospace technology is not just a economic issue, but
also one of national security. We must continue to pursue the
development of new aerospace technology in order to maintain our global
leadership.
Today's hearing is to examine the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) aeronautical research activities. We will hear
about research and development's critical role and how the application
of advanced technology is critical to this nation's economic
competitiveness. The U.S. Aerospace Commission Report called for
proactive government policies and long term public investment to
address this issue. The Honorable Robert Walker the Chairman of this
commission and other witnesses will discuss what is needed to enhance
our current R&D initiatives.
I am pleased to announce that I am currently working on legislation
that implements much of what we will be discussing in this hearing. I
want to significantly increase this nation's investment aerospace
research engineering and development. I want NASA to develop new
technologies that will reduce environmental issues such as pollution
and noise. I want to ensure that America has a well trained cadre of
aerospace engineers by offering scholarships and fellowships in
aerospace education programs. Finally, I want to improve the
coordination of aviation and aeronautics research programs between NASA
and the Federal Aviation Administration. These additional investments
are necessary to maintain our competitive position in aviation safety
and technology and ensure our nation's aviation security.
I look forward to our panels' testimony.
Thank you Chairman Brownback.