NASA Air Safety Update

NASA's National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service Project Was Designed Appropriately, but Sampling and Other Issues Complicate Data Analysis

"In reviewing a draft of this report, NASA reiterated that NAOMS was a research and development project and provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. NASA also expressed concern about protecting NAOMS respondents' confidentiality, a concern GAO shares. However, GAO noted that other agencies have developed mechanisms for releasing sensitive data to appropriate researchers. The Department of Transportation had no comments."

Chairman Gordon, Science and Technology Committee Members Release GAO Report on NAOMS

"This was a well-designed project that failed because it was executed without proper agency oversight and didn't have the support it needed from its primary customer--the FAA," said Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN)."

NASA safety survey a mystery, AP

"Years after thousands of pilots told NASA about their in-flight safety experiences and NASA shut down the survey without divulging any findings, the pilots' views remain a mystery. A congressional investigation to be released Thursday offers little new insight into what the pilots said during the telephone survey or what it might reveal about safe skies. NASA cut off the interviews in 2004 and chose not to analyze the results."

NASA Air Safety Survey: Redacted Air Carrier Survey Responses with Unknowns in Flight Activity Fields, earlier post
Committee Asks GAO to Analyze NASA's Air Safety Survey Data, earlier post
Air Safety Survey: NASA's Sluggishness Made Things Worse Than They Needed To Be, earlier post

Airship Ventures Arrives at ARC

Airship Ventures Zepplin Arrives at Moffett Field

"The Airship Ventures' Zeppelin ended its dramatic cross-country trek and landed at its new base location at Moffett Field on Oct. 25, 2008, at approximately 2 p.m. PDT.

This airship is the first to fly over the U.S. for more than 70 years. NASA and Airship Ventures entered into an agreement to use the airship to assist with disaster response agencies, for scientific research and educational training with local science centers and museums."

Zepplins Return to Ames

NASA ARC Internal Memo: Airship's Historic Return to Moffett Field

NASA Welcomes Airship Ventures Zeppelin To Moffett Field

"News media are invited to view the newest addition to Moffett Field - the first airship to fly over the U.S. for more than 70 years - on Monday, Oct. 27, 2008. This 246-foot-long Zeppelin, 50 feet longer than the Goodyear blimp, is capable of carrying up to 12 passengers and will be available for aerial tours of the San Francisco Bay Area."

Zeppelin returns stateside after 70 years, Las Cruces Sun News

Sinking to a New Low at the Washington Examiner

Steve Fossett revelation: remote viewer Ed Dames named Sierra Mountains crash site months ago, Washington Examiner

"As California authorities examine the very limited remains found at the site of famed aviator Steve Fossett's crash in California's Sierra Nevadas, it's time to take a look back. Months ago, a remote viewing prediction said search efforts in Nevada were wasted because Fossett had died in California."

Editor's note: A wonderful and generous man dies in a terrible plane accident. So what does former NASA PAO flack Patti Phillips do online at the Washington Examiner? She goes into full tabloid mode and engages in a bizzare meandering rant to suggest that some goofy psychic found the crash site last year via remote viewing. There's even a video clip of the nutcase. How pitiful - taking advantage of such sad news to promote your own wacko ideas. I am sure the trailer park crowd really enjoys your writing, Patti.

Lowell Thomas Awards: Astronauts and Pilots To Be Honored

2008 Lowell Thomas Awards Dinner: Exploring Earth from Above

"The 2008 Lowell Thomas Awards Dinner: "Exploring Earth from Above" will be held on Thursday, October 16, 2008 at Cipriani Wall Street in New York City. Sponsored by the Explorers Club, the Lowell Thomas Award is presented by Rolex and the President of the Explorers Club to groups of explorers who have distinguished themselves in various fields of exploration. The 2008 honorees are: William A. Anders, Leroy Chiao, Martha King, Scott E. Parazynski, Dick H. Smith, and Brig. Gen Charles E. Yeager."

NASA/ATK Rocket Launch Failure

NASA and ATK Investigate Failed Launch of Hypersonic Experiments

"An Alliant Tech Systems suborbital rocket carrying two NASA hypersonic experiments was destroyed shortly after liftoff from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia Friday. No injuries or property damage were immediately reported. Most debris from the rocket is thought to have fallen in the Atlantic Ocean."

Media Telecon Scheduled to Discuss Rocket Launch Failure

"Representatives from NASA and Alliant Techsystems, or ATK, will hold a media teleconference Friday morning at 10:30 a.m. EDT to discuss this morning's failure of a rocket launch carrying two NASA hypersonic experimental payloads."

Wallops Launch Delayed 24 Hours

NASA and ATK to Launch Suborbital Hypersonic Experiments

"Two NASA hypersonic experiment payloads are scheduled for launch no earlier than Aug. 21 from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia atop a two-stage suborbital rocket developed by Alliant Techsystems, also known as ATK, of Salt Lake City."

Wallops Island rocket launch rescheduled for tomorrow, PIlotOnline

"A launch planned for this morning from Wallops Island has been delayed by one day.
The launch is scheduled for tomorrow morning [22 Aug] between 5:10 and 6:10 a.m."

AIAA Report Now Online

AIAA Inside Aerospace Report and Recommendations Now Available Online

"AIAA's Report and Recommendations resulting from the sessions and discussions
held at Inside Aerospace--An International Forum for Aviation and Space Leaders,
held 13-14 May 2008 at the Doubletree Hotel Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia,
is now available online."

Aviation Safety Reporting System Complaints Emerge

Pilots' reports on low fuel, AP

"The Aviation Safety Reporting System -- a database maintained by NASA -- has reports from pilots expressing safety concerns about airline directives pressuring them to fly with uncomfortably low fuel levels. NASA deletes names and other identifying information to encourage pilots, flight crews, dispatchers and others to identify safety problems, including their own mistakes."

Earlier NAOMS postings

Dropping the Ball at NASA Aeronautics PAO (Update)

Editor's update: I finally got a call from Beth Dickey at Aeronautics PAO - after I complained to PAO about zero response from her. I then had to push three times before she began to tell me why I was not invited to the 11 July Aeronautics media event. Why I never got the audio recording of that event is an even sillier story. This is a typical case of lack of coordination, planning, or concern for getting information to those of us who want to get it in front of a wider audience. NASA HQ Aeronautics PAO is inept as far as I am concerned. It is also uncalled for given the excellence that can be clearly seen in other PAO activities at HQ and across the agency.

Earlier notes below.

Editor's 28 Jul note: Still no response from Beth Dickey, NASA Aeronautics PAO about the Aeronautics media briefing I was excluded from 2 weeks ago. No reason why has ever been provided, despite requests. At that event, she commented that a recording was being made since I was not there. After sending several emails to her, someone else from PAO called and offered me a half hour interview with the Aeronautics AA. That's nice but: 1. I still do not know what they discussed at the original event and 2. wouldn't it just be more efficient for them to send me an audio recording than to ask an AA to spend 30 minutes out of his busy day to sit with one member of the news media and try to do the whole thing over again weeks later? It has been 2 weeks and Beth Dickey has not even bothered to reply to my requests. Again, when you see less aero news on NASA Watch than you'd like to see, this is why. I guess I will have to file a FOIA request to get the audio recording.

Editor's 11 July note: NASA's Aeronautics Directorate held a lunch time briefing for the Washington area media today. Everyone on the DC media list was invited by Beth DIckey - except me, it would seem. No email, no phone call - nothing. PAO personnel I spoke with were rather surprised that I was not invited by Beth. I only learned about this from another reporter who was leaving NASA HQ as I was about to walk in for another meeting. The next time NASA Watch readers want to complain about lack of aeronautics news at NASA Watch you should have a partial explanation as to why: NASA Aeronautics PAO doesn't really care if you know what they are doing.

The NAOMS Food Fight Is Not Over Yet

House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Seeks Information From FAA on Ending of Aviation Safety Survey

"The House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) sent a letter to the Acting Director of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) calling on him to work with NASA to reestablish a program to survey professionals in the air traffic system for better insight into air safety problems. Many of the safety problems of the last few months came to light solely because of whistleblowers stepping forward to identify problems in the FAA safety assurance system. The Subcommittee is working to understand the FAA's role in the ending of NAOMS and is requesting all records from between January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004 related to the NAOMS program."

NASA OIG on NAOMS: "Missed Opportunity"

Final Memorandum on the Review of the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service

"The Government may have missed an opportunity to foster a deeper understanding of the aviation safety environment from 2001 through 2004 because its working groups were unable to reach a consensus on the validity or value of the NAOMS data. As a result, NASA was reluctant to publish a report detailing research and conclusions garnered from the collected NAOMS survey data."

Research Opportunities in Aeronautics

NASA Solicitation: Research Opportunities in Aeronautics 2008

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters is releasing a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) for foundational research in support of the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). NNH08ZEA001N, entitled "Research Opportunities in Aeronautics" will be available on or about March 3, 2008."

Air Safety Report Update

Committee Asks GAO to Analyze NASA's Air Safety Survey Data

"Led today by Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) of the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology, Committee leaders asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to analyze massive amounts of data on U.S. air safety that the National Aeronautics and Safety Administration (NASA) made public on New Year's Eve."

IFPTE on NAOMS

Letter From IFPTE To Congress Regarding NASA Handling of NAOMS Data Release, IFPTE

"On December 31st 2007, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin released redacted NAOMS data to the public. That moment should have been the beginning of a redemptive process in which NASA could move past this embarrassing episode. Alas, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin decided not only to repeat the inaccurate derogatory claims made at the October 31st House Science Committee hearing, but also to add a number of new inaccuracies to the mix (see a summary of ongoing disinformation below). His words, actions, and bellicose public behavior have seriously damaged NASA's credibility"

"False Statement #4: NASA's standard format for data release is PDF (portable document format)
At the press conference, the Administrator stated that "our standard format for data release is PDF format. ... I am sure that you know that the reason why we use PDF format is that the data cannot then be altered by others without our knowledge and still claim that it is NASA data." NASA however has no such policy. In response to a union query, NASA HQ responded that "First, the data to which Dr. Griffin refers pertains to data/information released by NASA Public Affairs (e.g., press releases), not scientific and technical information. Second, the use of the PDF format is a standard practice (not a policy) to protect the integrity of this data/information when released to the public."

Editor's note: This one takes the prize and clearly demonstrates blatant ignorance on the part of Mike Griffin and/or whatever staffer told him this. Mike, you can copy material out of these PDF files easily and import it to other software programs. Try it some time - you'll see.

Griffin Offers Official Excuses for NAOMS Release Process

Message from the NASA Administrator: 2008 National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS)

"Some have said that the initial release date of 31 December was chosen because it was a "slow news day". That is not the case. It was the earliest date we could achieve."

Editor's note: Perhaps if you had not dragged your feet for a month you could have issued this information earlier.

"Finally, we have been criticized for releasing the data in PDF. This is the standard form in which we release data publicly when no particular format has been specified or requested. However, it is true that the sheer volume of NAOMS survey data makes the use of PDF data somewhat cumbersome. Accordingly, I have made an exception to our standard practice in this case, and both the initially redacted data, and all subsequent data, will be published on our website in Excel format."

Editor's note: When is the last time NASA issued 16,000 pages of data in PDF format? You may be a super brain, Mike, but the rest of us can't just ingest all of that data and analyze it in the format it was provided in.

Air Safety Report Update

NASA Updates Aviation Safety Data Website

"NASA updated its National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS) website Monday to add a Microsoft Office Excel formatted version of previously posted files containing pilot survey responses."

Lawmakers hit NASA air safety report, Huntsville Times

"U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, wants the full report released to the public and he chided NASA officials for not releasing it in a way people could understand. "It took three years to compile the data and then another three years to publicly release it - in the form of a cumbersome and heavily redacted report." Shelby said in a statement to The Times. "If the NASA report was worth spending millions of dollars on, don't the taxpayers who paid for it deserve to see the results?"

Earlier NASA Watch posts

Lisa Porter Is Leaving NASA

Editor's note: NASA Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Lisa Porter is leaving NASA to be the Director of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA). Her last day will be 1 February 2008.

Jaiwon Shin will be the acting AA for Aeronautics.

No doubt the Market Inn (directions) will be jammed at COB on 1 February with sad HQ personnel.

Internal email from Lisa Porter below:

From: Porter, Lisa (HQ-EA000)
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:21 AM
To: [huge list]
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT

All,

I wanted to have the opportunity to tell all of you this in person, but things are moving quickly and I do not want you to hear it from others, so I am unfortunately put in the position of having to send you an email.

I have been offered a really exciting opportunity to be the first Director of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), which will sponsor innovative research that will yield revolutionary game-changing capabilities for the intelligence community.

While I am very excited about this new opportunity, I am of course saddened by the thought of having to say goodbye to each of you. I have enjoyed working with all of you, and I am very proud of what we have accomplished together.

Jaiwon will become the Acting AA when I leave. My last day will likely be Friday, February 1. Final logistics details are still being worked out.

We will talk much more about this in the coming days. But I wanted to be sure you heard this from me first. I will be back in the office Thursday.

Lisa

Air Safety Survey Update: "contempt for the flying public"

Runaround on Air Safety, editorial, NY Times

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has grudgingly released data from a four-year survey of pilots about the safety of American aviation. The information was released the day before New Year’s, with no interpretation of the findings and in a format that is very difficult for outsiders to analyze. If the agency intended to show contempt for the flying public, it succeeded."

Black Hole - What part of 16,208 pages from NASA is comprehensible?, editorial, Washington Post

"Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey," wrote NASA associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke. That rationale was beyond unacceptable. Mr. Griffin was right to reverse course and promise Congress that the data would be released by the end of the year. Who knew he would do it in such a snit?"

Real World Reaction To NASA's Airline Safety PR

Friendly skies?: Only NASA knows the truth, editorial, Salt Lake Tribune

"In a display of institutional and bureaucratic arrogance that is distressingly commonplace in the Bush administration, NASA, aka the gang that couldn't fly straight, is stonewalling the press and public."

How safe is air travel, really?, Smarter Travel

"Just how ambivalent NASA was about making the report public can be clearly seen in the timing of the release. Adopting a tactic universally utilized to minimize media attention and coverage, NASA issued the report on New Year's Eve, the year's slowest news day."

NASA's unreliable survey of air mishaps leads us around in circles, Cincinnati Inquirer

"NASA, which is charged with keeping an eye on the sky, reportedly has been keeping scary secrets about what really goes on in the wild blue yonder. Fasten your seat belt, because even figuring out the air safety report released on New Year's Eve gets hairy."

NASA Insults Pilots, Press and Public, Tampa Tribune

"This insult comes after the agency originally refused to release the information to the Associated Press on the grounds it "could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers." Which is it: too frightening or nothing to see? We deserve better, and if we don't get it, NASA needs better leadership."

NASA's stalling on study raises fear and questions, Denver Post

"The flying public still doesn't know whether to be concerned about safety in the skies or to take the word of NASA administrator Michael Griffin, who says the survey shouldn't be cause for worry. The only thing that is certain is that NASA did a poor job of handling the situation. This chain of events does not exactly inspire confidence in the judgment of the people who send astronauts into space."

NASA, not pilot, error, Plam Beach Post

"But Mr. Griffin's idea of disclosure is more subterfuge. The New Year's Eve release was a heavily redacted version of the study, and it was too disjointed to analyze. The edited information made it impossible to determine the responding pilot's experience, what type of plane the pilot flew, or details of the incidents described. Mr. Griffin said NASA wanted to protect the anonymity of respondents. Bunk. The real reason is what the agency has been saying all along: The survey's publication might damage public confidence in flying."

NASA taking prize for arrogance, Sun Sentinel

"Anything that can give the public understandable safety information on air travel is valuable. Congress knows that. The public knows that. And if NASA officials weren't so arrogant, they'd know it, too."

NASA Handled Study On Safety Improperly, The Intelligencer

"NASA, like any other federal agency, is supposed to serve the people, not any business or industry. It may be time for Congress to remind the agency of that."

NASA Releases Air Safety Report, Sort Of, Hartford Courant

"NASA released the heavily redacted survey results on New Year's eve without analysis, and presented it in such a way that independent analysis seems to be very difficult. It's as if we asked a waiter for a glass of water and he came back and dumped it on our heads."

Whither NASA? Safety study raises questions about space agency, Worcester Telegram

"The questions are inescapable: Why spend $11.3 million on a report that is useless to researchers and policymakers? Why is NASA dabbling in air safety studies rather than focusing on expanding the boundaries of human knowledge? Does the agency that put mankind on the moon have the right stuff to plan and execute the next phase of manned space exploration?"

Air Safety: Cause for study, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

"It looks like NASA has taken lessons on how to handle intelligence from the CIA. The way the civilian agency has dealt with the release of a flight safety survey stinks of paranoia and secrecy."

NASA should provide clarity on air-safety report, Kansas City Star

"The immediate problem - magnified by NASA’s bungling - is how to interpret the data."

Air Safety Survey: Things That Don't Worry Mike Griffin Worry Me

NASA Releases Heavily-Redacted Airline Safety Study, Washington Post

"NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told reporters in a conference call that the agency had no plans to study the database for trends. He said NASA conducted the survey only to determine whether gathering information from pilots in such a way was worthwhile. Despite the lack of analysis by NASA scientists, Griffin said there was nothing in the database that should concern air travelers. "It's hard for me to see any data the traveling public would care about or ought to care about," he said. "We were asked to release the data and we did."

Editor's note: With regard to Mike Griffin's comment "It's hard for me to see any data the traveling public would care about or ought to care about." I am really wondering if Griffin even read these documents. I can't imagine that he'd be so dismissive if he had. Given his snooty, aloof remarks, I doubt that he even bothered to do so.

Oh yes - why is Aeronautics AA Lisa Porter so utterly silent about all of this ?

Below are some of the more troubling comments in this survey - I went through this one section and highlighted the ones that caught my eye. I am part of "the traveling public" and this stuff certainly troubles me.

NASA Air Safety Survey: Redacted Air Carrier Survey Responses with Unknowns in Flight Activity Fields

"Section D - a brief set of questions designed to elicit respondent feedback on the interview experience. Note: The responses to free text narrative questions D3A and D5 were disaggregated from the parent survey responses and were subsequently randomized."

• IT'S TAKING OVER 3 YEARS FOR NASA TO FIGURE OUT THERE ARE NO SAFETY PROBLEMS?
• I HOPE I WILL BE ABLE TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY.
• PUT SURVEY ON INTERNET AND IT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL FOR SURVEY
• I'M GRATEFUL THAT YOU GUYS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS. FOR YEARS WE HAVE TRUSTED NASA TO DEAL FAIRLY WITH SAFETY ISSUES.
• ASK ABOUT MAINTENANCE AND DEFERRED PLANES; A MECHANIC SAID "I'M NOT HERE TO FIX IT, JUST TO DEFER IT."
• THE SECURITY PROBLEMS IN THE AIRPORTS. THEY ARE FIGHTING THE WRONG PROBLEMS. IT IS NOT THE PILOTS. PILOTS NEED TO BE ARMED. THEY HAVE AN UNUSAL AMOUNT OF SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR THE PILOTS YET NOBODY TALKS ABOUT SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR MECHANICS.
• ATC GIVES PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO CERTAIN AIRLINES, NAMELY [AIRLINE A] AND PILOTS CONSIDER THAT UNFAIR AND UNSAFE.
• PILOTS NEEDS TO MAKE THE SURVEY QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THESE QUESTIONS ARE STUPID, AND THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE DESK NEED TO BE DOING THE SURVEY.
• BANKRUTPCY AND FINANCIAL LIABILITY. NEW HIRE QUALIICATIONS. PILOT COMPENSATION FOR LESS EXPERIENCED PEOPLE.
• ATC SYSTEM CAN'T HANDLE NUMBER OF FLIGHTS 2 YEARS AGO

Air Safety Survey: Rampant Skepticism About NASA's Sincerity

NASA Says Study All But Worthless, AvWeb

"It's hard for me... to see any data here that the traveling public would care about or ought to care about." [Griffin] told puzzled reporters who thought they might be covering a press conference about aviation safety. Instead they witnessed the political lid being firmly closed on an issue that has dogged NASA for two months and which Griffin clearly wanted no more part of."

NASA Offers Airline Safety Data, NY Times

"Mr. Gordon and Representative Brad Miller, Democrat of North Carolina, who is chairman of the investigation and oversight subcommittee, pledged to push NASA further. Mr. Miller said that "if 80 percent of the pilots they ask agree to sit still for a half-hour survey, voluntarily, my conclusion is the pilots had something they wanted others to know about." "This is now 3 years old, and it's been dumped, unanalyzed and scrubbed of much of the useful information," Mr. Miller said."

Redacted Air-Traffic Safety Survey Released, Washington Post

"Jim Hall, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, also criticized the way NASA released its database. "When a government agency is not transparent with the American people, particularly on an issue like safety, they are not fulfilling their responsibilities and earning their pay," Hall said."

Report containing thousands of pilot complaints is released, CNN

"Robert Dodd, the principal investigator on the study for seven years, said he was "disappointed and perplexed" when he learned NASA initially would not make the findings public."

NASA releases a cryptic study of air traffic safety, Houston Chronicle

"We are willing to release the data, but we -- NASA -- are not willing to draw conclusions from it," Griffin said. "NASA does not have any plans to analyze it. That is for the broader community."

Public served poorly by NASA's grudging release of safety data, The Morning Journal

"Without adequate information from NASA about how to look at and interpret the mountain of data, outsiders such as news organizations have a formidable task in trying to understand the problems identified by pilots and then trying to measure the performance of the FAA and aviation industry in dealing with the problems. If that doesn't worry NASA or the aviation industry, it should worry the public. NASA should be forced to present the report's findings in a manner that the public can find meaningful."

Air Safety Survey: NASA's Sluggishness Made Things Worse Than They Needed To Be

NASA Gives Glimpse of Air Safety Survey, AP

"He dismissed suggestions that NASA chose to release the data late on New Year's Eve, when the public is distracted by holidays and news organizations are thinly staffed. "We didn't deliberately choose to release on the slowest news day of the year," Griffin said."

Editor's note: Aw c'mon, Mike. Your staff punted again and again on this until it spilled into the holidays. On 31 October 2007 you testified before Congress that NASA would release the data. Yet it took you more than 2 weeks to issue the memo that would convene the panel that would look at how this could be done. Had you issued that memo on the same day that you appeared before Congress this data could have been released before the holidays. Indeed, had NASA moved to comply with publicly stated interest of Congress - concerns voiced weeks earlier (in October), this information could have been released even sooner. Instead, NASA tried to stall and kick the can down the road - issuing nonsensical comments such as Thomas Luedtke's FOIA resonse to AP:

NASA Sits on Air Safety Survey, AP

"Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey," Luedtke wrote in a final [FOIA] denial letter to the AP.

Why Is NASA Sitting on this Airline Safety Report?

NASA Aviation Safety Data Release

NASA National Aviation Operational Monitoring Service (NAOMS) Information Release

"This Web site contains responses collected from the air carrier and general aviation pilot surveys as part of the NASA National Aviation Operational Monitoring Service (NAOMS) project from April 2001 through December 2004. Relevant information is contained in the accompanying documentation. In the interest of timeliness, this first release is by nature conservative to ensure the responses do not contain confidential commercial information or information that could compromise the anonymity of individual pilots. Efforts will be made in 2008 to release additional NAOMS information that was redacted for this release."

Gordon Comments on NASA's Initial Release of Air Safety Survey Data

"At our October 31 hearing, NASA agreed to release the NAOMS data by year's end. I am pleased they've met that initial commitment, however NASA itself concedes that this is not the most complete data set that they intend to release. I expect NASA to complete the data release process as soon as possible. Excessive delay would be in no one's best interest."

NASA Media Briefing to Discuss Release of Aviation Safety Data

"NASA will hold a media teleconference on Monday, Dec. 31 at 1 p.m. EST, to discuss its release of the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS) data."

NASA expected to release pilot survey, AP

"NASA expected to release results Monday from an $11.3 million federal air safety study it previously withheld from the public over concerns it would upset travelers and hurt airline profits. The research conducted over four years shows that safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognized. NASA promised to publish on its Web site some results of its survey. But it indicated that the data — being released on the afternoon of New Year's Eve — would be published as formatted. It said the data would come in printed reports rather than in any tabular data format that would make analysis by outsiders easier."

IFPTE on NASA Aviation Survey

Letter from IFPTE To Rep. Gordon Regarding NASA Aviation Safety Research Projects

"It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that categorically refusing to release government-financed aviation safety research data to the public using the argument that it might adversely affect corporate profits is egregiously wrong. We are pleased that all the raw data have been released to your Committee and that NASA has pledged to release all of the properly de-identified data to the public by December 31st, 2007. It is regrettable that this was not NASA HQ's initial decision.

It is, however, worrisome that NASA now appears to be hedging on its public promise of full release of all legally releasable information before the end of the calendar year. It is ridiculous to argue that NASA will take a year and needs to hire expensive outside consultants to handle a data-filtering process that can best be handled by those aviation experts who designed and implemented the survey and who are most experienced at releasing de-identified aviation safety reports. Taxpayers are much more likely to trust this process if it is performed by scientists in the trenches motivated by their passion for aviation safety than if it is led by political appointees or senior managers who cannot be expected to render an opinion that conflicts with that of the Administration."

Aeronautics Vs Actual Air Travel

NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale's Blog: The First 'A' in NASA

"Now, every time that I fly, I think about NASA's contributions to our air transportation system, and how remarkable our nation's progress has been in creating a very safe system, over a relatively short span of time, that supports nearly 50,000 flights in a 24-hour period. I am also excited about the possibility of a future system that safely meets our nation's growing demand to take to the skies while ensuring that the environment is protected."

Less Free To Move About The Cabin, Washington Post

"Over the course of a year that many airline passengers would rather forget, most attention has been focused on travel woes created by record-setting flight delays. But another trend may be causing as much havoc and frustration for passengers: Planes have never been so packed, federal data show."

Airline Safety Survey Update

Union Raps NASA Chief, AP

"A union representing NASA employees accuses the agency's administrator of unfairly tarnishing agency employees by disparaging and misrepresenting a federal air safety project. NASA weeks ago drew intense criticism for withholding results of the research, fearing it would upset travelers and hurt airline profits. The union disputed Michael Griffin's criticisms of the program, in which thousands of commercial and private pilots were interviewed. It said his comments to Congress at an oversight hearing in October appeared to reflect fears the pilots might report to NASA higher rates of safety problems than are recorded by Federal Aviation Administration's own monitoring."

Two NASA Pilots Have Died

Editor's note: According to a NASA Watch Reader on Saturday "Two longtime, national level leaders in Civil Air Patrol died when their CAP plane crashed last night on Mt. Potosi just west of Las Vegas, Nevada. Colonel Ed Lewis, former Pacific Region commander and Colonel Dion DeCamp, current Nevada wing commander, were on board the aircraft. A Las Vegas Metro PD helo crew reportedly spotted an explosion on Mt. Potosi and upon investigation found the crash site. The two were enroute to California where the California Wing Conference begins today. Between them, Colonels Lewis and DeCamp had almost 60,000 flying hours as military, commercial, CAP and civilian pilots and the Cessna 182T they were flying was less than a year old. Col. Lewis was also a research pilot for NASA. NOTE: Ed flew the DC-8 flying laboratory and several other NASA science aircraft. He resided at Rosamond Sky Park in California where he kept a Cessna Skylane and a Harmon Rocket. He was the aviation safety officer at Dryden and an instructor pilot for several of their aircraft."

NASA Airline Safety Project Update

NASA blows millions on flawed airline safety survey, New Scientist

"Has NASA wasted $11.3 million on a flawed survey of airline safety? likely. The agency commissioned a telephone pollster to ask 29,000 pilots about their near misses, runway collisions and technical problems. At first, the poll seemed to show that these events had previously been alarmingly under-reported. Engine failures, for instance, were cited in NASA's survey at four times the rate recorded in the Federal Aviation Administration's incident records."

Airline Survey Update

Two Months Before Release of NASA Pilot Survey Data, Aviation Week

"It started out as a program to identify emerging aviation safety problems. But six years and $11.3 million later, it has mushroomed into a public relations headache for NASA Administrator Michael Griffin that's hurting his credibility with Congress. Now Griffin is working to mollify incensed lawmakers and calm a media frenzy without violating the confidentiality of the 24,000 commercial airline and 5,000 general aviation pilots that participated in the study."

Report: Pilots slept on overnight flight, AP

"Two commercial pilots allegedly fell asleep on a flight between Baltimore and Denver, with one pilot waking up to "frantic" calls from air traffic controllers warning them they were approaching the airport at twice the speed allowed. The March 2004 event, which was discussed during a Congressional hearing Wednesday, was reported by the captain on the flight on NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System, which allows crew members to anonymously document incidents. Details of the "red eye," or late night/early morning flight, including the airline, flight number, or number of passengers aboard are not included in the reporting system. It did note the type of airplane, an Airbus A319, which are flown by Frontier Airlines and United Airlines."

NASA's winking apology - Releasing flying-safety survey by discrediting it?, Opinion, Daytona Beach News-Journal

"It's good to note that the current presidential administration's apparent ban on admitting to mistakes, apologizing and reversing course doesn't apply to all federal government agencies."

Air Safety Concerns in Congress

House Committee on Science and Technology Committee Members to NASA: Public Has a Right to See U.S. Air Safety Survey Data, House Science Committee

"Chairman Gordon and other Members called on NASA to release the data claiming the public has a right to know about the safety of travel in the nation's skies. Administrator Griffin announced at today's hearing that NASA would release the NOAMS data, reversing NASA's earlier stance. Several questions regarding the specifics of the release still remain, however, and the Committee plans to follow up with NASA to make sure the data is made publicly available in a timely manner."

NASA to release pilot survey - Hall urges balance of transparency and confidentiality, House Science Committee Republicans

"Today, Griffin agreed to release the data, once it is appropriately "scrubbed" to protect the anonymity of the pilots who were surveyed. He also expressed his regret for the language NASA used in responding the FOIA request, saying, "I regret any impression that NASA was in any way trying to put commercial interests ahead of public safety. That was not and never will be the case."

NASA to Release Disputed Data, NY Times

"The administrator of NASA told a Congressional hearing today that his agency would soon release data from tens of thousands of interviews with pilots about safety issues, information that NASA previously said could damage the airline industry. But at the hearing, the administrator, Michael Griffin, and the survey’s designers disagreed so deeply about the purpose of the survey and the usefulness of its information that they barely sounded as if they were talking about the same project."

Griffin Sets The Record Straight

NASA Internal Memo: Message from the Administrator - October 24, 2007

"I have been made aware that a request from the Associated Press for information from a NASA safety survey of airline pilots was withheld under the Freedom of Information Act. The request was for raw data and other aspects of the ongoing project. In a letter to the news organization, one of the several reasons for denying the request for the data cited concerns for "public confidence" and for the "commercial welfare" of air carriers. This rationale was based on case law, but I do not agree with the way it was written. I regret the impression that NASA was in any way trying to put commercial interests ahead of public safety. That was not and will never be the case."

Opposing view: We value openness, Mike Griffin, USA Today

Earth to NASA: Sunlight, not secrecy, is the best way to stop accidents, USA Today

NASA Chief Regrets Agency's Statement, AP

Lisa Porter's New Action Item

"Sent on behalf of John Sullivan - Director, Center for Advanced Manufacturing (Purdue University)

Due to an emerging issue with aviation safety, NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin has asked Dr. Porter to cancel her trip to Purdue to handle this issue. Again, we will work with NASA to re-schedule her visit to campus. Below is the link to the news article regarding this important issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/22/nasa.air.safety.ap/index.html"

Why is NASA Sitting on this Airline Safety Report?

NASA Sits on Air Safety Survey, AP

"A senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke, said revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits. Luedtke acknowledged that the survey results "present a comprehensive picture of certain aspects of the U.S. commercial aviation industry." The AP sought to obtain the survey data over 14 months under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. "Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey," Luedtke wrote in a final denial letter to the AP. NASA also cited pilot confidentiality as a reason, although no airlines were identified in the survey, nor were the identities of pilots, all of whom were promised anonymity."

Editor's note: This is a yet another rather dumb public stance for NASA personnel to take. I wonder how the "public" will feel when they learn that their government is openly witholding important information from them regarding their safety?

File Your Own Freedom of Information (FOIA) Request and see what NASA does or does not send you.

Statement by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin on Pilot Survey

"I am reviewing this Freedom of Information Act request to determine what, if any, of this information may legally be made public. NASA should focus on how we can provide information to the public -- not on how we can withhold it. Therefore, I am asking NASA's Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Research, Lisa Porter, to look into this situation, including ensuring that all survey data are preserved, and report to me as soon as possible."

NASA Faces House Hearings on Air Safety, NY Times

"A House committee said Monday that it would hold hearings into why the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is withholding 24,000 responses by pilots for airlines and other companies to a government-sponsored safety survey."

Critics Assail NASA's Refusal to Release Air Safety Survey, Washington Post

"This is like a drug manufacturer finding out through trials that there are problems with a drug and not making the public aware because they don't want to reduce the sales of the drug or scare the public," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. "It could be enormously helpful in a wide range of areas in trying to understand mishaps."

What NASA Won't Tell You About Air Safety, Slashdot

"According to a report out of Washington, NASA wants to avoid telling you about how unsafe you are when you fly. According to the article, when an $8.5M safety study of about 24,000 pilots indicated an alarming number of near collisions and runway incidents, NASA refused to release the results. The article quotes one congressman as saying 'There is a faint odor about it all.' A friend of mine who is a general aviation pilot responded to the article by saying 'It's scary but no surprise to those of us who fly.'"

Our View: Heads should roll if NASA won’t release its airline-safety study., Faye Observer

"And to make sure that none of the information gets out, NASA also has ordered its survey contractor and all subcontractors who worked on it to return any information they have on the project and to dump it from their computers by the end of this month. NASA, of course, has a long and troubled history with safety issues, with tragic — and preventable — accidents marring a record of epic achievements. At times, the agency simply doesn’t get the importance of making safety the No. 1 priority. This is one of those times."

Editorial: Why NASA secrecy?, New Albany Tribune

"The report cost taxpayers — not NASA, not Luedtke, but the American taxpayer — $8.5 million. The survey was conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute, which interviewed about 24,000 commercial and private pilots over about four years. Let Luetdke’s obfuscation speak for itself:"

Policy on the Release of Information to the News and Information Media, NASA (PDF)

"Principles.

(a) NASA, a scientific and technical agency, is committed to a culture of openness with the media and public that values the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry. Scientific and technical information from or about Agency programs and projects will be accurate and unfiltered.

(b) Consistent with NASA statutory responsibility, NASA will "provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof." Release of public information concerning NASA activities and the results of NASA activities will be made promptly, factually, and completely."

Gordon, Miller, Udall Direct NASA to Halt any Destruction of Records Relating to the NAOMS Project

"By this letter, we are directing NASA to halt any destruction of records relating to the NAOMS project, whether in the possession of the agency or its contractors, and as defined in the attached Appendix. Destruction of documents requested as part of a Congressional inquiry is a violation of criminal federal law. 18 U.S.C. 1505."

Help Find Steve Fossett

Steve Fossett Challenges

Steve Fossett Missing: Help find him by searching satellite imagery, AmazonMechanicalTurk.com

"On Monday, September 3, 2007, Steve Fossett, the first person to fly a plane around the world without refueling and the first person to fly around the world in a balloon went missing in Nevada. An airplane he was flying failed to return. No one has any idea where he is. Through the generous efforts of individuals at several organizations, detailed satellite imagery has been made available for his last known whereabouts."

Steve Fossett Is Missing

Branson hopes to trace Fossett with Google images, Reuters

"I'm talking with friends at Google about seeing whether we can look at satellite images over the last four days to see whether they can see which direction he might have been flying and whether they can see any disturbances anywhere that they can pin from space," he said from Barcelona, Spain.

Fossett's latest adventure was attempt to break land speed record, AP

"Adventurer Steve Fossett has had a lifetime of daring achievements, most of them at high altitude. His latest record-setting dream brought him back to terra firma. Fossett's small plane disappeared Monday as he was scouting dry lake beds in western Nevada, apparently searching for an optimum spot to set a world land speed record."

FAA Head Moves to AIA

FAA administrator takes job with aerospace lobby, Reuters

"The administrator of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration was named chief executive of the Aerospace Industries Association on Tuesday, the top lobbying group for aerospace manufacturers. Marion Blakey's five-year term at FAA ends on Sept. 13. She will remain with the agency until that time, a spokeswoman said."

Hey, Where's My Flying Car?

Exciting NASA Air Competition Full of Dull Planes, Gizmodo

"NASA handed out $250,000 in prize money this weekend to aircraft designers who competed in a competition to create personal air-vehicles. But don't be fooled by the picture and think that the event was full of flying cars, experimental planes and UFO-shaped discs—all the entrants were standard-looking planes, as you will see in the videos after the jump. The event was part of the Centennial Challenges, the government-sponsored competitions that aim to have us all flying to the office in the morning and taking holidays on the moon as soon as possible. The money was given out in six categories: speed, short takeoff, efficiency, handling, noise and overall best."

Don't Fly on JetBlue

Held Prisoner on JetBlue - The Airline That is Afraid To Fly, SpaceRef

"I used to like JetBlue. Not any more. Just a month and a half ago I found myself on the inaugural flight from San Francisco to New York with Jet Blue's CEO aboard. The service was good that day. But not today. Indeed, today I felt like a prisoner."

Congress Hears About NextGen

Committee Examines the Progress and Problems of the Next Generation Air Transportation System Initiative

"Hope and good intentions by themselves are not going to be sufficient to ensure success," added Chairman Udall. "We are going to need commitment, accountability and ultimately, effective performance by all involved...and I am troubled by indications that all may not be going as well as hoped with the NextGen effort."

Joint Planning and Development Office: Progress and Key Issues in Planning the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System, GAO

Rep. Ken Calvert Concerned Over NASA's Restructured Role In Developing NextGen

Monster Plane To Fly Over Washington

Editor's note: Word has it that an Airbus 380 - which landed at Dulles Airport last night - will be doing a flyover up, down, and around the Potomac and Washington, DC today between 11:15 and 12:30. The idea is to get photos of this uber monster plane set against the U.S. Capitol building - thus rubing our collective noses in this accomplishment (I suppose). Heads Up Lisa Porter - competition overhead!

Editor's 11:18 am EDT note: I just saw this monster fly over my house (I live close to Dulles) heading Southeast toward Washington. It looks to be the size of a C5A - but much more graceful.

ARC's Hangar One Saved?

Hangar One rumor confirmed, Mountain View Voice

"Marv Christensen, NASA deputy director, told a local newspaper that any plan would require a "synergistic" partnership with the companies, the names of which were not disclosed. Despite rumors to the contrary, Google reportedly said it has no need for an airstrip, and eBay founder Jeff Skoll also claims to have no involvement in the talks."

Aeronautics Policy Discussion At AIAA Reno Meeting

Analysis of New National Aeronautics R&D Policy and Next-Gen Aerospace Work Force Needs, AIAA

"On Wednesday, January 10, Richard Russell, assistant director for technology from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, will provide an analysis of the new National Aeronautics R&D Policy. This national roadmap provides institutional support for robust, sustainable aeronautics research investment and requires federal agencies to set definable milestones for achievement."

-Aeronautics Policy Released While Everyone is On Vacation
-Workforce Session at AIAA Reno Meeting

Workforce Session at AIAA Reno Meeting

45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 8-11 January

Thursday, 11-Jan-2007: The Public Policy Committee will continue its Excellence in Aerospace Discourse Series at the Aerospace Sciences Meeting with a discussion on the next generation of aerospace professionals. Speakers include:

• Dr. Paul Nielsen, President-Elect for AIAA and Director of Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute
• Dr. Lisa Porter, Associate Administrator for Aeronautics at NASA
• Dr. Annalisa Weigel, Assistant Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics and Engineering Systems at MIT
• Dr. Robert Walters, President-Elect for the Aerospace Department Chairman's Association and Chairman of Virginia Tech's Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering.

Aeronautics Policy Released While Everyone Is on Vacation

President Bush Signs Executive Order Establishing National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy

"President Bush signed an Executive Order (EO) establishing the nation’s first Aeronautics Research and Development Policy. The EO was accompanied by release of a supporting Policy document developed by the Aeronautics Science and Technology (S&T) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The overarching goal of the Policy is to advance U.S. technological leadership in aeronautics by fostering a vibrant and dynamic aeronautics research and development (R&D) community that includes government, industry, and academia."

National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy
Executive Order: National Aeronautics Research and Development

Editor's 21 Dec 2006 note: Once again the White House has slipped a policy related to NASA's Charter out the back door while no one was looking. NASA posted links to these materials on its website but apprently does not see any value in issuing a press release. This is rather odd given all of the talk by Mike Griffin - before Congress - about the need for such a policy. Yet despite this oversight, PAO did manage to get a release titled "NASA's KSC Providing Assistance to Santa on Christmas Eve" out to an eager world.

Press Briefing by White House Press Secretary Tony Snow 20 October 2006: NASA Excerpt

"Q Tony, can you say a few words about the new Bush space policy that was released, strangely enough, on a Friday afternoon before Columbus Day, on the website of the Office of Science and Technology --

MR. SNOW: You mean the strategy that, strangely enough, was announced in July?

Q No, it was put on the website on the weekend of Columbus Day."

Why is NASA so Shy ABout Promoting the News White House Space Policy?, earlier post

OMB Deputy Director Johnson Thinks NASA's Mission Statements are "Baloney"

White House Makes Annual One Paragraph Statement on VSE

Wright Brothers Day, 2006 - A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

"Today, our Nation follows the Wright brothers' example of innovation as we continue to explore the frontiers of air and space. My Administration has outlined a vision for space exploration that includes a return to the Moon and a long term human and robotic program to explore Mars and the solar system. By working to expand the realm of the possible, we can gain a better understanding of the universe and continue the journey that the Wright brothers began more than a century ago."

House Wants GAO Aeronautics Report Implemented

House Science Committee Leaders Urge Implementation of Aeronautics Report Recommendations

"The Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Science Committee and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics today called on the Administration to implement the recommendations in a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the challenges of creating a new air traffic control system, known as the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS)."

Another Place To Fall Behind

Propulsion lab work at Marshall to pick up, Huntsville Times

"Advanced propulsion is just like aeronautics. It is something NASA and America has been on the cutting edge of for decades," said Keith Cowing, who runs the NASAWatch.com Web site. "Cut this type of research, and America runs the risk of losing that edge, and other nations will zoom ahead." Cowing said the lab hasn't been used much because "that building is an echo of things begun under former administrators Dan Goldin and Sean O'Keefe." Advanced propulsion was part of a Goldin-era Space Launch Initiative program, and O'Keefe supported finding ways to increase spacecraft speeds to travel to Mars and other planets."

NRC Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics

Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future, Steering Committee for the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics, National Research Council

"The U.S. air transportation system is very important for our economic well-being and national security. The nation is also the global leader in civil and military aeronautics, a position that needs to be maintained to help assure a strong future."

Virtual Flying at ARC

NASA's virtual space exploration, CNet

"NASA's Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley is home to SimLabs--simulation laboratories where you can take control of a virtual airport or explore the skies and space with the Vertical Motion Simulator. Take a look inside the facility."

Lisa Porter Faces Congress Again

House Science Committee Democrats Question Wisdom of NASA's Plans to Cut and Restructure Aeronautics Research Program

"Yet, instead of investing more in the highly productive aeronautics enterprise that has been built up within NASA and its predecessor organization over the last nine decades, NASA is in the process of dismantling those capabilities as it turns its attention elsewhere and reallocates resources to new ventures," added Rep. Udall."

House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee to Examine NASA Aeronautics Program Tomorrow

"Tomorrow, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the response of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on how NASA should run its civil aeronautics research and development (R&D) program."

Talking Points: Full Cost Management and Overhead Simplification, NASA HQ

"While it appears that the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) will take a significant hit as a result of this accounting change, the overhead simplification structure is a good thing for ARMD."

Earlier Aeronautics Postings

Testimony: Lisa Porter

Fundamental Aeronautics Program Fact Sheets

Testimony: Gen. William Hoover (Air Force, retired)

Supplemental power point slides from Gen. Hoover's testimony

Opening Statement by Rep. Mark Udall

NASA: National Academy Recommendations Closely Aligned With New Aeronautics Portfolio

House Science Committee Democrats Question Wisdom of NASA's Plans to Cut and Restructure Aeronautics Research Program

Workforce and Accounting Update

Letter from NASA Administrator Griffin to Rep. Wolf Regarding Workforce Issues

Letter from NASA AA for Legislative Affairs Chase to Rep. Kucinich Regarding Workforce Issues

Talking Points: Full Cost Management and Overhead Simplification, NASA HQ

"While it appears that the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) will take a significant hit as a result of this accounting change, the overhead simplification structure is a good thing for ARMD. ARMD will still have the same direct buying power. ARMD will not lose research dollars. But the change will free ARMD from the fiscal responsibility of having to carry the majority of overhead costs for the four research Centers."

Langley 757 Mothball Update

NASA LaRC Internal Memo From Lesa Roe Regarding B-757

"The Associate Administrator of Aeronautics Research has informed NASA Langley that, based on the comprehensive restructuring of the Aeronautics Program, there is no NASA Aeronautics Program need for the B-757 beyond September 30, 2006."

What Lisa Porter Said - And What NASA Wants You To Think She Said, earlier posting

"...from ARMD's perspective, we do not see a need to specifically maintain the 757 in our arsenal."

Previous aeronautics postings

Nature-Inspired Wonder

Lockheed Martin to Design Nano Air Vehicle to Monitor the Urban Battlefield

"Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories (ATL) leads a team that will design a remote-controlled NAV, similar in size and shape to a maple tree seed. A chemical rocket enclosed in its one-bladed wing will power a sensor payload module more than 1,100 yards. Delivered from a hover and weighing up to 0.07 ounces, the module will be interchangeable based on mission requirements. Besides controlling lift and pitch, the wing will also house telemetry, communications, navigation, imaging sensors, and battery power. The NAV will be about 1.5 inches long and have a maximum takeoff weight of about 0.35 ounces."

I'm Confused, Mike

Remarks by NASA Administrator Griffin at the Space Foundation Dinner, Farnborough International Airshow

Editor's note: Mike Griffin states: "However, as we try to meet this challenge, the answer is not for NASA to re-organize or abandon one of its core missions to focus on the other two, as some pundits have recommended be done with our aeronautics research program."

Then, a few moments later he says: "In restructuring our aeronautics portfolio, we are taking a long- term, strategic approach to our research to ensure that we pursue the cutting-edge of research across the breadth of aeronautics disciplines required to support revolutionary capabilities in both air vehicles and the airspace in which they fly."

So, let me see if I understand this: it is unacceptable to Mike Griffin to "reorganize" NASA's aeronautics program - but it is OK to "restructure" the very same program. When you "restructure" something, don't you need to "reorganize" as part of the process?

I'm confused, Mike.

Langely's 757 To Be Mothballed

Reader note: "I just came from an "all-hands" meeting for the Flight Research Services Division (FRSD) at NASA LaRC. We were given official notice that NASA Langley has been ordered to mothball its B757 research aircraft. The 757 aircraft is to be stored at Dryden in a "flight-ready" status. Apparently the Hill was told this last night."

Experts Weigh In On NASA Aeronautics

House Science Committee Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Hearing: "The National Academy of Sciences' Decadal Plan for Aeronautics: A Blueprint for NASA?

National Academies Provides Solid Blueprint for NASA's Aeronautics Research Program

Witnesses Urge NASA to Follow National Academies' Guidance in Establishing National Aeronautics Policy

Prepared Statements:

Paul Kaminski

Stephen A. Merrill

Michael Romanowski

Parviz Moin

Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Rep. Mark Udall

In Case You Missed This

NRC Report: Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future, NRC

"With leadership comes opportunity, particularly with regard to setting international standards for aircraft certification and operations. A position of continued leadership would allow the United States to ensure that viable, global standards continue to be established for the application of emerging technologies and operational concepts. Without such standards the global aviation market and the global transportation system will be fractured into separate fiefdoms ruled by national and regional aviation authorities acting independently."

The Sad State of Aeronautics Funding

Going global - Playing with the big boys in aviation means playing with Airbus, Opinion, Daily Press

"Subsidization could work both ways. An Airbus contract would help support researchers and facilities that would be available for other, homeland-focused work. It might help stop the loss of jobs at NASA Langley, which totaled 600 last year. Europe's investment in aeronautics research would, in effect, help fill the gap left by the United States' abandonment of it as a priority."

Editor's note: As I have said before, on one hand, I think it is great that companies such as Airbus are committed to supporting such research and that their interest goes beyond political boundaries. However, on the other hand, I think the need to seek such foreign support is a sad indicator of the state of aeronautical research - both government and private sector - here in the U.S.

Sad State of U.S. Aeronautics

Space-age education, Daily Press

"Money from Europe for aeronautical research? Bring it on, says Bob Lindberg, president and chief executive of the National Institute of Aerospace, answering critics of his organization's courtship of business from Airbus, which is owned by Belgian and British interests."

Editor's note: On one hand, I think it is great that companies such as Airbus are committed to supporting such research and that their interest goes beyond political boundaries. However, on the other hand, I think the need to seek such foreign support is a sad indicator of the state of aeronautical research - both government and private sector - here in the U.S.

AAU Letter on NASA Budget Issues

Association of American Universities Letter to Rep. Wolf Regarding FY 2007 Funding for NASA Science and Aeronautics

"As president of the Association of American Universities (AAU), representing 60 leading U.S. public and private research universities, I respectfully request that, as you develop the FY07 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriation Act, you strive to appropriate no less than $5.5 billion and $959 million in federal funding for NASA's science and aeronautics mission directorates respectively."

Porter All Hands Replay - In-House Only

Editor's note: Looks like LaRC management made sure that their workforce saw the Porter all hands. Now if only the rest of the world could see (or read) what she actually said. See following memo:

---

From: "Michael Finneran, Head, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE"
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:28:12 -0400
To: (All Employees at Langley Research Center)
Subject: REPLAY Schedule for Dr. Porter's All Hands

The May 30 all hands meeting with Dr. Lisa Porter, Associate Administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, will be replayed on the following schedule on LaRC Channel 9:

Tuesday, May 30: 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.
Wednesday, May 31: 2 a.m., 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., 6 p.m., 10 p.m.
Thursday, June 1: 2 a.m.

NRC Aeronautics Report Due For Release Next Week

NRC Report on NASA's civil aeronautics program

"Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics – Foundation for the Future, a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council, provides a list of high-priority aeronautics research projects NASA should pursue to improve the air transportation system and help the U.S. remain a world leader in the field."

LaRC Aeronautics Update

Editor's note: Sources report that Aeronautics AA Lisa Porter went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday afternoon. LaRC officials were also asked to meet yesterday (Thursday) with Sen. Warner's office - that delegation consisted of LaRC Center Director Lesa Roe, Dave Hinton, and Howard Lewis. Yesterday I submitted a request to HQ PAO asking for a verbatim transcript of Porter's LaRC all hands (which J.D. Harrington have told me that they have) and asked for additional information on these Congressional visits.

Editor's update: I just got a call from Harrington who confirmed these two visits and said that Porter's visit to the Senate Appropriations Committee was scheduled "weeks ago". Harrington would not tell me what was discussed during these visits. In addition, he told me that they do not have a transcript of the entire Porter all hands event and that he only had a portion (the 757 question) transcribed. When I asked why the entire event was not transcribed (so as to dispel confusion) he said that this was not PAO policy to do so and that the "target" audience heard what she had to say. I suggested posting audio recordings (i.e. podcasts) so that there would be no confusion over what was - or was not said - and he said he would forward that suggestion to his management.

What Lisa Porter Said - And What NASA Wants You To Think She Said (earlier post)

Langley's "flying lab" could be on chopping block, AP

NASA 757's fate is up in the air, Daily Press

"Lisa Porter, associate director for NASA's Aeronautics Research Management Division in Washington, D.C., has told employees at NASA Langley that her group questions the need for research airplanes in general. "We did not see a need to specifically have the 757," she said in a meeting at Langley that was not open to reporters."

What Lisa Porter Said - And What NASA Wants You To Think She Said

Editor's 30 May 2006 5:42 pm EDT note: At an all hands meeting at LaRC today, NASA AA for Aeronautics, Lisa Porter, told the audience that NASA "does not need research aircraft". She then specifically cited LaRC's Boeing 757 as "no longer needed."

Editor's 31 May 2006 4:02 pm EDT note: NASA LaRC just posted this summary of Porter's all hands talk yesterday. Alas, the summary is mostly fluff and chock full of buzz words and Powerpoint sentences. No mention is made of the topics raised during the question and answer portion of the event - other than mentioning that she answered questions. And of course, nothing whatsoever is mentioned about the issue of whether or not LaRC's 757 will contine to fly. Yet NASA PAO contacts me to selectively quote from a verbatim transcript of the entire event. You would think that an agency interested in full and open communication with its employees would post such a transcript as soon as it was available - instead of keeping to themsleves - except for using excerpts to correct troublesome websites.

Editor's 31 May 1:58 pm EDT Update: I got the following from J.D. Harrington at 1:58 pm EDT today with reard to a posting I made yesterday at 5:42 pm EDT. My posting yesterday was based on 3 separate LaRC employee recollections of the "take home message" from what Lisa Porter said at yesterday's all hands. I have yet to find any evidence that this transcript has been posted - officially - anywhere at NASA.

"Hi Keith, I'm the Aeronautics public affairs officer and I wanted to make sure you had the exact dialogue from Lisa Porter's all-hands at Langley. It is different from your posting yesterday. I pulled the transcripts from her speech and follow-up Q&A, and she was specifically asked about flight simulators and large expansive complex devices. Here's her response:

---

"Concerning the aviation safety program, we looked hard at where we wanted to go and what kind of capabilities we needed and we recognized that the simulation capability was something we really want to have and we also want to have the ability to do flight testing when appropriate. But there we did not see a need to specifically have the 757. So in terms of ARMD's perspective -- and I want to answer this very precisely because I want you to get the whole story -- from ARMD's perspective, we do not see a need to specifically maintain the 757 in our arsenal. That's not to say we won't be doing flight testing but we recognize there are other opportunities for flight testing by partnering with DoD, by partnering with other folks in NASA, by partnering with industry.

That said, there is separate decision that has to be made -- that has not been made -- from the Agency perspective. Which is that there is something called S-CAP, of which ATP [Aeronautics Test Program] is a subset of. I'm sure most of you have heard of that. It's unfortunate that it's called SCAP [Shared Capability Asset Program], which is why it's now called S-CAP. But anyway, that 757 will be one of many things that will be considered as part of the S-CAP potential portfolio. Now I will tell you that, as you can imagine, every one of the Centers believes that it has at least one thing it wants to add to that list. But I can't speak to how those decisions will be made because those decisions don't happen in Aeronautics, they happen on the ninth floor from an Agency perspective. Right now, that's an on-going decision that has not been made.

I want to make sure you all understand that. ARMD has made a programmatic decision, but the Agency has not made its decision regarding the 757.

Does that answer your question? I want to make sure that that question was answered. Lesa, did you want to add anything? Did I correctly represent?"

NRC Report: NASA Aeronautics Faces Serious Challenges

Changes Needed to Spur Innovation in Aerospace Technologies, National Research Council

"NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) faces serious challenges to the innovative use of its research results because of inadequate budgets and a lack of agreement on ARMD's future direction, says a new report from the National Research Council."

Bruce Peterson Has Died

Bruce Peterson, pilot of NASA 'lifting body' aircraft, dies at 72, AP

"Bruce A. Peterson, a NASA test pilot who flew the wingless "lifting body" vehicles that led to development of the space shuttles and survived a filmed crash that became part of the opening scenes of "The Six Million Dollar Man" TV show, has died. He was 72."

Elegant Aerospace Design

Canopy on one of Langley's Raptors sticks shut on pilot, Daily Press

"Air Force pilots can't wait to get into the F-22A Raptor, the newest, fastest thing in fighter planes. But on a recent morning, Capt. Brad Spears had to wait about five hours to get out of one that was parked at Langley Air Force Base."

In The Loop, Washington Post (scroll past first story)

"What do you do when the canopy on a new F-22A fighter jet doesn't open and the pilot is trapped inside for five hours? Get out the chainsaws. That's what maintenance technicians at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia did a couple weeks ago after calling Lockheed Martin Corp., the plane's manufacturer, to find out how to free the pilot."

F-22 03-041 Stuck Canopy TSgt Robinson 1st MXG/MXQ - briefing charts

• On 10 April 06 at approximately 0815 aircraft 03-041 had a Red Ball for a canopy unlock indication. Attempts to clear the problems by cycling the canopy failed. The final cycling of the canopy resulted in it being in the down and locked position. The canopy would not cycle up form this position trapping the pilot in the cockpit. The aircraft subsequently ground aborted.

• Attempts to manually open the canopy were unsuccessful

• 27th AMU consulted Lockheed Martin and the F-22A System Program Office to determine alternate methods to open the canopy and extract the pilot

• After all maintenance options were exhausted, the canopy was cut by fire department personnel and the pilot was extracted at approximately 1315

• Trouble-shooting of the aircraft is in work

• Canopy replacement cost is $182,205

Scott Crossfield Killed In Plane Crash

NASA Administrator's Statement Regarding the Tragic Loss of Aviation Pioneer A. Scott Crossfield

"Today, those of us in the aeronautics and space communities extend our condolences and deepest sympathies to Scott's family."

Search for plane of legendary pilot Crossfield finds wreck, AP

"Crews searching for a missing airplane registered to legendary test pilot Scott Crossfield found the wreckage of a small plane with a body inside Thursday, but they didn't immediately identify the victim."

Editor's note: Reliable sources tell NASA Watch that the body is indeed Crossfield's.

Is NASA Selling Out Aeronautics to Foreign Interests?

NASA Langley courting Airbus, Daily Press

"At a time when the country is concerned about losing its edge in aeronautical technology, the National Institute of Aerospace and NASA Langley Research Center are courting business with Airbus, the chief foreign competitor of the U.S. aerospace industry. If the three agree to work together, it would create the odd situation of research institutions funded by U.S. taxpayers helping a foreign business gain a competitive edge."

Airbus is visiting NASA LaRC, earlier post

State of the Union: American Competitiveness Initiative

"In His State Of The Union Address, President Bush Announced The American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) To Encourage American Innovation And Strengthen Our Nation's Ability To Compete In The Global Economy."

Editor's note: It would seem that the White House has a structural inconsistency in its policies for dealing with global competitiveness. It would appear that NASA is off trying to seek financial assistance from a foreign government-supported monopoly to replace budgetary support that the U.S. government is no longer willing to provide for its own (aero)space agency. If this is the best that Lisa Porter can do - I am not impressed.

X-37 Flies - and Lands (more or less)

X-37 Flies, MSNBC

"The bad news is that the vehicle experienced an "anomaly" and went off the runway, DARPA spokeswoman Jan Walker told me. The X-37 team is investigating what went wrong, and no further information was available immediately, Walker said."

Airbus is visiting NASA LaRC

Editor's note:Airbus is visiting NASA LaRC today. What follows is the day's itinerary:

Airbus On-site Tour, NASA LaRC April 5, 2006

10:00 a.m. Depart NASA LaRC Badge & Pass Office via NASA Bus

10:05 a.m. - 10:25 a.m. Building 1293C Mia Siochi

10:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Building 1205
Light Alloy Lab Bud Schuster
Plasma Spray Processing Lab Kevin Rivers

11:05a.m. - 11:45 a.m. Building 1148/1205 David McGowan
Structures & Materials Lab

11:50 a.m. - 12:05 p.m. Building 1267A Brian Jensen
Thermal Structures Lab

12:15 p.m. - 1:15 p.m. Lunch - Cafeteria

1:20 p.m. - 1:50 p.m. Building 1256 Marshall Rouse
COLTS Facility

1:55 p.m. - 2:25 p.m. Building 1297 Karen Jackson
Landing and Impact Research Facility

2:30 p.m. - 2:45 p.m. Building 1262 Rodney Russell
Aircraft Landing Dynamics Facility

X-37 Update

X-37 Flies Captive...Again (with photos), Mojave Weblog

"March 24, 2006 - It wasn't planned that way, of course, but the NASA/DARPA/Boeing X-37 got an extra captive carry flight under its belt this morning. It was supposed to be the vehicle's first free-flight, with a landing over at Roger's Dry Pond (aka Edwards AFB), and for once the Mojave weather was actually cooperative. But the microwaves weren't."

X-37 Flight Tomorrow

Editor's note: According to our X-37 watcher the Free Flight 1 of an X-37 is now scheduled for 6AM PST on Friday,
24-Mar-2006. Weather looks good.

Congressional Efforts to Restore Aeronautics Funding

IFPTE: NASA Aeronautics Amendment Passes

"The IFPTE supported NASA Aeronautics funding amendment described in the attached letter passed the Senate yesterday by Unanimous Consent.  The amendment passed as a part of the Senate's consideration of the FY07 Budget bill."

IFPTE Supported NASA Aeronautics Amendment - Sen. Mike DeWine To Offer, IFPTE

"To All IFPTE Locals: Attached is a letter we sent yesterday to every Senate office expressing IFPTE's support for two potential amendments to be offered by Sen. Mike DeWine (R, OH) this week.  As you can see, the amendments are intended to be offered during consideration of the FY07 Budget bill, and are aimed at restoring the funding for NASA's aeronautics programs to last year's levels."

Using Little WInd Tunnels Instead of Big Ones

MSFC wind tunnel crucial to analyzing spacecraft designs, Huntsville Times

"The government has several large wind tunnels around the country, including Arnold Air Force Base near Tullahoma, Tenn., NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia and the Ames Research Center near San Francisco. "We can do for just thousands of dollars on a series of tests what it would take hundreds of thousands or millions on a larger tunnel," Haynes said. "For the government, it's a cost-effective way to gather engineering data."

NASA Aeronautics Speech Video Online at AIAA

Editor's note: Video of Lisa Porter's recent Aeronautics presentation is now online at the AIAA website. You'll need to register (for free) to view it.

Fossett Breaks Record

Pilot Steve Fossett breaks world flight distance record, landing in England, AP

"Adventurer Steve Fossett completed the longest nonstop flight in aviation history Saturday, flying 26,389 miles in about 76 hours, but he had to land early because of mechanical problems."

Fossett Begins His Trip

Steve Fossett and the GlobalFlyer Depart From NASA's Kennedy Space Center Runway

"The Virgin Atlantic Airways GlobalFlyer aircraft took off today from NASA's Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Landing Facility, Fla., at 7:22 a.m. EST. The effort is an attempt to set a new world record for the longest flight made by any aircraft."

Track Fossett's Progress Live

Aeronautics Cuts Ahead

Delegates to push NASA's vision at budget hearing, Daily Press

"The president's NASA budget for fiscal year 2007 is expected to be about $17.9 billion, up from $16.2 billion a year ago. But the aeronautics request is expected to be $694.4 million, down 14 percent."

Next year could be even tougher for Langley, Virginian-Pilot

"Langley jobs are safe through next year, thanks to legislation that Virginia’s delegation helped push through last month that protects NASA’s aeronautics workers from layoffs through March 16, 2007."

Reforming a Shrinking Aeronautics Budget

NASA Restructures Aeronautics Research

"NASA is returning to long-term investment in cutting-edge fundamental research in traditional aeronautics disciplines," Porter said. "We are investing in research for the long-term in areas that are appropriate to NASA's unique capabilities and meeting our charter of addressing national needs and benefiting the public good."

NASA's FY 2007 Budget Submission to OMB, NASA Watch

Aeronautics Research: FY 2006: $807.4 M | FY 2007: $694.4 M | Delta: -14.0%

New Aeronautics AA

NASA Names New Aeronautics Associate Administrator

"NASA Administrator Michael Griffin today named veteran scientist Lisa J. Porter as associate administrator for the Aeronautics Mission Directorate. She will lead the agency's aeronautics research efforts and continue to lead NASA's efforts in the development of national aeronautics policy in cooperation with other government agencies."

For a summary of the scrambling that has been going on in Aeronautics have a look at Aeronautics: Hurry Up and Wait, NASA Watch

Editor's note: Please fix your website too. Vic Lebacqz hasn't been the "Assoicate" Administrator for Aeronautics for quite some time.

AIA Pushs Congress on Aeronautics

NASA's first 'A' is still important to U.S. economy , OpEd, The Hill

"I urge conferees to embrace the $906.2 million figure for NASA aeronautics research in the 2006 science, state, justice, commerce and related agencies appropriations bill. "

DFRC Employee Killed in Aerobatics Crash

Deadly Plane Crash In Oklahoma City, KOTV

Reader note: "Marta Bohn-Meyer, Chief Engineer at the DFRC was killed in a crash in Oklahoma today. She was practicing for the Aeronautical Aerobatics trials upcoming. Husband, Bob Meyers, was also there. He is an Associate Director at DFRC."

Aeronautics: Hurry Up and Wait

NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Research Advisory Committee Meetings Cancelled

"Tuesday, September 20, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Monday, September 19, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, September 14, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursday, September 8, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. These meetings will be rescheduled."

Internal NASA Memo Regarding Upcoming Aeronautics Workshops

"I apologize for the quick timeline. It is my goal to present a solid plan to both OMB and Congress as quickly as possible, and I need your help in pulling a plan together that is technically sound. It is very challenging to define a long-term plan that is sufficiently dynamic that it allows for adaptation as we learn new things, and that at the same time defines concrete milestones that are technically meaningful and credible."

Prepared Statement of Michael Griffin before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, 12 May 2005

"As we move forward, a broader national dialog on aeronautics R&D goals may be appropriate as we enter the second century of aviation. These discussions should include a range of stakeholders and customers, including the Congress. This process could lead to a national consensus for aeronautics R&D goals."

Short Summary of H.R. 3070 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 [passed on 22 Jul 2005]

"The bill requires the President, through the Administrator to develop a national aeronautics policy to guide NASA's aeronautics programs. The report is due with the President's FY 2007 budget request."

Editor's note: Gee, Didn't Mike Griffin say that he wanted to come up with an aeronautics plan months ago? Didn't the agency get a heads up from H.R. 3070 that such a plan needed to be developed ASAP? Why is there now such a 'quick timeline' to work on this plan according to Lisa Porter? FY 2007 budget preparation work should now be underway. Wouldn't you want to have that plan in final form so as to guide that work - instead of having the plan being developed in parallel - as is now the case?

Aeronautics Increase Killed

Sen. Allen loses fight for NASA funding, Daily Press

"The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which oversees NASA, said Allen's plan to avoid a 6 percent cut in aeronautics funding next year would undermine President Bush's top priority for NASA: returning man to the moon by 2020 as a stepping stone to Mars."

Changes in Aeronautics

NASA Internal Memo From J. Victor Lebacqz Regarding Aeronautics Personnel Changes

"Yesterday I learned that, because of the respect the new people have for all of you as we have been dealing with issues and trying to accomplish new beginnings in Aeronautics, I was not given a directed reassignment. Nonetheless, the Administrator does want to bring in a complete new management team, and that includes Associate Administrator for Aeronautics. It was emphasized to me that this is not in the same category as the directed reassignments. The A suite intends that the transition will be handled carefully and in as transparent a way as possible, and they are committed to working closely with me to ensure this over the next several months. I am also assured that I will not be treated as lame duck but as a fully engaged AA, and I certainly intend to operate that way as we continue to work hard to turn around the situation in NASA aeronautics."

Hampton Update

NASA wind tunnel fees under review, Daily Press

"NASA Headquarters is working on taking the bite out of an accounting measure that has caused Langley Research Center wind tunnel rates to increase in recent years."

NASA redoing job reviews, Daily Press

"Rerunning the process could improve job offers for some and give others a second chance at employment, Langley spokeswoman Marny Skora said. But the fear is that NASA might retract job offers made to some workers in April, said Marie Lane, president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees."

Aeronautics Doubts Continue

Are we there yet? No. But we could be, with the right investments (Opinion), Daily Press

"The SATS show marks the culmination of a five-year partnership of NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and an industry group called the National Consortium for Aviation Mobility. It was headquartered at our own NASA Langley Research Center. The point of the program was to prove the system will work. It will."

Aviation experts remain optimistic about small aircraft technology, Daily Press

"Will NASA's declining aeronautics budget support future work in the Small Aircraft Transportation System, or will it fall off the agency's radar screen?"

Aeronautics Vs Human Space Flight: A Food Fight in the Making

House panel restores funds for aeronautics, Daily Press

"Among other things, the bill would cut $10 million from the International Space Station and $10 million from launch services for the space shuttle. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who heads a Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA, has said she would oppose any effort to divert money from the space station to aeronautics."

International Aeronautics Food Fight Ahead?

U.S., EU to Clash Over Airplane Subsidies, AP

"The United States and Europe, both bruised from a number of high-profile trade battles in recent years, are now preparing for what could be one of the biggest fights yet over government subsidies to commercial airline manufacturers."

Another Hampton Job Loss OpEd

NASA funding orbits off course (Opinion), Virginia Pilot

"With limited funds and a yawning budget deficit, there simply aren't enough bucks to pay for both space exploration and aeronautics research. Is it wise to do both? Sure, Americans glean some benefit from space exploration. But aeronautics funding is arguably a better, more practical investment for our everyday lives."

Editor's note: The (unknown) author of this OpEd piece doesn't bother to explain why aeronautics funding is "arguably a better, more practical investment for our everyday lives." As such one has to assume that this all comes down to jobs - jobs that will be lost in Hampton.

After effects of Griffin Visit to LaRC

Chief tells NASA workers that aeronautics isn't a priority now, Times Dispatch

"In his first visit to Langley Research Center since taking the helm at NASA, Michael Griffin told employees that their aeronautics expertise has fallen off the national priority list."

NASA leader ''blunt'' but hopeful in Langley talk, Pilot Online

"With budget cuts and as many as 1,000 layoffs looming, NASA's new administrator didn't try to put a positive spin on the road ahead for Langley Research Center."

NASA's Declining Interest in Aeronautics

Editor's note: The NASA Aeronautical Technologies Strategic Roadmap Committee Meeting has been formally cancelled. No explanation given.

Udall Introduces Aeronautics Legislation

Rep. Udall Introduces Legislation to Preserve U.S. Prominence in Aeronautics

"Today, Rep. Udall introduced legislation aimed at reinvigorating U.S. aeronautics research.  The Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2005 intends to reverse the decline in NASA's aeronautics program and set it on a productive course for the future."

More on the Hampton Aeronautics Report

Douglass: R&D Report Should be a Wake-Up Call to Congress, AIA

"A comprehensive report on U.S. aeronautics research and development is a stark signal that elected officials must invest more money in technical advancements, AIA President and CEO John Douglass said.The alternative is conceding dominance in aerospace to Europe and the rest of the world, a choice the U.S. cannot afford for national defense reasons as well as economics, Douglass said."

Aeronautics ..., Opinion, Daily Press

"It will take considerable will for Congress to reverse the now presidential-fueled juggernaut that threatens to dismantle this nation's capacity for aeronautical innovation and domination. There is no doubt that to George Bush and his new NASA administrator, aeronautics is not a priority and will be sacrificed to make room in the budget for Bush's manned space odyssey."

NIA Aviation Plan Released

National Institute of Aerospace Releases Congressionally-Requested Aviation Plan

"The full 1000+ page report provides detailed investment plans, budgets, and needs assessments for seven aeronautics sectors. The sectors addressed are airspace systems, aviation safety and security, subsonic aircraft, supersonic aircraft, hypersonic technologies, rotorcraft, and workforce and education. The milestones within each sector establish how the budget augmentations will affect our national needs. The full report details how an increase in each sector will benefit our aeronautics research as a whole and provides details of the team's proposed NASA five-year budget plan."

New Report Seeks Aeronautics Increase

Report contradicts Bush NASA plan, Daily Press

"NASA should spend billions more dollars on aeronautics research to keep the United States from slipping further behind Europe, according to a new strategic plan prepared for Congress. If implemented - and that's a big if - the plan would restore aeronautics funding to 1998 levels and likely soften drastic budget cuts that the Bush administration has planned for NASA Langley Research Center, industry observers say."

National Institute of Aerospace

Europe Ups the Aeronautics Ante

A380 Successfully Completes Its First Flight, Airbus

Airbus A380 Completes Historic 1st Flight, AP

"The world's largest passenger plane, the Airbus A380, completed a maiden flight Wednesday that took it over the Pyrenees mountains, a milestone for aviation and for the European aircraft-maker's battle with American rival Boeing Co."

Wolf Comes to Aeronautics' Defense

Rep. Frank Wolf: FY 2006 SSJC Bill WIll Require Adminstration to Develop National Aeronautics Policy

"I support the president's new vision for space exploration. However, it is imperative that we not forget the importance of aeronautics research to our domestic economy. NASA appears to be moving forward with a significantly reduced aeronautics budget and a new research agenda without having a firm road map for the future."

Wolf: NASA funding will be restored, Daily Press

"Congressman Frank R. Wolf , R-Va., chairman of the subcommittee on NASA appropriations, said he would restore the $54 million that would be cut under President Bush's budget proposal."

Aeronautics-inspired Delay in Griffin's Swearing in?

Editor's update: 6:00 PM EDT - According to a knowledgeable Congressional source, "there is a chance that Dr. Griffin's confirmation by the full Senate may happen tonight. It may be done by unanimous consent, without a committee vote."

Vote on NASA nominee delayed, Daily Press

"A Senate committee delayed a vote on President Bush's nominee to head NASA on Tuesday, after Sen. George Allen of Virginia complained that rocket scientist Michael Griffin didn't adequately explain his position on aeronautics research."

Editor's note: Congressional sources note that Sen. Frist has expresed interest in holding the Senate in session on Thursday to vote on Griffin's nomination. Formal swearing in for Griffin would be held on Monday morning, followed by an all-hands address to the agency. Those plans may now be slightly delayed due to Sen. Allen's actions.

Editor's update: Congressional sources tell NASA Watch that Allen's concerns about aeronautics have been satisfied and that Allen has released the hold he had placed on Griffin's nomination.

Editor's update: I just got a note (2:20 pm EST) originating from the Senate Commerce Committee: "Senate Commerce Committee Co-Chairmen Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye have added the nomination of Dr. Michael Griffin to be the NASA administrator to the Committee's previously scheduled mark-up at 10am on Thursday, April 14 in room 253 of the Russell Building."

Don't Tear Down Those Wind Tunnels

Stay order, Opinion, Daily Press

"Virginia's congressional delegation must move aggressively to try to stop NASA from demolishing that infrastructure. Advocating for aeronautics is a battle that must be fought on many fronts - one defending budgets, one protecting facilities."

NAC Aeronautics Meeting Date Changed

NAC Aeronautics Research Advisory Committee Meeting, Federal Register

"Previously Announced Dates and Addresses of Meeting: Wednesday, March 23, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street, SW., Room 6H46, Washington, DC 20546. Changes in the Meeting: Date changed to May 3, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m."

Editor's note: I find it curious how NASA HQ waited a week (29 March) after the original meeting date (23 March) - a meeting which obviously did not happen as planned - to announce a new meeting date more than a month away (3 May). Could it be last minute jitters on NASA's part - and that no one is quite ready to talk about what is happening to aeronautics at NASA? Stay tuned.

Senators Weigh in on NASA Aeronautics and Center Cuts

NASA Glenn in 'tougher fight' to survive Bush budget cuts, Cleveland Plain Dealer

"The battle to save NASA Glenn Research Center, slated to lose 700 workers and $120 million by next year, will be tougher than previous threats to the federal space lab's survival, U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine said Monday. "I will be candid. I think this is going to be a tougher fight," said DeWine, in town to meet with center Director Julian Earls and employees..."

Other Voices: NASA is important to us all, Op ed, Sen. George Allen, Daily Press

"I realize that aeronautics funding is an extremely important issue for the Hampton Roads community and, more specifically, those who work at NASA Langley. I'm committed to advancing aeronautics because I believe it benefits America's national security and future competitiveness. As governor and now as a U.S. senator, I will continue to fight hard to bring and keep good-paying jobs in Virginia."

Hampton Has Been Through This Before

Aeronautic innovations are at risk as NASA's focus turns to space, Virginia Pilot

"In 1997, Goldin suggested closing wind tunnels and possibly a center. Those close to Langley feared that the Hampton center would be the one. Mayors of Hampton and Newport News and community representatives formed the NASA Aeronautics Support Team to save the center and its jobs. The wind tunnels – and the center – survived. But Langley’s budget has not seen significant increases since."

They Ain't Buying NASA's Assurances in Hampton

Jump and shout - Tell Congress you care about aeronautics and NASA Langley (anonymous opinion), Daily Press

"A lot of the reassurances that come out of Washington aren't very reassuring. So Vic Lebacqz will surely understand that his reassurance that NASA doesn't plan to close Langley Research Center in Hampton would be a lot more reassuring if it were accompanied by bigger budgets and a growing work force at the center. Instead, the trend is all in the other direction."

Other Voices: The threat to NASA Langley, (opinion), Daily Press

"Many fear that if the cuts in the president's current budget are not reversed, it could be the beginning of the end for NASA Langley. Let's hope they're wrong - in terms of this community's well being and, most importantly, in terms of this country's future economic, military and scientific leadership."

No LaRC Closure

Aeronautics official: NASA Langley won't close, Daily Press

"Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Chesapeake, asked NASA's top aeronautics official whether the agency planned to close Langley, which next year faces a proposed 17 percent budget cut and hundreds of layoffs. "No," answered Vic Lebacqz, associate administrator for NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate."

Aeronautics Hearing

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Hearing: The Future of Aeronautics at NASA

- Rep. Udall: Aeronautics Research Key to Nation's Economy, Security, Competitiveness
- Opening Statement by Rep. Mark Udall: Hearing on NASA's Aeronautics Program

- Hearing charter

Prepared Statements:
- J. Victor Lebacqz, NASA
- John M. Klineberg, NAS
- M. J. Benzakein, Ohio State
- Philip S. Anton, RAND Corp
- R. John Hansman, Jr., MIT International Center for Air Transportation
- Rep. Ken Calvert, Subcommittee Chair

"There is a lot of concern that the investment in aeronautics research and development by this Nation has been limping along for several years, and that there is a lack of a national strategy. Over the next five years, NASA is proposing to reduce its aeronautics workforce by approximately 2000 people and to shut down a number of its wind tunnels. The questions that I have are: Are these wise decisions for our Nation? Should NASA develop a national strategy for aeronautics before these valuable assets and skills are lost? If there is such a national strategy, is NASA aligned to support that national strategy? Does NASA have a Human Capital Strategy or are these personnel cuts solely for budget purposes?"

NASA cuts threaten future of US aeronautics, New Scientist

"Philip Anton, director of the non-profit RAND Acquisition and Technology Policy Center in Santa Monica, California, agrees that closing one or more of the main wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities may alleviate short-term budget pressures. But he says the cuts would hurt the industry in the long run. "It often takes a decade to build these kinds of major facilities, and more years to fund them - replacing all of these facilities would cost billions," he told the subcommittee."

NASA Proposal to Reduce Spending for Aviation Research by 20% Dismays Experts, NY Times

"I am generally dismayed by the magnitude and trend of the proposed NASA aeronautics budget," Dr. R. John Hansman Jr. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said at a hearing of the House Science Committee Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics."

Ohio Goes for the Jugular

Alliance turns proposed NASA cuts into airline-safety debate, Cleveland Plain Dealer

"The fight to save NASA Glenn Research Center has become a battle about the future of the U.S. airline industry. Twice in the past decade, Northeast Ohioans scurried to save the federal space lab next to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and the millions of dollars and thousands of jobs it brings the region."

Pushing the Envelope - *WITH* a Shy NASA

Here's looking at you Steve!

"The taxi test was the perfect occasion to try out NASA equipment that will enable a live video of Steve to be seen during the attempt. While Steve took to the runway on February 23 to familiarise himself with take-off procedures, a small camera was transmitting a video of the cockpit. Using a satellite transmitter receiver (transceiver), a real-time video is sent through the NASA satellite system to provide global coverage."

Editor's note: Am I missing something? NASA is providing this support to Steve Fossett's flight - and a big NASA logo is on the side of his plane - yet I have found ZERO ouput from NASA PAO about this. Why is NASA so shy about this?

Editor's note: Steve Fossett has landed in Salina, Kansas becoming the first person to fly around the world without stopping or refueling - alone.

NASA Technology Supports Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer, NASA

"NASA technology contributed to the safety and success of the mission by enhancing communications between pilot Steve Fossett and his ground control team. NASA's real-time video hookup allowed enthusiasts around the globe to follow the flight."

Editor's note:NASA finally issued a press release - after Fossett landed - not before - or during - his 60 hour flight.

Pushing the Envelope - Without NASA

Round-the-world record bid under way, The Guardian

"Millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett's GlobalFlyer plane took off into the clear Kansas skies today, setting in motion a world record bid described by his backer and friend Sir Richard Branson as the last great aviation record - flying nonstop and solo around the world."

Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer, Mission Website

Editor's note: With all the current arm waving (a lot of it, perhaps, justified) going on about the "other A" in NASA, why is it that the most exciting stuff - the pushing of aeronautic envelopes - is now being done by the private sector? I don't think it is necessarily because NASA isn't doing this sort of thing but rather, because these people can do it without NASA. A message, perhaps, from the private sector?

Editor's note: I stand corrected - see This link about NASA KSC participation. This notwithstanding, the vast majority of the hardware, operations, and financing - to say nothing of the inspiration for this project - came from the private sector.

Send your comments to nasawatch@reston.com. Your comments thus far:

---

Exciting?  Of course - it's a publicity stunt!  Useful?  Not even in the same league as the Aeronautics Research done by NASA; the last time I checked there was no commercial use for a flying gas tank, which means no jobs will be created to build flying gas tanks.  Sure, there may be good lessons learned regarding fuel efficiency and the reliability of the CFD models used to design the airframe, but NASA is working on those same things right now.  In fact, if you investigated this thoroughly, you would almost certainly find that the GlobalFlyer was designed and built using numerous technologies that were developed and/or improved to the current state-of-the-art by NASA.

It has been obvious for years that you are a space guy, so why don't you leave the commentary on aeronautics research to those who understand it.  Aero research at NASA is supposed to benefit the taxpayer, and that is best done NOT by being exciting, but by improving commercial air travel, by ensuring the superiority of our military aircraft, and by creating jobs.  It doesn't hurt to be exciting AND beneficial, but that combination is rare, and being beneficial is far more important.

Godspeed to Steve Fossett - I wish him nothing but success and a safe return home with a planeload of world records.

---

NASA's Vehicle Systems Program has a goal to develop new vehicle concepts and supporting technologies we aren't allowed to build prototypes. The program is being shredded in every budget cycle. NASA isn't allowed to do what the private sector is doing in aviation - this first A is almost gone not because we cann't do it but because Congress doesn't want us to do it.

---

Keith,

Like many other NASA employees, I am following the GlobalFlyer adventure quite closely. I admire Steve Fossett for his daring and enthusiasm, as well as his long list of accomplishments.  Your question: "why is it that the most exciting stuff - the pushing of aeronautic envelopes - is now being done by the private sector?" was answered by Fossett himself in an interview on Sunday.

From:http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/News/Reveal.jsp  last paragraph:

When asked what the long-term practical significance of this flight is, Steve responded 'none' and caused laughter among those present. But Richard quickly added: "From Virgin Atlantic's point-of -view, we would love designers who make planes to make more composite-based planes. This is almost a complete composite-based plane - very, very light and very fuel-efficient. He then went on to say that design breakthroughs are often a result of some world records and could possibly make commercial aviation cheaper, more affordable, more fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly. 

If asked the same question by Congress, OMB, the press or others, no NASA project manager could ever honestly answer "none" and expect to keep the project alive.

---

[Power for Global Flyer is supplied by a single 2,300 lb thrust Williams FJ44-3 ATW turbofan engine.]

From the Scaled Composites web site:

"Last fall under a competitive procurement program among jet engine companies, NASA selected Williams International to join NASA in a $100 million cooperative effort to revitalize the once-flourishing light aircraft industry in the United States through small turbofan engine technology. Under the program, Williams and its industry team members, which include Williams suppliers and future aircraft company customers, provide 60 percent of the resources and NASA provides 40 percent for the initial engine demonstration phase."

From the EclipseAviation web site:

"When NASA chose Williams in 1996 for cost-sharing development of a small turbofan, designate the FJX-2, under the General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) program, the engine was set to fly in 2000 in the V-Jet II experimental light aircraft designed by Williams and Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites. The EJ22 is the first commercial derivative of the FJX-2, which was first ground-tested in late 1998.

NASA says the GAP program objectives were achieved last June when the FJX-2 surpassed 700lb sea level static thrust in ground testing. The prototype engine weighed 85lb, resulting in a thrust-to-weight ratio of greater than 8.2 – higher than any other commercial turbofan, NASA says."

From the DesignNews web site:

"When adventurer Steve Fossett sets off later this year on his solo non-stop round-the-world attempt in the Burt Rutan-designed GlobalFlyer, he will be relying on Chelton Flight Systems (Stand A735) for safe navigation through wind, rain and dark of night. The revolutionary aircraft is fitted with Chelton's FlightLogic synthetic-vision electronic flight information system (EFIS).

Bringing together GPS satellite navigation, information from aircraft sensors and the global terrain database already used by airlines for ground-proximity warning, the system presents the pilot with a computerised view of the outside world, with a safe 'tunnel in the sky' superimposed along with basic head-up display information.

The pilot can either hand-fly the aircraft through the succession of rectangular 'gates' that mark the tunnel, or set up the aircraft's autopilot to do so – a capability that will be of vital importance on Fossett's 80h flight.

NASA evaluated the FlightLogic combination of HUD symbology and synthetic vision over a total of 945 flights and found that the pilots using it averaged 85% fewer errors in guiding the aircraft along its intended flightpath by comparison with those relying on a conventional instrument scan."

The point is, GlobalFlyer wasn't designed, equipped, and built in a vacuum. The above doesn't diminish the accomplishments of Rutan and his highly motivated and capable team, but would GlobalFlyer be exactly the same aircraft absent the historical existence of NACA and the ongoing contributions of NASA? I doubt it.

---

It would be very easy to agree with your statement above. However, I have a nagging suspicion that there is a heritage for the hardware and the design that may have had some roots in research done initially by NACA, and/or NASA. Perhaps the software used to design the craft is an improved commercial version of one that was pioneered by NASA. I'm sure that it would be tedious to trace the various aerodynamic, propulsion, flight control, etc. technologies to specific NACA/NASA origins, but my hunch is that if you could analyze the "DNA" of many aircraft in the air today - including Rutan's - there would be the signature that "NACA/NASA was there" to one degree or another. Indeed, in aerospace engineering textbooks today there are still references to NACA/NASA technical reports.

---

Regarding your recent observation/question: "why is it that the most exciting stuff - the pushing of aeronautic envelopes - is now being done by the private sector?"

The answer is easy  - Starting in the early 1990s the NASA aeronautical engineers and scientists have been prohibited from doing the "right stuff" to move aeronautics forward.  We spend months planning, planning and planning again to ensure that everyone on the "team" "feels good" about the $20K they hope to spend in the next FY.

So how did the first "A" in NASA get to where it is today.   We have been "managed" by our "leadership" into our present state of irrelevance.    And now the NASA aeronautical engineers and scientists must sit back and wait to be rescued by the same "leaders" and "managers".

---

On your Editor's note below:

You've singled out as "pushing of aeronautical envelopes" the around-the-world flight of a millionaire financed by a billionaire.  NASA could not try anything like that since taxpayers would be outraged if their money were used by the Agency to simply set some kind of record.  NASA cannot do something unless there is a clear pay-off for our space program or our economy or our security.  Congress and the Administration do not want NASA to grandstand.  To answer your question of whether "these people" in the private sector "can do it without NASA"---that is, push aeronautic envelopes in commercial and military aviation safety, economy, etc.---I suggest you ask Boeing, Lockheed, Sikorsky, etc.  The Europeans are beginning to kick our butts because their governments lavishly support AIRBUS---in contrast to the anemic NASA aeronautics funding to help the USA's aviation industry---and when the day comes that Boeing throws in the towel and AIRBUS becomes a monopoly, watch the travel prices skyrocket.  I will re e-mail you this note as a reminder when that happens.  Rather than sending people to the moon and Mars, my first priority is sending them to Chicago, to San Francisco, to Singapore, etc.---safely, economically, quietly, on American-built commercial planes.  Second priority is space for me.  You and the Bush Administration apparently agree on reverse priorities.  In 20 years we will look back and decide who was correct!

A New NACA To Save Langley?

Bring back the NACA, OpEd, Daily Press

"The aeronautics-and-space agency's bias disfavoring aeronautics is built-in, permanent, shared by the media, worsened by the current budget threats and dangerous to American prospects in world technology competition."

What might a new NACA look like?, OpEd, Daily Press

"For long-view insight, the committee could use a historian like Duke University's Alex Roland, who wrote the definitive NACA history."

Editor's note: If you folks are really going to pursue this notion of a new NACA, the last thing you want to do is embark on this path with a self-imposed chip on your shoulder.

More Threats Against Aeronautics

Testing facilities at NASA vulnerable, Cleveland Plain Dealer

"NASA Glenn Research Center risks losing crucial testing facilities that laid the foundation of the space lab's work with aircraft."

Bad Aeronautics News Unfolds

Comments? Send them to nasawatch@reston.com

Your comments thus far:

NASA FY 06 Budget Memo by Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Research Victor Lebacqz

"I will be coming to your Center as soon as I can to talk about this change. The schedule is for me to be at Glenn Research Center Feb 8, Langley Research Center Feb 10, Dryden Flight Research Center Feb 14, and Ames Research Center Feb 15. Along with your Center management, I will hold an all-hands meeting to answer your questions about the aeronautics programs. I look forward to seeing you."

---

The cuts at Langley are long overdue. I worked there as a contractor and saw little activity outside of SES employees peddling flavor-of-the-month initiatives and middle managers scrambling year-round to justify their existence. This is not meant to discredit the engineers and researchers who do excellent work, but I always thought Langley could be just as productive with half its current staff. What's disheartening is that Langley is taking a hit in spite of the Agency's overall budget going up. All of NASA should take a cut.

Incidentally, Vic Lebacqz was one of the most impressive associate administrators I witnessed while working at NASA, the other being Craig Steidle. Lebacqz' admission that he did not serve Langley well is a testament to his candor and sincerity. And, apparently, proof that his position has little power after all.

---

Since Vic Legacqz admitted today that he had not served us well in helping to get aeronautics money, I certainly hope he doesn't get to keep his job.

anonymous

---

Mr. Cowing, I find it funny how many people defend there being 10 NASA field centers. As a member of the military, I know a little about trimming infrastructure to reduce costs. I cannot see how some of NASA's redundancy has survived as long as it has. It may look as though NASA doesn't have the support of congress, but when it comes to cutting field centers, there is more than enough support. I wish at times that the military had the kind of support that NASA supporters say they don't have! I just needed to do a little venting. Thank you for the work you do. I have been an avid reader for about 6 years!

---

Yesterday at Glenn we heard our Center Director's interpretation of what the new NASA Aeronautics budget would contain.  In his words, only "Breakthrough Technology Demonstrators" would be funded, no more fundamental research.  I take this to mean full size hardware with mature technology.  I would like someone in the Bush administration to explain to the Aerospace engineers here how you can show breakthrough technology WITHOUT doing fundamental research.  I really don't think that this administration gets it.  Corporations usually fund the full scale demonstrators in aeronautics, at least in the systems NASA deals with.  They depend on NASA to do the legwork and show that it can be done in research and small scale testing first.  NASA has been the organization to fund the risky and long term research.  It had gotten this country to be number one in aerospace.  Not any more.  Boeing lost its edge in aircraft production to Airbus.  I wonder if engineers in the U.S., including those at NASA in aeronautics, will be job-shopping to Airbus in the future.

Please withhold my name if you release these comments.

---

I don't see what the big deal is with Aeronautics.  From $906.2M in FY05 to $717.6M in 2010 is about a 20% reduction.  This is less of a budget cut than Shuttle saw in the '90s (I believe that was around 40%) and they didn't go out of business.  I want to know what the US has to show for all the NASA money spent on aeronautics over the last 4 decades, other than a 50% reduction in market share (i.e. Airbus).  Commercial aircraft still fly at Mach 0.8, as they have since the Boeing 707 entered commercial service in 1958 (the same year NACA became NASA).  Fuel efficiency has gone up and emissions have gone down, but the drastic reduction in airfares is as much from competition among airlines as it is in advancements in technology in aeronautics.  The aeronautics research community needs to reassess itself and start producing some tangible results to justify it's existence.  NACA and NASA helped the fledgling airline industry become established in the 20th century, maybe its time for NASA to start helping the fledgling space travel industry become established in the 21st century.  Maybe it's time for NASA to move on and let the $1 trillion per year airline industry take care of itself.

Feel free to use my name and Center, I've got nothing to hide.

Roger E. Mathews
NASA Kennedy Space Center

---

Keith,

Most NASA researchers (at least the ones with some working brain cells) saw this one coming for some time. At Langley, thanks to the utter incompetence of the previous 3 directors, the center saw it's research potential devastated. Only the "yes sir" got promotions and the key jobs. Performing research and being technically competent was not deemed as key - only managing money was seen as the key to success and the technically incompetent sought that path. Now we reap what the previous management has sewn, we have many technically incompetent managers making the decisions as to how we are to compete for tasks under the new competitive environment. I'm a researcher with 20+ years at LaRC and actually welcome the chance to compete for task for the exploration office. The caveat: we won't be competitive if we have to carry with us the rest of the parasitic elements that permeate the NASA bureaucracy, in particular the excessive number of senior and bean counting project managers at the center.

Anonymous please

---

Keith-

I have been a civil servant at LaRC for over 20 years and have witnessed first hand the demise of this once-great national asset. If the goal of the "President's Management Agenda" is to destroy NASA, he is well on his way to accomplishing that goal.

Many ultra-conservatives have been advocating the privatization of NASA for decades. In fact, the Libertarian Party publicly supports NASA's privatization as one goal in their agenda. If the President shares that view he should publicly state it and not covertly dismantle NASA from within.

It seems this Administration is using NASA as a "Cash Cow". The Moon-Mars initiative is simply corporate welfare for Boeing, LockMart, and the rest of the military industrial complex who are now the prime contractors for NASA. I doubt Bush came up with this idea on his own. My guess is the people who advocated this project are the same ones who are profiting by it. By the time the next president is elected billions of our tax dollars will have been wasted on this boondoggle, nothing will have been accomplished and it will be canceled. Leaving NASA in ruins.

Mark at LaRC

---

Greetings,

The most important sentence in the memo from Vic Lebacqz is, "In the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, our programs which support public good activities, such as reducing noise, increasing safety, and transforming the national air traffic management system continue to be strongly supported and were maintained in the FY06 budget." That is good news indeed. It would be better news if he said that all of money that was being taken out of the Vehicle Systems Program was going to those programs. Programs such as the Aviation Safety and Security Program are truly beneficial to the public, and deserve full support. I hope that before the budget is finally passed by Congress, even more money will be given to these worthy programs, particularly if comes from less important (although more glamorous) programs such as those within the Exploration Mission Directorate.

(no name please).

---

Keith,

Thanks for the opportunity to vent:

I was drawn to Langley 22 years ago as a college student by the NACA style research that went on at the time. Rather than focusing solely on mega-programs like shuttle/station, there was range of programs from small grants/collaborations with academia, mid-size laboratory projects (i.e. wind tunnels, flight simulators, test stands), and a mix of flight activities, both in-house and with partners at Ames, Dryden, Edwards, Pax, and industry. The goal was to maintain and strengthen national leadership in aerospace technology by nurturing and maturing academic concepts and theories to a point where DoD (this was during the cold war) and industry had reliable data on which to base decisions for production applications. Unless classified, results were freely disseminated and anybody could benefit from them (even Airbus). A fond memory as a Co-op student was conducting a tunnel test on a Burt Rutan inspired configuration and having Mr. Rutan come by to see what we’d learned since the flight vehicle he as working on was having stability and control problems. He had a long-standing relationship with this group and would often consult with them. With a few days in the tunnel, we were able to provide comprehensive insight into the S&C issues and a range of solutions, one of which ultimately went on the airplane. The findings were also published in the open literature so that anyone working on similar configurations could anticipate the issue and have solutions. Being able to work with the full range of industry contributors—from academic researchers, industry designers, operators, etc. was very exciting, and since NASA was viewed as an national resource and did not compete with academia or industry for contracts and grants, most everyone was very open with their ideas for advancing the state of the art. We served a catalyst to bring the best ideas together and provided a national knowledge base and institutional memory not available elsewhere.

As the number of people at NASA who have an understanding of the NACA role and culture have dwindled (particularly at HQ, but even at the code R centers), the nature of our work has changed over the past 10 years, to were it is almost unrecognizable. The rest of the agency exists largely to build, buy and operate operational hardware (e.g. space shuttles, Mars rovers, planetary probes). This is the dominant, and soon sole culture, of the agency and has shaped the Agency’s management tools and expectations in a way that is not compatible with the sort of research that Code R used to do. This is unfortunate, because providing a public technology knowledge base that lowers barriers to entering the industry is probably one of the best investments the nation can make to support the VSE and the aerospace industry. Much of the work that goes on in Aero is also relevant to space (this is one of the reasons the early space age could progress so rapidly), so I don’t see it as poor investment if the VSE is in large part, a long-term effort to foster a private space industry not built entirely on government contracts. Unfortunately, the NASA management culture no longer understands the value of basic applied research that’s done to methodically explore critical technology areas and produce design tools and application guidelines. This sort of comprehensive work is far more valuable in the long run than the one-shot technology demonstrations now in vogue. I’m curious to see what the new Vehicle Systems Program is looking to accomplish in its "barrier breaking flight demonstrations". In contrast to the mythology surrounding flight demonstrations, the main value of flight **research** is usually in the broader body of knowledge and tools that are validated through the data or further refined with the benefit of the data. These efforts are neither quick nor easy. For example, the NACA continued to conduct research flights with the X-1 for more than 10 years after breaking the sound barrier. Breaking the barrier the first time was very exciting (and important to the military brass) , but understanding the deeper issues of transonic and supersonic flight such that successful designs can be reliably produced is what industry needed. Also, equally important as the X-1 in this regards was the development of the slotted wind tunnel test section that allowed high-quality data to be taken with great efficiency on the ground. If we put all our money into standalone flight demonstrations rather than balanced programs that include the right flight elements, the ROI will be very limited. Also, moving toward competitively awarding everything has vastly reduced the openness of information flow between industry and NASA (and even within NASA), and has virtually destroyed our ability to strategically manage a technology portfolio or national facilities. This is all lost on management as far as I can tell.

It will be interesting to see what sort of wreckage this makes of the code R centers, certainly the lions share of Langley's support comes from VSP. In the NRC review of the Vehicle Systems Program (http://books.nap.edu/html/vehicle_systems/vsp_letter_report.pdf ), they document how the centers were not making some painful decisions that probably needed to be made. That said, they also recognized the value of the competencies that should be supported and hopefully their recommendations to reemphasize those will not be thrown out with the bath water. It’s certainly going to be a bumpy ride; Morale could not be lower and if this situation is not handled quickly, strategically and with a prospect of something worth staying for, many of the best people will simply walk away. Frankly, most of the researchers have come to the conclusion that this is the desired outcome.

(Anonymous Please)

Posted by kcowing at 8:21 AM | Permalink