AAcover310.

qxd:AA Template 2/8/10 12:43 PM Page 1

March 2010
AEROSPACE AMERICA
MARCH 2010

Unmanned
and airborne
A NEW PLAN

ISR in today's war: A closer look

World tanker market: More than just KC-X
A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
April 12 - 15, 2010, The Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Exceptional Speakers Discussing Dynamic Industry Issues

Gen. Bruce A. Carlson, USAF (Ret.) Gen. C. Robert Kehler, USAF Ms. Gwynne Shotwell
Director Commander President, SpaceX
National Reconnaissance Office Air Force Space Command

Mr. Richard Garriott Mr. Dennis A. Muilenburg Paul Weissenberg, Ph.D.

Entrepreneur, Famed Video Game Executive Vice President, The Boeing Director for Aerospace, GMES,
Developer, and Private Space Company & President and Chief Security and Defence, European
Explorer Executive Officer, Boeing Defense, Commission
Space & Security

Featured Panel: The NRO Directors’ Forum

Mr. Edward C. Aldridge, Jr.
Under Secretary of the Air Force/
Secretary of the Air Force and
Director of the National
Reconnaissance Office, 1981-1988
Mr. Jeffrey K. Harris
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Space and Director of the
National Reconnaissance Office,
1994-1996
Hans Mark, Ph.D.
Under Secretary of the Air Force/
Secretary of the Air Force and
Director of the National
Reconnaissance Office, 1977-1979

Mr. Martin C. Faga
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Space and Director of the
National Reconnaissance Office,
1989-1993
Donald M. Kerr, Ph.D.
Assistant to the Secretary of the Air
Force (Intelligence Space Technology)
and Director of the National
Reconnaissance Office, 2005-2007
Gen.Thomas S.Moorman,Jr. USAF (Ret.)
Director Emeritus, Space Foundation
and Former Vice Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force

Mr. Keith R. Hall Mr. Scott F. Large Mr. Peter B. Teets

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force Under Secretary of the Air Force
for Space and Director of the (Intelligence and Space Technology) and and Director of the National
National Reconnaissance Office, Director of the National Reconnaissance Reconnaissance Office, 2001-2005
1997-2001 Office, 2007-2009

“Must-See” Panel: The Intersection of Space and Cyber

Mr. Robert J. Butler
Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Cyber and Space Policy
Lt. Gen. Larry D. James, USAF Maj. Gen. Richard Webber, USAF
Commander, Joint Functional Commander, 24th Air Force
Component Command - Space,
United States Strategic Command
and Commander, 14th Air Force

Speakers and agenda subject to change.

www.NationalSpaceSymposium.org
toc.MAR2010.qxd:AA Template 2/9/10 12:04 PM Page 1

March 2010

DEPARTMENTS
EDITORIAL 3
Space, safety—and risk.

INTERNATIONAL BEAT 4
Environmental regulations fly high and wide.
Page 8
WASHINGTON WATCH 8
Feeling the pinch and scaling back.

THE VIEW FROM HERE 12

Why asteroids beckon / NASA and near-Earth objects.

AIRCRAFT UPDATE 16
World tanker market: More than just KC-X. Page 12

ENGINEERING NOTEBOOK 18 Page 16

Reconnecting with a magnetic mystery.
DARPA’s Vulcan engine goes Navy.

OUT OF THE PAST 44

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES 46

FEATURES Page 18

UNMANNED AND AIRBORNE: A NEW PLAN 24

Boeing is pursuing vigorous development of UAVs and other systems needed Page 24
in this fast-growing sector.
by J.R.Wilson

ISR IN TODAY’S WAR: A CLOSER LOOK 32

Advances in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance are allowing closer
Page 32
views of targets and faster, more precise strikes than ever before.
by James W. Canan

OPEN ROTOR RESEARCH REVS UP 38

Researchers are reshaping an old concept into advanced technology for a new
generation of open rotor aircraft engines.
by Philip Butterworth-Hayes

BULLETIN
AIAA Meeting Schedule B2
AIAA Courses and Training Program B4
AIAA News B5
Meeting Program B17
Calls for Papers B24
Page 38
COVER
The Phantom Ray is the latest of Boeing’s forays in the development of unmanned systems, a sector the company
believes will continue to grow. Read all about their plans in the story beginning on page 24.

Aerospace America (ISSN 0740-722X) is published monthly by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. at 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Va. 20191-4344 [703/264-7577].
Subscription rate is 50% of dues for AIAA members (and is not deductible therefrom). Nonmember subscription price: U.S. and Canada, $163, foreign, $200. Single copies $20 each.
Postmaster: Send address changes and subscription orders to address above, attention AIAA Customer Service, 703/264-7500. Periodical postage paid at Herndon, VA, and at additional
mailing offices. Copyright © 2010 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., all rights reserved. The name Aerospace America is registered by the AIAA in the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office. 40,000 copies of this issue printed. This is Volume 48, No. 3.
 10-0091_F

With changing goals and priorities in Washington, D.C., taking part in the
2010 AIAA Congressional Visits Day Program is more important than ever.

Come to Washington to let your representative hear how important

aerospace is to our country, and take an active role in helping shape the
future of the aerospace community.

On Wednesday, March 17, AIAA members will share their passion about
aerospace issues on Capitol Hill.

Join us as we meet with congressional decision makers to discuss the

importance of science, engineering, and technology to our national and
economic security.

AIAA Congressional Visits Day

For more information visit www.aiaa.org/cvd

or contact Duane Hyland at duaneh@aiaa.org
or 703.264.7558
march edit.qxd:AA Template 2/11/10
is a publication of the American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Elaine J. Camhi
Editor-in-Chief
Patricia Jefferson
Associate Editor
Greg Wilson
Production Editor
Jerry Grey, Editor-at-Large
Christine Williams, Editor AIAA Bulletin
Correspondents
Robert F. Dorr, Washington
Philip Butterworth-Hayes, Europe
Michael Westlake, Hong Kong
Contributing Writers
Richard Aboulafia, James W. Canan,
Marco Cáceres, Edward Flinn, Tom
Jones, Théo Pirard, David Rockwell,
Frank Sietzen, J.R. Wilson
Fitzgerald Art & Design
Art Direction and Design
Craig Byl, Manufacturing and Distribution
David W. Thompson, President
Robert S. Dickman, Publisher
STEERING COMMITTEE
Michael B. Bragg, University of Illinois;
Philip Hattis, Draper Laboratory; Mark S.
Maurice, AFOSR; Laura McGill, Raytheon;
George Muellner, Boeing; Merri Sanchez,
National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion; Mary Snitch, Lockheed Martin
EDITORIAL BOARD
Ned Allen, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics;
Jean-Michel Contant, EADS; Eugene
Covert, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy; L.S. “Skip” Fletcher, Texas A&M Uni-
versity; Michael Francis, United Technologies;
Christian Mari, Teuchos; Cam Martin,
NASA Dryden; Don Richardson, Donrich
Research; Douglas Yazell, Honeywell
ADVERTISING
National Display and Classified:
Robert Silverstein, 240.498.9674
rsilverstein@AdSalesExperts.net
West Coast Display: Greg Cruse,
949.361.1870 / gcruse@AdSalesExperts.net
Send materials to Craig Byl, AIAA, 1801
Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA
20191-4344. Changes of address should be
sent to Customer Service at the same address,
by e-mail at custserv@aiaa.org, or by fax at
703/264-7606.
Send Letters to the Editor to Elaine Camhi
at the same address or elainec@aiaa.org
March 2010, Vol. 48, No. 3
10:41 AM Page 1
Space, safety—and risk
The FY11 NASA budget request represents a sea change for the agency—not
just in terms of missions but, at least for human space operations, in the way it
will bring those missions to fruition. It would bring the curtain down on the
Constellation program, the agency’s dominant program over the last five years.
The new budget supports extending the lifetime of the international space
station beyond its current 2016 expiry out to at least 2020, funding programs
to increase station capabilities and enhance ground support. It also commits
funds to complete the space shuttle’s current manifest, even if it must be
stretched into another year.
But the mission to return humans to the Moon and then travel onward to
Mars would be cancelled, replaced by robotic precursor missions to varied des-
tinations in the solar system, followed by human exploration.
Gone as well are Ares I and Ares V, meant to launch crew and cargo, re-
spectively, as well as the Orion crew vehicle. But what is more telling is what is
meant to take their place. Building upon the “successful progress in the devel-
opment of commercial cargo capabilities,” the budget authorizes the invest-
ment of $6 billion over five years to “spur development of American commer-
cial human spaceflight vehicles.”
The passage of the president’s budget request is by no means certain, and
portions of the Constellation program such as the Orion, which has made con-
siderable progress, might be redirected and survive in some guise, but the na-
tion’s future in space may well reside in the hands of commercial enterprise.
Though they have often been partners with NASA, this new budget places the
reins in their hands.
Many have argued since the decision was first reached to retire the space
shuttle that human-rating the Atlas and Delta EELVs, which have excellent
safety records, was a viable, lower cost alternative to reinventing the rocket
yet again. It also would fall in line with the Augustine commission recommen-
dations for a “flexible path” to space—albeit with lower funding.
But determining exactly what the criteria are for human-rating a launch
vehicle is no easy task. Some argue that the directives laid down by the Colum-
bia Accident Investigation Board are so rigorous that building a new vehicle
under those strictures would be next to impossible.
Throughout the history of aviation in the U.S. there has always been the
drive for the next generation—trying new vehicle shapes, new engines, even
new fuels. Each new drawing, each new prototype was an effort to get us
where we want to go more safely, more quickly, and as inexpensively as possi-
ble. Those criteria drove the development of a gamut of aircraft from the X-1
to the X-51, from the flying boat to the 787.
The pilots who sat in the cockpit of many of those experiments under-
stood the risks they were taking—but were buoyed by the knowledge that some
of the best minds in the nation were behind those aircraft. And so it went, and
we did fly faster and further with each new effort. And though many were met
with failure, and some with tragedy, we learned lessons from each and contin-
ued forward.
And so it should be now, with whatever the next launch vehicle turns out
to be, that we put safety first, but not so much so that it keeps us Earthbound.
The brave men and women who are the pioneers of this new century deserve
nothing less—and, I believe, expect nothing more.
Elaine Camhi
Editor-in-Chief
BEATlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10 11:37 AM Page 2

Environmental regulations
fly high and wide
THE FAILURE OF THE COPENHAGEN UNITED These targets differed somewhat by the Kyoto UNFCCC meeting, held in
Nations Framework Convention on Cli- from limits agreed to by the International December 1997, which set binding tar-
mate Change (UNFCCC) in December Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the gets for 37 industrialized countries and
2009 to agree to global, binding targets Montreal-based U.N. global aviation reg- the European Union to reduce green-
for nations to lower their greenhouse gas ulator, at its High Level Meeting on In- house gas emissions by an average of
emissions has both good and bad impli- ternational Aviation and Climate Change 5% against 1990 levels over the five-
cations for the world’s aerospace indus- last October. Government delegates to year period 2008-2012. For environ-
try. But one immediate result will be a re-
evaluation of the way the industry will be
regulated on this issue in the future.
Environmental pressure groups had
been campaigning for conference dele-
gates to set a cap on aviation emissions
and introduce charges to airlines, based
on their emission performance, to fund
climate change management schemes in
developing countries. The final agree-
ment—which was not agreed to unan-
imously—committed developed countries
to generate $100 billion a year by 2020
for poorer nations, but there was no
mention of how aviation-generated emis-
sions should be treated.

Moving targets
The International Air Transport Associa-
tion (IATA), perhaps fearful of a new
wave of taxes and emission limits, wel-
comed the accord as “an important step
in the right direction for climate change.”
According to IATA, which represents the
world’s largest scheduled airlines: “Avia-
tion emissions were not addressed specifi-
cally in the accord, a reflection of the
proactive measures the industry has taken
to set challenging targets for itself, to-
gether with an aggressive strategy to
achieve them.”
IATA favors self-regulation, and be-
fore the conference had agreed with its
airport, manufacturing and air naviga- that meeting agreed that the civil avia- mental campaigners and some govern-
tion service provider partners on indus- tion industry will need to reduce its car- ments, one of the most important as-
try-wide targets to improve fuel efficiency bon footprint by 2% a year for the next pects of the Copenhagen meeting was
by an average of 1.5% per year to 2020, 10 years. However, there were no sanc- to deal with aviation emissions from
stabilize carbon emissions from 2020 tions or penalties outlined if these targets 2013, and the failure to do so has
with carbon-neutral growth and work to- were missed. opened up important questions on how
ward a net reduction in carbon emissions The challenge of managing aviation aviation emissions should be regulated in
of 50% by 2050 compared to 2005. emissions had been delegated to ICAO the future.

4 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010

BEATlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10 11:37 AM
“With zero progress at Copenhagen
we will continue to press for tough avia-
tion emissions reduction target-setting to
be given to UNFCCC itself,” says Jeff
Gazzard, board member of the Aviation
Environment Federation, a U.K.-based
environmental lobbying group.
“We simply cannot trust the global in-
dustry-dominated politics at ICAO to de-
liver meaningful limits—we will strongly
encourage the European Union’s 27
member states to press hard for the EU
aviation emissions trading scheme to
become the global model but with a
tougher cap, 100% auctioning of carbon
dioxide and inclusion of aviation’s non-
carbon dioxide impacts. We want the
EU’s New Year resolution to be to de-
velop mutual effective ETS [Emission
Trading System] schemes with like-
minded states and blocs throughout
2010,” Gazzard says.
Environmental campaigners are now
targeting the next UNFCCC decision-
making meeting in Mexico City in No-
vember 2010, rather than the ICAO as-
sembly meeting in September, for the
appearance of new global regulations
capping aviation emissions.
One outcome of the last ICAO meet-
ing was that its contracting states would
“evaluate the possibility of more ambi-
tious goals by the next ICAO assembly
[2010], taking into consideration indus-
try’s collective commitments and the
special needs of developing nations.”
And this is where a key structural prob-
lem in the current global environmental
regulatory system appears.
The regulatory conundrum
“The UNFCCC works on an understand-
ing of common but differentiated obliga-
tions—a device developed at Kyoto for
bridging developed and developing na-
tions,” says Andrew Charlton of the Ge-
neva-based aviation government affairs
firm Aviation Advocacy. “In the Kyoto
protocol a two-track system was devel-
oped that created positive obligations on
developed nations to achieve goals and
aspirations for developing nations. One
of the main issues in Copenhagen was
whether to preserve the Kyoto arrange-
ment—which would have excluded the
Page 3
U.S. from negotiations—or find a way to
bring everyone on board. ICAO doesn’t
have the luxury of common but differen-
tiated goals—all ICAO members are
equal.”
One possible outcome of this current
impasse will be for the global regulation
of environmental issues to be shared be-
tween ICAO and the UNFCCC, with the
latter taking a more supervisory role.
Without a global agreement, the next
few months will see the global aviation
industry continue to pursue different di-
rections. The most serious potential rift
involves the inclusion of aviation within
the European Union’s ETS. EU repre-
sentatives at the November ICAO meet-
ing wanted this ETS to be adopted on a
global scale, but the ICAO Assembly in-
stead recommended it be adopted only
as a voluntary measure.
Cash or credit
Under the current timetable, beginning
January 1, 2012, all flights landing in or
departing from the EU will be covered by
the ETS. Airlines will be given a free
quota of carbon dioxide emission “cred-
its”—but if they exceed this allowance
they will have to start buying more cred-
its from the market. Airlines have been
obliged to provide precise data on their
traffic and CO2 emissions rates since
January 1, 2010.
The quota is based on 97% of the
total average annual levels of CO2 emis-
sions measured as having been sourced
by aircraft operators between 2004 and
2006. This cap will be reduced to 95%
at the start of 2013. Of the overall avail-
able carbon credits, 85% will be allo-
cated on a free basis to aircraft opera-
tors and the remainder auctioned off,
with the proceeds directed to climate
change measures in European member
states.
But the scheme is complex and,
many aircraft operators argue, confus-
ing. Over the last 12 months aircraft op-
erators have had to register their plans
with appropriate national authorities for
monitoring, reporting and verification of
CO2 emissions from their fleet. Different
countries set different deadlines for filing
these plans.
According to the European Business
Aviation Association (EBAA), of the
6,000 aircraft operators on the Euro-
pean Commission list for ETS, around
5,000 collectively account for less than
1% of total CO2 emissions. For opera-
tors of small aircraft, the cost of joining
the scheme is prohibitively high—the
EBAA estimates it will cost a medium-
size European business aircraft operator
almost $100,000 in the first year of
ETS. The threshold for joining the
scheme is more than an average of 243
flights into and out of the EU over three
consecutive four-month periods.
In December 2009, three U.S. air-
lines, American, Continental and United,
and the U.S. Air Transport Association
(ATA) brought a case in the U.K. courts
challenging the inclusion of non-EU air-
lines in the ETS. The case was pending
at press time.
Sharing the pain
Aircraft operating companies are not the
only aviation stakeholders who will be
impacted by the EU ETS issue. “Our
members are concerned about any new
regulation that would increase their costs
and potentially make them less prof-
itable,” notes Kevin Morris, environment
and sustainability manager for ADS, the
U.K.’s trade association of defense and
aerospace manufacturing companies.
“In this respect they are concerned
about the emissions trading scheme just
as they are concerned about the other
carbon management schemes put in
place by the U.K. government, such as
the climate change agreement (CCA)
and carbon reduction commitment
(CRC) schemes. This is because there is
a significant opportunity for double
charging and money being removed
from the industry that could have been
invested in new technology that would
actually help reduce emissions.”
Starting in April 2010, the CRC will
be a U.K. mandatory carbon trading
scheme that works in tandem with the
EU ETS. The initial phase of the CRC is
compulsory for organizations that con-
sumed over 6,000 MWh of half-hourly
metered electricity during the period
from January to December 2008.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 5
BEATlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
The aim is to reduce the level of car-
bon emissions currently produced by the
larger “low-energy-intensive” organiza-
tions by about 1.2 million tonnes of CO2
per year by 2020 and a 60% reduction
in CO2 emissions (over 2008) by 2050.
In theory, where emissions have been
captured by the EU ETS and CCA, they
will not be captured by the CRC. In
essence, the CRC is targeted at low-
energy-intensive users.
U.K. companies, like most EU manu-
facturers, have had CO2 emission reduc-
tion plans in place for some time. But
these efforts will have to be intensified
over the next few years to meet more
stringent national and international lim-
its beyond the ETS. For example, in Jan-
uary 2008 the European Commission
released its Climate Action and Renew-
able Energy Package which, when it
comes into operation in March 2011,
will include a measure to reduce CO2
emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by
the year 2020. The ETS itself includes
more stringent limits as time goes on,
with industrial enterprises increasingly
having to bid for credits. The aluminum
sector will be included within the ETS
from 2013.
“In one respect, the ETS may be
seen as an opportunity for the aircraft
manufacturers, as to reduce the costs of
their emissions in the scheme will require
the airlines to invest in new aircraft,” says
Morris. “However, those airlines need to
make a profit before buying any new
technology, and removing money from
an industry when it is already in a precar-
ious state will have negative impacts as
well. The industry is collectively commit-
ted to a global sectoral emissions trading
scheme as highlighted by ICCAIA, ACI
and IATA in Copenhagen, as there is a
good deal of concern that national or re-
gional schemes will only serve to distort
the market.”
The EU could still decide to extend
the ETS to imports into the continent
from states that are not taking compara-
ble action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions—though this would probably
trigger a series of court cases at the
World Trade Organization and other in-
ternational courts.
✈✈✈
“There are many twists and turns to
6 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
11:37 AM Page 4
come” according to Aviation Advocacy’s leadership now. If it does not come from
Charlton. “The newly appointed Euro- ICAO, it will come from somewhere
pean Commissioners have made clear else. The clock is ticking.”
their commitment to environmental is- Philip Butterworth-Hayes
sues. They even acknowledge that it will Brighton, U.K.
come at a price. There is a dire need for phayes@mistral.co.uk
Events Calendar
MARCH 6-13
2010 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana.
Contact: David Woerner, 818/726-8228
MARCH 16-17
Congressional Visits Day, Washington, D.C.
703/264-7500
MARCH 22-24
Eighth U.S. Missile Defense Conference and Exhibit, Washington, D.C.
Contact: 703/264-7500
MARCH 22-24
Forty-fifth 3AF Symposium of Applied Aerodynamics, Marseilles,
France
Contact: Anne Venables, secr.exec@aaaf.asso.fr
APRIL 12-15
Fifty-first AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics
and Materials Conference; 18th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures
Conference; 12th AIAA Nondeterministic Approaches Conference;
11th AIAA Gossamer Systems Forum; Sixth AIAA Multidisciplinary
Design Optimization Specialist Conference. Orlando, Florida.
Contact: 703/264-7500
APRIL 20-22
AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2010, Atlanta, Georgia.
Contact: 703/264-7500
APRIL 25-30
SpaceOps 2010 Conference: Delivering on the Dream (hosted by
NASA Marshall and organized by AIAA), Huntsville, Alabama.
Contact: 703/264-7500
MAY 4-6
ASTRO 2010—15th CASI Astronautics Conference, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Contact: G. Languedoc, 613/591-8787; www.casi.ca
MAY 11-12
Inside Aerospace—An International Forum for Aviation and Space Leaders,
Arlington, Virginia.
Contact: 703/264-7500
MAY 13-15
Fifth Argentine Congress on Space Technology, Mar del Plata, Argentina.
Contact: Pablo de Leon, 701/777-2369; Deleon@aate.org
MAY 31-JUNE 2
Seventeenth St. Petersburg International Conference on Integrated
Navigation Systems, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Contact: Prof. V. Peshekhonov, www.elektropribor.spb.ru
 New and Best-Selling Books from AIAA

“An
“A
An excellent way to get a solid
grounding in the complex and
challenging acquisition process.”
—Jacques S. Gansler, Ph.D., University
of Maryland, and former Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics
Management of Defense Acquisition
Projects
Rene G. Rendon and Keith F. Snider
Naval Postgraduate School
2008, 292 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-950-2
List Price $64.95
AIAA Member Price: $49.95
A History of Two CIA Projects. Based
oon interviews, memoirs, and oral histories
of the scientists and engineers involved,
aas well as recently declassified CIA
documents, and photographs, reports, and
d
technical drawings from Lockheed and
te
Convair, this is a technical history of the
C
eevolution of the Lockheed A-12 Blackbird.
FFrom RAINBOW to GUSTO: Stealth and
tthe Design of the Lockheed Blackbird
Paul A. Suhler
2009, 300 pages, Paperback, 1SBN: 978-1-60086-712-5
List Price $39.95
AIAA Member Price $29.95

W
While the focus of this book is on ground “I urge all who are serious about
combat system vulnerability, many of the
co understanding the development of the
pprinciples, methodologies, and tools national security space arena to read it.”
discussed are also applicable to the air
d
—Roger D. Launius
aand sea system communities.
Smithsonian Institution
F
Fundamentals of Ground Combat
SSystem Ballistic Vulnerability/Lethality Shades of Gray: National Security and
P H. Deitz, Harry L. Reed Jr.,
Paul the Evolution of Space Reconnaissance
J. Terrence Klopcic, and L. Parker Temple III
James N. Walbert
Ja 2005, 554 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-723-2
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 230 List Price $29.95
2009, 384 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-60086-015-7 AIAA Member Price: $24.95
List Price $119.95
AIAA Member Price: $89.95

Also From AIAA

Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness The Missile Defense Equation: Factors for Decision Making
Morris Driels, Naval Postgraduate School Peter J. Mantle, Mantle & Associates, LLC
2004, 466 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-665-5 2004, 525 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-609-9
List Price: $99.95 List Price: $99.95
AIAA Member Price: $74.95 AIAA Member Price: $74.95

The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis Effective Risk Management: Some Keys to Success, Second Edition
and Design, Second Edition Edmund H. Conrow, CMC, CPCM, PMP
Robert E. Ball, Naval Postgraduate School 2003, 554 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-581-8
2003, 889 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-582-5 List Price: $84.95
List Price: $104.95 AIAA Member Price: $64.95
AIAA Member Price: $79.95
Approximate Methods for Weapon Aerodynamics
Mathematical Methods in Defense Analyses, Third Edition Frank G. Moore, Naval Surface Warfare Center
J. S. Przemieniecki, Air Force Institute of Technology Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 186
AIAA Education Series 2000, 464 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-399-9
2000, 421 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-397-5 List Price: $119.95
List Price: $104.95 AIAA Member Price: $89.95
AIAA Member Price: $79.95

Order online at www.aiaa.org/books

09-0682

09-0682.indd 1 10/5/09 3:46:21 PM

WATCHlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
Big budget,big changes
IN FEBRUARY, THE NATION’S CAPITAL WAS
humming with debate about NASA’s
human spaceflight program after release
of the Obama administration’s FY11
budget request .
The NASA request would add $6 bil-
lion over five years, far less than the
amount recommended in the Augustine
commission report on the future of hu-
man spaceflight. The administration has
been focusing on deficit reduction, even
though polls show Americans favor gov-
ernment spending as a source of em-
ployment in today’s jobless economy.
The plan would kill the Constellation
program, including the Ares I and Ares
V launch vehicles and, while allotting
R&D funds for future heavy-lift develop-
ment, transport of astronauts to the ISS
after retirement of the shuttle would fall
to commercial ventures. The additional
$6 billion will be used to “spur the devel-
The Ares I-X rocket was a test platform
in the Constellation program that was
canceled in the administration’s
budget request.
8 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
11:28 AM Page 2
ESA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain
opment of American commercial human
spaceflight vehicles.”
In January, the New York Times has
quoted NASA Aministrator Charles
Bolden, speaking in Israel, as saying,
“What NASA will focus on is facilitating
the success of—I like to use the term ‘en-
trepreneurial interests.’”
Robotic precursor missions would be
sent to the Moon, Mars, and various as-
teroids and Lagrange points to scout tar-
gets for future manned activities .
Critics on Capitol Hill are uncomfor-
table with what they call the “outsourc-
ing” of human spaceflight, and the can-
cellation of a program that has already
cost billions of dillars.
Last year a blue-ribbon panel headed
by former aerospace executive Norman
Augustine concluded that NASA would
need an increase of $3 billion to sustain
the human spaceflight program (known
as the “vision”) that it has been pursuing.
“That kind of money was never going to
be there,” says a NASA insider, citing
growing concern over this year’s $1.42-
trillion federal deficit. Space enthusiasts
fear the public is no longer inspired by
journeys beyond the atmosphere. Social
critics question whether a debt-burdened
federal government should finance any
space program at all.
In Washington and in the capitals of
other participating nations, experts are
preparing to meet in Japan later this
year to debate the future of the ISS. U.S.
funding for the space station had been
due to expire at the end of FY15. In a
worst-case scenario, that would require
deorbiting the ISS and destroying the re-
sult of many years of work aimed at es-
tablishing a permanent presence in
space. Obama’s budget request, how-
ever, calls for station funding to continue
through 2020.
ESA boss Jean-Jacques Dordain said
in a January statement that participating
nations will have to decide the future of
the space station together—a rebuff to
the idea that the U.S. can decide unilat-
erally—and that future planning requires
the U.S. human spaceflight policy to be
clearly defined.
“The decision must be made early
enough to put the budget in place, to
build the hardware necessary and to de-
cide on which transportation policy we
shall use between 2015 and 2020,” said
Dordain. “There are a lot of aspects to
be discussed, and if decisions are not
made by the end of this year [or the] be-
ginning of next year, it will become more
and more difficult to have the approach
under which we will exploit the space
station.”
Dordain acknowledged that meas-
ures can be taken to make ISS opera-
tions more economical. He questioned
whether participating nations need four
control centers, and whether six astro-
nauts must staff the station, arguing that
during some periods a smaller crew
might suffice.
The budget commits additional funding to extend
the lifetime of the ISS to at least 2020.
WATCHlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
As if to punctuate the decline in pub-
lic enthusiasm for spaceflight, NASA has
lowered its prices in what amounts to a
yard sale of shuttle vehicles and support
equipment. The agency is offering two
shuttles to approved purchasers—almost
certainly museums—for $28.8 million
each, or about 40% less than it once
sought. NASA already plans to transfer
the shuttle Discovery to the Smithsonian
Institution’s National Air and Space Mu-
seum but is offering Atlantis and Endeav-
our to any buyer who can assure they
will be “displayed in the broadest interest
of the American public.”
Under the proposed deal, NASA will
retain ownership while the shuttles stay
on permanent display. The agency also
wants to dispose of surplus main engines
from the shuttle and other memorabilia
from the soon-to-end program, including
spacesuits and wind tunnel models.
Global positioning problem
The U.S. has become so reliant on satel-
lite technology that it could be vulnerable
to attacks on key nodes of the global po-
sitioning system, Air Force chief of staff
Gen. Norton Schwartz warned at a Jan-
uary 20 conference in Washington. Mili-
tary officers have long called for an alter-
native to GPS to give the U.S. a fallback
method of navigation in time of crisis.
“Global positioning has transformed
[our] war-fighting capability,” Schwartz
said. “Our dependence on precision nav-
igation in time will continue to
grow.” But he said U.S. mili-
tary service branches must
find a way to reduce,
rather than increase,
their reliance on
GPS. Gen.
Schwartz said he Norton
worries that an en- Schwartz
emy might find a
way to attack the
GPS datalink or might
hack into and program
U.S. satellites to send inac-
curate coordinates. He noted
that the military now relies heavily not
just on GPS but on other space-based
capabilities, including satellite imagery
and communications.
11:28 AM Page 3
Army aviation
When President Obama decided to in-
crease U.S. troop strength by 30,000 in
Afghanistan—a process to be completed
by late autumn—U.S. Army aviation
found itself facing unexpected challenges.
“We carry out air assault and medical
evacuation missions,” says Lt. Col. Wil-
liam C. George, an Army spokesman. “A
large part of our duty consists of simply
hauling people and equipment around
the country.” Vertical lift offers a way of
circumventing the improvised explosive
Discovery will head off to the National Air and
devices, or roadside bombs, that insur-
Space Museum after its final mission;, the other
shuttles will be on the auction block.
gents regularly plant on Afghanistan’s few
passable roads.
Altogether, the Army has 19 Com-
bat Aviation Brigades (CABs), including
The general wants the military to field eight in the National Guard. A “heavy”
a more diverse range of weapons. He is CAB consists of four battalions each
especially enamored of advanced target- with 48 AH-64D Apache, 38 UH-60M
ing pods (ATPs) that increase the intelli- Black Hawk, 12 HH-60M Black Hawk
gence, surveillance and reconnaissance and 12 CH-47F Chinook helicopters.
capabilities of existing platforms and can The Army has maintained three to four
also assist with navigation. CABs in Iraq, a country two-thirds the
Almost unnoticed, the Air Force has
installed 448 Northrop Grumman Liten-
ing and Lockheed Martin Sniper ATPs
on A-10, F-15, F-16, B-1 and other war-
planes and has established a requirement
for 1,230 ATPs altogether. A modest
$160 million in the FY10 defense ap-
propriations law will underwrite ongoing
ATP development, including a new com-
petition between Litening and Sniper for
further purchase orders.
Schwartz offered a B-52 Strato-
fortress with a Sniper ATP to
take pictures of the damage
inflicted by the January 12
earthquake in Haiti. The
offer was not taken up,
but ATPs are in increas-
ingly widespread use
and offer an alternative
to space-based technol-
ogy. The general said Air
Force scientists are devel-
oping other technologies to
augment GPS. Some high-
tech alternatives to space-based
systems are thought to be included A U.S. CH-47 Chinook resupplies Charlie Company
among the Pentagon’s “black” pro- at its outpost in the Kandahar province of
grams—those not publicly disclosed in Afghanistan on Dec. 12, 2009. DOD photo by
budgeting documents. Master Sgt. Juan Valdes, USAF.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 9
WATCHlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
size of Afghanistan, but kept only one in
Afghanistan until recently.
Notorious for its lofty mountain ele-
vations and scattered special operations
outposts, Afghanistan has always needed
—and tested—military helicopters. Dur-
ing the period June to September, the
country experiences harsh atmospheric
winds that create high clouds of dust
amidst very hot temperatures. Only the
twin-tandem Chinook has consistently
coped with “high and hot” conditions in
the Hindu Kush.
At the start of this year, the Army
had two CABs in Afghanistan, one each
from the 3rd Infantry and 82nd Airborne
Divisions. At press time, the CAB of the
4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) was
departing Fort Hood, Texas, to join
them. The 159th CAB, associated with
the 101st Airborne Division, completed
a one-year stint last December but was
expected almost immediately to turn
10 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
11:28 AM Page 4
The Army canceled the RQ-8B because of limits
on funding for aviation.
around and deploy again. At least two
other CABs are expected in Afghanistan
by late autumn.
An upsurge in the need for military
helicopters is a boon to industry. As ana-
lyst Richard Aboulafia noted (see “Air-
craft industry rides out the recession…so
far,” January, page 21), the rotary-wing
market grew by 30.1% in 2009. This
year, growth could reach 40%. The
FY10 defense appropriations law de-
voted $3.34 billion to the largest recent
increase in U.S. military helicopters: The
Obama administration got its request for
$1.26 billion for 79 Black Hawks, $882
million for 27 Chinooks, and $326 mil-
lion for 54 remarkably economical UH-
72 Lakota light utility helicopters.
Still, Pentagon staff officers are talk-
ing about an Army “helicopter shortage”
similar to the “fighter gap” being pre-
dicted in the Air Force and Navy. The
service hopes to compensate, in part,
with unmanned aerial systems.
That will not include the RQ-8B Fire
Scout unmanned minihelicopter, which
only six years ago was touted as a key
component of the Future Combat Sys-
WATCHlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
tem net-centric weapons program. In
January, the Army canceled the RQ-8B,
saying it did not improve on existing sys-
tems. The problem was not with the ve-
hicle itself but with limits on overall fund-
ing for Army aviation programs. “This
was a handy thing to have,” says one of-
ficer, “but we have other systems that
perform as well or better.”
Although little noted in the press, the
Army’s largest unmanned flyer is the
General Atomics MQ-1C Sky Warrior,
often described as a Predator on ster-
oids. The MQ-1C has a wingspan of 56
ft (25 ft more than an F-16 and 9 ft
more than a Predator) and can carry
AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles.
This UAS has been quietly under devel-
opment with support from Congress.
The program has proceeded on schedule
and on budget.
The 1st Air Cavalry Bri-gade became
first to deploy with the Sky Warrior in
11:28 AM Page 5
January when it moved
to Taji, Iraq. Although
still in the test phase,
the Sky Warrior will
now support soldiers on
the ground, including
troops in combat with
insurgents. If the de-
ployment and field use After completing a 24-hour mission, an MQ-1C Sky Warrior aircraft makes
of the Sky Warrior a landing on January 11.
prove success-ful, it will
move into full-rate production and its aviation needs and tries to accommo-
emerge as one of the most prominent date the Afghanistan buildup, it may
Army aerospace programs. The Iraq de- catch some flak from a sister service over
ployment will enable the Army to scruti- the nagging question of who should op-
nize the system’s strengths and limita- erate a UAS in flight. The Air Force has
tions, and to develop a concept of just unveiled a separate career field for
operations for wider use of the MQ-1C. UAS pilots, separating them from pilots
Army chief of staff Gen. George W. of manned aircraft—and they are all offi-
Casey Jr. says his service hopes to give cers. The Army allows enlisted soldiers
every CAB a Sky Warrior capability to pilot the MQ-1C and other UASs.
starting in 2012. . Robert F. Dorr
While the Army continues to sort out robert.f.dorr@cox.net
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 11
VIEWlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
Why asteroids beckon:
NASA and near-Earth objects
NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS (NEOS), GENERALLY
speaking, are asteroids and comets that
approach or cross Earth’s orbit. As the
White House and Congress take up the
details of NASA’s future, NEOs are grab-
bing attention on several fronts. From a
minor scientific curiosity two decades
ago, these denizens of the inner solar
system have been recognized as both a
hazard and a major option for NASA’s
human exploration program.
Even before the release of NASA’s
FY11 exploration budget, NEOs had
emerged as realistic destinations for
U.S. astronauts. Six months ago, the
Augustine commission put the explo-
ration of NEOs at the center of its Flexi-
ble Path options for human spaceflight.
The committee’s attraction to piloted
NEO missions was based on their acces-
sibility, scientific value, operational chal-
lenge and potential for tapping space re-
sources. Late last year, asteroid missions
were front and center with NASA man-
agers, at the Office of Science and Tech-
nology Policy and in White House dis-
cussions of the agency’s future direction.
One superficial reason for height-
ened NEO visibility was that “they’re not
the Moon.” More substantively, NEOs
comprise an attractive suite of deep
space destinations that will enhance
NASA’s human exploration effort and
deliver cutting-edge scientific and techni-
cal benefits.
Charles Bolden (l.) and Anatoly Perminov met
last October at Mission Control Center Moscow
in Korolev. (NASA photo; Bill Ingalls.)
12 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
12:07 PM Page 2
Close encounters with NEOs
NEOs were garnering plenty of at-
tention outside NASA as well. In
early January, ROSKOSMOS
head Anatoly Perminov told re-
porters that Russia would begin
planning a robotic mission to deflect
asteroid 99942 Apophis. “I don’t re-
member exactly, but it seems to me it
could hit the Earth by 2032,” Perminov
said. “People’s lives are at stake. We
should pay several hundred million dol-
lars and build a system that would allow
us to prevent a collision, rather than sit
and wait for it to happen and kill hun-
dreds of thousands of people.”
Perminov’s worries, like Apophis it-
self, are a little wide of the mark: The
NASA NEO program’s latest orbital
analysis gives Apophis only a four-in-a-
million chance of striking Earth in 2036.
Still, it was noteworthy that the head of
Russia’s space agency views NEOs as a
distinct hazard to our planet, and offered
Russian leadership to demonstrate an as-
teroid deflection. If NASA moves toward
extensive robotic and eventual human ex-
ploration of NEOs, Perminov plainly
does not intend Russia to be left on the
ground.
In a letter to the Russian administra-
tor, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)
applauded Perminov’s proposal: “It
would be foolish and irresponsible for
America to cede our responsibility on
this critical threat to all of humanity. You
can count on me to try to make this a
joint project with the United
States.” Rohrabacher’s missive
was plainly aimed at NASA, too.
He has long cajoled the agency to
take a more active role in planetary
protection from NEOs.
Apophis is clearly not a threat,
but a botched deflection could put
it on an impact trajectory. Permi-
nov was quickly advised by his sci-
entists that Russia should choose a
NEO with zero chance of striking
Earth for a demonstration.
The boulder-
studded surface of Itokawa, about 500 m long,
loomed toward Japan’s Hayabusa spacecraft in
2005. (JAXA image.)
As the growing catalog of known
NEOs approaches 7,000 (see http://
neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/), we are aware
of more frequent close encounters with
small asteroids. A recent attention-getter
was 2010 AL30, some 10-15 m across,
which streaked by on January 13 just
130,000 km from Earth. A NEO this
size will pass within the Moon’s orbit
about once a week on average.
If smaller than 30 m, asteroids gen-
erally will be too small to penetrate the
atmosphere; nonetheless, 2010 AL30’s
close approach reminds us that some 2
million NEOs roam the inner solar sys-
tem. The random rock that caused the
1908 Tunguska explosion, estimated at
about 5 Mt of TNT-equivalent energy,
was just 30-40 m across; there are more
than 100,000 future Tunguskas out
there, and one of them will strike Earth
every 300-500 years. On a bad day, hit-
ting in the wrong place, such an explo-
sion would destroy a city.
You can get there from here
We are undoubtedly in some undiscov-
ered NEO’s gunsight. By exploring these
objects, we gain an opportunity not only
to reduce the future impact hazard, but to
turn these potential blockbusters to our
advantage, through benefits in science,
VIEWlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
operations, space resources and plane-
tary protection.
These benefits all stem from one
practical characteristic of a small but spe-
cial group of NEOs: their accessibility. A
small fraction of NEOs circle the Sun in
Earth-like orbits. Of this “attractive”
group, with orbital inclinations, eccen-
tricities and semimajor axes close to
Earth’s, nearly 60 known NEOs would
have been within the reach of the Orion
crew exploration vehicle. More than half
of those could be reached for a round-
trip delta-V less than that of a lunar
round trip (about 9 km/sec). Any system
sized to reach lunar orbit or the Earth-
Sun gravitational Lagrange points can
also reach a set of the best-situated
NEOs. NASA has already identified a
few Orion can reach in a single heavy-lift
launch. With cancellation of the Constel-
lation program, however, they remain
beyond our grasp.
The list of these accessible objects will
only grow as new search capabilities be-
come operational (such as PanSTARRS
and LSST; see http://pan-starrs.ifa.
hawaii.edu/public/; http://www.lsst.org/
lsst). Thousands of new asteroids will be
found in the coming decade.
The key long-lead-time capability for
Asteroid 2010 AL30, discovered by MIT’s Lincoln Laboratories
LINEAR survey on Jan. 10, 2010, came within 125,000 km of
Earth on Jan. 13. JPL says the NEO was about 10-15 m across.
(JPL image.)
12:07 PM Page 3
expanding this NEO target set is early
and sustained funding for the next-gener-
ation search systems. NASA should step
forward to provide this, given its mission
requirements, but DOD, NSF and inter-
national support should also help. The
more NEOs we discover, the larger the
number of opportunities for reaching
them with robotic and human explorers.
NASA’s Constellation program, in
studying NEO missions in 2007, found
that with minor modifications the Orion
spacecraft can support crews on deep
space missions lasting up to six months.
NEOs a few hundred meters across have
almost no surface gravity, so Orion mis-
sions would not require development of
a separate, expensive lander. For a crew
of just two or three, astronaut comfort
and safety could be improved by adding
a small (perhaps inflatable) habitation
module, including an airlock. NASA has
also considered adding more propellant
capacity to Orion’s service module,
which would expand the target set of ac-
cessible NEOs.
Are NEOs worth visiting?
Previous robotic touchdowns by the
NEAR-Shoemaker and Hayabusa space-
craft demonstrate that NEOs represent a
strange and varied zoo of
solar system relics whose
materials have been unal-
tered for more than 4.5
billion years. Some will be
loosely bound piles of frag-
mented rubble; some, solid
chunks of iron and nickel.
Some will be of uniform
composition; others, like
Itokawa with its sprinkling
of very dark boulders, dis-
play dramatic signs of sur-
face heterogeneity. Each
NEO, with its own story of
formation, collision and or-
bital evolution, represents
a surprise package of un-
tapped knowledge.
After rendezvous, as-
tronaut field geologists will
survey the object while sta-
tionkeeping. Initial remote
sensing will pinpoint a few
Astronauts using EVA jetpacks could visit NEOs
and collect samples of regolith.
prime “docking” sites on the low-gravity
surface. Using EVA jetpacks, or piloting
Orion to a physical touchdown, astro-
nauts will collect tens of kilograms of the
NEO regolith. They’ll not only sample
the surface but also probe crater floors
and snoop under the bulk of nearly
weightless boulders.
As in Apollo, crews will emplace in-
struments such as tracking transponders,
active seismometers and heat transfer
probes. An Orion-mounted radar might
probe the asteroid’s internal structure
(Itokawa’s interior turned out to be 40%
empty space). Measuring such physical
properties will be essential to devising
engineering methods for deflecting fu-
ture Earth impactors.
NEO explorers will also experiment
with resource extraction technologies,
demonstrating practical recovery of as-
teroidal water, volatiles and rare metals.
These technologies are the key to mov-
ing space exploration from total logisti-
cal dependence on Earth to harnessing
off-planet raw materials for propellant
and industrial feedstock.
We are just beginning to learn about
NEOs up close, and are bound to be sur-
prised by the results of robotic and hu-
man expeditions. By exploring NEOs,
we will immediately add an independent,
third “planetary” surface to our ongoing
lunar research and expanding investiga-
tion of Mars.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 13
VIEWlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
Learning the ropes
for deep space exploration
Deep space operations experience
is one of the most valuable benefits of
venturing well beyond the Moon. Multi-
month NEO expeditions will stress all
areas of mission operations. Designers
will have to produce reliable, fault-tol-
erant systems for life support, computing
and communications. Millions of kilo-
meters from Earth, the communications
lag will force a high degree of
on-board autonomy and decision-
making. Mission planning and
vehicle control specialists must
conduct intense exploration cam-
paigns while maintaining situa-
tional awareness and safety.
By taking on these challenges
at NEOs, we will be better able to
explore the Moon, build a thriving
space economy and confidently
send astronauts to Mars.
Outward momentum
Since the close of Apollo, our progress
in human exploration has been incre-
mental. The shuttle and space station
have been effective classrooms in space,
teaching us how to live and work there
with confidence. To what purpose do we
apply our hard-won education?
The 2004 Vision for Space Explo-
ration, stripped of funding, has yet to
propel us outward. Sending astronauts
to NEOs will be an unmistakable com-
mitment to long-term, ambitious explo-
ration. Reaching and returning from
these ancient landscapes will demand
the best talents of NASA’s exploration,
operations and scientific organizations.
Our choices are excellence or failure;
“muddling through” will not be a suc-
cessful strategy. NASA will have to scour
the government and nation for the
young engineers and scientists driven to
break new ground in human and ma-
chine performance.
Political momentum will be as impor-
tant as technical progress if out-of-LEO
exploration is to succeed. NASA will
have to deliver highly visible technical
and programmatic results on a scale
suited to our short political attention
spans. A NEO exploration program will
start with robotic precursors surveying
the varied compositions and structure of
14 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
12:07 PM Page 4
several potential NEO destinations.
While the new Orion spacecraft and
heavy-lift launcher are tested, first in
LEO and then in lunar orbit, engineers
will prove life support and crew health
systems on the ISS. These incremental
Formed almost 212 million years ago by a NEO
impact, the 100-km-wide Manicouagan Reservoir
is located in a heavily timbered area of the
Canadian Shield in Quebec. Astronauts aboard
STS-9 took this photo in 1983.
efforts will give policymakers a cumula-
tive record of milestones, building mo-
mentum toward a commitment to true
deep space expeditions.
The timing of our beyond-LEO ef-
forts will clearly be budget driven. If the
Augustine commission recommendation
for a space budget worthy of a great na-
tion is realized, we could be ready for
NEO missions even before 2020. Be-
tween now and then, NASA will have to
accumulate the public, congressional and
executive support needed to make its
first trans-NEO injection burn.
One element of creating that support
is international cooperation. Although it
might add political and technical com-
plexity, some of our ISS partners could
provide a NEO campaign with propul-
sion modules, habitation systems, EVA
mobility systems and scientific hardware.
Buttressed by these international com-
mitments, a NEO exploration program
would be less vulnerable to political tur-
bulence during the decade or more re-
quired for execution.
NEOs: An offer we can’t refuse
The public understands today that pro-
tecting Earth from a future NEO catas-
trophe is a worthy mission for NASA.
Proving technologies and gathering in-
formation to head off an Earth impact,
via robotic and human NEO exploration,
gives the agency’s efforts in deep space a
commonsense foundation. When those
efforts take the form of astronauts
drifting across the rocky surface of a
NEO under a gleaming, BB-sized
Earth 5 million miles distant, our
imaginations will be fully engaged.
With the White House’s direc-
tion to NASA just released, we
cannot yet gauge the prominence
NEOs have taken in the agency’s
revised exploration charter. But I
believe we should seize the opportu-
nity to include these science- and re-
source-rich objects in our plans. NEOs
will reinforce the scientific, economic
and technical strengths of the U.S. hu-
man exploration program. We would
reap the benefits of synergistic scientific
return from a “new” planetary surface,
substantially different in origin, age and
composition from those of the Moon or
Mars. Explorers would also assay NEO
resources potentially vital to future U.S.
economic activity in space.
In coming decades, the global com-
munity will certainly face a decision to
deflect a hazardous NEO. Impact pre-
vention is a fundamental, “know your
enemy” mission, and a commonsense
rationale for NEO exploration. Grappling
with these objects at a distance, before
we are faced with such a threat, will pro-
vide us the operations experience and
civil engineering data needed for a suc-
cessful future deflection.
Finally, in the event that policymak-
ers defer a U.S. return to the Moon,
NEOs provide NASA with a challenging
exploration alternative. Less expensive
to reach than the lunar surface, NEOs
will nevertheless stretch our capabilities
and set the U.S. on an ambitious and re-
warding course of unapologetic human
exploration. Tom Jones
Skywalking1@gmail.com
www.AstronautTomJones.com
 “My uncle is a bush pilot in Alaska.
When I was in 7th grade, he was
flying a float plane and let me
take off. I have loved flying and
engineering ever since.”
2nd Lt., Sheppard AFB;
Aeronautical Engineering,
U.S. Air Force Academy

Share the Inspiration

In fascinating new videos, AIAA members rec
recall
the moment when aerospace
rospace captur
captured
their imagination. Share your story too, a
and
spread the passion
on for aerospa
aerospace.

www.aiaa.org/MyStory
www.aiaa.org/MyStory

09-0124finalv4.indd 1 1/22/09 2:54:54 PM

AIRCRAFTlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
World tanker market: More than
just KC-X
OVER THE PAST DECADE, DISCUSSION OF
the world air refueling tanker market has
centered on the USAF KC-X program,
the largest tanker requirement by far. Yet
despite the program’s importance, inter-
national requirements for these aircraft
have grown, reflecting a new, if some-
what uneven, appreciation of what they
bring to the table.
Meanwhile, the shifting dynamics of
the KC-X competition look set to impact
this world market. The USAF draft re-
quest for proposals has produced consid-
erable speculation that Boeing’s KC-767
now has the upper hand. This could re-
store Boeing’s position in this market,
following several high-profile losses to
Airbus’s KC-30.
A broader requirement
Until 2001, the pool of customers will-
ing to spend cash on Western new-build
jet tankers was limited to one customer.
While many countries maintained some
kind of air-to-air refueling capability,
Saudi Arabia was the only one that had
actually purchased them new (in the
form of eight 707s built as KE-3s). Even
the RAF, the biggest tanker user outside
the U.S., used Lockheed L-1011s origi-
nally operated by Pan Am and British
Airways, and Vickers VC-10s formerly
operated by British Airways, BOAC and
East African Airways. All the other users
either also operated converted used jet-
liners or KC-135s previously owned by
the USAF. France, for example, uses the
KC-135R (the reengined type predomi-
nant in the USAF); Turkey and Singa-
pore have received them as well. Other
countries used turboprop tankers, most
notably Lockheed Martin’s KC-130.
In 2001, the Italian air force signed
on for the first new-generation, new-
build tanker, Boeing’s KC-767. This pur-
chase of four aircraft was followed by a
Japanese purchase of four planes later
that year. Thus the pool of new-build jet
tanker customers tripled in one year.
However, this promising start found-
16 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
11:46 AM Page 2
ered. There were numerous technical
problems and program delays; delivery
did not begin until 2008, when Japan
received the first aircraft, followed by
Italy in 2009. No further orders have
been received. Boeing continues to re-
fine the KC-767 offering, but the com-
pany is focusing on the home market
customer.
Even worse for the KC-767, Airbus/
EADS began developing a Multi-Role
Tanker Transport variant of its A330.
Airbus had produced MRTT variants of
its smaller A310 twin-aisle jet, but these
were conversions of civil jetliners that
The KC-X decision may be driven as much by political considerations as by technical and economic ones.
had gone only to Canada and Germany.
The KC-30 was a more ambitious effort:
a larger, more capable jet with a robust
cargo and tanker capability, offered as a
new-build product. In particular, the com-
pany moved beyond hose-and-drogue air
refueling technology, developing its own
boom under the Advanced Refueling
Boom System.
This more aggressive approach to
the market has been rewarded, with four
more countries joining the new-build jet
tanker market. In 2005 the RAF chose it
to replace its aging converted jetliners
under a private finance initiative pro-
gram. Australia has also ordered five KC-
30s, followed by the UAE (three planes)
in February 2007 and Saudi Arabia in
early 2008 (three planes, followed by
three more ordered in 2009).
Thus the scorecard for new-genera-
tion tankers is currently 28 orders for
Airbus versus eight for Boeing. This com-
petition will continue for some time.
Both have new twin-aisle midsized jets,
the A350XWB and the 787, and neither
has any plans to develop a tanker ver-
sion. Given the advanced airframe tech-
nology used by both these new aircraft,
developing tanker versions would be par-
ticularly difficult, even if there were a
KC-767
deep-pocketed launch customer to spon-
sor them.
The only other new-build product in
this class is Russia’s Ilyushin Il-78. About
34 of these are in service throughout the
world, with about half in Russia and the
rest in India, in China and with other ex-
port customers. It is much heavier, less
reliable, less capable and more expen-
sive to operate than the two Western
products, but it is cheap to buy. As such,
it represents a competitive threat in mar-
kets such as India that are focused on
low up-front prices.
The only other product on the draw-
ing board is Embraer’s KC-390, a tacti-
AIRCRAFTlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
cal transport considerably smaller than
the KC-130. The current plan is to cre-
ate a refueling derivative, but there is no
certainty that this will proceed, and the
baseline KC-390 transport will by itself
be a major challenge.
The one certainty is that there is no
hope of a dedicated new aerial refueling
airframe. While the Air Force’s creation
of the KC-135 helped usher in decades
of U.S. jetliner industry dominance,
there is absolutely no way to identify new
technologies—structures, propulsion and
so on—that would guarantee an easy
transition from a new military tanker to
a new design concept for a series of com-
mercial jetliners. Just as important, the
USAF has made it quite clear that it can-
not provide the development dollars to
fund an all-new strategic aircraft opti-
mized for just this role.
Estimating the market
There is growing recognition of the im-
portance of aerial refueling tankers, al-
though some countries are quicker than
others to realize how crucial they are. Is-
rael, unsurprisingly, has always been at
the forefront of developing this capabil-
ity, and it has had an in-country tanker
modification capability for years. Israel
Aircraft Industries has modified eight
KC-707s to serve in this role. Of course,
these are old aircraft, and even with up-
grades they cannot provide the fuel and
range of new-generation equipment.
JET TANKER MARKETS
Current generation, through 2020
USAF KC-X
(179) 69.6%
KC-767 orders
(8) 3.1%
KC-30 orders
(28) 10.9%
Likely KC-30
(12) 4.7%
Uncommitted
(30) 11.7%
11:46 AM Page 3
However, in 2008 the Bush administra-
tion, usually friendly toward Israeli arms
requests, denied their request for a KC-
767 purchase, reportedly because it be-
lieved the new tanker would give Israel a
considerably greater offensive strike ca-
pability, thereby increasing the likelihood
of a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
At the other end of the spectrum is
India. In January 2010 the Indian gov-
ernment decided to cancel the Indian air
force’s proposed acquisition of six KC-
30s on the grounds that they would be
too expensive. The country instead is
funding the acquisition of well over 300
new combat aircraft in the next decade,
including the largest single purchase of
export fighters in world history. India’s
current fleet of 12 Il-78s will continue to
soldier on as the country’s only jet tanker
force, perhaps with a follow-on buy.
Clearly, for some countries, buying
additional “shooter” planes will always be
more attractive than buying “enabler”
planes, no matter how useful those en-
ablers would be as force extenders. With
all the uncertainty over how much prior-
ity nations will actually give to funding
tankers, it is difficult to estimate a market
size. After all, if a major air power like In-
dia balks at purchasing a modest fleet of
10 modern planes to supplement 12 old
Russian models, are there any certain
prospects? And while many countries
claim to be in the market (Turkey, Fin-
land and Poland, for example, have all
recently expressed interest in an acquisi-
tion), some of them may be happy with
used and converted jets.
Still, surveying the world of current
and potential tanker customers, we can
KC-45
arrive at a rough approximation of de-
mand over the next decade. At a mini-
mum, the KC-30 should be able to get
another 12 orders just from home mar-
ket countries (particularly France) and
follow-on buys from one or more of the
four current users. Also, given the ages
of tanker fleets worldwide, there should
be an additional market for a minimum
of 30 new-build tankers over the next
decade.
Right now, the KC-30 appears ex-
tremely well placed to dominate that 30-
aircraft market, which could easily grow
to as many as 50 planes. It should also
be noted that tanker contracts tend to in-
volve a higher degree of aftermarket and
service work than other military aircraft
contracts, and they are certainly much
more lucrative than commercial jetliner
contracts. This makes the KC-30 project
even more worthwhile as an Airbus/
EADS strategic goal. But the USAF KC-
X program might change this.
Oh,THAT tanker competition...
The U.S. is the one country that has un-
derstood the importance of tankers, and
its fleet of 500 KC-135s and KC-10s rep-
resents a powerful symbol of global
reach. Unfortunately, for the past two
decades that understanding has not trans-
lated into an actual funding commit-
ment, leaving a force that averages over
40 years old. Even if the KC-X program
succeeds in starting acquisition of 179
aircraft at a leisurely pace of about 14
planes a year, the oldest KC-135s will be
close to 80 years old by the time a future
KC acquisition program replaces them.
(Continued on page 23)
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 17
NOTEBOOKlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
Reconnecting with a magnetic mystery
MAGNETIC RECONNECTION MAKES THINGS
explode. It operates anywhere magnetic
fields pervade space—which is to say al-
most everywhere. On the Sun, magnetic
reconnection causes solar flares as pow-
erful as a billion atomic bombs. In Earth’s
atmosphere, it fuels magnetic storms and
auroras. In laboratories, it can cause big
problems in fusion reactors.
However, scientists cannot explain it.
The basics are clear enough. Mag-
netic lines of force cross, cancel and re-
connect, and an explosion results. Mag-
netic energy is unleashed in the form of
heat and charged-particle kinetic energy.
Researchers are trying to understand
why the simple act of crisscrossing mag-
netic field lines triggers such a ferocious
explosion. “Something very interesting
and fundamental is going on that we do
The Sun unleashed a powerful flare on November 4, 2003, that could be the most powerful ever
witnessed and probably as strong as anything detected since satellites were able to record these
events in the mid-1970s. It was captured by instruments aboard the SOHO satellite.
18 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
11:21 AM Page 2
not really understand—not from lab ex-
periments or from simulations,” says
Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace
Physics Laboratory at NASA Goddard.
NASA is going to launch a mission to
try to get to the bottom of the mystery,
through the Magnetospheric MultiScale
or MMS mission. MMS consists of four
identical satellites that will fly in a tetrahe-
dron formation through Earth’s magne-
tosphere to discover how magnetic re-
connection works.
When magnetic fields become tan-
gled, as they often do in the magneto-
sphere, they can merge, which creates
an explosive release of energy whereby
magnetic energy is converted directly
into heat and charged-particle kinetic
energy. Magnetic reconnection sparks
solar flares and powers auroras; it even
pops up in nuclear fusion chambers
(tokamaks) on Earth. It is the ultimate
driver of space weather, impacting hu-
man technologies such as communica-
tions, navigation and power grids.
MMS will seek to solve the mystery
of the small-scale physics of reconnec-
tion. It will also investigate how the en-
ergy conversion that occurs during the
process accelerates particles to high en-
ergies, and what role plasma turbulence
plays in reconnection events.
A natural laboratory
These processes—magnetic reconnec-
tion, particle acceleration and turbu-
lence—occur in all astrophysical plasma
systems but can be studied in situ only in
our solar system, and most efficiently
only in Earth’s magnetosphere, where
they control the dynamics of the geo-
space environment and play an impor-
tant role in phenomena known as space
weather.
The MMS science investigation is
called SMART—solving magnetospheric
acceleration, reconnection and turbu-
lence. Principal investigator James L.
Burch of Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI) in San Antonio will head the
SMART team, comprising a group of re-
searchers from several U.S. and foreign
institutions.
The mission passed its preliminary
design review in May 2009 and was ap-
proved for implementation the following
month. Engineers can now start building
the spacecraft.
“Earth’s magnetosphere is a wonder-
ful natural laboratory for studying recon-
nection,” Burch points out. “It is big and
roomy, and reconnection is taking place
there almost nonstop.”
In its outer layer, where Earth’s mag-
netic field meets the solar wind, recon-
nection events create temporary mag-
netic “portals” connecting the Earth to
the Sun. Inside the magnetosphere, in a
long drawn-out structure called the mag-
netotail, reconnection propels high-en-
NOTEBOOKlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10 11:21 AM Page 3

ergy plasma clouds toward Earth, trig-

gering the Northern Lights when they
hit. There are many other examples, and
MMS will explore them all.

The spacecraft and instruments

NASA Goddard will build all four space-
craft and integrate four sets of instru-
ments into the four MMS observatories.
“Each observatory is shaped like a giant
hockey puck, about 12 ft in diameter
and 4 ft in height,” says Karen Halter-
man, MMS project manager at Goddard.
Goddard scientists will conduct envi-
ronmental testing and support launch ve-
hicle integration and operations. God-
dard is also developing the Mission
Operations Center that will monitor and
control the satellites and provide all the
flight dynamics support for the extensive
maneuvering and orbit raising required
for the mission. Scientists and engineers
at Goddard are also building the Fast
Plasma Investigation, which is part of the
instrument suite.
Engineers at SwRI will provide the
MMS instruments as a suite. Under con-
tract to Goddard, SwRI is responsible
for the mission science, development of
the instruments for the four observato-
ries, science operations, data analysis,
theory and modeling, education and
public outreach.
The mission’s sensors will monitor
electromagnetic fields and charged parti-
cles. The sensors are being built at a
number of universities and labs around
the country, led by scientists at SwRI.
When the instruments are completed,
they will be integrated into the spacecraft
frames at Goddard. Launch is scheduled
for 2014 onboard an Atlas V rocket.
Improving on tokamaks
Any new physics that MMS learns could
ultimately help alleviate the energy crisis
on Earth.
“For many years, researchers have
looked to fusion as a clean and abundant
source of energy for our planet,” notes
Burch. “One approach, magnetic con-
finement fusion, has yielded very prom-
ising results with devices such as toka-
maks. But there have been problems
keeping the plasma [hot ionized gas]
Inside a tokamak, magnetic reconnection can cause a sawtooth crash.
contained in the chamber.
“One of the main problems is mag-
netic reconnection,” he adds. “A spec-
tacular and even dangerous result of re-
connection is known as the sawtooth
crash: As the heat in the tokamak builds
up, the electron temperature reaches a
peak and then ‘crashes’ to a lower value,
and some of the hot plasma escapes.
This is caused by reconnection of the
containment field.”
In light of this, one might suppose
that tokamaks would be a good place to
study reconnection. But no, says Burch—
reconnection in a tokamak happens in
such a tiny volume, only a few millime-
ters wide, that it is very difficult to study.
It is practically impossible to build sen-
sors small enough to probe the recon-
nection zone.
Earth’s magnetosphere is much bet-
ter. In the expansive magnetic bubble
that surrounds our planet, the process
plays out over volumes as large as tens
of kilometers across. “We can fly space-
craft in and around it and get a good
look at what’s going on,” he says.
The MMS spacecraft will fly directly
into the reconnection zone. They are
sturdy enough to withstand the energy
released by the reconnection events
known to occur in Earth’s magneto-
sphere. There is nothing standing in the
way of a full two-year discovery mission.
Program structure
Science team members and instrument
development for the MMS mission are
provided by the Universities of Califor-
nia-Los Angeles, Colorado, Iowa, and
New Hampshire; Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Applied Physics Laboratory; Rice
University; NASA Goddard; Lockheed
Martin Advanced Technology Center;
and the Aerospace Corporation. Inter-
national contributions to the MMS in-
strument suite are provided by the Aus-
trian Academy of Sciences, Sweden’s
Royal Institute of Technology and Insti-
tute of Space Physics; France’s Plasma
Physics Laboratory and Toulouse Space
Center; and Japan’s Institute of Space
and Astronautical Science.
MMS is a NASA Science Mission Di-
rectorate Heliophysics mission in the So-
lar Terrestrial Probes Program. Goddard
manages the effort, and Kennedy Space
Center is providing launch services.
Edward D. Flinn
edflinn@pipeline.com

AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 19

NOTEBOOKlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
DARPA’s Vulcan engine goes Navy
DARPA HAS A LONG HISTORY OF INNOVA-
tion and technology breakthroughs in-
volving speed. Many of the platforms
and engines it has designed have pushed
the limits on how quickly and efficiently
an aircraft or missile can fly through the
atmosphere or into space.
The agency has focused considerable
attention on hypersonic research, which
involves speeds above Mach 5. But in
2009, DARPA also began looking at
prospects for creating an engine capable
of accelerating a full-scale hypersonic
vehicle from rest to Mach 4+. A key goal
of the new program—called Vulcan—was
to accomplish this without developing a
new Mach 4+ turbine engine, instead us-
ing an existing full-scale production
Mach 2+ turbine with only minimal
modifications.
When the first of its four planned
phases ended, however, the program
was significantly modified. While still
working toward a high-Mach aerospace
engine, Vulcan will now also focus on us-
By mandating the use of existing production engines and
reducing the top speed requirement, Vulcan development
should be both less costly and faster.
ing the same hybrid concept for a ship-
based system to provide increased en-
ergy and efficiency for naval power
generation applications.
As a result, the final two phases were
merged, with a goal of transitioning an
aerospace engine to the Air Force at the
end of Phase II and a shipborne system
to the Navy at the end of Phase III.
Vulcan Phase I looked at a com-
bined-cycle propulsion system architec-
ture, integrating separate constant vol-
ume combustion (CVC) engines and
full-scale turbine engines for high-Mach
military aircraft. Possible CVC architec-
tures included pulsed-detonation en-
gines, continuous-detonation engines
and other unsteady CVC engine archi-
tectures, according to DARPA Vulcan
20 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
11:22 AM Page 4
program manager Thomas Bussing.
The idea was to extract more useful
work from the engine by replicating the
Humphrey cycle, characterized by CVC.
Traditional jet and auto engines operate
on a less efficient constant pressure cy-
cle called the Brayton cycle. While only
minor improvements are possible for
Brayton cycle engines, “a Humphrey or
pulse detonation CVC cycle offers a
novel way to achieve game-changing
performance improvements,” Bussing
says. This is why Vulcan is seen as offer-
ing significant improvements for a vari-
ety of power applications.
“Phase I was high Mach, successful;
Phase II is still CVC technology, but now
the application is a marine power tur-
bine that also can be applicable to avia-
tion and high-Mach engines. So we are
starting off from a different corner of the
box, but with a very compelling business
case,” Bussing tells Aerospace America.
“We combined Phases III and IV into one
because we were integrating the tech-
nologies earlier. The only difference is
these are smaller, 3-5-MW turbines
rather than the 25-MW machines we
originally planned; the smaller turbine
has greater applicability to the fleet.
“The initial application for hybrid en-
gines is the same for both the Air Force
and Navy, but the aviation engine is
much more complicated. We picked the
naval engine because they are much
more common in the industrial world as
well as the Navy. With a huge commer-
cial tail, that gave us a better opportunity
to get industry co-investment, getting it
into the Navy’s hands much sooner and
more cheaply than had there been no
commercial tail.”
The overall program length remains
roughly the same, with the final two
phases to run about two years each,
compared to an anticipated 18 months
for each of the original phases.
Shooting for subhypersonic
For the aerospace engine, the Vulcan
program focuses on the subhypersonic
speed realm, both to avoid the inclusion
of a scramjet and because of the numer-
ous potential applications to strike and
reconnaissance vehicles operating at
speeds between Mach 2 and Mach 4.9.
“It also could serve as the accelerator
for a hypersonic system, but we didn’t
want the contractors to design systems
with scramjets, which would be more
complicated,” Bussing points out. “How-
ever, if we solve the first, we set the
stage for the second. By itself, Vulcan is
an intermediate step that would open
the way for a whole new class of vehicles
not available today, both manned and
unmanned.”
Vulcan builds on a variety of previous
efforts, including multicombustor pulsed-
detonation engine demonstrators and
other work showing it is possible to burn
liquid hydrocarbon and air directly at low
total pressures. By mandating the use of
existing production engines and reducing
the top speed requirement, Vulcan de-
velopment should be both less costly and
faster.
“The CVC would operate below the
upper Mach level of the turbine, which
would be off-the-shelf, such as the [Pratt
& Whitney] F100-229 and F119 or
[General Electric] F110-129 and F414,
which are currently used in F-18s and F-
22s. The idea then is to use the CVC cy-
cle to get from where the turbine leaves
off to Mach 4+ and cocoon the turbine
when not in use, so it is not exposed to
the high-temperature airflow,” Bussing
says. “There are different architectures
for doing that, but I can’t give specific
details, because the program is classified.
But there has to be a mechanism to
close off the airflow and to keep temper-
atures inside the cocoon low.
“The idea is to build a Mach 4 en-
gine for less than it would cost to build a
NOTEBOOKlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
Mach 6 turbine, as well as to demon-
strate the CVC technology. We believe
that this technology will outperform any
high-Mach turbine you could potentially
envision.”
Naval applications
This approach also significantly expands
potential applications, which led to a re-
structuring of the program to address
smaller power systems for ships, as well
as a variety of commercial applications.
The main nonnuclear propulsion sys-
tem in the Navy fleet today is the
LM2500. Used on 129 ships, those en-
gines burn an estimated $2 billion in fuel
each year. According to DARPA, retro-
fitting only half the 434 LM2500 en-
gines in the fleet with CVC technology
could save the Navy $300 million-$400
million a year.
As added advantages, a Vulcan-style
hybrid engine would have significantly
increased endurance and a reduced in-
frared signature, an important defensive
feature.
Potential pluses
“You could replace combustors in con-
ventional gas turbines and see a 20%-
plus fuel burn efficiency in ground appli-
cations. Subsonic jet engines could apply
it with a 10% fuel burn gain. It also could
be used in powerplants and many other
applications,” Bussing says. “Many of
the combustion processes we use today
potentially could benefit from an un-
steady combustion process, which is a
paradigm shift from how you burn fuel
and air.
“We have been focusing on improve-
ments in performance, but there are
other things the process enables. You
could take advantage of the detonation
wave and use it to remove ash from coal
furnace heat exchangers or produce ce-
ramic materials and drive them into sub-
strates. There are applications in non-
lethal effects devices, mine-clearing and
other new and unique possibilities using
this cycle.”
If applied to existing military and
commercial aircraft, the cost savings in
fuel alone would be significant, accord-
ing to DARPA program office estimates.
A 10% fuel efficiency improvement us-
ing a CVC hybrid engine replacement
on the Air Force’s fleet of 543 KC-135
11:22 AM Page 5
tankers could save as much as $270 mil-
lion a year. And a CVC-powered missile
could be built using low-cost automotive
manufacturing tolerances, yet have a
50% performance increase over a ram-
jet missile.
In the commercial world, replacing
current powerplants with a pulsed-deto-
nation engine could mean $500,000 a
year in operations savings on Boeing
757 jetliners and $1.4 million for the
larger Boeing 777. With some 87,000
gas turbine engines currently powering
“Many of the combustion processes we use today potentially
could benefit from an unsteady combustion process, which is a
paradigm shift from how you burn fuel and air.” — Thomas Bussing
commercial aircraft—including 35,000
large gas turbines—the impact of conver-
sion on U.S. airlines alone is estimated
at $2.8 billion.
Spaceflight possibilities
The Vulcan engine concept also has pos-
sible applications to spaceflight, both
manned and unmanned.
“It has been looked at as a first-stage
accelerator, coupled with a ramjet that
would get you to Mach 6+, then a sec-
ond stage to orbit. In fact, this technology
also applies directly to rocket propulsion,
which involves different cycles from low
thrust to high,” Bussing says.
“From Earth to Moon, low thrust is
required, but for anything getting into or-
bit, pulsed-detonation rockets would be
good replacements for current chemical
propulsion. It also could be used for
spacecraft attitude control—if you can
precisely pulse the microthrusters, it is a
better mode for controlling attitude and
uses less fuel, in addition to just operat-
ing more efficiently.”
DARPA and the U.S. are not alone
in pursuing this level of high-speed flight
capability. Bussing cites known projects
under way in France, Russia, Japan,
China, Sweden, Germany, Poland and
Singapore, for example.
Hard—and DARPA-hard
The decision to build a high-Mach avia-
tion application, Bussing notes, is in line
with DARPA’s traditional role of looking
at new enabling technologies for the mil-
itary and ensuring the U.S. is not caught
by surprise, as it was by the Soviet
Union’s launch of the first satellite, Sput-
nik, in the 1950s, which led directly to
the creation of DARPA.
“DARPA’s role is to demonstrate the
impossible; the services’ responsibility is
to then take Tier Level 6 technology,
mature it and implement it into the
fleet,” says Bussing.
Technology Readiness Level 6 is
near the end of a nine-level scale from
TRL 1—basic principles observed and re-
ported—to TRL 9—actual system “flight
proven” through successful mission op-
erations. At TRL 6, a model or proto-
type is successfully demonstrated in a rel-
evant operating environment.
“At the end of Phase II, the proof of
technology will be demonstrated to TRL
6 and transitioned to the Air Force for
potential application to their improved
efficiency turbine development pro-
gram,” Bussing continues. “At the end of
Phase III, it transitions to the Navy. The
Navy wants to increase both offensive
and defensive systems that require more
power, so they may want bigger engines;
but either way, they will be CVC-based.
“The goal of Phase III is basically a
TRL 6 demonstration of a fully inte-
grated hybrid engine that is 20% more
efficient than existing power turbines,
operating for 500 hr in the same vol-
ume and dimensional footprint as exist-
ing engines. So you have a retrofit to ex-
isting 3-MW turbines or new 4-MW
turbines that are backwards compatible
to existing ship engines. The Navy will
need to do a business case by the end of
Phase II on whether to do a retrofit or
an all-new engine.”
For the aerospace side, a primary
end-goal for Vulcan would be full-scale
hypersonic cruise vehicles for strike, in-
telligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,
or other critical national missions.
“A Mach 4 aircraft would be a lot
lower technology effort than a Mach 6.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 21
NOTEBOOKlayout310.qxd:AA Template
AIAA
FORMS
NEW EARTH
OBSERVATION
TASK FORCE
AIAA has created a new
task force to assist in the
formulation of a national
road map for the U.S. to
address investments in the
Earth-observing industry
to adequately inform future
climate change debates
and decisions. Composed
of leading experts on policy
and climate-monitoring
technology from within
AIAA and in collaboration
with other organizations,
the task force is developing
a strategy to come up with
recommendations to help
reach this goal.
For more information,
contact Craig Day
at 703.264.3849
or craigd@aiaa.org.
22 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
2/18/10 2:48 PM Page 6
It is about half the thermal load, so tem-
peratures in the vehicle are much lower
and wouldn’t require the exotic materials
a Mach 6 would need. That makes the
aircraft relatively straightforward,” says
Bussing.
“The only thing operating at Mach 4
today is a ramjet, and I would expect to
see a 20% fuel burn improvement with
Vulcan. Ramjets operate at M 2.5+ and
don’t perform as well as CVC or pulsed-
detonation engines. CVC also can oper-
ate at much lower speeds, including sub-
sonic. One critical factor is getting
through the transonic pinch point; this
technology would enable that.”
All this is not to say there are no sig-
nificant “DARPA-hard” hurdles to over-
come. Those include designing an effi-
cient air valve for the respective engine,
fuel injection and detonation initiation
systems, efficient nozzles to handle ex-
pansion of the gases—which have to be
brought together at the back end in a
unique way—and materials. Despite
temperatures lower than those gener-
ated by a Mach 6 vehicle, it is still im-
portant to minimize the thermal load
generated to simplify the thermal man-
agement system.
“Ideally, I would like to design it with
minimal or no cooling,” Bussing notes.
Phased approach
Phase I, which ran from April through
September 2009, involved a system
concept definition by four contractors—
Alliant TechSystems, General Electric,
Rolls-Royce and United Technologies. It
ended with a conceptual design review
(CDR) by each contractor that, according
to DARPA, generated several interesting
turbine/CVC architectures that appear
viable for building a full-scale high-Mach
engine incorporating an off-the-shelf tur-
bine and a CVC.
Following the CDRs, DARPA began
work on a new broad area announce-
ment (BAA) incorporating the changes
Bussing detailed. That BAA was released
in mid-January 2010, with industry re-
sponses due by the middle of this month.
Under the new structure, Phase II
will involve component demonstration
and risk reduction—retiring all the tech-
nology risks identified in Phase I (at both
component and subcomponent levels)
required to build the engine—full-scale
CVC component integration and dura-
bility testing; and turbine and compres-
sor rig testing with a full-scale CVC sim-
ulator. Phase III will focus on the
development, design and testing of a
complete Vulcan engine.
“The desire at the end of Phase III, at
a minimum, is to demonstrate a complete
Vulcan engine with the fully integrated
CVC module and validate durability, op-
erability, capability and performance at
various turbine engine power settings,”
according to the January BAA.
“We have added a CVC turbine and
CVC compressor test, so it is more inte-
grated than Phase I, where the turbine
and CVC could be separate. But in
Phase II, we basically are effectively re-
placing the combustors in the phase tur-
bine with CVC combustors,” Bussing
adds. “The program is designed to move
step by step through the technologies re-
quired to make this work, retiring all
risks and minimizing costs by doing just
what is required.”
Because of its higher complexity, get-
ting the Air Force version of Vulcan to a
production program and initial operating
capability could take another decade.
“It could be done faster if there is a
change in national priority, of course, as
was the case in building the SR-71,”
Bussing says, referring to the long-
range, high-altitude Mach 3 reconnais-
sance aircraft fast-tracked after an Amer-
ican U-2 spy plane was shot down over
the Soviet Union in 1959.
“So if future leadership decides to
move in that direction full-scale, this en-
gine is the biggest enabler for Mach 6+,
which is basically a flying engine. For
Mach 4 applications, it’s not quite that
dynamic; the aircraft would look more
traditional, like the SR-71 or high-Mach
F-22.”
With its wide range of potential appli-
cations, from powerplants to spacecraft,
Vulcan is the quintessential DARPA pro-
gram, combining existing capabilities
with new technology to achieve previ-
ously unattainable goals across multiple
missions, military and civilian.
“If we can solve this technology,”
Bussing concludes, “I truly believe we are
on the precipice of enabling a whole new
class of systems not available today.”
J.R. Wilson
Contributing writer
AIRCRAFTlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10
(Continued from page 17)
Unfortunately for Airbus, dominance
of the global tanker market has not
translated into a lasting victory in the
only truly noteworthy competition: the
USAF’s KC-X. While the KC-30 was se-
lected as the winning contender for this
179-aircraft competition (as the KC-45),
the victory was overturned following a
successful Boeing protest.
The new KC-X draft RFP is intended
to increase transparency, aiming to re-
dress a concern expressed about the pre-
vious RFP’s somewhat opaque scoring
system. However, Northrop Grumman
has claimed that the new RFP achieves
this transparency through an excessive
emphasis on costs, resulting in what it
has termed a “price shootout.” This
means, according to the company, that
the KC-767, which is a less capable but
less expensive airplane, would have a
strong advantage under the new scoring
system. As a result, the company has
threatened not to bid on KC-X.
Meanwhile, the political winds have
11:46 AM Page 4
Creation of the KC-135 helped usher in decades
of U.S. jetliner industry dominance.
shifted. The KC-45 production plans
largely involve congressional districts
that are Republican, while the KC-767’s
largely affect Democratic districts. With
Democrats currently in control, any po-
litical leverage brought to bear in this
contest will favor the Boeing airplane.
Even if Northrop Grumman does bid, it
will likely face an uphill battle. And if it
does not bid, Congress will be less likely
to oppose a contract awarded to a single
bidder with a Democratic industrial and
labor footprint. Of course, given these
partisan political dynamics, it is possible
that ongoing deadlock keeps either side
from walking away with the contract un-
opposed. This would imply either a split
buy, or an endless series of protests and
program delays.
If the KC-767 were to win KC-X, it
would change the battle for tanker ex-
ports. A USAF endorsement would be
extremely valuable in pursuing the re-
maining undecided customers. It would
allow Boeing to reassure customers that
they had improved the original product,
and would imply a steady stream of fu-
ture upgrades. It would also create a
broader global training and support
base, which would certainly be appealing
to export customers. The KC-767 would
effectively be back in the export game.
If the KC-767 wins the competition,
the KC-30 can be regarded as a success-
ful European platform that had the good
fortune to enter the world market before
the U.S. military endorsed a locally built
competitor. But it would almost certainly
lose its tight grip on the export tanker
market. Richard Aboulafia
Teal Group
raboulafia@tealgroup.com
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 23
WILSONlayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template 2/8/10 11:13 AM Page 2

Boeing’s latest plans call for vigorous development of unmanned

aircraft systems—not just the vehicles, but also the ground segment,
communications, and full range of systems needed in this
fast-growing sector. Freedom from the constraints of manned
aircraft requirements is also opening a wide range of possibilities
for UAV designs.

Unmanned
and airborne
A NEW PLAN
The Phantom Ray is under development as the follow-on vehicle for the J-UCAS program.

24 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 Copyright© 2010 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
WILSONlayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
B
oeing and the companies it has ac-
quired—McDonnell Douglas, North
American Rockwell, and Hughes, for
example—were responsible for many of the
most advanced military and commercial air-
craft of the 20th century.
2/8/10 11:13 AM Page 3
Those included most of the military’s ad-
vanced aircraft—the F-15 Eagle, E-3 AWACS,
B-1B Lancer, F/A-18 Hornet, CH-47 Chi-
nook, AH-64 Apache, V-22 Osprey, AV-8B
Harrier, C-17 Globemaster III, KC-135 Stra-
totanker, KC-10 tanker—and more than two-
thirds of the world’s commercial airliners,
from the 707 to the 787 and the DC-8 to the
MD-11, as well as the space shuttle.
But by the mid-1990s, after the merger
with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing’s domina-
tion of military aircraft began to wane. The
only two new fighter aircraft prime contracts—
the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Joint
Strike Fighter—went to Lockheed Martin, new
helicopter contracts to Bell and Sikorsky, and
a still-disputed new tanker initially to a North-
rop Grumman-EADS team. Plans for a new
bomber, presidential helicopter, and a combat
aircraft were canceled or indefinitely delayed.
In decades past, the ebbs and tides of mil-
itary aviation were balanced by commercial
contracts. But the trifecta of post-September
11 declines in air travel, a splintering of the
global economy, and wildly fluctuating—
though often record-high—oil prices led to air-
line bankruptcies, cutbacks, and new order de-
lays or cancellations.
Space programs provided little help, as
Boeing’s role in a stalled U.S. human space-
flight program was dramatically reduced and
the competition for satellite launches grew al-
most daily.
Although still one of the three largest
aerospace companies in the world—along with
Lockheed Martin and EADS, which, despite
some contract wins, also face a greatly re-
duced market demand—Boeing began a hard
reassessment of its markets and product lines,
and of how and where it might regain its his-
torically strong position.
One major element of Boeing’s approach
appears to be a new and full-blown commit-
ment to one of the fastest growing markets in
military aviation—and, potentially, major new
civilian markets to come: unmanned aerial ve-
hicles (UAVs) and the ground and satellite sys-
tems supporting them, typically combined un- by J.R. Wilson
der the title unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Contributing writer
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 25
WILSONlayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template 2/8/10 11:14 AM Page 4
UAV push
At the Paris Air Show in June 2009, Boeing
announced the creation of a new Unmanned
Airborne Systems Division within Boeing Mil-
itary Aircraft. The business plan calls for the
UAS Division to build and market a wide
range of UAVs, with new projects and tech-
nologies fed to it by Boeing Phantom Works,
the company’s advanced research component.
“That was driven primarily by the market-
place and the increase in applications and uti-
lization by all our military customers of un-
manned systems. There was a lot of discovery
in Iraq and Afghanistan about the utility of
UAVs,” UAS Director Vic Sweberg tells Aero-
“From our perspective, unmanned systems
will be a greater and greater portion of the
DOD budget as time goes forward.”
Darryl Davis, president
Boeing Phantom Works
space America. “This is one defense market
that is clearly growing and, we believe, will
continue to grow—from a defense standpoint,
certainly—and we believe the civil and com-
mercial markets also will be robust at some
point.
“And it will become a major component
of Boeing, at some time, based on the pro-
gression of the military need. Even without ac-
tivity in Southwest Asia, I think we will see a
continued use of UAVs for training and devel-
opment of doctrine and CONOPs [concepts
of operations] for future requirements. The
technology is evolving to the point where we
can accomplish a lot more with smaller, less
ScanEagle recently passed
200,000 flight hours and is
in operation around the world.
26 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
expensive systems than some of the manned
equivalents, which also tends to drive demand.
And when civil/commercial markets ulti-
mately open up, that will increase the poten-
tial for larger unmanned systems to be a part
of the growing Boeing business.”
It is a particularly interesting decision on
Boeing’s part, because unmanned systems
were barely a blip on the corporate spread-
sheet when UAVs went from interesting tech-
nology to vital asset in the opening decade of
the 21st century.
Boeing’s first big win in the arena was a
DARPA program to develop an unmanned
combat air vehicle (UCAV) for a DARPA/Air
Force/Navy Joint-Unmanned Combat Air
System (J-UCAS) program. Boeing received a
$130-million contract in 1999 to evolve and
demonstrate that technology.
“Today, looking at all the money that has
been spent within Boeing on UAVs, we’re
probably pushing $1-$1.5 billion, with proba-
bly 80% of that government funded through
the DARPA/Air Force UCAV program,” says
Phantom Works President Darryl Davis. “So
there has been a significant investment in the
past decade. And that does not include the
money spent to acquire Insitu. If you do, we’re
probably pushing $2 billion in the past decade
in UAV investments.”
In September 2008 Boeing acquired the
Insitu Group, a Bingen, Wash.-based com-
pany created in 1994 to pursue requirements
for ISR (intelligence, surveillance and recon-
naissance) UAVs. Its primary product is the
ScanEagle. This long-endurance tactical UAV,
developed with Boeing in 2004, recently
passed 200,000 flight hours and is in opera-
tion around the world by the U.S., Canadian,
and Australian militaries.
Insitu is a big part of Boeing’s new strat-
egy to become a major player in the UAV
market, through acquisition, partnerships and
significantly increased internal development.
“Our plan is to build our legacy and grow
our position in unmanned systems. We’re
looking at everything except, today, the insect-
sized platforms that universities and others are
doing R&D on for nanotech-type capabilities,
which would not normally be Boeing’s forte.
But we are looking across the board at how we
can work with other companies or develop ca-
pabilities on our own to bring good solutions
to our customers,” says Sweberg.
“One thing we are working to implement
is being quick and innovative, which also
means open-minded to looking across indus-
try, domestic and international, for other
WILSONlayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
companies with complementary capabilities
we can take advantage of and help both them
and Boeing in being successful. The strategy
is to continue to look for opportunities to
partner, to invest organically in technologies
at Phantom Works and on the division side,
extending some of the systems we have today
as well as talking to other companies about
how we might lash up together.”
Hot growth prospects
Industry reports on global UAV sales range
from a predicted $4.4 billion in 2009 to as
much as $8.7 billion within a decade, making
it “one of the hottest areas of growth for de-
fense and aerospace companies,” according
to Philip Finnegan, an author of the Teal
Group’s “World Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Systems 2009” market profile and forecast.
Given their own internal forecasts and the re-
ality of continued growth in UAV purchases
by nearly every military in the world, Boeing
believes its new commitment to the UAV mar-
ket ultimately will bring a substantial return on
investment.
“The Air Force just issued its UAS Road-
map through 2047, showing plans to migrate
toward an unmanned fleet of systems to cover
all mission areas, from ISR to strike to air
dominance and, potentially, mobility,” Davis
tells Aerospace America. “That has been in
the works for some time—greater and greater
numbers, increasing in capability across the
full spectrum of aviation missions. Last year,
DOD bought more UAVs than fixed-wing air-
craft. And that will grow as time goes on.”
However, Boeing’s current estimated in-
vestment of $2 billion in the past decade is not
even a drop in the bucket for a corporation
that, even in depressed economic times, re-
ported total revenues of more than $33.6 bil-
lion for the first half of 2009—half of that from
Boeing Defense, Space and Security military
work, including $6.4 billion from Boeing Mili-
tary Aircraft (BMA). Obviously, UAVs will not
replace that level of business, so the goal is to
pick up as much as possible to supplement fu-
ture manned aircraft programs—including non-
prime positions, as Boeing has on the F-22
and F-35.
“We have goals to grow, but we don’t yet
have what I consider firm targets or num-
bers,” Sweberg says. “There are two moving
parts to that—the unmanned part and the rest
of the business part. The expectation on our
division is to grow at a faster rate than others,
because the market is growing and because
Boeing has some unique capabilities and com-
2/8/10 11:14 AM Page 5
Boeing is also working
on a high-altitude
long-endurance concept.
petencies to grow in this marketplace. So we
hope to put up some good numbers in the
next 5-10 years.”
Davis agrees: “From today, which is a
very small percentage of that BMA total port-
folio, we see substantial growth and are mak-
ing substantial investments to capture our fair
share of the market—to be the number-one or
number-two player in the realm of unmanned
systems. Over the next 10 years, we project
the unmanned portion could grow to 20-30%
of BMA’s total revenue, from all types and
classes of UAVs, but particularly in the area of
HALE (high altitude/long endurance), elec-
tronic attack, and ISR strike.
“Our plans tend to be about 10 years out;
how we target our investments based on what
we expect the environment to be like. Our
mission in Phantom Works is to be the incuba-
tor for the next generation of technology and
capability and, at the right time, transition
those to the business side for execution. Using
the USAF road map, they predict a significant
part of the Air Force mission spectrum will be
handled by unmanned in 2047. If that hap-
pens, then greater than 50% of defense air-
craft business may become unmanned. So it’s
an exciting time to be in the UAS business,
and we will have a lot more to talk about in the
next year than we are willing to discuss today.”
To achieve its goal, Boeing plans to ad-
dress the full spectrum of UAS market needs,
not only the aircraft, but ground stations,
command and control, interoperability, coor-
dinated operations, and so on.
Sharing airspace
“The biggest challenge for us in the next half-
decade will be merging manned and un-
manned in the national airspace [NAS]—how
to deconflict them as they become a greater
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 27
WILSONlayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
The A160
Hummingbird offers
many advantages over
traditional, manned helicopters.
28 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
2/8/10 11:14 AM Page 6
part of air traffic,” Davis points out. “There
will be lots of shapes, sizes, and capabilities as
we continue to push the boundaries on how
they work with manned aircraft, flying in the
same airspace. And that is a big attention
area—how do you do sense and avoid
without a man in the cockpit? We are
pushing technologies that will give
us that capability in the next 10
years.”
Maneuvering a UAV—
generally classified as a non-
cooperative aircraft because
there is no pilot on board—
to avoid conflict with other
air traffic within boundaries
set by the FAA is a major
concern for all UAV manu-
facturers and operators. And
without FAA approval for
UAV operations within the
NAS, commercial applications will
be severely limited.
“We hope, in less than 24 months,
to demonstrate how all that can come to-
gether,” Davis vows, but adds it is far from the
end of the problem. “Then you have to deal
with instrument flight conditions, including at-
mospheric absorption of whatever spectrum
you’re using. Those technologies are a little
farther out and integrated into the air traffic
control NextGen effort, all communicating
their positions back to ATC.
“You may have as many unmanned air-
planes flying in a given space as manned, so
how do they deconflict, do collision avoid-
ance? We have to solve that problem, but we
think it is very solvable in the next few years
and are making investments in that direction.”
Cooperation, interoperability, and collab-
orative operations are not just a problem for
NAS operations, however. The skies over Iraq
and Afghanistan have been so filled with
dozens of types of UAVs flying thousands of
missions that manned aircraft pilots have be-
gun to refer to them as “airborne FOD” (for-
eign object debris).
“We have been looking at how manned
and unmanned will become interoperable—ex-
tensions of manned aircraft in some areas, re-
placements for manned in others. With the
Hummingbird [unmanned helicopter], Phan-
tom Ray test bed, and HALE UAVs, plus
smaller UAVs such as ScanEagle and Integra-
tor, we will have a spectrum from low end to
high end, from 6 hr minimum endurance to
up to five years on station with DARPA’s Vul-
ture program,” he says.
Military efforts
Phantom Ray may be a blueprint for the way
Boeing plans to move forward in the early
stages of its new UAV effort. Internally
funded, it will pick up where J-UCAS left off
in 2006, starting with the X-45C, a larger
UCAV Boeing designed to be a follow-on to
its X-45A UCAS demonstrator. Applying
Phantom Works rapid prototyping to meet a
first flight target of December 2010, the
Phantom Ray demonstrator is scheduled for a
six-month series of 10 test flights that may in-
volve ISR, suppression of enemy air defenses,
electronic attack, hunter/killer missions and
autonomous aerial refueling.
“We have mobilized our assets to con-
tinue the tremendous potential we developed
under J-UCAS and now will fully demonstrate
that capability,” says Davis.
While the FAA’s concerns about UAVs
flying in the same airspace with other civil air-
craft mirrors military concerns for combat air-
space, Davis says the key for the military is
not just interoperability, but collaboration as
well. And to become a key player in the future
UAV marketplace, Boeing believes it must ad-
dress all of those issues rather than just build-
ing platforms.
“You have a flight of manned/unmanned
or all unmanned vehicles, and how they oper-
ate as a single entity. DOD is looking at things
like swarm technology, such as a beehive.
How do UAVs work in a swarm—not flying a
preprogrammed flight, but aggressively ma-
neuvering like a swarm of bees? You will want
to do what, in a fully manned configuration,
would be done in a formation where everyone
knows what everyone else will do,” he says.
“Those are being thought about today, in-
cluding how to employ those in an urban envi-
ronment, where you may have terrorists or
noncombatants you want to track, or even
very small UAVs you may want to fly indoors.
So you would have nano- or micro-UAVs up
to very large, five-year UAVs. You have to take
the limitations of the human being out of the
equation, because you can rotate humans in
the ground station while the UAV never comes
home. All those things are in the realm of the
possible, and we’re working on all those.”
Out of the box
Sweberg believes Boeing is extremely well
placed to bring all of the necessary technolo-
gies and requirements together—and, where
necessary, push the envelope with out-of-the-
box thinking on the future of UAVs.
“We are at an interesting point in history,
WILSONlayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
where unmanned has clearly demonstrated
new capabilities people did not envision just
10 years ago. And the technology continues
to evolve to enable unmanned to meet some
manned missions, but we still have not enough
time and experience with unmanned to tell
where they ultimately will go. So it is a time for
positioning,” he says. “Obviously, Boeing has
a very strong legacy, and today still has a
strong installed base of fighter and mobility
aircraft and rotorcraft, which we still see as a
growth area. And it may be premature to
think manned aircraft are on the way out and
unmanned will be the future.
“I do think unmanned aircraft systems
have proven very capable, and clearly there
are niches where it makes a lot of sense to go
unmanned. And as the technology continues
to advance, we will see a growth in unmanned
applications. I also see unmanned/manned in-
teroperability being a very powerful capability
to meet the mission requirements our defense
customers have.”
The push for commonality
Another requirement that is high on the U.S.
military list is achieving the greatest possible
degree of commonality in the ground stations
that operate a diverse range of UAVs.
“The pressing requirement customers are
expressing for common control harkens back
to there being a lot of systems out there, each
with its own hardware and software, logistics
tail, ground control, etc. So if customers want
to operate more than one system, they have
to haul around multiple complete sets, which
is cumbersome and logistically difficult to ac-
commodate,” Sweberg points out. “I am hear-
ing more and more that customers want more
commonality—not just from one company, but
across providers—with one ground control
system to accommodate many different UAV
systems, which would be a significant savings.
“So we are all thinking about how to
meet customer requirements there. However,
the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines all
have their own thoughts on common C2
[command and control] and using their own
systems as a baseline, so it will be interesting
to see how DOD will come out with standards
and an approach to achieve as much com-
monality as possible.”
Changing paradigms
UAVs originally were seen as less expensive
replacements for manned aircraft in a tradi-
tional robot operational paradigm—doing the
dull, dirty, dangerous jobs on which com-
2/8/10 11:14 AM Page 7
The X-45A was Boeing’s demonstrator for the UCAS program.
manders would prefer not to waste or risk hu-
man pilots. But the growing complexity of
these platforms has, in some cases, changed
that perspective as well.
“We tend to inhibit ourselves based on
what we’ve done previously with manned air-
craft, but those who have spent their lives in
unmanned are not hindered by those experi-
ences,” Davis says. “When you open up the
design constraints of the vehicle beyond what
“Boeing took stock and determined it had a lot of capabilities,
but scattered around the enterprise, and decided it was time to
bring all those under one roof and provide a focused face to the
marketplace in the area of unmanned aerial systems.”
Vic Sweberg, director
Boeing Unmanned Airborne Systems Division
was possible with human flight, you can ma-
neuver more aggressively and design thinner
platforms, depending on what you are design-
ing the aircraft to do. It is more a blending of
paradigms in some mission areas.
“And paradigms will change—already are
changing. Some medium- to large-scale un-
manned vehicles cannot have loss rates such
as were acceptable in manned aircraft a few
decades ago, especially when flying over pop-
ulated areas. So in some cases things are go-
ing in a different direction, to get more relia-
bility into them, but you also have more design
freedom that allows you to do more with sen-
sors, for example. Our challenge is to bring
the best of both together and leverage both.
Each comes with its own mindset, and we
need to take advantage of that expertise on
both sides.”
The future of UAVs, then, is a blending
of manned and unmanned experience and
capabilities, of bringing experienced pilots from
(Continued on page 42)
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 29
CANANlayout310 .qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template 2/8/10 11:17 AM Page 2
Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
technologies are growing more and more
vital to U.S.campaigns in Afghanistan,
Iraq and other potential trouble spots.
Advanced instruments and new aircraft,
including UAVs, are enabling warfighters
to see farther, respond faster and strike
with greater precision than ever before.
U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan are relying ever
more heavily on intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) to thwart and defeat Tal-
iban and Al Qaeda insurgents. ISR operations
are at the core of the U.S. counterinsurgency
strategy for stabilizing the country and making
it inhospitable to terrorists, and will strongly
influence whether that strategy ultimately suc-
ceeds or fails.
This viewpoint is widely shared by Penta-
gon officers and other officials with connec-
tions to the military campaign in Afghanistan.
As they see it, ISR is the essential means of lo-
by James W. Canan cating, identifying, tracking and targeting ad-
Contributing writer versaries around the clock and in all kinds of
30 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 Copyright© 2010 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
ISR in
today’s
war:
terrain. ISR also makes it possible to distin-
guish and isolate enemy combatants from
civilian bystanders and attack them selectively.
Selective targeting has become all the
more important in light of the restrictive rules
of engagement that Gen. Stanley McChrys-
tal, the top commander of U.S. and coalition
forces, promulgated for his troops in 2009.
Those rules are aimed at eliminating or
greatly reducing civilian casualties from air
strikes and ground fire, and thus at precluding
postattack backlash reactions among the
Afghan populace.
ISR is also seen as the first line of defense
for U.S. and allied ground troops against
CANANlayout310 .qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
A closer look
An MQ-1 Predator, armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, flies a combat mission over southern Afghanistan. (USAF photo/Lt. Col. Leslie Pratt.)
deadly roadside bombs. The troops rely on
timely information from ISR aircraft and
other sources to detect insurgents in the act
of emplacing those improvised explosive de-
vices (IEDs). The IED threat is expected to
worsen as the Obama administration’s de-
ployment of 30,000 additional troops to
Afghanistan gains momentum in the coming
months. This will make ISR an increasingly ur-
gent priority, officials say.
Those who believe that the U.S. and its
allies are unlikely to prevail in Afghanistan of-
ten cite the failure of Soviet forces there
through the 1980s. But those forces suffered
heavy losses of helicopters and other combat
2/8/10 11:18 AM Page 3
aircraft shot down by shoulder-fired infrared
missiles that the U.S. supplied the Afghan
fighters of that era. Perhaps more to the
point, military analysts note, the Soviets lacked
the sophisticated counterinsurgency strategy
of today’s U.S. forces and the air and space
surveillance and reconnaissance assets that
make that strategy viable.
Renewed emphasis
Late last year, well in advance of President
Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more U.S.
troops to Afghanistan, the Pentagon began
concentrating on stepping up its deployment
and use of ISR assets there. Defense Secre-
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 31
CANANlayout310 .qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
IEDs like these collected in
Baghdad are an ever-increasing
threat to ground troops in
Afghanistan.
The Air Force’s new manned
intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance platform, the
MC-12, is designed to directly
support ground forces with
real-time ISR capability.
(USAF photo/Senior Airman
Tiffany Trojca.)
32 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
2/8/10 11:18 AM Page 4
tary Robert Gates noted in
mid-November 2009 that
“we’re pushing a lot into the
theater…we’re moving as
fast as we can. The Air Force
has significantly expanded its
[ISR] capability, and we in-
tend to keep expanding it.”
Gates explained that the ISR expansion
would involve not only airborne platforms
such as manned MC-12 Liberty aircraft and
unmanned MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reap-
ers, but also ground stations and their person-
nel, notably linguists and intelligence analysts.
At the same time, Gates formed a multiservice
ISR task force and set about reprogramming
$1.2 billion from other DOD projects to help
pay for the escalation of ISR.
The secretary had been pressing the Air
Force to deploy more UAVs for ISR in the Af-
ghanistan/Pakistan theater. Air Force officials
insist that the service had been building up its
ISR assets and overhead intelligence-gather-
ing capability all along, and that it is moving
more Predators and Reapers into the theater
as fast as it can.
Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of
staff, and Michael Donley, secretary of the Air
Force, made ISR a blue-ribbon priority for the
USAF. Schwartz observes that a major key to
making a smaller Air Force even more effec-
tive is “persistent and pervasive ISR,” along
with the precise air strikes that it fosters.
In accentuating ISR, the Air Force ap-
pointed Lt. Gen. David Deptula, a veteran
fighter pilot, wing commander and planner, to
the newly created post of deputy chief of staff
for ISR. The service also unveiled its first-ever
comprehensive ISR strategy, made sweeping
changes in how it trains and uses operators of
UAVs (which it prefers to call remotely piloted
aircraft) and other ISR platforms, and set about
improving its ISR capabilities across the board.
“The more ISR we provide, the more is
demanded,” Deptula declares. “We may never
fulfill the demand, but we are getting better
and better at defining the [ISR] requirements
and then matching them with our present ca-
pabilities. We are also beginning to look out to
the future and wed technology advancements
with emerging needs.”
Advanced capabilities
Deptula observes that the advanced technolo-
gies of today’s aircraft, bombs, missiles, sen-
sors and communications enable the Air
Force to strike any target rapidly and pre-
cisely, anywhere on Earth, around the clock
and in all kinds of weather. Now, he says, the
biggest challenge for the Air Force lies not in
finishing off targets, but in finding and pin-
pointing them by means of ISR.
It took only a few minutes of flight time
for two USAF F-16 strike fighters to deliver
the bombs that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,
the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but 6,000 prior
hours of Predator UAV flight time to track
him and finally fix his position for the kill,
Deptula notes. Those Predator hours are a
classic example of “persistent ISR,” he says.
UAVs are uniquely capable of persistent
ISR “in their ability to stay in position or ma-
neuver over large areas for a long period of
time—and that’s where a person in an aircraft
becomes a limitation,” Deptula explains. UAVs
“can operate in dangerous environments and
can either watch or strike and…conduct unde-
tected operations and penetrations,” he says.
Pentagon officials cite many examples of
persistent ISR in Iraq that, they claim, demon-
strate its vital importance in so-called irregular
warfare against roving insurgents. ISR was the
essence of Task Force ODIN (observe, detect,
identify and neutralize), an aviation unit cre-
ated during the Iraq war expressly to counter
and check the rising toll from roadside bombs.
Military sources claim that ODIN, taking
advantage of more numerous and increasingly
CANANlayout310 .qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
capable ISR assets, resulted in the capture or
killing of more than 3,000 insurgents and a
dramatic decrease in the number of coalition
forces killed or wounded by IEDs. ODIN forces
flew Warrior Alpha UAVs equipped with elec-
trooptical and infrared sensors or with syn-
thetic aperture radar, along with laser target
markers, laser rangefinders and missiles, to
detect and destroy IED emplacers.
ISR may be more challenging in the irreg-
ular warfare of Afghanistan than it was in
Iraq, officials say. It must detect and track not
only the tactical formations of enemy fighters
and the movements of individual IED emplac-
ers, for example, but also the foot traffic of
roving Al-Qaeda insurgents inside the country
and across the mountainous 1,500-mi. Af-
ghanistan-Pakistan border, which is not con-
ducive to infantry reconnaissance patrols.
To accomplish ISR all across the Afghan-
istan/Pakistan theater, U.S. and allied forces
rely most heavily on manned and unmanned
aircraft equipped with cameras, radars and in-
frared sensors. Those ISR platforms have di-
rect communications links with rapid-reaction
special forces on the ground, and with heli-
copters, artillery, strike fighters and unmanned
aircraft armed with air-to-ground missiles.
Schwartz notes that the surveillance and
targeting provided by the UAVs make strike
aircraft and other types much more effective.
“A UAV may tip a gunship, or tell a rescue
helicopter crew where their pickup needs to
occur, [and] these are the kinds of things that
are happening all the time,” he says.
2/8/10 11:18 AM Page 5
Schuyler Dunn replaces a part of
the multispectral targeting system
ball on an MQ-1B Predator at
Ali Base, Iraq.(USAF photo/
Tech. Sgt. Sabrina Johnson.)
Saving the day again and again
ISR is credited with saving the day in Af-
ghanistan on innumerable occasions. In one,
a Predator spotted a substantial force of Tal-
iban fighters moving into position to attack
the U.S. air base at Kandahar, and notified
the combined air operations center. The cen-
ter quickly transferred control of the drone
from Creech AFB in Nevada back to its
launch-and-recovery crew near Kandahar.
That crew contacted the Joint Terminal At-
tack Controller (JTAC), who
guided Apache attack heli-
copters to the scene. The
Apaches destroyed much of
the Taliban force and pre-
vented its planned attack on
the air base.
In another operation, a
Predator discovered a small
band of insurgents emplacing
a roadside bomb and commu-
nicated their position to the Task Force ODIN forces flew
JTAC, who relayed it to an airborne B-1 Warrior Alpha UAVs equipped
bomber. The bomber attacked the insurgents, with electrooptical and infrared
sensors or with synthetic aperture
three of whom ran from the blast. The Preda- radar, along with laser target
tor tracked them, saw one drop by the way- markers, laser rangefinders and
side, and attacked the other two with its Hell- missiles.
fire missile. One was killed; the other rolled
into a ditch. The Predator coordinated again
with the JTAC, who guided an A-10 close-sup-
port aircraft to the scene to finish the job. The
Predator loitered overhead “for a long period
of time,” to make sure that no Taliban fighter
escaped, says an Air Force source.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 33
CANANlayout310 .qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
Information gathered
by high-flying U-2s is sent
to analysis centers,
processed and returned
to the theater.
Among the UAVs operated
by ground troops are the 40-lb
ScanEagle (right), the BATMAV
and the RQ-11 Raven (facing
page, top and bottom).
34 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
2/8/10 11:18 AM Page 6
Deptula cites yet another successful oper-
ation in Afghanistan as an example of the
timely and seamless distribution of communi-
cations in ISR at its best: The automated sig-
nals intelligence (SIGINT) suite in a high-alti-
tude U-2 intercepted Taliban communications
traffic and automatically transmitted it to
Beale AFB, Calif. Traffic analysts there de-
duced considerable Taliban activity around
Kandahar and immediately called the U-2 pi-
lot back and told him what was happening.
The pilot then alerted the U.S. JTAC on the
ground, who relayed it to an Army combat
unit in the vicinity, enabling that unit to thwart
a Taliban ambush in the making.
The distribution of communications in
that operation “took less
than two minutes,” and ex-
emplified the seamless na-
ture of ISR, Deptula says.
He notes that an Army unit
may take its cue from data
collected by a U-2 to request
a follow-up video feed from a
UAV, and then take action.
The unit may also direct the UAV to point out
the target to a manned bomber, “and all this
may have been planned in a forward operat-
ing post with imagery collected from a Global
Hawk the day before.”
The Air Force ISR boss points out that
ISR enables air and ground forces to distin-
guish among potential targets in order to
avoid killing and wounding civilians while firing
on enemy combatants. “The issue is where
and what we want to strike,” Deptula
explains. “We might want to achieve a non-
kinetic outcome.”
Integration and analysis
ISR practitioners emphasize that networks of
sensors are required to provide timely and
comprehensive coverage, and that sensors
operating singly are not usually adequate to
the task. This, they say, is why U.S. and coali-
tion forces in Afghanistan require a wholly in-
tegrated ISR architecture that embodies the
full range of ISR assets (including space sys-
tems) and is capable of fulfilling diverse com-
bat requirements.
Sensors on ISR aircraft
include infrared imagers and
cameras that provide air
and ground commanders
with still photos or full-mo-
tion videos. Rapid correla-
tion and distribution of im-
agery is vital. Daniel Leaf, a
Northrop Grumman vice
president and former three-star general in
charge of Air Force requirements, observes
that information gathered by ISR platforms
represents “wasted effort if we can’t get it to
the warfighters in usable form” via communi-
cations networks.
This is why the Air Force created its so-
called “distributed common ground system” of
ISR analysis centers in Korea, Germany, Ha-
CANANlayout310 .qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
waii, California, and Virginia. The centers are
manned by communications operators, lin-
guists, analysts and maintenance personnel,
among others, and serve as “the linchpins of
our completely integrated [ISR] process,”
Deptula explains.
“The information coming from a variety
of platforms, including our Predators, Reap-
ers, Global Hawks and U-2s, is sent to these
analysis centers, processed, evaluated and
transmitted right back into the theater for im-
mediate use,” he says. “And the beauty of this
system is that we don’t have to add more [ISR]
people in Afghanistan as part of the [U.S.]
surge there. What we do is shift workload
among the five analysis centers; and we have
the personnel to do that.”
Proliferation of UAVs
According to the Air Force, Global Hawks op-
erate at an altitude of 65,000 ft. They are
equipped with electrooptical sensors, ground
moving-target indicators, infrared sensors,
synthetic aperture radar and a SIGINT suite.
Reapers operate at 50,000 ft, twice as high
as the lighter Predators. Both carry EO sen-
sors for full-motion video, infrared sensors,
SIGINT suites and laser target designators.
Predators can be armed with Hellfire missiles,
Reapers with Hellfires and various bombs.
In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, Air Force
UAVs operate in support of the joint force
commander at both the tactical and theater
levels of operation. Army and Marine Corps
UAVs operate in tactical
support of individual
ground commanders at
the corps, division and
lower unit levels.
2/8/10 11:18 AM Page 7
Soldiers in Kandahar depend on
ISR input from myriad sources.
(Photo by Tech. Sgt. Francisco V.
Govea II.)
More than 1,000 UAVs of assorted sizes
and capabilities are said to be operating in the
region. Michael Isherwood, a senior analyst at
Northrop Grumman’s analysis center and a
former Air Force colonel and command pilot
in Iraq and Afghanistan, notes that the UAVs
include more than 10 types of small, man-
portable handheld systems operated by Army
and Marine Corps companies and platoons,
plus seven additional types controlled by bat-
talion and brigade commanders.
Among the UAVs operated by ground
troops are the 1-lb Battlefield Air Targeting
Micro Air Vehicle (BATMAV) with forward-
and side-looking cameras; the slightly larger,
4-lb, all-weather, all-hours, GPS-guided RQ-
11 Raven with TV and IR sensors; and the
40-lb ScanEagle, with a turreted camera for
both EO and IR reconnaissance at distances
up to 5 mi. BATMAVs, also called Wasps, fly
relatively short distances at low altitudes to
provide over-the-hill and around-the-bend re-
connaissance, and are operated by the Air
Force as well.
In a recent position paper, the Army em-
phasized its “continuing expansion of persist-
ent surveillance capability through both
manned and unmanned systems,” including
the Shadow UAV used by soldiers and Ma-
rines for reconnaissance, target acquisition
and battlefield damage assessment. Shadows
have seen heavy duty over Iraq and Af-
ghanistan, providing surveillance and target-
ing support to brigade combat teams and bat-
talions at distances out to 125 km.
Shadows complement the higher flying,
longer loitering Sky Warrior, Hunter and Gnat
UAVs that engage in surveillance and recon-
naissance for corps and division commanders
at ranges of hundreds of kilometers, the Army
document explains. Warrior Alphas flown by
the Army are almost identical to Air Force
Predators, and are used, as in Task Force
ODIN, for target acquisition, communications
relay and counter-IED operations, as well as
for surveillance and reconnaissance.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 35
CANANlayout310 .qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
The Joint Surveillance Target
Attack Radar System crew
from the 7th Expeditionary Air
Combat and Control Squadron
preflights an E-8C Joint STARS
for a mission. (USAF photo/
Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon II.)
36 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
2/8/10 11:18 AM Page 8
Aircrews performed a preflight check on an MQ-9 Reaper before it
took off for a mission in Afghanistan on September 31. Reapers will
be outfitted with “Gorgon Stare” pods. (Photo by Rinze Klein.)
Near the end of 2009, as the U.S. troop
buildup began in Afghanistan, Air Force offi-
cials confirmed reports of a new, stealthy ISR
remotely piloted aircraft: the RQ-170 Sen-
tinel, built by the Lockheed Skunk Works.
Flown by operators at two Air Force facilities
in Nevada (Creech AFB and the Tonopah
Test Range), the Sentinel was test flown over
Afghanistan but was not yet operational there,
according to reports.
Sensor and communications advances
Deptula claims that advances in sensor tech-
nology have enabled the Air Force to enhance
its ISR capability and capacity “throughout the
[electromagnetic] spectrum,” but that much
more must be done. For example, he says,
“we tend to focus on video because it is easy
to see and understand, but we have to in-
crease our capabilities to rapidly revisit loca-
tions, provide still imagery and collect signals
intelligence and human intelligence.”
Airborne radar and communications in-
tercept platforms are considered vital ele-
ments of the overall ISR architecture. For ex-
ample, the Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance
Target Attack Radar System (J STARS) air-
craft, while conducting wide area radar sur-
veillance, can alert a Predator or a Hunter
(Army UAV) to take a closer look at some-
thing suspicious that it detects from afar. The
Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft, operat-
ing at 30,000 ft, can pick up communications
traffic 240 mi. away. Global Hawks and U-2s,
operating at 60,000 ft or higher, can detect
signals out to 300 mi.
The Air Force will expand its capacity for
wide-area surveillance by equipping Reaper
UAVs with new “Gorgon Stare” pods. Their
deployment is scheduled to begin in April.
“They will be able to see the same dis-
tance as the video sensors now onboard the
Reapers, and they will be able to do it not just
through a little soda-straw area but all across
an area of 4x4 km,” Deptula explains. “They
will be able to provide video from 10 different
images anywhere in that area to 10 different
people on the ground.”
The pods weigh 1,000 lb each, which
makes them too heavy for the Predators, but
not the larger Reapers, to carry. Deptula calls
them “one of the biggest things” now coming
into play in Afghanistan ISR. “The quickest
way we can introduce additional ISR capacity
is not to build additional platforms but to in-
crease the capability of the platforms we al-
ready have,” he declares.
Deptula calls ISR “extremely important”
to the successful outcome of the U.S. strategy
and operations in Afghanistan and environs.
Could ISR make the difference between suc-
cess and failure?
“Absolutely,” he replies.
 New!
1FSTPOBM
t
'MFYJCMF
t
1PSUBCMF
t
5SVTUFE
AIAA eBooks
Gain the portability, flexibility, and personalization that AIAA eBooks
provide. Now available from AIAA—your trusted source for aerospace
research for more than 75 years.

t
More than 200 titles
GSPN
UIF
AIAA Education Series
BOE
UIF

Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics
TFSJFT‰including formerly
out-of-print volumes from the 1960s and beyond.

t
3FBE
JU
online PS download JU
UP
ZPVS
DPNQVUFS

t
PDF format‰FBTJMZ
SFBE
UISPVHI
UIF
free Adobe software.

t
"WBJMBCMF
BU
UIF
chapter level
JO
BEEJUJPO
UP
UIF
entire book.

t
Print, copy, cut, paste!
TPNF
SFTUSJDUJPOT
BQQMZ

t
"*""
.FNCFST
SFDFJWF
B
25% discount
PGG
PG
MJTU
QSJDF

t
.BLF
OPUFT
TFBSDI
BOE
FYQPSU
DJUBUJPOT

t
3FDFJWF
FNBJM
BMFSUT
BOE
344
GFFET

Start reading today at

http://ebooks.aiaa.org
Institutions wishing to purchase access should contact Adrian Fair at
adrianf@aiaa.org, 888.854.6853, or 703.264.7505.
Collections are available for all titles, by series, or by subject.
Hayeslayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template 2/8/10 12:01 PM Page 2

Open rotor research

revs
up

Researchers in the U.S. and Europe are reviving

an old concept and reshaping it into advanced
technology for a new generation of open rotor
aircraft engines. When first proposed in the
1980s, the idea met with low acceptance from
the public, who viewed propellers as noisy and
outmoded. Today, however, the promise of
greater fuel savings and lesser environmental
effects will likely give the updated technology
a better reception.

I t is increasingly possible that the next gen-

eration of Airbus and Boeing single-aisle
aircraft, due to enter service around
2019/2020, will fly with open rotor engines.
Open rotor engines use a gas-turbine
core to drive a large-diameter fan which pro-
pels large amounts of cool air around the
outer part of the engine—creating very high
“by-pass” ratios and thereby considerably in-
creasing the efficiency of the engine over con-
ventional turbofans.
Rolls-Royce and General Electric (GE)
have made sufficient progress in their com-
peting open rotor technology demonstration
programs that both companies believe the en-
gines will be able to deliver the necessary step-
changes in economics while meeting stringent
new performance and noise targets. The con-
cept has been proven, both say—now the hard
work starts on defining the details of the en-
gine architecture that will provide the vital 1-
2% competitive advantage.
by Philip
Butterworth-Hayes Reviving an old idea
Contributing writer For GE, the past two years of open rotor re-
search has involved revisiting the unducted fan
(UDF) technology of the past. GE and the Fun-
damental Aeronautics Program of NASA’s
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate in
Washington are jointly funding a research
program into open rotor research, while GE’s
partner in the CFM International consortium
Snecma is concentrating on fan blade de-
signs. The three organizations are essentially
recreating the GE36 research team of the
mid-1980s.
LEAP-X is the CFM International techno-
logy program focusing on future advances for
next-generation CFM-56 engines. Ted Ingling,
the program’s manager of engineering, leads
the company’s open rotor work.
“The early generation of engines were
built at a time when fuel was at a very high
price, and it was thought it would stay like that
forever,” according to Ingling. “We demon-
strated in ground and flight tests the theory
and practice of open rotors. Fundamentally it
was a sound technology to put fuel perform-
ance first and then work on delivering Stage III
noise performance in the production version.”

38 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 Copyright© 2010 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Hayeslayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template 2/8/10 12:01 PM Page 3

The acoustic challenge will have to be met by any open rotor design going forward.

Two basic challenges bring the engine up to today’s standard of re-

Ingling believes that, apart from meeting strin- liability is the design of the pitch change
gent new reliability certification and operating mechanism, which will allow us to change the
standards, there are two fundamental design fan-blade orientation depending on the Mach
challenges to be met in the next generation of number and throttle setting. That mechanism
open rotor engines: acoustics, and the reliabil- is a piece of equipment that will be embedded
ity of the pitch-change mechanism. in machinery, so reliability and weight are key
“Today requirements are different,” he
says. “Regulations are more stringent, and the
Increased wave drag can be
challenge is to reduce the source of noise dra- obviated by increasing the
matically. This means looking at the source number of blades and
noise of the props and how they integrate developing swept or scimitar
designs.
with the airframe. We will have to make sub-
stantial changes to blade designs, and it’s still
not clear exactly what the optimal acoustic
performance will look like.
“All propellers lose efficiency at high
speed, as the tips of the propeller approach
the speed of sound. This creates increasing
‘wave drag,’ which can be obviated by in-
creasing the number of blades and developing
‘swept’ or ‘scimitar’ designs. In these designs
the blade is progressively more swept toward
the outside, to counter the increasing speed.
“The second enabling technology to

AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 39

Hayeslayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template 2/8/10 12:02 PM Page 4
enablers of the technology,” Ingling says.
For the past two years GE has been re-
viewing the data from the 1980s, talking to
the technicians and engineers involved in ear-
lier UDF studies and seeing what improve-
ments could be made with current testing tech-
nology. “We have focused on how much more
Snecma is heading up SAGE work acoustic benefit we could get using modern
on the direct-drive open rotor tools—especially in areas such as predicting
concept engine.
outcomes of new aerodynamic designs,” says
Ingling. “In the 1980s there was a lot of trial
and error. We’ve taken some of the data from
the old rigs, run new aerodynamic designs,
and launched additional analysis in areas such
as aerodynamic testing, aeroperformance, and
acoustics. The new advanced codes tell us that
for the same acoustic signature, we could re-
cover overall engine performance.”
With the first-generation UDF, according
to Ingling, GE engineers had to sacrifice some
of the engine’s overall performance capabili-
ties to meet the Stage III noise requirements.
Wind tunnel testing
In the next stage of research, GE Aviation and
NASA have been working together on a wind
tunnel test program to evaluate counterrotat-
ing fan-blade systems. The research phase be-
gan in 2009 and is continuing into 2010. The
team has built a one-fifth subscale model com-
prising two rows of counterrotating fan
blades, with 12 blades in the front row and 10
in the back. They are being tested in simulated
flight conditions in NASA Glenn’s low-speed
wind tunnel to simulate low-altitude aircraft
speeds for acoustic evaluation, and in Glenn’s
high-speed wind tunnel to simulate high-alti-
tude cruise conditions.
Building on the past
General Electric developed its GE36 unducted fan (UDF) featuring an aft-mounted,
open rotor fan system with two rows of counterrotating composite fan blades during
the mid-1980s. It was a joint development with NASA and Snecma, GE’s French partner
in the Snecma consortium that had a 35% stake in the program.
The core was based on a GE F404 military turbofan. Exhaust gases were
discharged through a seven-stage low-pressure (LP) turbine; each stator ring was
designed to move freely in the opposite direction to that of the rotors. One set of fan
blades was connected to the LP turbine rotor system and the other set to the contra-
rotating LP turbine stators—effectively creating a 14-stage LP turbine system.
The GE36 flew on the Boeing 727 and MD-80 aircraft and enabled speeds of
around Mach 0.75. Although specific fuel consumption improvements of around 30%
better than contemporary jet aircraft were measured, there were extensive noise and
vibration issues—though the engine met Stage III noise limits, according to company
officials.
An alternative UDF test program in the mid-1980s was pioneered by Allison and
Pratt & Whitney. The 578-DX propfan featured a more conventional reduction gearbox
between the LP turbine and the propfan blades and was also flight tested on an MD-80.
40 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
The team is currently designing and test-
ing a classic airfoil design to a certain level of
performance and will then be “looking at an
enhanced design to see how the goal of a
Stage III tradeoff with performance can be
made,” says Ingling.
“The speed at which the aircraft cruises
will have major implications for the design,” he
says. “As a company we are putting a great
deal of investment into the program, but we
have to be selective about where that invest-
ment goes.
“I am extremely encouraged on the
acoustic side that we will get to where we
need to be—but at some stage we will have to
look at how we are going to trade overall en-
gine efficiency against acoustics. Will the
noise issue be more important than green-
house gas emissions, for example? Should we
customize performance or trade it against en-
vironmental improvements? Many of these is-
sues will depend on what certification stan-
dards are employed. At the moment it’s too
early to determine how much we should look
at trading noise improvements with fuel burn
performance,” Ingling says.
Other efforts toward the goal
The goal is to have a certified engine in pro-
duction, providing double-digit performance
enhancements over contemporary turbofans,
by the end of the next decade.
GE and Snecma will feed new technolo-
gies into the open rotor research from the
Leap X research program as they become
available. GE is redesigning the CFM-56 core
to provide around 7% of the targeted 16%
fuel consumption improvement for the new
engine; Snecma’s work on the CFM Leap X
program is focused on developing new 1.8-m-
diam blades manufactured through a 3D resin
transfer molding process.
Snecma’s understanding of open rotor
fan-blade design will be enhanced through its
work on the €40-million DREAM (validation
of radical engine architecture systems) pro-
gram, a three-year research project led by
Rolls-Royce and funded half by European in-
dustry and half by the European Commission.
During the past year one-fifth-scale and one-
seventh-scale blade testing has taken place at
Russia’s Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute,
on electrically powered rigs at speeds of up to
Mach 0.85.
The DREAM work is also part of a wider
European research initiative into next-genera-
tion engines called the Sustainable and Green
Engine Integrated Technology Demonstrator
Hayeslayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
(SAGE ITD), a component of the €1.6-billion
Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative research
program. SAGE researchers will develop two
types of open rotor demonstrator engines.
Rolls-Royce is heading up work on a
geared open rotor demonstrator, in a €111-
million program involving Rolls-Royce ITP,
Deutschland, Volvo Aero, Airbus, and Alenia.
The research will focus on the propeller pitch
mechanism, the donor core gas turbine, the
transmission system that transfers energy
from the free power turbine to the contraro-
tating assemblies, and the contrarotating pro-
pellers themselves.
Snecma is heading up SAGE work on the
direct-drive open rotor concept engine. This
€135-million program involves Hispano-
Suiza, Techspace Aero, Aircelle, AVIO, Volvo
Aero, Airbus, and Alenia Macchi, with work
focused on the propeller pitch change mecha-
nism, the contrarotating propellers, the con-
trarotating turbine directly linked to the pro-
pellers, and the gas generator.
Rolls-Royce, meanwhile, has already un-
dertaken high- and low-speed tests of various
configurations of its own propriety technology
research program and has dedicated a new
testing regime, which it calls “Rig 145,” to de-
tailed open rotor concept validation.
“We have now moved open rotor work
from the theoretical physics to the engineer-
ing stage,” says Robert Nuttall, vice president
Competitive market and technology challenges
Developers of open rotor technologies face a number
of challenging hurdles, not all of them technical:
•Competing technologies. The efficiency of current
technology engines is improving at an average of 1% a
year—which means traditional turbofan engines available
in 2020 are likely to be at least 11% more efficient than
today’s production models, without any major technol-
ogy risk. Meanwhile, the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G
geared turbofan could provide a 22-23% fuelefficiency
gain by 2017, according to the company, while the CFM
International non-open rotor LEAP-X design could pro-
vide 16% lower fuel consumption than the CFM56-7 by
2018. Some manufacturers are skeptical about open ro-
tor technology, worried that installation effects, addi-
tional weight, complexity and interference drag could
obviate any improvements in fuel savings.
•Slower aircraft operating speeds. An open rotor
powered aircraft is likely to have a cruising speed 5-
10% slower than a turbofan powered aircraft. “The av-
erage route length for a single-aisle short/medium-
range airliner is around 500 n.mi.,” according to
Rolls-Royce’s Nuttall, “and at that range, speed is not
crucially important.”
•Regulatory issues. Engine and airframe manufac-
turers have already approached regulators such as the
2/8/10 12:02 PM Page 5
for strategic marketing at Rolls-Royce. Early
wind tunnel tests have shown its design would
comfortably meet current Stage IV noise reg-
ulations. Tests were finished earlier this year
at the DNW wind tunnel in the Netherlands,
using a one-sixth-scale electrically driven ro-
tor to simulate low-speed operations, includ-
ing takeoffs and landings. “We ran different
configurations and different numbers of
blades at different blade speeds—we finally
discovered the optimal configuration for low-
noise open rotor operations,” says Nuttall.
The model is now undergoing high-speed
tests at the Bedford (U.K.) Aircraft Research
Association transonic wind tunnel. “We first
ran these tests at the end of 2008 and spent
the first quarter of 2009 understanding the re-
sults,” says Nuttall. “We’re still being very cau-
tious with our claims but we think that, in
terms of economic performance, our open
rotor engine will perform 25% to 30% better
than current turbofans.”
Rolls-Royce has yet to firm up on a core
design. “We have a number of options in this
area,” says Nuttall, “and we now have an in-
ternal competition between our two-shaft
center of excellence in Dahlewitz [Germany]
and our three-core center of excellence in
Derby, U.K.”
Nuttall believes there are five key tech-
nology risks that must be addressed—the
gearbox, pitch change mechanism, blades,
European Aviation Safety Agency and the FAA to de-
termine whether there might be any airworthiness
certification concerns around issues such as engine
layout and blade containment. Manufacturers would
need to know as early as possible if regulators did
have major concerns, to eliminate areas of potentially
wasteful research.
•Airframe integration. The integration of the en-
gine within the airframe will be a critical issue, espe-
cially if the prop diameter is close to the 170 in. under
review by Rolls-Royce. With this size blade a “pusher”
arrangement would be more elegant, as the engines
would be placed behind the rear pressure bulkhead in
the fuselage, minimizing noise. It also would allow for
an aerodynamically “clean” wing. A “puller” arrange-
ment would dictate a high wing design, with the large
rotating assembly next to the fuselage.
•Public perception. In the 1980s manufacturers
were concerned that passengers viewed propeller-dri-
ven aircraft as outmoded, noisy and slow. Open rotor
engine manufacturers have started some early re-
search into this area. But it is likely that the environ-
mental concerns of the 20th-century traveling public
would make the open rotor concept an easier “sell”
than the UDF concepts of the 1980s.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 41
Hayeslayout310.qxd:AAFEATURE-layout.Template
Rolls-Royce is targeting 2014 for
a flight demonstration of its
open rotor engine but its design
has not yet been locked in.
Unmanned and airborne
(Continued from page 17)
42 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
2/8/10 12:02 PM Page 6
noise/vibration, and airframe integration. In
one of its preferred current configurations,
Rolls-Royce is working on an engine with
170-in.-diam contrarotating blades—roughly
the diameter of regional jet fuselage. This will
demand a 16,000 shp gearbox to drive the
contrarotating blades, a sophisticated pitch-
change mechanism and highly aerodynamic
blade design made of composite materials.
“In the work so far we have proved we
can deliver what we thought we could at a
macro level. Now the work is to zoom down
to specific work areas such as blades and the
gearbox. In this we are now looking for part-
ners—a pitch-change mechanism is not some-
thing we are expert in, for example.”
Airframe integration is a sensitive issue,
as much of this work will have to be pioneered
by airframe manufacturers themselves. Rolls-
Royce, Boeing, Ruag Aerospace, and De-
harde Maschinenbau began a research pro-
gram in May 2009 to test a model concept
airframe this year at Ruag’s low-speed wind
tunnel in Emmen, Switzerland. Airbus is work-
ing with engine manufacturers on new engine
integration issues within the Clean Sky pro-
gram, which should deliver the first results
around 2014.
the cockpit to the design labs and ground con-
trol stations—and making the same kinds of
transitions and merged conceptualizations
among engineers and even corporations. It is
a challenge many others are taking on, at var-
ious levels—with hundreds of companies in
dozens of nations around the world producing
hundreds, if not thousands, of different UAVs
every year.
For Boeing, it is both a small gamble—in
terms of actual money invested by a company
accustomed to spending billions on develop-
ing a single new aircraft—and a big change in
perspective.
Whether UAS someday represents 10%
or 50% of Boeing Military Aircraft revenues
depends on the company’s ability not only to
bring all the requisite components together to
meet stated requirements, but also to antici-
pate future needs and push the thresholds of
technology. It also depends on how a military
customer that essentially dismissed UAVs for
decades—until technology evolved to make
them an indispensable combat asset—will look
at them in the future.
Both GE and Rolls-Royce are working to
a similar timescale. Rolls-Royce has targeted
its flight demonstration with an open rotor en-
gine—based on the core of a current produc-
tion engine—for 2014, and a final go/no-go
decision shortly after that, with a service date
of 2020.
Market uncertainties
While both GE and Rolls-Royce have proven
that the core concept of the open rotor is vi-
able—that 25% fuel improvements over cur-
rent engines are possible within current and
planned noise regulations—there are still a
great many market uncertainties to overcome.
For Airbus or Boeing to consider an open
rotor for their A320 or B737 replacement
families, they would have to embrace some
radical new design concepts and be sure about
the key operating cost and environmental
drivers that will prevail over the next 40 years.
“One of the fundamental remaining questions
is whether you trade noise for carbon dioxide
emissions,” according to Nuttall. “It will de-
pend on what the industry wants.”
The problem for engine and airframe
manufacturers is that no one can be quite sure
what the industry will really want in 2030.
For small militaries that cannot afford
large fleets of expensive manned aircraft, it
will be far easier to acquire and field UAVs to
perform virtually any task now handled by
manned platforms. And there will be growing
pressure, both budgetary and political, on na-
tions such as the U.S. to use UAVs and other
robotic platforms instead of far less expend-
able human warfighters.
“I don’t think unmanned necessarily will
supplant lots of manned, but there will be
plenty of both. I don’t believe today we know
for sure if a next-generation fighter, bomber,
or tanker will be manned, unmanned, or par-
tially both. Across the board, the services are
still evaluating what those future systems will
look like,” says Sweberg.
“Augmenting the power of the larger
manned aircraft today—the fighters and com-
mand and control—with unmanned real-time
ISR and, in some cases, real-time strike capa-
bility and the CONOPs and mission scenarios
employing that duality of systems—I think ulti-
mately we will be able to do missions faster
and more effectively.”
 Best Seller!
Winner of the Summerfield Book
Award and the Aviation/Space Writers
Association Award of Excellence.

Aircraft Design: A Conceptual

Approach, Fourth Edition
Daniel P. Raymer
List Price: $104.95 • AIAA Members: $79.95
2006, 869 pages, Hardback, ISBN: 978-1-56347-829-1
This highly regarded textbook presents the entire process of aircraft conceptual
design—from requirements definition to initial sizing, configuration layout,
analysis, sizing, and trade studies—in the same manner seen in industry
aircraft design groups. Interesting and easy to read, the book has almost
900 pages of design methods, illustrations, tips, explanations, and
equations, and has extensive appendices with key data essential to
design. The book is the required design text at numerous universities
around the world and is a favorite of practicing design engineers.

Raymer…implies that design involves far more than drawing a pretty shape
and then shoe-horning people, engines, and structural members into it. It
involves art. Raymer’s book covers not only aerodynamics, stability, and
stress analysis…but also the interstitial stuff about general arrangement
and the interplay of competing design considerations that are really the
grout that holds a design together.
—Peter Garrison, from Flying Magazine

It was as if this book was written specifically for me and brought

closure to theoretical concepts with understanding.
—James Montgomery, Homebuilder and Student

Great book…very easy to understand and clear explanations.

— Chi Ho Eric Cheung, University of Washington

Buy
RDS-STUDENT: Software for Aircraft Design, Sizing, Both and S
Aircraft Desig ave!
and Performance, Enhanced and Enlarged, Version 5.1 n
and RDS-STUD textbook
ENT
ISBN: 978-1-56 software.
347-
List Price: $104.95 • AIAA Members: $79.95 just $149.9 830-7
5 (L
or $114.9 ist)
2006, CD-ROM, ISBN: 978-1-56347-831-4 (AIAA Membe
5
rs)
The companion RDS-STUDENT aircraft design software is a valuable
complement to the text. RDS-STUDENT incorporates the design and analysis
methods of the book in menu-driven, easy-to-use modules. An extensive user’s manual is Phone: 800.682.2422 or 703.661.1595
provided with the software, along with the complete data files used for the Lightweight Fax: 703.661.1501
Supercruise Fighter design example in the back of the book. E-mail: aiaamail@presswarehouse.com
Publications Customer Service, P.O. Box 960,
Herndon, VA 20172-0960
08-0180r1
OOPlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10 11:33 AM Page 2

25 Years Ago, March 1985 delta wing bomber. F. Mason and M.

Windrow, Know Aviation, p. 60.
March 25 The secretary of the Air Force
announces changes in the combat exclusion March 18 At the U.K.’s Jodrell Bank
policy to allow women to serve as forward air Experimental Station (later the Jodrell
controllers, fly and crew several models of Bank Observatory), Princess Margaret
C-130 Hercules aircraft, and serve at munitions presses a switch that activates a
storage facilities. USAF History Web site. command radio signal for the
transmission of data by the NASA
50 Years Ago, March 1960 Pioneer probe, which is now 1,040,000
mi. from Earth and heading toward
March 1 As part of the space exploration program, NASA establishes its Office the exploration of a 26-million-mi.
of Life Sciences to undertake research on basic medical and behavioral sciences. gap between the orbits of Earth and
Studies will examine the effects of space and planetary environments on living Venus. Flight, March 25, 1960, p. 400.
organisms, and the possibilities for the existence of extraterrestrial life. D. Baker,
Spaceflight and Rocketry, pp. 99-100. March 25 The Aerobee 150-A, the
latest model in the famous Aerobee
March 6 Aviation pioneer Roy Knabenshue, whose early family of sounding rockets, is
accomplishments included making the first dirigible flight over launched for the first time. Lofted
New York in 1905, dies at 83. In 1904, he also made a record- from a new launch tower at NASA’s
breaking lighter-than-air flight when he piloted the California facility at Wallops Island, Va., the
Arrow airship at the Pan American Exposition to 2,000 ft. rocket reaches an altitude of 150 mi.,
In 1910-1911 he was an aviator for the Wright exposition team; where it conducts micrometeorite
in 1913 he flew the first passenger dirigible in the U.S., the White counts. E. Emme, ed., Astronautics
City. Flight, March 11, 1960, p. 327; Roy Knabenshue file, NASM. and Aeronautics 1915-60, p. 121.

March 8 The 60th and last Thor IRBM missile supplied to Britain is flown to the March 25 The hypersonic X-15
U.K. from the Douglas plant in Santa Monica, Calif., in a USAF Military Air rocket research aircraft achieves
Transport C-124 Globemaster. Flight, March 18, 1960, pp. 359-360. powered flight, piloted by NASA’s
Joseph A. Walker to 48,630 ft and
March 11 The 90-lb Pioneer V space probe is 1,320 mph. D. Jenkins, X-15, p. 611.
launched into a solar orbit around the Sun by a
Thor-Able 4. The spherical probe, featuring solar cells March 28 Clustered
and four paddle-like vanes, measures radiation and engines of the Saturn
magnetic fields between Earth and Venus. On its closest launch vehicle are fired
approach, the probe comes within 74.7 million mi. for the first time. In
of the Sun. Flight, March 18, 1960, p. 358; The this first test, two H-1
Aeroplane, March 18, 1960, p. 331. engines in an eight-
engine cluster are fired.
March 15 The Saturn launch vehicle project is officially transferred from the In further tests on April
Army Ballistic Missile Agency, headquartered at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., to NASA. 6, four of the engines
Consequently, the rocket’s development team, led by Wernher von Braun, is also are fired together, then
moved to NASA and assigned to the Marshall Space Flight Center, adjacent to all eight. A maximum
Redstone Arsenal. E. Emme, ed., Astronautics and Aeronautics 1915-60, p. 120. thrust of 1.3 million lb
is reached when the clustered engines
March 15 Russian plans for sending spacecraft to Venus and Mars are approved are fired on May 17. D. Baker,
by Mstislav V. Keldysh, vice president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Spaceflight and Rocketry, pp. 100-101.
D. Baker, Spaceflight and Rocketry, p. 100.
75 Years Ago, March 1935
March 15 The 43rd Bomb Wing at Carswell AFB,
near Fort Worth, Texas, becomes the first USAF March 7 John Tranum, the world’s
unit activated with the Convair B-58B Hustler most famous parachutist, dies in a
44 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010
OOPlayout310.qxd:AA Template 2/8/10 11:33 AM
Danish army plane over Copenhagen
when his oxygen equipment malfunc-
tions. He was attempting a parachute
drop from 25,000 ft. Danish-born
Tranum emigrated to California,
where was a movie stunt man. In the
late 1920s he went to England and
demonstrated Russell parachutes and
Irving Air Chutes. His longest drop
took place in May 1933, when he
jumped from a plane at 21,000 ft
over Salisbury Plain. He dropped
more than 17,000 ft, claimed as a
world’s record. Tranum scientifically
checked his parachute results with a
stopwatch and aneroid barometer
and turned over the results to the
U.S. Army Air Corps. The Aeroplane,
March 13, 1935, p. 290.
March 8 Robert H.
Goddard launches
one of his liquid-
propellant rockets
from Roswell,
N.M. He tests
an equalizer to
prevent liquid
oxygen tank pressure
from exceeding gasoline
pressure. The rocket is also equipped
with a pendulum stabilizer and a 10-ft
recovery parachute. It reaches an
altitude of 1,000 ft and lands 11,000
ft from the tower. In a letter written
a few days later Goddard remarks,
“We had the best flight we have ever
had during the entire research. The
streamlined rocket traveled nearly
700 mph and…showed the first real
indication of the rocket directing it-
self. It was very impressive. It looked
like a meteor passing across the sky.”
E. Goddard and G. Pendray, eds., The
Papers of Robert H. Goddard.
Page 3
An Aerospace Chronology
by Frank H. Winter, Ret.
and Robert van der Linden
National Air and Space Museum
March 8 Three Dornier Wal flying boats of the Royal Dutch Navy under the
command of Cmdr. W.H. Tepenburg arrive in Manila from the Netherlands East
Indies, the first Dutch aircraft to be seen in the Philippines. Although Tepenburg
announces that this is a goodwill flight, it is actually a mission to explore the
possibility of air service from Batavia to Manila. This service is not begun. E. Santos,
Trails in Philippine Skies, pp. 183-184; The Aeroplane, March 27, 1935, p. 365.
March 9 Hermann Goering announces the existence of the
German air force to Ward Price, correspondent of the London
Daily Mail. This implies the unilateral breaking of the Treaty
of Versailles clauses that prohibit a German air force.
E. Emme, ed., Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1915-60, p. 32.
March 14 The Percival Gull aircraft is demonstrated for the first time at
Gravesend, England. The low-wing cantilever monoplane cruises at 152 mph
with three people, 75 lb of luggage and enough fuel for 600 mi. Top speed is
172 mph. It lands at 43 mph with flaps down. The designer, Edgar Percival,
demonstrates the plane to a private party. The Aeroplane, March 20, 1935, p. 328.
March 22 Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei, a new Zeppelin company, is formed with
Hermann Goering as president. Since Goering is Germany’s air minister, the firm
will come under close government supervision. Zeppelin pioneer Hugo Eckner is
president of the company’s board of control. The firm is to develop transoceanic
Zeppelin services over the North and South Atlantic. The Aeroplane, March 27,
1935, p. 366.
March 28 Robert H. Goddard launches the first liquid-fueled rocket equipped
with gyroscopic controls. The nearly 15-ft-tall rocket reaches 4,800 ft at an
average speed of 550 mph at Roswell, N.M. German experimenter Alfred Maul
was the first to use a gyroscope in a rocket for stabilization, although the rocket
was propelled by solid-fuel gunpowder. His experiments, in about 1912, were for
the purpose of developing military reconnaissance rockets that would carry
cameras for photographing terrain from high altitudes. E. Goddard and G. Pendray,
eds., The Papers of Robert H. Goddard; E. Emme, ed., Aeronautics and Astronautics
1915-60; W. Ley, Rockets, Missiles, and Space Travel (1958 ed.).
100 Years Ago, March 1910
March 8 Baroness de Laroche of France is
the first woman to receive a pilot’s license.
C. Gibbs-Smith, Aviation, p. 158; Flight,
Oct. 30, 1909, p. 695.
March 10 Night flights are made for the first time by Emil Aubrun of France,
who makes two such trips of 20 km each on a Blériot to and from Villalugano, a
suburb of Buenos Aires, Argentina. C. Gibbs-Smith,
Aviation, p. 152.
March 28 Henri Fabre achieves the first flight in
a seaplane, a Gnome-powered floatplane, at
Martigues, near Marseilles, France. C. Gibbs-Smith,
Aviation, p. 153.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 45
AA_MAR2010_COPP.qxd:Layout 1 2/8/10 1:06 PM Page 2

46 AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010

AA_MAR2010_COPP.qxd:Layout 1 2/18/10 4:43 PM Page 3

Whiting School of Engineering

“The skills and knowledge engineers learn here

immediately put them out in front.”
–Christian Utara,
Instructor,
Systems Engineering

Grow Your Engineering

Career, Nearby

t AdvancF ZouS careeS witI thF excellencF oG JohnT HopkinT UniversitZ graduatF engineerinH programT
iO SZstemT EngineerinH anE TechnicaM Management
t FullZ onlinF M.S programT iO SZstemT Engineering ComputeS Science anE EnvironmentaM Planning
anE ManagemenU
t Master’T degreF anE certificatF programT iO diversF engineerinH disciplineT all designed to contribute
to Zour competitivF strengtI
t ClasseT scheduleE weekdaZ eveningT anE SaturdaZT aU convenientlZ locateE centerT anE onlinF
t FoS B completF lisU oG ouS graduatF programT pleasF visiU www.ep.jhu.edu/aiaa
INFO: jhep@jhu.edu 1.800.548.3647

Aberdeen t Baltimore t $rZstaM CJUZ t Elkridge t Laurel t Rockville t Southern .% t Washington, %$ t 0nline

AEROSPACE AMERICA/MARCH 2010 47

 Advancing Your Mission Through Ours
AIAA’s Corporate Membership roster represents corporations that lead
the world in the advancement of flight. Working together, we are
committed to being the shaping, dynamic force in aerospace –
the forum for innovation, excellence, and global leadership.

Acutronic USA Ephemeris Technology Solutions Orbital

Aerial Delivery Research and Futron Corporation ORBITEC
Development Establishment GE Aviation PM&AM Research
Aernnova Engineering, US GHKN Engineering Pointwise, Inc.
Aerojet Global Business Analysis Practical Aeronautics, Inc.
The Aerospace Corporation Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation QinetiQ North America
Airbus Americas Harris Corporation Raytheon Company
Alenia Aeronautica, S.p.A. Hawker Beechcraft Red Canyon Software
Analytical Graphics, Inc. Hellas Sat Consortium Rincon Research Corporation
Applied University Research Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Rockwell Collins, Inc.
ARES Corporation Honeywell International Rolls-Royce
Arianespace IBM Royal Aeronautical Society
Assured Space Access Technologies Insitu, Inc. SAFRAN
ATK Integral Systems, Inc. Sensis Corporation
Aurora Flight Sciences Intelligent Decisions, Inc. Software Engineering Institute
BAE Systems Intelligent Light Space Environment
Battelle Memorial Institute Intelsat General Corporation Technologies
The Boeing Company International Aviation Supply Space Systems/Loral
Booz Allen Hamilton Jacobs Technology SpaceX
BRAHE Corporation JHU/Applied Physics Laboratory Spectral Energies, LLC
Calspan Lockheed Martin Corporation Spincraft, Inc.
CC-OPS Masten Space Systems Star Technology and Research, Inc.
Cessna Aircraft Company MBDA, Inc. Stellar Solutions
CSSI, Inc. McKinney Associates Systems Technology, Inc.
DARcorporation The MITRE Corporation Teaching Science and
Deloitte National Aerospace Laboratory/ Technology, Inc.
DLR NLR U.S. Space LLC
Draper Laboratory National Institute of Aerospace United Launch Alliance
dSPACE National Technical Systems United Space Alliance
EADS Nielsen Engineering & Research, Inc. United Technologies Corporation
Edge Space Systems, Inc. Northrop Grumman Wolverine Ventures
Engineering Systems, Inc. ONERA Wyle

For more information, please contact Merrie Scott at 703.264.7530 or merries@aiaa.org,

or visit our Web site at www.aiaa.org/corporatemembership.

09-0395_1_10
 AIAABulletin MARCH 2010
AIAA Meeting Schedule B2
AIAA Courses & Training B4
Program Schedule
AIAA News B5
AIAA Publications B16
AIAA Meeting Program B17
40th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat
Transfer Conference
27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology
and Ground Testing Conference
28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
41st AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference
5th AIAA Flow Control Conference

AIAA Calls for Papers B24

In a very unique setting over Earth’s colorful horizon, the silhouette of the 2010 International Powered Lift Conference
Space Shuttle Endeavour is featured in this photo by an Expedition 22 crew
member on board the International Space Station, as the Shuttle approached AIAA Courses and Training B25
for its docking on 9 February during the STS-130 mission. (Image Credit: NASA) Program
Standard Conference Information B28

AIAA Directory
AIAA HEADQUARTERS AIAA Western Office To join AIAA; to submit address changes, mem-
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500 999 North Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 440 ber inquiries, or renewals; to request journal
Reston, VA 20191-4344 El Segundo, CA 90245 fulfillment; or to register for an AIAA conference.
www.aiaa.org 800/683-AIAA or 310/726-5000 Customer Service: 800/639-AIAA†
310/726-5004 FAX

Other Important Numbers: Aerospace America / Greg Wilson, ext. 7596* • AIAA Bulletin / Christine Williams, * Also accessible via Internet.
Use the formula first name
ext. 7575* • AIAA Foundation / Dave Quackenbush, ext. 7514*, Suzanne Musgrave, ext. 7518* • Book Sales / last initial@aiaa.org. Example:
800/682-AIAA or 703/661-1595, Dept. 415 • Corporate Members / Merrie Scott, ext. 7530* • International megans@aiaa.org.
† U.S. only. International callers
Affairs / Megan Scheidt, ext. 3842*; Emily Springer, ext. 7533* • Editorial, Books / Heather Brennan, ext. 7568* •
should use 703/264-7500.
Editorial, Technical Journals / Amanda Maguire, ext. 7507* • Education / Lisa Bacon, ext. 7527* • Exhibits /
Cecilia Capece, ext. 7570* • Honors and Awards / Carol Stewart, ext. 7623* • Proceedings / 800/682-AIAA or Addresses for Technical
703/661-1595, Dept. 415 • Professional Development / Patricia Carr, ext. 7523* • Public Policy / Steve Howell, Committees and Section Chairs
ext. 7625* • Section Activities / Chris Jessee, ext. 3848* • Standards, Domestic / Michele Ringrose, ext. 7515* • can be found on the AIAA Web
Standards, International / Erin Kahn, ext. 7645* • Student Programs / Karen Thomas, ext. 7520* • Technical site at http://www.aiaa.org.
Committees / Betty Guillie, ext. 7573*
We are frequently asked how to submit articles about section events, member awards, and other special interest items in the AIAA Bulletin. Please contact
the staff liaison listed above with Section, Committee, Honors and Awards, Event, or Education information. They will review and forward the information to
the AIAA Bulletin Editor.
 DATE MEETING LOCATION CALL FOR ABSTRACT
(Issue of AIAA Bulletin in PAPERS DEADLINE
which program appears) (Bulletin in
which Call
for Papers
appears)

2010
6–13 Mar† 2010 IEEE Aerospace Conference Big Sky, Montana (Contact: David Woerner,
818.726.8228; dwoerner@ieee.org; www.aeroconf.org)
8–11 Mar 8th Responsive Space Conference Los Angeles, CA (Contact: James Wertz, jwertz@smad.com,
(AIAA Los Angeles and Orange County Sections) www.responsivespace.com)
16–17 Mar 2010 Congressional Visits Day Washington, DC
22–24 Mar 8th U.S. Missile Defense Conference and Exhibit Washington, DC
22–24 Mar 3AF 45th Symposium of Applied Aerodynamics Marseilles, France (Contact: Anne Venables, secr.exec@
aaaf.asso.fr, www.aaaf.asso.fr)
12–15 Apr 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Orlando, FL May 09 10 Aug 09
Dynamics, and Materials Conference
18th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference
12th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference
11th AIAA Gossamer Systems Forum
6th AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Specialist Conference (Jan)
20–22 Apr AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2010 (Feb) Atlanta, GA Jun 09 23 Oct 09
25–30 Apr SpaceOps 2010 Conference: Delivering on the Dream (Jan) Huntsville, AL May 09 1 Aug 09
Hosted by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and organized by AIAA
1 May Seventh Annual Aerospace Systems and Technology Conference Santa Ana, CA
(AIAA Orange County Section in collaboration with the Los Angeles Section) Contact: https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/Western/Orange_County/
default.aspx
4–6 May† ASTRO 2010—15th CASI Astronautics Conference Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact: G. Languedoc, 613.591.8787, www.casi.ca
11–12 May Inside Aerospace—An International Forum for Aviation and Arlington, VA
Space Leaders (Feb)
12 May 2010 Aerospace Spotlight Awards Gala Washington, DC
13–15 May† Fifth Argentine Congress on Space Technology Mar del Plata, Argentina
Contact: Pablo de Leon, 701.777.2369, Deleon@aate.org,
31 May–2 Jun† 17th St. Petersburg International Conference on Integrated Saint Petersburg, Russia (Contact: Prof V. Peshekhonov,
Navigation Systems www.elektropribor.spb.ru, elprib@online.ru)
1–4 Jun† 4th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation Budapest, Hungary
(ICRAT 2010) Contact: Andres Zellweger, dres.z@comcast.net, www.icrat.org
7–9 Jun† 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference Stockholm, Sweden
Contact: Hans Bodén, hansbod@kth.se
8–10 Jun† 3rd International Symposium on System and Control in Aeronautics Harbin, People’s Republic of China
and Astronautics (ISSCAA 2010) Contact: Zhenshen Qu, ocicq@126.com, http://isscaa.hit.edu.cn
14–18 Jun† ASME TurboExpo 2010 Glasgow, Scotland, UK (Contact: www.turboexpo.org)
28 Jun–1 Jul 40th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference & Exhibit (Mar) Chicago, IL Jun 09 5 Nov 09
10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference
27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference
28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
41st AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference
5th AIAA Flow Control Conference
28 Jun–2 Jul† 8th International LISA Symposium Stanford, CA (Contact: Sasha Buchman, 650.725.4110,
www.stanford.edu/group/lisasymposium)
30 Jun–3 Jul† ICNPAA 2010—Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil
Aerospace and Sciences Contact: Prof. S. Sivasundaram, 386.761.9829, seenithi@aol.com
11–15 Jul 40th International Conference on Environmental Systems Barcelona, Spain Oct 09 2 Nov 09
18–25 Jul† 28th Scientific Assembly of the Committee on Space Research Bremen, Germany
(COSPAR 2010) Contact: www.cospar2010.org
25–28 Jul 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit Nashville, TN Jul 09 19 Nov 09
25–28 Jul 8th International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference & Exhibit Nashville, TN Jul 09 19 Nov 09

B2 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

 DATE MEETING LOCATION CALL FOR ABSTRACT
(Issue of AIAA Bulletin in PAPERS DEADLINE
which program appears) (Bulletin in
which Call
for Papers
appears)
2–5 Aug AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference Toronto, Ontario, Canada Jul 09 1 Feb 10
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference
AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference
AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference
7–13 Aug† 2010 International Heat Transfer Conference Washington, DC (Contact: Avram Bar-Cohen, 301.405.3173;
abc@umd.edu; www.nano.org/ihtc14.pdf)
31 Aug–2 Sep AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference & Exposition Anaheim, CA Dec 09 1 Feb 10
28th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC–2010)
13–15 Sep 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Fort Worth, TX Sep 09 8 Feb 10
(ATIO) Conference and
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
13–15 Sep† 5th Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems (ASMS) Conference/ Sardinia, Italy
11th Signal Processing for Space Communications (SPSC) Contact: Dr. Sandro Scalise, chairs@asms2010.org,
Workshop—Joint Event www.asms2010.org
19–24 Sep† 27th Congress of the International Council of the Nice, France 31 Jul 09
Aeronautical Sciences Contact: www.icas.org
27 Sep–1 Oct 61st International Astronautical Congress: Space for Human Prague, Czech Republic
Benefit and Exploration www.iac2010.cz
4–6 Oct† 21st International Conference on Adaptive Structures State College, PA (Contact: George Lesieutre,
and Technologies (ICAST) 814.863.0103, gal4+ICAST2010@psu.edu)
5–7 Oct 2010 International Powered Lift Conference Philadelphia, PA Mar 10 15 Mar 10
7–8 Oct† Aeroacoustics of High-Speed Aircraft Propellers and Open Rotors Warsaw, Poland
Contact: Damiano Casalino, d.casalino@cira.it
16–18 Nov AIAA Missile Sciences Conference (SECRET/U.S. ONLY) Monterey, CA

2011
4–7 Jan 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Orlando, FL 1 Jun 10
Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition
13–17 Feb 21st AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting New Orleans, LA
Contact: Peter Lai, 310.336.2367, www.space-flight.org/
AAS_meetings/2011_winter/2011%20winter.html
4–7 Apr 52st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, Denver, CO 9 Aug 10
and Materials Conference
19th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference
13th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference
12th AIAA Gossamer Systems Forum
7th AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Specialist Conference
Including AIAA Dynamics Specialists Conference
11–14 Apr 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems San Francisco, CA 1 Sep 10
and Technologies Conference

To receive information on meetings listed above, write or call

AIAA Customer Service, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 20191-4344;
800.639.AIAA or 703.264.7500 (outside U.S.). Also accessible via Internet at www.aiaa.org/calendar.
†Meetings cosponsored by AIAA. Cosponsorship forms can be found at http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=292.

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B3

 DATE COURSE VENUE LOCATION

2010
10–11 Apr Aeroelasticity: State-of-the-Art Practices Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2336&viewcon=courses
10–11 Apr Modern Modeling of Aircraft Structures* Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
10–11 Apr Introduction to Non-Deterministic Approaches Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
10–11 Apr Tensegrity Systems* Structures et al. Conferences Orlando, FL
26–27 Jun Modern Design of Experiments Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2120&viewcon=courses
26–27 Jun Basic Fluids Modeling with Surface Evolver Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
26–27 Jun Computational Heat Transfer (CHT) and Thermal Modeling Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
26–27 Jun Stability and Transition: Theory, Modeling and Applications Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
26–27 Jun Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing Fluids Conferences Chicago, IL
29–30 Jul Liquid Propulsion Systems Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2347&viewcon=courses
29–30 Jul Hydrogen Safety Course* Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
29–30 Jul NPSS: A Practical Introduction* Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
29–30 Jul Advanced Solid Rockets Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
29–30 Jul Air Breathing Pulse Detonation Engine Technology* Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
29–30 Jul Tactical Missile Design-Integration Joint Propulsion Conference Nashville, TN
31 Jul–1 Aug System Identification Applied to Aircraft—Theory and Practice GNC Conferences Toronto, Ontario, Canada
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2109&viewcon=courses
31 Jul–1 Aug Robust and Adaptive Control Theory GNC Conferences Toronto, Ontario, Canada
31 Jul–1 Aug Automated Modelling and Simulation of Dynamic and Control Systems Using GNC Conferences Toronto, Ontario, Canada
the Bond Graph Method in Aerospace Applications*
31 Jul–1 Aug Advanced Space Vehicle Control and Dynamics* GNC Conferences Toronto, Ontario, Canada
31 Jul–1 Aug Emerging Principles in Fast Trajectory Optimization GNC Conferences Toronto, Ontario, Canada
31 Jul–1 Aug Mathematical Introduction to Integrated Navigation Systems with Applications GNC Conferences Toronto, Ontario, Canada
29–30 Aug System Architecture, Capability, and Technology Assessment: Return on Investment SPACE Conference Anaheim, CA
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2387&viewcon=courses
29–30 Aug Systems Engineering Fundamentals SPACE Conference Anaheim, CA
29–30 Aug The Space Environment and Its Effects on Space Systems SPACE Conference Anaheim, CA
11–12 Sep Optimal Design in Multidisciplinary Systems ATIO/MAO Conference Fort Worth, TX
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2279&viewcon=courses
11–12 Sep Systems Engineering Fundamentals ATIO/MAO Conference Fort Worth, TX
14–15 Nov Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance Missile Sci Conference Monterey, CA
1 Dec–30 Apr Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics Distance Learning
1 Dec–30 Apr Advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics Distance Learning
1 Dec–30 Apr Computational Fluid Turbulence Distance Learning
1 Dec–30 Apr Spacecraft Thermal Control Distance Learning

* = New Course

To receive information on courses listed above, write or call

AIAA Customer Service, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 20191-4344;
800.639.2422 or 703.264.7500 (outside the U.S.). Also accessible via the internet at www.aiaa.org/courses.

B4 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

 A GOOD START TO 2010 FOR
AIAA
January and February always seem
to “kick-start” the year for AIAA,
and 2010 was certainly no excep-
tion. The Aerospace Sciences
Meeting/New Horizons Forum built
on the momentum started last
year with the move from Reno to
Orlando and the introduction of
the Forum. The technical papers
and plenary speakers and pan-
els were better than ever. Next
year we’ll be in Orlando again,
although the conference will be
from Tuesday–Friday instead of
Monday–Thursday because New Year’s Day is so late in the
prior week. Also kick-starting 2010 was the classified (Secret/U.S.
Only) AIAA Strategic and Tactical Missile Systems Conference,
held on even numbered years in Monterey, which had more than
a dozen flag-level speakers that covered the spectrum of Army,
Navy, Air Force, and Ballistic Missile Defense Agency programs,
as well as OSD and Intelligence Community perspectives.
U.S. Air Force T&E Days broke new ground this year with
much larger participation from the general officer leadership from
both the test community and the major commands that addressed
not only T&E but the linkages among research, development,
acquisition, and both developmental and operational test. The
highlight of the conference, and an indication of its growing
importance, was the luncheon speech by the Air Force Chief of
Staff, General Schwartz. The evolution of this conference reflects
a trend that we have been trying to foster across many of our
events: maintaining the technical depth and focus while bringing
in a broader perspective of how the specific discipline fits into a
larger community. The addition of the New Horizons Forum is an
attempt to bring this broader perspective to Aerospace Sciences.
We are looking for other opportunities to increase the value of our
programs to our members, the profession, and the industry we
work in, and we welcome your suggestions.
This was our second year supporting FAA’s Commercial
Space Transportation Conference. With the changes in the NASA
program in the 2011 budget released on 1 February, I have to
say that the 10–11 February timing couldn’t have been any bet-
ter. The speaker lineup included Charles Bolden, Administrator
of NASA; Secretary of Transportation Raymond LaHood; FAA
Administrator Randy Babbitt; General Bob Kehler, Commander
of Air Force Space Command; and leaders from the commercial
space transportation community. Mother Nature tried to throw us
a curve—Washington’s second major snowstorm in six weeks
dumped about two feet of snow on us. But the show went on,
although some speakers had to teleconference in. The timeliness
of this topic and the value of providing an information exchange
forum between government and industry were indicated by the
robust attendance despite the weather. This area is sure to see
major growth and change in the near term.
Our AIAA Vision is “to be the shaping, dynamic force in the
aerospace profession—the forum for innovation, technical excel-
lence, and global leadership.” I believe one of our greatest
challenges in achieving that vision is to maintain the technical
excellence in the many aerospace disciplines that has been our
hallmark since the founding of the American Rocket Society and
the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences almost 80 years ago, while
also broadening our perspective to be just as strong in systems
engineering, integration, program management, and the similar
skills that, today, are just as essential in delivering the world’s
finest aerospace systems. We started the year with four excellent
events that did exactly that. It is a tribute to our volunteer leader-
ship, the various planning committees, and the hundreds of AIAA
members that continue to make our conferences the best of their
kind, anywhere. Check out the Meeting Schedule that is on the
previous pages—as good as these events were, there’s better to
come!
I’ve received some questions about the “Contributions” that
are included in the annual membership renewal. These are not
required—you can choose to not include either one in your pay-
ment, but I hope that’s not your choice. The first that’s listed, the
Suggested Voluntary Contribution ($10), provides the Institute
Development Committee with resources to initiate programs and
projects that aren’t (yet) part of the Institute’s operating budget. In
general, the idea is to provide flexibility to do a one-time activity
or try new ideas for one-to-three years and then decide whether
the program should become part of the ongoing operations or be
terminated. Among the projects were the electronic archiving of
books and ARS/IAS journals and the introduction of team compe-
titions into our Student Conferences.
The second, which does not have a suggested amount and
is not included in the total shown on the renewal form, is for the
AIAA Foundation. The Foundation was formed in 1996 as AIAA’s
vehicle to “enhance and support the viability of the future aero-
space professional, practicing professionals and the organiza-
tions and institutions involved in aerospace.” The Foundation’s
Vision says it more simply: “The AIAA Foundation—Support for
Aerospace Education.” Everyone in our community is aware of
the challenges of bringing the next generation into the technical
workforce, and more specifically into aerospace. STEM is a part
of our vocabulary. We’ve had conferences devoted entirely to the
topic. It’s a “big deal” to government, industry—to society.
While many of us are involved at some level in helping address
the challenges, the AIAA Foundation provides a vehicle for every
AIAA member to engage. The AIAA Foundation is our vehicle to
provide scholarships, support STEM K–12 education, conduct
university-level design competitions and student conferences,
recognize our new Fellows and Associate Fellows, and a host
of other similar activities. Any level of contribution is welcome—
if you look up the Foundation Donor Roll Call on the Web site
(http://www.aiaafoundation.org), you’ll see donations from
$25 to over $100,000. As part of the Foundation Campaign, we
are offering options for one-time gifts, pledges, planned giving,
endowments, memorials, gift annuities, and more.
So, please look at these “Contributions” as investments—
investments in our profession. Whether you make your gift
through the membership renewal form or would like to talk with
the Foundation’s Development Officer, Suzanne Musgrave
(suzannem@aiaa.org or 703.264.7518) about some other
approach, please choose to participate. We can make a differ-
ence if we all support this together.
Bob Dickman
bobd@aiaa.org
ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the Annual Business Meeting of
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics will
be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City, Arlington, VA, on
Thursday, 13 May 2010, at 12:00 PM.
David J. Quackenbush, AIAA Treasurer and Secretary
AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B5
Region VII 2010 Associate Fellows

Bob Dickman as emcee for the Associate

Fellow Dinner

B6 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

AIAA SUPPORTS NATIONAL STEM INITIATIVES WITH
ITS RECENTLY HELD “ENGINEERS AS EDUCATORS”
WORKSHOP
Duane Hyland
If you attended the AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting in
Orlando, FL, and happened to walk into the “Engineers as
Educators” workshop on the evening of 6 January, you would
have found the air thick with flying “loop” airplanes; hair dryer-
powered hot air balloons; and abuzz with the sound of 75 engi-
neers enthusiastically learning how to convey their professional
knowledge to the K–12 classroom environment effectively.
Led by Sharon Bowers, Educator in Residence at the
National Institute of Aerospace, and Elana Slagle, educator and
Vice Chair of AIAA’s STEM (Science, Technology, Education,
Mathematics) K–12 Committee, the workshop teaches profes-
sional engineers readily applicable strategies and techniques
that will allow them to be resources for schools in their local
communities. The end goal of the workshop is to ensuring that
meaningful interactions in the classroom between K–12 educa-
tors and aerospace professionals take place, helping to bridge
the critical gulf between engineering professionals and K–12
STEM teachers. In his recent testimony before Congress, AIAA
President Dave Thompson said that promoting more effective
teaching of STEM subjects to U.S. schoolchildren is now more
important than ever at a time when U.S. children are choosing in
ever growing numbers not to pursue STEM education when they
reach college.
When asked about the value of the workshop, Ms. Slagle stat-
ed: “The Engineers as Educators Workshop raises awareness
of the tools and techniques they need to have a successful and
meaningful impact with K–12 students, and demonstrates AIAA’s
resolve to promote STEM education throughout America’s
school systems. As you know, President Obama has recently
issued a call to action to raise awareness of, and support for,
STEM education, and AIAA is proud to support that call.”
Workshop participants engaged in two teaching activities,
which they could then take back to schools in their own areas.
The first activity involved construction of “loop airplanes,” con-
sisting of a drinking straw as the fuselage, and two loops of
paper to act as wings. Participants then measured the distance
each “airplane” would travel when thrown. This activity demon-
Shelly Brimmeier, Jane Hansen, and Jeff Corbets making their hot air
balloon.
Workshop participants have fun creating loop airplanes.
strates the basics of aircraft design and how manipulations in
the design of an aircraft can affect flight. In the second teaching
activity, participants built a hot air balloon and then measured
the time the balloon could stay aloft with a 30-second burst of
hot air from a hair dryer as its fuel—illustrating the basics of
design engineering, data collection, and analysis. At the end of
the evening, participants received several items to use in their
classroom interactions, including access to a wiki-space of activ-
ities, found at http://engineersaseducators.wikispaces.com,
and a folder of resource activities from the National Institute of
Aerospace, AIAA’s partner in presenting the workshop.
When asked what attendees, or other AIAA members, should
do in order to work with a school, Ms. Slagle counseled that
any member with an interest in working in a classroom setting
should contact their section’s Precollege Outreach Officer to
volunteer time through the auspices of AIAA. Slagle noted that
working through AIAA to form a partnership with a local school
reassures educators that they are welcoming a motivated and
knowledgeable engineer into their classroom.
For anyone who missed the fun and learning in Orlando,
your next opportunity to take part in the Engineers as Educators
workshop will be at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference,
25–28 July, in Nashville, TN, where several sessions of the
workshop will be offered to maximize opportunities for attend-
ees to participate.
For more information on the AIAA’s STEM K–12 programs,
or on the Engineers as Educators workshop, please contact
Lisa Bacon, STEM K–12 Program Manager, at 703.264.7527,
or lisab@aiaa.org.
SENIOR MEMBER UPGRADES
Members are encouraged to apply for Senior Member upgrade.
Senior Members shall be persons who have demonstrated a
sucessful professional practice in the arts, sciences, or technol-
ogy of aeronautics or astronautics for the equivalent of at least
eight years.
Members may apply for the Senior Member grade at any
time during the year. To apply for upgrade, visit our Web site at
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=183.
Correction from the January 2010 AIAA Bulletin, page
B10: The SpaceOps 2010 Conference will take place in
Huntsville, AL.
AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B7
AIAA BLOSSOMS DOWN UNDER
Michael West, Chair, AIAA Sydney Section
2009 was a big year for AIAA in Australia, particularly the Sydney
Section, which also incorporates AIAA members in Australia’s
capital, Canberra. The highlight was the Australian speaking tour
by Dr. Pascal Lee as part of the AIAA’s Distinguished Lecturer
Program. Dr. Lee, the co-founder of the Mars Institute and direc-
tor of the Haughton Mars Project at NASA Ames Research
Center, gave public lectures in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide,
Canberra, and Melbourne on the cutting-edge technologies and
exploration strategies being developed in preparation for the first
human mission to the Red Planet. Entitled “From Earth to Mars:
Steps Towards The First Human Missions To Mars,” the presen-
tation explored the who, what, when, how, and why of exploring
Mars. The events were attended by more than 1000 people in
total and were very well received.
Dr. Lee also participated in the Australian Science Festival’s
“Science in the Pub” event with several leading Australian plan-
etary geologists. The event was a lively panel discussion of the
topic “Mars: Is it worth the trip?” and many interesting and chal-
lenging questions came from the audience. “Science in the Pub”
was recorded for rebroadcast Australia-wide on ABC Radio.
The lecture tour received widespread media coverage includ-
ing several radio interviews and has helped to raise the profile
of AIAA in Australia significantly. Many inquiries were received
from prospective members following Dr. Lee’s presentations.
The Sydney Section coordinated the lecture tour with support
from the Adelaide Section, key AIAA members in Brisbane and
Melbourne, and the team at AIAA Headquarters.
The Sydney Section ran a full program of events in Sydney
and Canberra in 2009, including seminars and public talks on the
science of flight testing, the hazards posed by space debris, the
exploration of the moons of Mars, and the joint U.S./Australian
HIFiRE hypersonic research program. Members were given a
tour of the Mt. Stromlo Observatory just outside of Canberra and
a day trip was arranged to the Temora Aviation Museum’s Flying
Day to witness one of the world’s finest collections of flying his-
toric aircraft. Aircraft in action included the only flying Spitfire and
the oldest flying Tiger Moth in Australia, the Super Constellation,
Meteor, Vampire, Dragonfly, and the Canberra bomber.
The Section also conducted an evening course on planetary
geology in 2009 as part of its professional development activi-
ties. Participants were given an introduction to the different
processes that resulted in the formation and current state of the
moon, Mars, and other rocky bodies in our solar system. The
B8 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010
course included hands-on activities and the chance to exam-
ine various geological specimens including several meteorites.
Following the success of this event, a one-day field trip was
arranged to geological sites in the region that are relevant to the
geology of Mars. Geologist Dr. Jonathan Clarke, who delivered
the introductory course and led the field trip, showed participants
examples of geological features and processes analogous to
those found on Mars.
Several social events have provided an opportunity for stu-
dents and professional members to interact socially in a casual
atmosphere. The Section has co-hosted several events with
the AIAA Student Branch at the University of Sydney and sup-
ported the Student Branch’s inaugural Paper Plane Competition.
The Section also financially supported eight Student Members
from Sydney and Canberra to participate in the 2009 Region
VII–Australasia AIAA Student Conference held in Melbourne
in October. Sydney Section member Lena Huyhn from the
Australian Defence Force Academy took first prize, which
included a trip to Orlando, FL, to present her paper at the AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit in January.
A one-day immersive program of hands-on activities about the
art and science of flight for primary school students, called “Cool
Aeronautics,” was held in November in Canberra. The day aimed
to both educate the students about aeronautics and astronautics
and also enthuse them about careers in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Fifty year 3–4 students (aged
8–10) from Turner Primary School visited the Australian Defence
Force Academy along with their teachers. The day included
presentations, movies, facility tours, and hands-on activities for
the students. The students worked in small groups on a number
of experiments with various professionals including aerospace
engineers, rocket scientists, and pilots. These activities included
making and launching their own small rockets, landing an aircraft
in a flight simulator, and measuring the lift on a wing in a wind
tunnel. The highlight of the day was witnessing the landing of
an Australian Navy Seahawk helicopter, examining the inside
of the helicopter, and speaking with the pilots and crew. “Cool
Aeronautics” was held in partnership with the Canberra branch
of the Royal Aeronautical Society and the School of Engineering
& Information Technology of the University of New South Wales
at the Australian Defence Force Academy.
2009 also saw the Tidbinbilla, Honeysuckle Creek, and Orroral
Valley Tracking Stations selected as an AIAA Historic Aerospace
Site following a nomination prepared by the Sydney Section.
The tracking stations, located an hour southwest of Canberra,
have supported NASA’s Deep Space Network, Manned Space
Flight Network and Spacecraft Tracking and Data Acquisition
Network. Among many notable achieve-
ments, the stations played a key role in sup-
porting the Apollo 11 moon landing, including
providing the first historic pictures of man
walking on the moon in July 1969. While
the Honeysuckle Creek and Orroral Valley
Tracking Stations were closed in the 1980s,
Tidbinbilla continues to provide support for
deep space missions today. The Sydney
Section membership and the Australian aero-
space community are looking forward to the
dedication ceremony later in 2010.
Australia’s AIAA Distinguished Lecturer for 2009, Dr
Pascal Lee, participated in the Australian Science
Festival’s “Science in the Pub” panel discussion on
the topic: “Mars: Is it worth the trip?” in Canberra
in May 2009. Shown are panelists Dr. Jonathan
Clarke, Dr. Pascal Lee, and Professor Malcolm
Walter (left to right), with ABC Radio hosts Paul
Willis (far left) and Bernie Hobbs (far right).
 Ariane Cornell
represented the
Space Generation
Advisory Council
(SGAC) at the
Aerospace Sciences
Meeting in Orlando,
FL, and addressed
the AIAA’s Student
Activities Committee
and the Young
Professionals
Committee, introduc-
ing SGAC to the young
AIAA community. As
part of the confer-
ence, Cornell had the
opportunity to take
an insider’s tour of
OUTSTANDING PAPER RECOGNIZED! the Kennedy Space
Center. The tour
The 2009 Shahyar Pirzadeh Memorial Award For included a stop at the
Outstanding Paper in Meshing Visualization and orbiter processing
Computational Environments (MVCE) was recently pre- facility, where Space
sented to Carl Ollivier-Gooch (right) from the University Shuttle, Discovery, was
of British Columbia for his paper “Assessing Validity of being prepared for its
Mesh Refinement Sequences with Application to DPW- 18 March launch
III Meshes.” Todd Michael (left) presented the award on (pictured).
behalf of the MVCE Technical Committee.

Early Bird Registration Deadline: 31 May 2010 27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement
Technology and Groundd Testin
Testing
Late Registration Deadline: 21 June 2010 Conference
28th AIAA Aerodynamics
A Applied Aerodyn
ynam
www.aiaa.org/events/Chicago2010
Conference
nce
5th AIAA Flow Conference
w Control Confer
C
40th AIAA
A Fluid Dynamics
D Co
Conference
and Exhibit
41st AIAA Plasmadynamics
and Lasers Conference
10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics
and Heat Transfer Conference

28 June–1
J 1 July
J l 2010
Hyatt Regency McCormick Place
Chicago, IL

10-0012
10-0012

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B9

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RADIO PROGRAM
RECEIVES 2009 INTERNATIONAL DAVEY AWARD

The National Institute of Aerospace (NIA), in partnership with

AIAA, was awarded a 2009 International Davey Award for
Discovery Now, a national public radio program, written and pro-
duced by NIA. Accessible to everyone, Discovery Now features
90-second highlights in aeronautics and astronautics technology,
science, history, innovations, research, and inventions from the
aerospace industry, with a goal to increase public awareness,
understanding, and appreciation of science and technology,
including NASA’s aerospace technology, research, and explora-
tion missions.
Over 4,000 entries from across the United States and around
the world were considered for the award, which is judged and
overseen by the International Academy of the Visual Arts, a
200+ member organization of leading professionals from various
disciplines of the visual arts dedicated to embracing progress
and the evolving nature of traditional and interactive media.
Discovery Now is written and produced by NIA and is funded by At the January Board meeting, AIAA President David Thompson and
a grant from AIAA. Additional public radio stations, college and Young Professional Liaison to the Board Sara Shull accepted the Davey
community stations, commercial stations, satellite radio, Public Award from Director-At-Large Dr. Robert Lindberg, National Institute
Radio International, and Voice of America are targeted to carry of Aerospace President & Executive Director (right side). The Young
the program. Professionals were instrumental in supporting Discovery Now.

Early Bird Deadline: 22 March 2010

Late Registration Deadline: 15 April 2010

2010 Conference and Exhibit

… information system technologies enabling revolutionary advances in 21st century aerospace

20–22 April 2010

The Westin Buckhead Atlanta
Atlanta, Georgia

09-0675

www.aiaa.org/events/I@A

B10 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

 The wing that Seth’s flying today got its
start as a space program washout.

You can look it up.

Even a failure can lead to success. Early hang gliders

were intended to bring Gemini space capsules gently
back to Earth. NASA’s tests didn’t work out. But the
research led to safe wing designs that flew longer
distances. And today’s popular sport took off.

Learn online about pioneering work like this

at the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. AIAA eBooks and the AIAA
Electronic Library bring you research from
the 1930s to today’s breakthroughs. Available
now in the world’s largest aerospace archives.

Search. Browse. Download.

You can look it up—with AIAA

www.aiaa.org/search

09-0410Gliderad.indd 1 1/26/10 5:00 PM

 SEVENTH ANNUAL ASAT CONFERENCE
Saturday, 1 May 2010, Doubletree Club Hotel Orange County Airport, 7 Hutton Centre Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92707; 714.751.2400
Sponsored by the AIAA Orange County Section In Collaboration with the L.A. Section
The Seventh Annual AIAA SoCal Aerospace Systems and Technology (ASAT) Conference brings together seasoned and new
engineers, researchers, leaders, managers, and students and provides a forum to exchange ideas, review achievements, and dis-
cuss the future direction of aerospace in the area. The Orange County Section’s Awards Banquet is held in the evening following
the conference and recognizes the accomplishments of some of our members.
Our keynote speakers are Mr. Mark Pieczynski, Vice President of Orbital Sciences, who will discuss the Taurus II development
program, and Dr. Kevin Bowcutt, Senior Technical Fellow at Boeing, who will discuss the current and future status of the X-51
program. The evening banquet features Mr. Craig Elder, manager of the LCROSS program for Northrop Grumman.
Typical topics for the conference include Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Space including Lift Vehicles and Satellites, Dynamics,
Aerodynamics, Design, Simulation, History, and Career. The registration deadline is 23 April. Conference information and registra-
tion is available at the Orange County Section Web site at https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/Western/Orange_County/default.aspx.

also given me the opportunity to meet Robert Heinlein, whose

film “Destination Moon” got me started in aerospace almost 60
years ago.—Richard Morris, Liaison Engineer, The Boeing
Company (Senior Member)

When did I know I wanted to be an aerospace engineer?

It was probably on my 4th birthday, Dec. 8, 1950, when my
parents took me to see “Destination Moon”. When I walked out
of the theater I was hooked, and becoming the first man on the
Moon became my greatest ambition. But whenever I told anyone
what I wanted to be when I grew up, they always told me that
I’d be much too old when we finally got around to going—except
for my father, who was an aeronautical engineer and worked in
the wind tunnel at the University of Wichita. It was my father who
taught me about things like specific impulse, the rocket equation,
the laws of motion, etc., when I was in Grade School. He also
gave me my first look at the Moon through a telescope—a 6”
reflector.
In Junior High School, I got hooked on electronics and went
on to get my BSEE at the University of Washington. My first job
was with Boeing working on the SRAM guidance system, which
included supporting a hardware-in-the-loop flight simulation facil-
ity. Alas, that was the closest I’ve ever gotten to launching any
real rockets.
But I’ve seen a few. Our chief engineer on SRAM was Henry
Runkel, who was chief engineer on the S1-C, and his secre-
tary got me a car pass to see the launch of Apollo 17 from the
Kennedy Parkway viewing area. It was a night launch, and when
those 5 F-1 engines ignited, the entire sky turned bright yellow.
I knew that rockets were loud, but nothing prepared me for the
roar of those Saturn engines, which was felt as much as heard. I
got hooked all over again.
Since then I’ve been down to see Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, and
STS-1. After the STS-1 launch, I flew out to California, and my
cousin and I drove out to Edwards AFB to see the landing. We
were parked east of the dry lake bed, and when the announcer
said that Columbia was passing overhead I looked straight up
and immediately saw a small black triangle heading rapidly to
the east. I thought it must be a chase plane, but it turned out to
be the Orbiter. I may have been the first person to see it with the
naked eye after re-entry.
I’ve been in commercial aviation (747 and 767) for about 30
years now, but my memberships in AIAA and other organiza-
tions (NSS and its predecessors, NSI and the L5 Society) have
helped me stay connected with my first love, space. They’ve
Long before I ever first heard the term “aerospace”. My Dad
was a civil engineer and surveyor, so I had some vague sense
of engineering when I was little kid in the 1950s. My Dad never
went to college but took home courses from the International
Correspondence School. Back then, if you could adequately
demonstrate your engineering knowledge, you could still get
registered. He was the Post Engineer of the New Cumberland
Army Depot.
My interest in aerospace began in the early 1950s with
Saturday morning TV shows like Space Patrol, Commando
Cody, and Captain Midnight. I also had (and still have) a pop-
up book about a trip to Mars. I was fascinated with the idea of
going into space, where no one had gone before, and with the
rockets that would take people there. About the year of Sputnik,
I encountered the book Rocket Power and Space Flight by G.
Harry Stine.
Soon after, I got a hold of some model rocket engines made
by Model Missiles, Inc., and started launching rockets. Then
came Estes and Coaster Corporation solid rocket motors, which
also allowed aspiring rocketeers to experiment with rockets in
relative safety. I joined the National Association of Rocketry. My
Dad had a mechanical calculator that he used in his surveying
business; and largely because of that, my interest turned toward
computing the physics behind rockets, mainly trajectories at the
time.
With encouragement from my Dad and several dedicated
high school science and math teachers, I proceeded to the
Aerospace Engineering program at Penn State. There, some
astoundingly good teachers taught us the math and physics
behind aerodynamics, gasdynamics, and structures. At one
point at Penn State, I got a chance to do a hot-fire test of one
of my larger model rockets in the subsonic wind tunnel. Later,
I had the opportunity to spend 6 months at Rocketdyne as an
engineering intern and got to observe a static test of an H-1
engine, an image still vivid in my mind.
So, all of that led, after 4 years in the Air Force at Tinker
AFB, OK, to 30+ years at Arnold Engineering Development
Center (TN) as an engineering math modeler in fluid flow
and heat transfer.—Frederick Shope, Engineer Level 7,
Aerospace Testing Alliance/AEDC (Senior Member)
What ignited your imagination? When did you know? To find out
more, visit www.aiaa.org/ShareYourStory.

B12 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

AIAA MEMBER, LTJG SCOTT MARTIN GETS NAVY
PILOT WINGS

U.S. Navy Lieutenant Junior Grade Scott Martin, graduated

from U.S. Navy Advanced Pilot Training and was designated a
Naval Aviator in December 2009, in Pensacola, FL. Martin will
fly the SH-60 Seahawk helicopter from Navy destroyers, and will
be based in San Diego, CA.
January 1 marked the 10-year anniversary of Martin’s first
solo flight, at the age of 14, in a sailplane at Tehachapi’s
Mountain Valley Airport. He completed his private pilot license in
gliders two years later. Martin’s Navy training now enables him
to add three additional ratings: “Single Engine Land,” “Rotary
Wing,” and “Instrument” to his private pilot license.
Lieutenant Junior Grade Scott Martin graduated from the
U.S. Naval Academy in 2007 with a Bachelor of Science
Degree in Aerospace Engineering. Martin was an AIAA Class
of 2003 Ambassador. The “Class of 2003 Ambassadors” pro-
gram allowed students then in the 8th grade to compete to join
the AIAA Class of 2003 Ambassadors. In the years leading
up to the 17 December 2003, Centennial of Flight, the AIAA
Ambassadors attended two events per year, organized by the
Institute. The Ambassadors in turn promoted the Centennial and
their experiences with their classmates and community.

LTJG Scott Martin learned to fly the TH-57 helicopter while assigned to
Helicopter Training Squadron Eight (HT-8) at NAS Whiting Field, in Milton, FL.

SpaceOps 2010
Conference
25–30 April 2010
Von Braun Center
Huntsville, Alabama
www.SpaceOps2010.org

An innovative forum for

Space Operations professionals

DELIVERING
he
on t
e am
Dr Early bird
registration deadline
09-0686r1
31 March 2010
Hosted by: Sponsored by: Supported by: Organized by:
NASA Marshall
Space Flight
Center

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B13

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS sis should be upon the high quality or major influence of the
piece rather than, for example, the importance of the underlying
Recognize the achievements of your colleagues by nominating technological contribution. The award is an incentive for aero-
them for an award. Nominations are now being accepted for the space professionals to write eloquently and persuasively about
following awards, and must be received at AIAA Headquarters their field and should encompass editorials as well as papers or
no later than 1 July 2010. books.
The nomination form can be downloaded from www.aiaa.org,
or AIAA members may submit nominations online by logging into Space Processing Award is presented for significant con-
www.aiaa.org, “MY AIAA.” tributions in space processing or in furthering the use of micro-
gravity for space processing. (Presented even years)
Aerospace Software Engineering Award is presented for
outstanding technical and/or management contributions to aero- Summerfield Book Award is named in honor of Dr. Martin
nautical or astronautical software engineering. (Presented odd Summerfield, founder and initial editor of the Progress in
years) Astronautics and Aeronautics Series of books published by
AIAA. The award is presented to the author of the best book
Children’s Literature Award is presented for an outstanding, recently published by AIAA. Criteria for the selection include
significant, and original contribution in aeronautics and astronau- quality and professional acceptance as evidenced by impact on
tics. (Presented odd years) the field, citations, classroom adoptions, and sales.
Dr. John Ruth Digital Avionics Award is presented to rec- James Van Allen Space Environments Award is presented
ognize outstanding achievement in technical management and/ to recognize outstanding contributions to space and planetary
or implementation of digital avionics in space or aeronautical environment knowledge and interactions as applied to the
systems, including system analysis, design, development, or advancement of aeronautics and astronautics. The award hon-
application. (Presented odd years) ors Prof. James A. Van Allen, an outstanding internationally rec-
ognized scientist, who is credited with the early discovery of the
Excellence in Aerospace Standardization Award is pre-
Earth’s “Van Allen Radiation Belts.” (Presented even years)
sented to recognize contributions by individuals that advance
the health of the aerospace community by enabling cooperation, AIAA proudly participates with other societies and organiza-
competition, and growth through the standardization process. tions concerning the following award.
(Presented odd years)
Elmer Sperry Award commemorates the achievements of
Faculty Advisor Award is presented to the faculty advisor of Dr. Sperry by seeking to encourage progress in the engineering
a chartered AIAA Student Branch, who in the opinion of student of transportation. This joint society award, sponsored by AIAA,
branch members, and the AIAA Student Activities Committee, IEEE, ASME, SNAME, SAE, and ASCE, is given in recogni-
has made outstanding contributions as a student branch faculty tion of a distinguished engineering contribution, which through
advisor, as evidenced by the record of his/her student branch in application proved in actual service has advanced the art of
local, regional, and national activities. transportation whether by land, sea, or air. Nominations due
1 September. For further information visit http://www.sperry-
Gardner-Lasser History Literature Award is presented
award.org.
for the best original contribution to the field of aeronautical or
astronautical historical nonfiction literature published in the last If you need further information, please contact Carol Stewart,
five years dealing with the science, technology, and/or impact of Manager, AIAA Honors & Awards Program, at carols@aiaa.org
aeronautics and astronautics on society. or at 703.264.7623.
History Manuscript Award is presented for the best historical
manuscript dealing with the science, technology, and/or impact
or aeronautics and astronautics on society.
Information Systems Award is presented for technical and/
or management contributions in space and aeronautics computer
and sensing aspects of information technology and science.
(Presented odd years)
Lawrence Sperry Award is presented for a notable contribu-
tion made by a young person to the advancement of aeronautics
or astronautics. The nominee must be under 35 years of age on
31 December of the year preceding the presentation.
Losey Atmospheric Sciences Award is presented for recog-
nition of outstanding contributions to the atmospheric sciences
as applied to the advancement of aeronautics and astronautics.
Missile Systems Award
The award is presented in two categories. The Technical
Award is presented for a significant accomplishment in develop-
ing or using technology that is required for missile systems. The
Management Award is presented for a significant accomplish-
ment in the management of missile systems programs.
Pendray Aerospace Literature Award is presented for an
outstanding contribution or contributions to aeronautical and
astronautical literature in the relatively recent past. The empha-

B14 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

AIAA WELCOMES NEW MEMBERS, JOINED DECEMBER 2009
Region I Northeastern New York Anne K. G. Murphy Arrowhead Denmark
Yussef Elimelech Stephen P. Schrantz Charles J. Kondrack Soren Hjort
Baltimore
Larina Riley Casimir J. Suchyta Jesper Laursen
Candy Cordwell Los Angeles
Qingguo Zhang David R. Swindells
Donald H. Ferguson Michael Bodeau France
Daniel E. Wines
Peter J. Gray Northern New Jersey Jee S. Cha Claude Berat
James Hanna Adom Giffin Illinois Miroslav Sir Claude Hug
Brian Henz Saleem Malkana Matthew Vogel Lionel Larchevêque
Michael S. Just, Sr. Sang Hee Won Orange County Ajmal K. Mohamed
Paul R. Myrick Indiana Chad M. Margolin Bernard Zappoli
Rajneesh Singh Southern Tier Haixin Chen Marcel Milanes
John Thornton Sergiy Gerashchenko Andrew J. Leech Germany
Donghyun You Eric Walters Pacific Northwest Jens Bange
Region II Matthew Anderson Pedro Ferreira
Connecticut Michigan Alex Byrne Uwe Fey
Marco Arienti Alabama/Mississippi Patsy Muzzell David Holler Zhonghua Han
Jinzhang Feng Ronald W. Davenport Guoxing Yi James B. Mackey Andreas Huebner
Meggan Harris Ginger N. Flores John A. Moore Gail N. Iles
Xiaoyi Li Roberto Garcia Northern Ohio Erin Talbott Christian Klein
Luis M. Nunez Charles A. Jones Rula M. Coroneos
Igor Klioutchnikov
Graham R. Philbrick Frank H. Patterson, IV Carlos Grodsinsky Phoenix
Peter Noeding
Vaidyanathan Sankaran Ashley Ranguelov Michael Johanson Joseph T. Fraval
Andreas Steinbeck
Karen A. Teerlinck Eric Sholes Richard T. Manella Paul R. Wilkinson
Lyndon M. Tcherneshoff Angelo L. Scandaliato Great Britain
Delaware Trenton W. Thompson Sacramento
Tamas Bertenyi
Kambiz K. Farsi Region IV Phil Csik
Derek Bray
Atlanta John B. Morris
Albuquerque Scott Gleason
Greater Philadelphia Simon I. Briceno George V. Perrin
Ted Blacker Jae Wook Kim
Tein-Min Tan Ed DiGirolamo
Stephen Forbes San Fernando Pacific Craig J. Mead
James McMichael
Hampton Roads Thomas Fraser Paul K. Fonua T. Rendall
Thomas A. Owens
Gwibo Byun Brian R. Resor Amelia Ruzzo Kashmir Sami
Rowan Gollan Cape Canaveral Justin L. Wagner
San Francisco India
Prasad Kutty Percy R. Luney David G. Wilson
Douglas M. Atler Pramod K. Dash
Ed Shea Ann Micklos
Holloman/Alamogordo Michael Barnhardt T. M. Murugnanadam
Anthony V. Thounhurst Charles D. Quincy
Malden J. Travis Karthikeyan Duraisamy Velmurugan V. Vadivel
Minwei Wu Thomas Tietjen
David L. Eisenhauer
Houston Iran
Long Island Central Florida Jonathan D. Gesek
Mark R. Blanton Afshin Banazadeh
Thomas Cubaud Vishal A. Bhagwandin Colin V. Johnson
Gary Bourland Babak Zolghadri
Jason Trelewicz Patrick R. Drakes Harry Jones
Eric Grobelny Joel R. Henry Eric Kinser Italy
National Capital Miguel A. Iturmendi Max Larin Jean Lachaud Giovanni Vulpetti
Adriana Apolito-Bevis Bjoern Landmann David W. Niesel Madhusudan G. Pai
Mark Campbell Sebastian Langer Bob Rodert Japan
Ariel Dvorjetski North Texas
Ylberto V. Ruiz Mai Bando
Christopher Eastman Philip T. Beyer San Gabriel Valley Masaki Fuchiwaki
Koti Elazar Northwest Florida Kurt Chankaya Walter Boyd Masaaki Hamabe
David C. Evans William A. Bidlack Marie Denison Patrick H. Kostun Naoki Hoaoya
Mark Fraser Rajan Kumar Joshua F. Johnson
Akira Ichikawa
Kenny Gele Gary L. Plumb Mario A. Rotea Tucson
Hidetoshi Iijima
Nancy O. Jenkins James Rogers Fred Biddix
Keiichi Ishiko
William A. Kenney Region V
Utah Shinji Nagai
Robert G. Leginus, Jr. Palm Beach
Iowa Wiley H. Billingsley Teppei Okumura
Adrien Loseille Mary C. Haas
Richard T. Holdcroft Peggy Facer Takashi Ozawa
Thomas O. O’Brien Richard J. Rashilla Kenichiro Tsujita
Savannah Ivan V. Mendenhall
Mark Shackelford Daisuke Watanabe
Johnna K. Bussell Mark A. Moore
Chris Shank Rocky Mountain Shunsuke Yamada
Hal Murdock
Laura Sherman Tennessee Stanley D. Bailey
Wallace A. Somerville
Fumiya Togashi Steve Charles Tom Cullen Netherlands
Minh Truong Sam J. Hall Eric L. Eagen Vandenberg Meüs van der Poel
Richard W. Tyson David M. Hiebert Robert S. Fredell Dwayne L. Eacret
Robert M. Williams Harish Gopalan Portugal
Haoxiang Luo David D. Hopp
Ted S. Winschel Charles J. Hatsell Miguel A. R. Silvestre
John Walters Thomas A. Trautt
Sam C. Yakulis Li Wang William D. Pratt
Russia
Peter Rimmington Region VII
New England Olga A. Azarova
Region III Jayanarayanan Sitaraman
Steve Banzaert Australia Dmitry Yarantsev
Sol A. Stern
Michael Bates Columbus Gregory Walker
Singapore
Christopher Hegarty Demetri C. Capetanopoulos Twin Cities
Belgium Yongdong Cui
Stanislaw Kordana Carolyn J. Matthews Keith Crooker
David Mindell Da Gao Johan Meyers
South Korea
Cuong Nguyen Dayton/Cincinnati Pramod K. Subbareddy
Canada Dongwan Kim
Jason F. Pepi Gregory S. Bechtel
Robert Eslinger Clement Fortin
John Quallen Region VI Spain
Jeff E. Graham Phoi-Tack Lew
David Schmidt DongSeop Lee
Richard D. Graman Antelope Valley
Nathaniel Trask China (PRC)
Bethany Huelskamp Joseph F. Boyle Turkey
Jeffrey Ward Nan Gao
Danny Lacore Christopher M. Eaton Emel Mahmutyazicioglu
Edward Scholl Zhi Gang Yu
No Section Assignment Chris Larsen
Zongyu Zuo
James Engle Janet Morison

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B15

New and
Forthcoming Titles
AIAA eBooks!
More than 200 AIAA books—including formerly out-of-print titles—are now available in e-book format for viewing online
or downloading to your computer. Purchase chapters or the entire book. Check them out today at http://ebooks.aiaa.org.

The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History Aircraft Engine Controls: Design, System Analysis, and
Jack Connors Health Monitoring
Library of Flight Series Link C. Jaw, Scientific Monitoring, Inc. and Jack D.
2010, 528 pages, Hardback Mattingly, Mattingly Consulting
ISBN-13: 978-1-60086-711-8 AIAA Education Series
AIAA Member Price: $39.95 2009, 364 pages, Hardback
List Price: $49.95 ISBN: 978-1-60086-705-7
AIAA Member Price: $74.95
Principles of Flight Simulation List Price: $99.95
David Allerton, University of Sheffield
Analytical Mechanics of Space Systems, Second Edition
AIAA Education Series
2010, 471 pages, Hardback
Hanspeter Schaub, University of Colorado, and John L.
ISBN-13: 978-1-60086-703-3 Junkins, Texas A&M University
AIAA Member Price: $74.95 AIAA Education Series
List Price: $94.95 2009, 794 pages, Hardback
ISBN: 978-1-60086-721-7
Optimal Control Theory with Aerospace Applications AIAA Member Price: $79.95
List Price: $104.95
Joseph Z. Ben-Asher, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology
AIAA Education Series Computational Modelling and Simulation of Aircraft and
February 2010, 264 pages, Hardback
ISBN-13: 978-1-60086-732-3
the Environment: Volume I—Platform Kinematics and
AIAA Member Price: $69.95 Synthetic Environment
List Price: $89.95 Dominic J. Diston
AIAA Education Series
Advances in Collaborative Civil Aeronautical 2009, 356 pages, Hardback
ISBN: 978-1-60086-704-0
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization AIAA Member Price: $74.95
Ernst Kesseler and Marin D. Guenov List Price: $94.95
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series, 233
2010, 438 pages, Hardback Finite Element Structural Analysis: New Concepts
ISBN-13: 978-1-60086-725-5 J.S. Przemieniecki, Air Force Institute of Technology (Ret.)
AIAA Member Price: $79.95
List Price: $109.95 AIAA Education Series
2009, 138 pages, Hardback
ISBN-13: 978-1-56347-997-7
From RAINBOW to GUSTO: Stealth and the Design of the AIAA Member Price: $69.95
Lockheed Blackbird List Price: $89.95
Paul A. Suhler
Library of Flight Series Fundamentals and Applications of Modern Flow Control
2009, 300 pages, Paperback Ronald D. Joslin and Daniel N. Miller
ISBN-13: 978-1-60086-712-5
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series, Vol. 231
AIAA Member Price: $29.95
2009, 522 pages, Hardback
List Price: $39.95 ISBN: 978-1-56347-983-0
AIAA Member Price: $79.95
Out of This World: The New Field of Space Architecture List Price: $104.95
A S. Howe and Brent Sherwood, with cover art by Syd Mead
Library of Flight Series View complete descriptions
2009, 422 pages, Hardback
ISBN-13: 978-1-56347-982-3 and order 24 hours a day at
AIAA Member Price: $89.95 www.aiaa.org/new
List Price: $119.95

B16 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

 40th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics
and Heat Transfer Conference
27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology
and Ground Testing Conference
28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
41st AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference
5th AIAA Flow Control Conference
28 June–1 July 2010
Hyatt Regency McCormick Place
Chicago, IL

Synopses
40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
The 40th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference will include papers covering all aspects of fluid dynamics, particularly those relevant to
aerospace applications. Topics range from basic research and development to applied and advanced technology, including novel exper-
imental and computational observations, interdisciplinary papers that bridge theoretical, experimental, and numerical approaches, and
papers that provide innovative concepts and analyses, or especially new insight into flow physics. Sessions will include papers related to
low and high speed flows, instability, transition, turbulence, vortex dynamics, multi-phase and/or reacting flows, unsteady fluid dynamics,
numerical and experimental methods, multidisciplinary applications, and various aspects of flow control. The conference is collocated
with several other conferences to enable close synergism and interaction among a broad range of research disciplines in fluid dynamics,
and several joint and invited sessions on topics of broad interest will be arranged.

10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference

The AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference will feature papers on topics in heat transfer and thermophys-
ics. Conference sessions will focus on technical topic areas related to all aspects of thermal energy transfer in aerospace and mechani-
cal engineering applications. Additionally, each year, the AIAA Thermophysics Technical Committee offers a Best Paper Award in both
the Professional and Student Categories (with the student receiving a monetary award).

27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement and Ground Testing Conference

The 27th AIAA Aerodynamics Measurement and Ground Testing Conference is a partnership of the Advanced Measurement Technology
Technical Committee (AMTTC) and the Ground Testing Technical Committee (GTTC). The conference will feature abstracts of proposed
papers on the science, technology, and application of ground testing and aerodynamic measurements, from basic research, to measure-
ments for understanding complex flows, to facility development, to system test, and from research laboratories to test facilities and the
lessons learned. This year’s conferece will feature sessions built from four main areas of interest: measurement and testing technology
research and development; advances in ground test capability; operations and policy; and ground test facilities infrastructure sustainment.
28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
The 28th Applied Aerodynamics Conference provides a forum for the presentation and discussion of technical material in diverse
areas of theoretical, computational, and experimental applied aerodynamics. Conference sessions will focus on technical topics in the
areas of wind-tunnel and flight-testing aerodynamics, unsteady aerodynamics, subsonic, transonic, supersonic, hypersonic aerodynam-
ics, vortical/vortex flow applications, high angle of attack and high lift aerodynamics, boundary layer transition and drag prediction, low
Reynolds number aerodynamics, airfoil/wing/configuration aerodynamics, propeller/rotorcraft aerodynamics, weapon carriage and store
separation aerodynamics, innovative aerodynamic concepts/designs, aerodynamic design methodologies, active flow control applica-
tions, unmanned aerial vehicle designs/testing, missile/projectile/guided-munitions aerodynamics, aerodynamic-structural dynamics
interaction, icing effects on vehicle aerodynamics, application of artificial intelligence techniques to aero problems, and application of
CFD methods to aerodynamic configurations validated against experimental data. The conference is collocated with several other con-
ferences to enable close synergism and interaction among a broad range of research disciplines in applied aerodynamics.

41st AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference

The 41st AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference will address current basic and/or applied research in the areas of plasma-
dynamics, lasers, electromagnetics, diagnostics, and related topics in nonequilibrium reacting flows. Contributed papers will describe
contemporary experimental, analytical, and computational efforts. The program will include many interdisciplinary papers and contribu-
tions describing state-of-the-art developments in the areas of plasmadynamics and lasers. Conference sessions will focus on the techni-

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B17

cal areas of plasma and laser physics, properties, chemistry and kinetics; space plasma physics and applications, plasma interactions,
space laser applications, tethers, and space experiments; plasma materials processing and environmental applications, hazardous
material disposal; laser devices and advanced diagnostics; laser optics and fluid-optics interactions; magnetohydrodynamic power, flow
control, and modeling; weakly-ionized gas issues; and space plasma propulsion.

5th Flow Control Conference

The 5th AIAA Flow Control Conference is a biennial event held in conjunction with the Fluid Dynamics summer meeting. It is a forum
for all aspects of flow control technology, emphasizing the multidisciplinary interaction among a diverse range of research disciplines
with a common basis in fluid dynamics. Technical sessions range from actuation technology to applications of flow control across a
wide spectrum of flow regimes. Flow Control applications range from fundamental studies through closed-loop control investigations.
Special sessions include a Testing Capabilities for Flow Control panel discussion and a Progress in Flow Control poster session.

1st AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop (HiLiftPW-1) Tuesday, 29 June

The 1st AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop, held in
conjunction with the 28th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, will
occur on 26–27 June, the weekend prior to the conference. The
objectives of the High-Lift Prediction Workshop are to:
• Assess the numerical prediction capability (mesh, numerics,
turbulence modeling, high-performance computing require-
ments, etc.) of current-generation CFD technology/codes for
swept, medium-to-high-aspect ratio wings for landing/take-off
(high-lift) configurations.
• Develop practical modeling guidelines for CFD prediction of
high-lift flowfields.
• Advance the understanding of high-lift flow physics to enable
development of more accurate prediction methods and tools.
• Enhance CFD prediction capability for practical high-lift aero-
dynamic design and optimization.
A likely outcome of the initial workshop will be to identify
areas that could benefit from additional research and develop-
ment. The workshop is open to participants worldwide and
is sponsored by the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical
Committee. Participation in the high-lift prediction studies is not
required to attend the workshop; everyone is welcome. Open,
unbiased forums are included in the workshop to discuss the
results and promote cross-pollination of best practices. The
HiLiftPW-1 test cases are based on the Trapezoidal (Trap) Wing
configuration, which was used in a series of NASA Langley 14 x
22 Foot Subsonic Wind Tunnel tests in 1998 and 2002. A signifi-
cant amount of high-quality data is available readily. Please join
us and attend the initial workshop to help kick off the High-Lift
Prediction series of computational studies. For more information,
visit the HiLiftPW Web site: http://hiliftpw.larc.nasa.gov.
Special Events
Monday, 28 June
0800–0900 hrs
Plenary Session: “Key Air Force Research Priorities: Science
and Technology at the Leading Edge”
Speaker: Dr. Werner Dahm, USAF Chief Scientist
0900–1000 hrs
Accompanying Persons Breakfast
Accompanying persons are invited to meet at 0900 hrs on
Monday, 22 June, for coffee and tea, where information about
local attractions, activities, and tours will be available.
1700–1800 hrs
Plasmadynamics and Lasers Award Lecture
Speaker: S.T. Demetriades, Plasmadynamics and Lasers
Award Winner
1800–1930 hrs
Welcome Reception with the Exhibitors
Admission is included in the registration fee where indicated.
Additional tickets may be purchased for $60 via the registration
form or at the AIAA on-site registration desk.
B18 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010
0800–0900 hrs
Thermophysics Awards Lecture
1200–1400 hrs
Awards Luncheon
Admission is included in the registration fee where indicated.
Additional tickets may be purchased for $50 via the registration
form or at the AIAA on-site registration desk. The Aerodynamic
Measurement Technology Award, Ground Testing Award, Fluid
Dynamics Award, Thermophysics Award, Plasmadynamics and
Lasers Award, and Aerodynamics Award will be presented at
the luncheon.
Speaker: Tom Ramsay, Senior Engineer, Honda R&D
Americas Inc.
“Race Car Aerodynamics”
In the past 30 years, car racing has seen an explosion in
technology and a subsequent dramatic increase in top speeds.
Along with the advances in engine, suspension, and safety tech-
nologies, the impact of aerodynamics on performance has been
especially important as top speeds have increased. Due to the
engine and chassis rules imposed by various sanctioning bodies,
aerodynamics has increasingly been seen as an area to under-
stand and exploit, and giving the teams a competitive advantage.
The talk will outline three aspects of racing: the car, the track,
and the race, focusing on open wheel race cars, where wing
aerodynamics plays a dominant role in reducing lap times.
1700–1800 hrs
Fluid Dynamics Awards Lecture
Wednesday, 30 June
0800–0900 hrs
Applied Aerodynamics Awards Lecture
1200–1300 hrs
Exhibitor Buffet Luncheon
Admission is included in the registration fee where indicated.
Additional tickets may be purchased for $60 via the registration
form or at the AIAA on-site registration desk.
Exhibits
Don’t miss this exciting exhibition featuring displays on inter-
nal and external aerodynamics, airfoil and vehicle design, hyper-
sonics, instrumentation, and other industry-related fields. AIAA
is sponsoring this collocated conference and exhibition with six
technical disciplines. Companies from all over the world will have
products available for hands-on demonstrations. Visit the Exhibit
Hall, located in the Regency Ballroom Foyer, during the following
hours:
Monday, 28 June 1730–1900 hrs (Reception)
Tuesday, 29 June 1000–1700 hrs
Wednesday, 30 June 1000–1800 hrs
Lunch Reception 1200–1300 hrs
 to take advantage of this special offer. (Please note that book
General Chair orders not picked up during the conference will be shipped to the
Nicholas J. Georgiadis attendee via FedEx/UPS/DHL at the attendee’s expense.)
NASA Glenn Research Center
Registration
TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRS AIAA is committed to sponsoring world-class conferences
27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology on current technical issues of the day in a safe and secure
and Ground Testing Conference environment. As such, all delegates will be required to provide
proper identification prior to receiving a conference badge and
Aerodynamic Measurement Technology associated materials. All delegates must provide a valid photo
Technical Program Chair ID (driver’s license or passport) when they check in. For student
James R. Gord registrations, a valid student ID is also required. We thank you
Air Force Research Laboratory for your cooperation.
Ground Testing Technical Program Chair All participants are urged to register on the AIAA Web site
Steven Dunn at www.aiaa.org/events/chicago2010. Registering in advance
Jacobs Technology Inc., ROME Group saves conference attendees time and up to $200. A check made
payable to AIAA or credit card information must be included with
28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference your registration form. A PDF registration form is available on
1st AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop (HiLiftPW-1) the AIAA Web site. Print, complete, and mail or fax with payment
Jim Guglielmo to AIAA. Address information is provided.
The Boeing Company Early-bird registration forms must be received by 1 June 2010.
Preregistrants may pick up their materials at the advance registra-
Holger Babinsky tion desk. All those not registered by 21 June 2010 may do so at
University of Cambridge the on-site registration desk. All nonmember registration prices
Robert W. Tramel include a one-year AIAA membership. If you require more infor-
Kord Technologies, Inc. mation, please call 703.264.7500 or e-mail rachela@aiaa.org.
Registration fees are as follows:
5th AIAA Flow Control Conference Early Standard On-Site
Dennis E. Culley By 1 June 2–21 June 27 June
NASA Glenn Research Center Option 1: Full Conference with Online Proceedings
Member $640 $740 $840
40th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference
Nonmember $775 $875 $975
Won-Wook Kim
Includes Monday reception, Tuesday awards luncheon,
Pratt & Whitney
Wednesday lunch reception, and single-user access to online
41st AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference proceedings (all conferences).
Trevor Moeller Option 2: Full Conference with Combined Package of Online
University of Tennessee Space Institute Proceedings and After-Meeting DVD
Member $690 $790 $890
10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics
Nonmember $825 $925 $1025
and Heat Transfer Conference
Includes Monday reception, Tuesday awards luncheon,
Jay Ochterbeck
Wednesday lunch reception, single-user access to online pro-
Clemson University
ceedings (all conferences), and after-meeting DVD.
Patrick Yee
The Aerospace Corporation Option 3: Full-Time Undergraduate Student
Member $0 $15 $30
Timothy S. Fisher Nonmember $30 $40 $50
Purdue University Includes conference and exhibits participation only (no food
functions included).
Option 4: Full-Time Graduate or Ph.D. Student
Cyber Café (Internet Access) Member $40 $50 $60
There will be computers with complimentary Internet access Nonmember $70 $80 $90
in the Exhibit Hall for conference attendees during the following Includes conference and exhibits participation only (no food
hours: functions included).
Monday, 28 June 0700–2200 hrs
Option 5: Full-Time Retired
Tuesday, 29 June 0700–2200 hrs
AIAA Member $40 $50 $60
Wednesday, 30 June 0700–2200 hrs
Includes sessions and exhibits, plus Monday reception, Tuesday
Thursday, 1 July 0700–1200 hrs
awards luncheon, and Wednesday lunch reception.
Pre-Conference Book Sale—15% Off for Conference Option 6: Group Discount
Attendees $620 per person N/A
Conference attendees save 15% off the price of any books Discount off member rate for 10 or more people from the same
when placing their tax-free orders prior to the conference. Plus, organization who register and pay at the same time with a
they’ll receive free shipping to the conference. We will ship the single form of payment. Includes all catered events and online
books to the conference and they will be ready for the attendee proceedings A complete typed list of registrants, along with com-
to pick up at the AIAA preregistration desk during posted regis- pleted individual registration forms and a single payment, must
tration hours. Orders must be placed no later than 14 June 2010 be received by the preregistration deadline of 21 June.
AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B19
 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
On 26–27 June, AIAA is offering the following professional development short courses in conjunction with the conference.
Attend any short course and receive free registration to the conference (sessions only).
Basic Fluids Modeling with Surface Evolver (Instructor: Steven Collicott)
The free Surface Evolver code has powerful unique capabilities for capillary fluids. Unfortunately, many have downloaded the code,
run the fluids demos, and then are unable to advance to solving real problems in new geometries. In this short course Professor Collicott
teaches how to be productive with Surface Evolver on your own. He aims to lead you up the “learning curve” for the code for a new era of
productivity in science and engineering. The course teaches methods for the creation of new 3-D geometry definitions, including defining
contact angle, symmetry boundaries, and diagnostic quantities. Methods for effective use of the code in new geometries, including assess-
ing convergence, outputting desired data, and methods to adapt default volume, area, etc., computation methods to unique geometries are
covered. Modeling axisymmetric and 2-D geometries are also taught.

Computational Heat Transfer (CHT) and Thermal Modeling (Instructor: Dean S. Schrage)
The CHT course provides a detailed focus on the thermal analysis process and offers a unique analysis perspective by developing the
concepts around practical examples. It is a computational course dedicated to heat transfer simulation. In the treatment of the general pur-
pose advection-diffusion (AD) equation, the course material provides a strong introductory basis in CFD. The course promotes a multistep
modeling paradigm from which to base computational heat transfer analysis. Seven lectures form a close parallel with the modeling para-
digm to further emphasize the concepts. The present CHT course is also designed around an array of practical examples and contemporary
simulation codes, employing InterLab sessions. It includes commercial grade meshing and analysis tools to promote continued study. The
overall goal of the CHT course is to form a bond between theory and practice, emphasizing a definitive structure to the modeling process.

Modern Design of Experiments (Instructor: Richard DeLoach)

Aerospace researchers with considerable subject-matter expertise who have had relatively little formal training in the design of experi-
ments are often unaware that research quality and productivity can be substantially improved through the design of an experiment.
Reductions in cycle time by factors of two or more in real-world aerospace research programs, with quality improvements of that same
order, have resulted from the application of fundamental experiment design techniques taught in this course. Examples drawn from specific
studies will illustrate quantitatively resource savings, quality improvements, and enhanced insights that well-designed experiments have
delivered in various university, government, and industry aerospace programs. Computer software CDs included with the course (Design
Expert) will be demonstrated.

Stability and Transition: Theory, Modeling, Experiments, and Applications (Instructors: Hassan A. Hassan, Helen L. Reed, and
William S. Saric)
Knowledge of transition is critical for accurate force and heating predictions and effective control (both transition delay and enhancement).
This course reviews the roadmap to transition, including receptivity, attachment line, transient growth, stability, and breakdown; and presents
a comprehensive and critical review of current methods used to determine the physics and onset of transition for a wide variety of 2D and
3D flows, both high- and low-speed. Tools reviewed include linear stability theory, parabolized stability equations, and direct numerical simu-
lations. Guidelines for experiments and flight tests are reviewed. Then a comprehensive review of transition region models will be provided
including algebraic/integral and differential models. In particular, an approach will be presented in which one calculates onset and extent of
transition as part of the solution at a cost typical of turbulent flow calculations. Once the user specifies the transition mechanism, the eddy
viscosity of the non-turbulent fluctuations is provided.

Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing (Instructors: William L. Oberkampf and Christopher J. Roy)
The performance, reliability, and safety of engineering systems are becoming increasingly reliant on scientific computing. This short
course follows closely the instructors’ new book Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing to be published by Cambridge University
Press in 2010. The course deals with techniques and practical procedures for assessing the credibility of scientific computing simulations. It
presents modern terminology and effective procedures for verification of numerical simulations and validation of mathematical models that
are described by partial differential or integral equations. The approaches presented are applicable to commercial, corporate, government,
and research computer codes. While the focus is on scientific computing, experimentalists will benefit from the discussion of techniques for
designing and conducting validation experiments. A framework is providing for incorporating various error sources identified during the veri-
fication and validation process into the total simulation prediction uncertainty. Application examples are primarily taken from fluid dynamics,
solid mechanics, and heat transfer.
Complete course outlines and author biographies can be obtained at www.aiaa.org or by calling AIAA customer service at 800.639.2422.

Option 7: 1st AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop Wednesday Lunch Exhibit Reception $60
(HiLiftPW-1) Student Ticket Package (Food functions only) $170
$200 $300 $400 Online Proceedings & After-Meeting DVD $200
Registration includes workshop participation only. Conference
registration is not included. Registration Hours
Saturday, 26 June 0730–1700 hrs (Courses &
By 31 May By 25 June On-Site Workshop Only)
Option 8: Professional Development Registration Sunday, 27 June 1600–1900 hrs
AIAA Member $1095 $1200 $1275 Monday, 28 June 0700–1700 hrs
Nonmember $1195 $1300 $1375 Tuesday, 29 June 0700–1700 hrs
Extra Tickets Wednesday, 30 June 0700–1700 hrs
Tuesday Awards Luncheon $50 Thursday, 1 July 0700–1200 hrs
Monday Welcome Exhibit Reception $60

B20 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

Hotel Reservations
AIAA has made arrangements for a block of rooms at the
Hyatt Regency McCormick Place, 2233 S. Martin Luther King
Drive, Chicago, IL 60616. Room rates are $199 for single or
double occupancy. Online and phone reservations are being
accepted now.
A dedicated booking Web site has been created for this
event so you can make, modify, or cancel your hotel reserva-
tions online, as well as take advantage of any room upgrades,
amenities, or other services offered by the hotel. To access the
Web site, click the following link: https://resweb.passkey.com/
Resweb.do?mode=welcome_ei_new&eventID=2216909.
Select the General Block or Government (for federal government
employees only) in the “Who are you” drop down at the top of the
Search Available Rooms block. You do not need an access code.
If you prefer to call in your reservations at 888.421.1442,
please specify in advance the time and date of your arrival and
departure and identify yourself as being with the AIAA confer-
ence. The rooms will be held for AIAA until 25 May 2010 and
then released for use by the general public at the prevailing
rates. A deposit of one night room and tax is required when
booking your reservation. A major credit card can be used to
secure the reservation.
Federal Government Employees—A portion of the room block
is available at the federal government per diem. This rate is
available to federal government employees only. You must show
valid Government ID upon check-in.
Meeting Site/Hotel Information
Chicago is a city of world-class status and unsurpassed
beauty. Located on the shores of Lake Michigan in the heart
of the Midwest, Chicago is home to world-championship sports
teams, an internationally acclaimed symphony orchestra,
renowned architecture, award-winning theater, lakefront parks,
vibrant ethnic neighborhoods and much more.
It’s no wonder that President Barack Obama and First Lady
Michelle Obama, and nearly 3 million others, call Chicago home.
For information about Chicago, go to www.explorechicago.org.
Hertz Car Rental Information
Hertz saves members up to 15% on car rentals. Discounts
are available at all participating Hertz locations in the United
States, Canada, and internationally where possible. For world-
wide reservations, call your travel agent or Hertz directly at
800.654.2200 (U.S.) or 800.263.0600 (Canada), and mention
the AIAA members savings CDP #066135, or visit www.hertz.
com and enter the CDP #.
Conference Sponsorship Opportunities
When your brand is on the line, AIAA sponsorship can raise
the profile of your company and put you where you need to be.
Available packages offer elevated visibility, effective marketing
and branding options, and direct access to prominent decision
makers from the aerospace community. Contact Cecilia Capece
at ceciliac@aiaa.org or 703.264.2570 for more details.

AIAA will no longer be publishing printed copies of registration forms. Registration forms are available for
download on the main page of the event Web site at www.aiaa.org/events/Chicago2010.

Call for
Associate Fellow Nominations
Now is the time to start
thinking about who is
eligible for Associate Fellow.

Associate Fellow candidates are people who have Associate Fellow nominations are due 15 April 2010
accomplished or been in charge of important and references are due 15 May 2010.
engineering or scientific work, or who have done
work of outstanding merit or have otherwise made To submit a nomination, please visit our
outstanding contributions to the arts, sciences, or Web site at www.aiaa.org.
technology of aeronautics or astronautics. Nominees
must be AIAA Senior Members and have at least
twelve years of professional experience.

10-0128

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B21

 Program at a Glance
40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
Adaptive Grid and Immersed Boundary Methods
Aero-Optics in Fluid Dynamics
Airfoil Flow Control III
Awards Luncheon
Bluff Body Separation Control I
Computational Studies of Instability and Transition I
Computational studies of Instability and Transition II
Computational Studies of Turbulent Jets and Wake Flows
Experimental Hypersonics
Experimental Methods
Experimental Studies of Turbulent Jets
Flow Control in Fluid Dynamics
Fluid Dynamics Award Lecture
Fluid Structure Interaction
High-Fidelity Analyses of Turbulent Boundary Layer Flows
High-Order Methods in CFD
High-Rate High-Angle Pitching Motions: Progress and Measure-
ment and Modeling Hypersonic CFD Development (Invited)
Hypersonic Flow Simulation
Innovative Theoretical Analyses in Fluid Dynamics
Instability and Transition—General
Instability and Transition: High Speed Flows I
Instability and Transition: High Speed Flows II
Integrated Experimental & Numerical Studies
Internal Flows I
Internal Flows II
Low Reynolds Number Flow Control and Gusts
Microfluidic Devices and Systems
Micro-Scale Thermofluidics (Invited)
Multi-Phase and Chemically Reacting Flows
Multidisciplinary Fluid Dynamics
Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics
Physics of Low Reynolds Number Airfoils and Wings I
Physics of Low Reynolds Number Airfoils and Wings II
Pitching, Plunging, and Rotating Wings
FD/FC/PDL/APA Plasma Actuators and Aerodynamics V
Plenary
Shock-Wave/Boundary Layer Interactions
Surface Roughness Impact on Transitional and Turbulent
Boundary Layer Flows
Transition Open Forum
Turbulent Flow Experiments
Turbulent Flows: DNS/LES
Turbulent Flows: RANS and Hybrid Methods
Unsteady Fluid Dynamics: Compressible Flows
Unsteady Fluid Dynamics: General
Unsteady Fluid Dynamics: Numerical Methods
Vortex Dominated Flows: Airfoils and Wakes
Vortex Dominated Flows: Jets and Geophysical Flows
10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer
Conference
Advances In Computational Heat Transfer
AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Award
Lecture
Applications of Computational Heat Transfer
Computational Aerothermodynamics I: Planetary Entry
Computational Aerothermodynamics II: Nonequilibrium Flows
Computational Aerothermodynamics III
Direct Simulation Monte Carlo Methods
Electronic Systems Thermal Management
Entry, Descent and Landing
Environmental Effects on Surfaces
B22 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010
Experimental Aerothermodynamics
Experimental Heat Transfer I
Experimental Heat Transfer II
Heat and Mass Transfer
Heat Transfer in Turbomachinery and Propulsion Systems
Integrated and Multidisciplinary Modeling and Simulation
MEMS and Microfluidics
Microscale and Nanoscale Transport Phenomena
Nonequilibrium Flows I
Nonequilibrium Flows II
Nonequilibrium Radiation
Numerical Heat Transfer
Radiative Heat Transfer
Thermal Control, Manangement, and Protection Systems
5th Flow Control Conference
Airfoil Flow Control I
Airfoil Flow Control II
Bluff Body Separation Control II
Bluff Body Separation Control III
Boundary Layer Control I
Boundary Layer Control II
Closed Loop Investigations of Flow Control
Flow Control Actuators
High-Speed Flow Control
Internal Flow Control I
Internal Flow Control II
Jet Flow Control
Numerical Investigations of Active Flow Control
Plasma Actuators
FD/FC/PDL/APA Plasma Actuators and Aerodynamics I
FD/FC/PDL/APA Plasma Actuators and Aerodynamics IV
Poster Session: Progress in Flow Control
Testing Capabilities for Flow Control Panel Discussion
28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
4th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW) Results I
4th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW) Results II
4th CFD Drag Prediction Workshop (DPW) Results III
Advanced Transport Aircraft for 2030 & Beyond I (Invited)
Advanced Transport Aircraft for 2030 & Beyond II (Invited)
Aerodynamic Design Methodologies & Optimization Techniques I
Aerodynamic Design Methodologies & Optimization Techniques II
Aerodynamic-Structural Dynamics Interaction
Airfoil/Wing/Configuration Aerodynamics
Applied Aerodynamic Award Lecture
Ares Launch Vehicle Aeroelasticity
CFD Applications in Aerodynamics I
CFD Applications in Aerodynamics II
CFD Applications in Aerodynamics III
Environmentally Friendly & Efficient Aerodynamics & Enabling
Technology
Flight in Nature & Micro Air Vehicles I
Flight in Nature & Micro Air Vehicles II
Flight in Nature & Micro Air Vehicles III
Flow Control—Applied Aerodynamics
Fluid Dynamic Challenges in Flight Mechanics
High Lift & High Angle of Attack Aerodynamics
Icing Effects on Vehicle Aerodynamics
Innovative Aerodynamic Concepts & Applications
Rotorcraft Aerodynamics I
Rotorcraft Aerodynamics II
Shock Boundary Layer Interaction (SBLI)
Stability & Control Prediction Methods for NATO Air & Sea
Vehicles I
Stability & Control Prediction Methods for NATO Air & Sea Pressure-Sensitive Paint: Developments and Applications
Vehicles II Raman Scattering Techniques
Stability & Control Prediction Methods for NATO Air & Sea Shadowgraphy and Schlieren
Vehicles III Statistical Applications in Ground Testing (Invited)
Transonic, Supersonic, & Hypersonic Aerodynamics Velocimetry and Imaging
Unsteady Aerodynamics I Virtual Presence in Facilities and Laboratories (Invited)
Unsteady Aerodynamics II
Weapons Aerodynamics & Store Separation 41st Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference
Wind Tunnel and Flight Testing Aerodynamics I Chemical Oxygen Iodine Lasers
Wind Tunnel and Flight Testing Aerodynamics II Diode and Exciplex Pumped Alkali Lasers
Wind Turbine Aerodynamics Electric Discharge Oxygen Iodine Lasers and Special Topics
FD/FC/PDL/APA Plasma Actuators and Aerodynamics II
27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement and Ground Testing FD/FC/PDL/APA Plasma Actuators and Aerodynamics III
Conference MHD Reentry and Hypersonic Flight
Absorption and Emission Spectroscopy MHD Studies and Concepts
Ground Test Facilities Capability Sustainment I (Invited) Modeling of MHD and Plasma Flows
Ground Test Facilities Capability Sustainment II (Invited) Aero-Optics I
Ground Test Investigations Plasma Characterization I
Ground Test Investigations, Including Force Measurement Plasma Characterization II
New/Improved Ground Test Facilities Plasmadynamics and Lasers Award Lecture
New/Improved High Speed Ground Test Facilities
Nonintrusive Diagnostics for Test-Cell/Tunnel Applications
Presentations from the 7th International Strain Gage Balance Visit www.aiaa.org/events/Chicago2010 for the most
Symposium up-to-date list of speakers and program information.
Pressure-Sensitive Paint and Other Surface Measurements

An International Forum for Aviation and Space Leaders

11–12 May 2010
Hyatt Regency Crystal City
Arlington, Virginia
Making a Difference: Aerospace Leadership for
Energy and Environmental Challenges

The Forum will cover the follow topics:

DAY 1: Energy and the
“Greening” of Aviation
t Aviation – Current Energy Challenges
t Energy Policy – Current and Needed
t Conserving Energy through Operations
t Energy Efficiency through Technology

DAY 2: Aerospace Leadership for

Climate Change Understanding,
Mitigation, and Adaptation
t Status
t Climate Observations and Policies – The Curren
Gas
t Climate Change Mitigation Through Greenhouse
ance
Reductions – Issues in Observations and Compli
Monito ring
n
t Enabling Effective Climate Monitoring and Emissio
Tracking – The Next 5 Years EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION DEADLINE: 12 APRIL 2010
t Providing Operational Climate Monitoring and
For the latest program and registration information visit: www.aiaa.org/events/insideaerospace
Mitigation Verification – Beyond 5 Years

Organized
O i db by Co-Sponsored
C S d by Official Media Sponsors

10-0010_Hpg_Rev

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B23

2010 International Powered Lift Conference Organized by AIAA V/STOL Technical Committee
http://www.vstol.org/iplc
5–7 October 2010
Sheraton Society Hill General Chair
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phil Dunford
Vice President and General Manager, Rotorcraft Systems
Abstract Deadline: Extended to 15 March 2010 The Boeing Company
Program Chair
The International Powered Lift Conference (IPLC) is the premier Michael Hirschberg
event for engineers, technologists, and managers to discuss CENTRA Technology, Inc.
the latest developments in Vertical and/or Short Take-Off and
Landing (V/STOL) aircraft research, concepts, and programs. Technical Chair
It is the only event focused on the technologies, promise, and Tim Naumowicz
progress of powered lift systems, with applications ranging from NASA Ames Research Center
helicopters to advanced rotorcraft to runway independent aircraft
to jet-borne lift aircraft. Deputy Technical Chair
IPLC 2010 is cosponsored by AIAA, the American Helicopter Matthew Peperak
Society (AHS), the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS), and SAE CENTRA Technology, Inc.
Aerospace. IPLC 2010 will be administered by the AHS as a
three-day conference in Philadelphia, PA, on 5–7 October 2010. for attendance for a limited number of participants. Interested
IPLC will focus on three primary thrusts: advanced rotorcraft, parties under the age of 35 may submit a one-page request
jet-lift, and recent progress in the underlying science and tech- with rationale for receiving AIAA V/STOL TC financial support.
nology. The planning committee is seeking abstracts for the Examples of rationale should include a copy of an abstract or
following topics. The committee will also consider abstracts on summary of a paper to be presented, relevance of the meet-
other topics related to the scope of this conference. ing to career goals, benefit to the V/STOL community, etc. The
• Advanced Rotorcraft Concepts request must also include estimated costs for which one would
• Bell Boeing V-22 seek reimbursement. Applications must be submitted to Mr. Craig
• BellAgustaWestland BA609 and Other Civil Tiltrotors Hange at iplc@vstol.org no later than 15 March 2010 (same
• Certification Experiences date as the abstract deadline for the IPLC) in order to be consid-
• Circulation Control Aerodynamics ered. Final selection of participants will be made based on the
• ESTOL Commercial, Dual Use and Military rationale information provided and the acceptance of a paper to
• ESTOL Technologies be presented at the conference.
• Flight Testing Experiences, Pilot Reports
• Flow Control
• Future Concepts/Enabling Technologies
• Green Operations
• History & Lessons Learned
• Integrated Flight & Propulsion Control (IFPC)
• Jet-Induced Effects
• JSF Program Overview (emphasis on STOVL)
• JSF Technologies
• Lift-System Technologies
• Micro UAVs
• Military Utility/Basing Flexibility/The Value of Speed
• Modelling & Simulation
• New Army, Navy, NASA, DARPA Initiatives
• PHM/HUMS
• Powered-Lift Testing
• Simultaneous Non-interfering Operations
• Super Heavy Lift Rotorcraft/Joint Heavy Lift
• UAV Programs
• Other
Abstracts should be 300–500 words in length, present
facts that are new and significant, and should include results
achieved, if applicable. Abstracts, including paper title, author
name(s), mailing address, telephone number, facsimile num-
ber, and e-mail address, should be submitted no later than 15
March 2010.

V/STOL Technical Committee Sponsorship

In an effort to promote its membership and to encour-
age young professionals and students to participate in the
International Powered Lift Conference, the AIAA V/STOL
Technical Committee is offering to provide financial assistance

B24 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

 Upcoming AIAA Professional Development Courses
10–11 April 2010
Free Conference Registration to the AIAA Structures Conferences in Orlando, Florida,
when you sign up for one of these Courses!
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2336&viewcon=courses
Aeroelasticity: State-of-the-Art Practices (Instructors: Thomas W. Strganac, Carlos Cesnik, Paul Cizmas, Jennifer Heeg, Rick Lind, Gautam SenGupta, and
Walter Silva)
There has been a renewed interest in aeroelasticity arising from high performance aerospace systems, multiple control surface configurations, and patholo-
gies associated with nonlinear behavior. This course provides a brief overview of aeroelasticity and examines many new “fronts” currently being pursued
in aeroelasticity that include reduced-order models, integrated fluid-structural dynamic models, ground vibration testing, wind tunnel tests, robust flutter
identification approaches for wind tunnel and flight test programs, and aeroservoelasticity. It will emphasize current practices in analytical and experimental
approaches within industry and government labs, as well as advances as pursued by these organizations with the support of university research.

Fundamentals of Non-Deterministic Approaches (Instructors: Michael P. Enright, Ben H. Thacker, Sankaran Mahadevan, and Ramana V. Grandhi)
This course is offered as an overview of modern engineering methods and techniques used for modeling uncertainty. Fundamentals of probability and statis-
tics are covered briefly to lay the groundwork, followed by overviews of each of the major branches of uncertainty assessment used to support component-
and system-level life cycle activities, including design, analysis, optimization, fabrication, testing, maintenance, qualification, and certification. Branches of
Non-Deterministic Approaches (NDA) to be covered include fast probability methods (e.g., FORM, SORM, Advanced Mean Value, etc.), simulation methods
such as Monte Carlo and importance sampling, surrogate methods such as response surface, as well as more advanced topics such as system reliability,
time-dependent reliability, probabilistic finite element analysis, and reliability-based design. An overview of emerging non-probabilistic methods for performing
uncertainty analysis will also be presented.

Modern Modeling of Aircraft Structure (Instructor: Simon Fevola)

This course covers a wide variety of modeling techniques associated with modeling entire aircraft and aircraft structural components such as wings, con-
trol surfaces, spars, ribs, buckled skin, pressurized and non-pressurized fuselage shell, frames, bulkheads, cabin doors windows, and honeycomb floor
structure. It covers specific concepts and principles required for computer modeling whole aircraft as well as the latest trends that use intricate automated
techniques such as global CFD pressure application and coincident rigid elements. This course is to provide an outline of the techniques and procedures
required to determine “the correct solution” well in advance of any required correlation testing or safety determinations. This course demonstrates learned
and accumulated methods used over the past 25 years as well as the application of the latest available government and commercial codes.

Tensegrity Systems (Instructor: Robert Skelton)

This course is to provide the analytical machinery required to integrate structure and control design, and to show that this optimized structure usually has
a finite, rather than an infinite, complexity. The first challenge is to choose the right paradigm for structure design. As opposed to a control system that
torques or pushes the structure away from its equilibrium, a tensegrity paradigm for structures will allow one to modify the equilibrium of the structure to
achieve the new desired shape, so that power is not required to hold the new shape. Integrating structure and control design will require less power from
the control system to accomplish the same objectives. Less control power also impacts the parameters of structure design, since less structural stress is
imparted to the structural components during control.

26–27 June 2010

Free Conference Registration to the 40th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 10th AIAA/ASME Joint
Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, 27th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement and Ground Testing Conference,
28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 41st Plasmdynamics and Lasers Conference, and 5th Flow Control
Conference in Chicago, Illinois, when you sign up for one of these Courses!
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2120&viewcon=courses
Basic Fluids Modeling with Surface Evolver (Instructor: Steven Collicott)
The free Surface Evolver code has powerful unique capabilities for capillary fluids. Unfortunately, many have downloaded the code, run the fluids demos,
and then are unable to advance to solving real problems in new geometries. In this short course, Professor Collicott teaches how to be productive with
Surface Evolver on your own. He aims to lead you up the “learning curve” for the code for a new era of productivity in science and engineering. The
course teaches methods for the creation of new 3-D geometry definitions including defining contact angle, symmetry boundaries, and diagnostic quanti-
ties. Methods for effective use of the code in new geometries, including assessing convergence, outputting desired data, and methods to adapt default
volume, area, etc., computation methods to unique geometries are covered. Modeling axisymmetric and 2-D geometries are also taught.

Computational Heat Transfer (CHT) and Thermal Modeling (Instructor: Dean S. Schrage)
The CHT course provides a detailed focus on the thermal analysis process and offers a unique analysis perspective by developing the concepts around
practical examples. It is a computational course dedicated to heat transfer simulation. In the treatment of the general purpose advection-diffusion (AD)
equation, the course material provides a strong introductory basis in CFD. The course promotes a multistep modeling paradigm from which to base com-
putational heat transfer analysis. Seven lectures form a close parallel with the modeling paradigm to further emphasize the concepts. The present CHT
course is also designed around an array of practical examples and contemporary simulation codes, employing InterLab sessions. The course includes
commercial grade meshing and analysis tools to promote continued study. The overall goal of the CHT course is to form a bond between theory and prac-
tice, emphasizing a definitive structure to the modeling process.

Modern Design of Experiments (Instructor: Richard DeLoach)

Aerospace researchers with considerable subject-matter expertise who have had relatively little formal training in the design of experiments are often
unaware that research quality and productivity can be substantially improved through the design of an experiment. Reductions in cycle time by factors
of two or more in real-world aerospace research programs, with quality improvements of that same order, have resulted from the application of funda-
mental experiment design techniques taught in this course. Examples drawn from specific studies will illustrate quantitatively resource savings, quality
improvements, and enhanced insights that well-designed experiments have delivered in various university, government, and industry aerospace programs.
Computer software CDs included with the course (Design Expert) will be demonstrated.

Stability and Transition: Theory, Modeling, Experiments, and Applications (Instructors: Hassan A. Hassan, Helen L. Reed, and William S. Saric)
Knowledge of transition is critical for accurate force and heating predictions and effective control (both transition delay and enhancement). This course
reviews the roadmap to transition, including receptivity, attachment line, transient growth, stability, and breakdown; and presents a comprehensive and

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B25

critical review of current methods used to determine the physics and onset of transition for a wide variety of 2D and 3D flows, both high- and low-speed.
Tools reviewed include linear stability theory, parabolized stability equations, and direct numerical simulations. Guidelines for experiments and flight tests
are reviewed. Then a comprehensive review of transition region models will be provided including algebraic/integral and differential models. In particular,
an approach will be presented in which one calculates onset and extent of transition as part of the solution at a cost typical of turbulent flow calculations.
Once the user specifies the transition mechanism, the eddy viscosity of the non-turbulent fluctuations is provided.

Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing (Instructors: William L. Oberkampf and Christopher J. Roy)
The performance, reliability, and safety of engineering systems are becoming increasingly reliant on scientific computing. This short course follows closely
the instructors’ new book Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press, 2010). The course deals with techniques and
practical procedures for assessing the credibility of scientific computing simulations. It presents modern terminology and effective procedures for verifica-
tion of numerical simulations and validation of mathematical models that are described by partial differential or integral equations. The approaches pre-
sented are applicable to commercial, corporate, government, and research computer codes. While the focus is on scientific computing, experimentalists
will benefit from the discussion of techniques for designing and conducting validation experiments. A framework is providing for incorporating various error
sources identified during the verification and validation process into the total simulation prediction uncertainty. Application examples are primarily taken
from fluid dynamics, solid mechanics, and heat transfer.

29–30 July 2010

Free Conference Registration to the Joint Propulsion Conference in Nashville, Tennessee,
when you sign up for one of these Courses!
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2347&viewcon=courses
Advanced Solid Rocket Technologies (Sponsored by the AIAA Solid Rockets Technical Committee, lead by David Poe)
This two-day course will explore a broad range of state-of-the-art technologies in solid rocket advancement. Topics including new paradigm for internal
flow analysis, coupled launcher and booster optimization, modern thrust vector control device, insulation erosion evaluation, advanced propellant develop-
ment, principle of aluminum combustion, and new combustion instability analysis for solid rocket motors will be discussed by both domestic and interna-
tional experts of the field. The course will also emphasize current practices in both analytical and experimental approaches within the U.S. industry and
government labs, as well as advances as pursued by the European and Japanese solid rocket industries.

Air Breathing Pulse Detonation Engine Technology (Sponsored by the AIAA Air Breathing Technical Committee, lead by Dora Musielak)
The PDE Technology short course is designed to present a comprehensive overview of air-breathing Pulse Detonation Engines, including detonation com-
bustion theory, performance metrics, fuels and initiation systems, detonation physics research, technical challenges, and opportunities for development of
PDEs. This course will be taught by instructors who are renowned experts from government and industrial organizations actively engaged in PDE propul-
sion R&D. They will discuss state of the art, challenges, and development trends of this exciting propulsion technology.

Hydrogen Safety Course (Instructors: Steve McDougle and Stephen Woods)

The course is intended to provide the student with a working knowledge of safety issues associated with the use of hydrogen. Using the aerospace
industry standard, “Guide to Safety of Hydrogen and Hydrogen Systems” (AIAA G-095-2004), this course presents basic safety philosophy and principles
and reviews a practical set of guidelines for safe hydrogen use. The information presented is intended as a reference to hydrogen systems design and
operations and handling practices; users are encouraged to assess their individual programs and develop additional requirements as needed. The course
focuses primarily on aerospace applications, but other uses are also covered.

Liquid Propulsion Systems—Evolution and Advancements (Sponsored by the AIAA Liquid Propulsion Technical Committee, lead by Alan Frankel)
Liquid propulsion systems are critical to launch vehicle and spacecraft performance, safety, and cost. This course will cover rocket propulsion fundamentals;
propulsion chemistry; converting chemistry into performance; launch vehicle propulsion; spacecraft propulsion; and applying propulsion lessons learned.

Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS): A Practical Introduction (Instructors: Ian Halliwell, Edward Butzin, and Paul Johnson)
The objective of this course is to give attendees a working knowledge of Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) software and allow them to cre-
ate and/or modify system models using this tool. The course material will discuss the object-oriented architecture and how it is used in NPSS to develop
flexible yet robust models. A detailed presentation of NPSS execution options, syntax, and interfaces with external codes will be addressed. Overviews of
NPSS operation (i.e., Solver, etc.) will also be included. The attendees will be involved interactively with the material by performing exercises on their per-
sonal hardware that demonstrates and further clarifies the material. All attendees will be provided with a reduced capability version of NPSS for their use
during the course and will be permitted to keep it after the course is completed.

Tactical Missile Design—Integration (Instructor: Eugene L. Fleeman)

This is a self-contained short course on the fundamentals of tactical missile design and integration. The course provides a system-level, integrated method
for missile aerodynamic configuration/propulsion design and analysis. It addresses the broad range of alternatives in meeting performance, cost, and other
measures of merit requirements such as robustness, lethality, accuracy, observables, survivability, and reliability. Methods are generally simple closed-
form analytical expressions that are physics-based, to provide insight into the primary driving parameters. Configuration-sizing examples are presented for
rocket, turbojet, and ramjet-powered missiles. Typical values of missile parameters and the characteristics of current operational missiles are discussed.

B26 AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010

 AIAA Courses and Training Program
Registration Form

Select your registration options below. Payment by

REGISTRATION FORM (or register online at www.aiaa.org)
B0310 2 check, credit card, or money order—payable to AIAA—
must accompany registration. To pay the member rate,
your membership must be in good standing.
All registrants please complete the information below. —REGISTRATION OPTIONS—
AIAA Non- AIAA Non- AIAA Non-
Member Member Member Member Member Member
1 Conference Badge Name First/Given Name M.I. Last/Family Name COURSES OFFERED AT STRUCTURES CONFERENCES
Attend any professional development course and receive “free” registration to the conference sessions only
Organization Name/Division/Mailstop Early Bird by 15 Mar 10 Late by 10 Apr 10 On-site Beginning 11 Apr 10

Address Aeroelasticity: State-of-the-Art Practices

$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
City State Country/Zip/Postal Code Fundamentals of Non-Deterministic Approaches
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
E-mail Address Daytime Phone Number
Modern Modeling of Aircraft Structure
Fax Number (include country code) Job Title/Rank $1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Tensegrity Systems
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375

3 AIAA MEMBERSHIP: If you are registering for one of the collocated professional
development short courses at the nonmember rate, included with your registration fee is
one year of AIAA membership.
COURSES OFFERED AT FLUID DYNAMICS ET AL. CONFERENCES
Attend any professional development course and receive “free” registration to the conference sessions only
Included in your AIAA membership will be periodic communications about AIAA Early Bird by 31 May 10 Late by 26 Jun 10 On-site Beginning 27 Jun 10
benefits, products, and services. Check here if you prefer not to receive membership
information via e-mail. Basic Fluids Modeling with Surface Evolver
From time to time, we make member information available to companies whose products $1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
or services may be of interest to you. Check here if you prefer not to have your name Computational Heat Transfer (CHT) and Thermal Modeling
and address used for non-AIAA mailings. $1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Signature_____________________________________________Date__________________ Modern Design of Experiments
Check here if you are renewing or reinstating your membership. (You must pay the full $1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
nonmember conference fee.) Stability and Transition: Theory, Modeling, Experiments, and
Applications
RETURN FORM TO: $1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375

4 1) For fastest, easiest

service, register
online at
2) By mail: return completed
form with payment to
AIAA, Professional Development
3) By fax: send the signed,
completed form with credit
card payment to
Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375

www.aiaa.org/courses 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Ste 500 703.264.7657 COURSES OFFERED AT JOINT PROPULSION CONFERENCE
Reston, VA, 20191 Attend any professional development course and receive “free” registration to the conference sessions only
Cancellations Substitutions may be made at any time. Cancellations must be postmarked Early Bird by 28 Jun 10 Late by 28 Jul 10 On-site Beginning 29 Jul 10
four weeks before the course start date and are subject to a $100 cancellation fee to cover
Advanced Solid Rocket Technologies
administrative overhead. AIAA reserves the right to cancel any program due to insufficient
registration or any situation beyond its control. Each course will be reviewed three weeks $1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
prior to the start date and may be canceled if a minimum enrollment has not been reached. Air Breathing Pulse Detonation Engine Technology
Participants will be notified immediately and a full refund will be issued. AIAA cannot be $1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
responsible for expenses incurred because of course cancellation. AIAA reserves the right Hydrogen Safety Course
to substitute speakers in the event of unusual circumstances. For additional information, call $1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Dan Medina at 703.264.7642 or 800.639.2422; FAX 703.264.7657; E-mail: danielm@
Liquid Propulsion Systems—Evolution and Advancements
aiaa.org.
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS): A Practical
5 Check here if you need to make special arrangements due to a disability.
Attach requirements on a separate sheet of paper.
Introduction
$1095 $1195 $1200 $1300 $1275 $1375
Tactical Missile Design—Integration

6 FORM OF PAYMENT:
AIAA Member Number: ___________________________
Purchase Order American Express
All registrants must provide
a valid ID (driver’s license or
passport) when they check in.
.
$1095 $1195 $1200

Please indicate if you qualify for the:

$1300 $1275 $1375

For student registration, valid __ Prepaid Group Discount (One 5% discount per registrant)
Check VISA student ID is also required.
Travelers Check MasterCard
Wire Transfer Diners Club 5% Group Discounts
Deduct 5% for three or TOTAL DUE: $ _______________________
Credit Card Number: more students from the
same organization, if
______________________________________________
registered simultaneously,
Expiration Date: _________Month _______ Year _____ prepaid, and postmarked
four weeks before the first
Signature: _____________________________________ day of the course. Please
E-mail address of cardholder for receipt: register each person on a
separate form. Photocopies
______________________________________________ are acceptable.

AIAA BULLETIN / MARCH 2010 B27

StandardConferenceinfoleftpage.qxd 10/14/09 1:49 PM Page 56
Standard Information for all AIAA Conferences
This is general conference information, except as noted in the individual
conference preliminary program information to address exceptions.
Photo ID Needed at Registration
All registrants must provide a valid photo ID (driver’s license
or passport) when they check in. For student registration, valid
student ID is also required.
Conference Proceedings
This year’s conference proceedings will be available in two for-
mats: after-meeting DVD and online proceedings. The cost is includ-
ed in the registration fee where indicated. If you register in advance
for the online papers, you will be provided with instructions on how
to access the conference technical papers. For those registering on-
site, you will be provided with instructions at registration. The after-
meeting DVD will be mailed six to eight weeks after the conference.
Journal Publication
Authors of appropriate papers are encouraged to submit them
for possible publication in one of the Institute’s archival journals:
AIAA Journal; Journal of Aircraft; Journal of Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics; Journal of Propulsion and Power; Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets; Journal of Thermophysics and Heat
Transfer; or Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and
Communication. WriteTrack will be replaced by ScholarOne
Manuscripts (Thomson Reuters) during 2009. More information
about the transition is available on the WriteTrack home page.
Speakers’ Briefing
Authors who are presenting papers, session chairs, and co-
chairs will meet for a short briefing at 0700 hrs on the mornings of
the conference. Continental breakfast will be provided. Please
plan to attend only on the day of your session(s). Location will be
in final program.
Speakers’ Practice
A speaker practice room will be available for speakers wishing
to practice their presentations. A sign-up sheet will be posted on
the door for half-hour increments.
Timing of Presentations
Each paper will be allotted 30 minutes (including introduction
and question-and-answer period) except where noted.
Audiovisual
Each session room will be preset with the following: one LCD
projector, one screen, and one microphone (if needed). A 1/2”
VHS VCR and monitor, an overhead projector, and/or a 35-mm
slide projector will only be provided if requested by presenters on
their abstract submittal forms. AIAA does not provide computers or
technicians to connect LCD projectors to the laptops. Should pre-
senters wish to use the LCD projectors, it is their responsibility to
bring or arrange for a computer on their own. Please note that
AIAA does not provide security in the session rooms and recom-
mends that items of value, including computers, not be left unat-
tended. Any additional audiovisual requirements, or equipment not
requested by the date provided in the preliminary conference infor-
mation, will be at cost to the presenter.
Employment Opportunities
AIAA is assisting members who are searching for employment
by providing a bulletin board at the technical meetings. This bulletin
board is solely for “open position” and “available for employment”
postings. Employers are encouraged to have personnel who are
attending an AIAA technical conference bring “open position” job
postings. Individual unemployed members may post “available for
employment” notices. AIAA reserves the right to remove inappro-
priate notices, and cannot assume responsibility for notices for-
warded to AIAA Headquarters. AIAA members can post and
browse resumes and job listings, and access other online employ-
ment resources, by visiting the AIAA Career Center at
http://careercenter.aiaa.org.
Committee Meetings
Meeting room locations for AIAA committees will be posted on
the message board and will be available upon request in the reg-
istration area.
Messages and Information
Messages will be recorded and posted on a bulletin board in
the registration area. It is not possible to page conferees. A tele-
phone number will be provided in the final program.
Membership
Professionals registering at the nonmember rate will receive a
one-year AIAA membership. Students who are not members may
apply their registration fee toward their first year's student mem-
ber dues.
Nondiscriminatory Practices
The AIAA accepts registrations irrespective of race, creed, sex,
color, physical handicap, and national or ethnic origin.
Smoking Policy
Smoking is not permitted in the technical sessions.
Restrictions
Videotaping or audio recording of sessions or technical exhibits
as well as the unauthorized sale of AIAA-copyrighted material is
prohibited.
Department of Defense Approval
The DoD Public Affairs Office has determined that, for purpos-
es of accepting a gift of reduced or free attendance, these events
are widely attended gatherings pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.204(g).
This determination is not a DoD endorsement of the events nor
approval for widespread attendance. If individual DoD Component
commands or organizations determine that attendance by particu-
lar personnel is in DoD interest, those personnel may accept the
gift of free or reduced attendance. As other exceptions under 5
CFR 2635.204 may allow the acceptance of gifts, DoD personnel
are urged to consult their Ethics Counselor.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
AIAA speakers and attendees are reminded that some topics
discussed in the conference could be controlled by the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). U.S. Nationals
(U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents) are responsible for
ensuring that technical data they present in open sessions to non-
U.S. Nationals in attendance or in conference proceedings are not
export restricted by the ITAR. U.S. Nationals are likewise respon-
sible for ensuring that they do not discuss ITAR export-restricted
information with non-U.S. Nationals in attendance.
Project3:AIAA_MarsAdFln_CMYK_8.125x10.875 4/6/09 13:39 Page 1
 Inspire | Challenge | Enable
The AIAA Foundation is a nonprofit, and classroom grants, we seek to inspire the
tax-exempt educational organization next generation with a passion for science

founded in 1996. Through scholarships, and engineering. Aided by donations large

student conferences, design competitions, and small, we invest in the future.

For more information or

to make a tax-deductable donation
visit www.aiaafoundation.org