June 2011

Memories at
Mach 25

F-35: A time of trial

AMS to shed light on the dark
A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
Discover the Future of
Thermal Science in Industry

Journal of Thermal Science

and Engineering Applications
■ Timely ■ Accessible ■ High Impact

The ASME Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications serves the broad community of
engineers on the cutting edge of exploring new designs and applications of thermal sciences related
to industrial systems, processes and devices.

This quarterly journal gives you the latest innovative R&D on the evolution of applications in thermal
energy transport in equipment and devices, thermal and chemical systems, and thermodynamic
processes in the areas of:
• Aerospace systems • Microscale and nanoscale devices
• Homeland security system • Gas turbines
• Defense systems • Refrigeration and air conditioning
• Petrochemical processing • Energy efficiency
• Sustainability • Combustion systems
• Electronic and photonic equipment • Energy systems
• Manufacturing

Submit journal-quality papers, sign up for free table of contents Editor

alerts, view abstracts (and articles with subscription), journal scope,
Michael Jensen, Ph.D.
requirements for submission and a list of frequently asked questions
through the ASME Digital Library. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
JenseM@rpi.edu

Submit and view journal papers at: www.asmedl.org/TSEA

ASME Journals
Setting the Standard for Engineering Knowledge Sharing
 June 2011

DEPARTMENTS
EDITORIAL 3 Page 8
Hail and farewell.

INTERNATIONAL BEAT 4
Space industry takes root in central and eastern Europe.

ASIA UPDATE 8
In China, aviation gets back on track.

WASHINGTON WATCH 12
Waking up to harsh realities.

CONVERSATIONS 16
With Christian Scherer. Page 24

THE VIEW FROM HERE 20

Space shuttle: Memories at Mach 25.

SPACE UPDATE 24 Page 28

Mission model offers snapshot of space payloads.

ENGINEERING NOTEBOOK 28
Birds, bees, and nanos.

OUT OF THE PAST 46

FEATURES Page 34

F35: A TIME OF TRIAL 34

The administration is betting on a successful restructuring of the F-35’s Air
Force and Navy versions, but has placed the STOVL variant on probation.
by J.R. Wilson Page 20

AMS: SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE DARK 40

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer aims to reveal dark matter and antimatter,
but its Chinese components could also uncover political rifts.
by Craig Covault

BULLETIN
AIAA Meeting Schedule B2
AIAA Courses and Training Program B4
AIAA News B5
Meeting Program B13
Calls for Papers B19

COVER
After 30 years and more than 130 missions, the space shuttle's historic final launch will bring the program to a close
later this month. For one astronaut, the approaching milestone sparks vivid memories of his own spaceflight Page 40
experiences. See the story beginning on page 20.

Aerospace America (ISSN 0740-722X) is published monthly, except August, by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. at 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Va. 20191-4344
[703/264-7500]. 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 © 2011 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 49, No. 6.
SIMPLIFIND
Connect with leading industry vendors with AIAA’s exciting new
Industry Guide for Aeronautics and Astronautics Professionals.

Powered by MultiView, it’s a faster and easier way to find great

products and services.

Simplifind your search today at

aiaaindustryguide.com
 ®
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, Craig Covault, Leonard
David, Philip Finnegan, Tom Jones, David
Rockwell, J.R. Wilson
Fitzgerald Art & Design
Art Direction and Design
Craig Byl, Manufacturing and Distribution
Brian D Dailey, President
Robert S. Dickman, Publisher
STEERING COMMITTEE
Col. Neal Barlow, USAF Academy; Michael
B. Bragg, University of Illinois; Carol Cash,
Carol Cash & Associates; Basil Hassan, San-
dia; Mark S. Maurice, AFOSR; Laura
McGill, Raytheon; Merri Sanchez, NASA;
Mark Lewis, University of Maryland
EDITORIAL BOARD
Ned Allen, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics;
Jean-Michel Contant, EADS; Eugene Covert,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; L.S.
“Skip” Fletcher, Texas A&M University;
Michael Francis, United Technologies;
Christian Mari, Teuchos; Cam Martin,
NASA Dryden; Don Richardson, Donrich
Research; Douglas Yazell, Consultant
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.
June 2011, Vol. 49, No. 6
Hail and farewell
Some time in the next several weeks, the space shuttle Atlantis is sched-
uled to make its last flight—and draw to a close an incredible 30-year
history of this remarkable manned space transportation program.
Although the construction contract for the first space shuttle was
awarded in 1972, conceptualization had begun decades earlier, even
before the Apollo program.
Dozens of configurations and innumerable combinations of airframe,
propulsion, thermal protection, and control systems were conceived, as-
sessed, and discarded before the final Space Transportation System design
we now know as the shuttle evolved. A key step in every evaluation was
an exhaustive analysis of costs based on various mission profile scenarios.
Although selection of the final design was based on highly overoptimistic
mission plans (for example, more than 50 flights per year), which led to
seriously flawed economic projections, the shuttle was indeed an engi-
neering and technological marvel.
The five shuttle orbiters—Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and
Endeavour, plus the Enterprise test vehicle—together have made over 130
flights, with astronauts both domestic and foreign delivering dozens of
spacecraft to orbit, conducting invaluable experiments, and performing
extravehicular activities to rescue and repair one-of-a-kind assets such as
the remarkable Hubble Space Telescope.
The shuttle was also the means by which the international space sta-
tion was brought into being, delivering the modules and trusses that
would steadily take shape under the hands of these same space travelers.
Like the Apollo program before it, public interest in the shuttle’s ac-
complishments seemed to wane over time, as we moved on to the ‘next
new thing.’ And just as the heartstopping drama of Apollo 13’s mechanical
woes served as a brief reminder of how truly perilous space travel is, it
took the tragic losses of life aboard first the Challenger on January 28,
1986, and Columbia seven years later, on February 1, 2003, to remind a
mostly unengaged public of the engineering complexity of these flights
and the tremendous courage of the participants.
Of course the lessons learned at such great expense are forgotten over
time, and launch scrubs and standdowns make us impatient, as if the
shuttle were a Greyhound bus with a flat tire just before departure. It is
human nature to take these launches for granted—if we thought too long
about the difficulty and danger involved we would probably look away.
So let us watch, one last time, as Atlantis streaks across the sky, and
think back and give thanks. Not just to those whose faces and voices we
have come to know, the astronauts and ground crews, flight controllers
and spokespersons, but to the thousands of men and women whose
names we will never know, whose faces we have never seen, who began
considering a notion in the 1950s, nurtured it, and watched it blossom in
the decades since. We can only hope that we shall see their like again.
Thank you.
Elaine Camhi
Editor-in-Chief
Space industry takes root in central
and eastern Europe
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S NEW
space policy, launched in April, con-
tained many ingredients that were fa-
miliar, one or two surprises, and three
or four important issues that were
raised but not answered.
The familiar ingredients were the
prioritization of the Galileo satellite
navigation and GMES (global monitor-
ing for environment and security) pro-
grams, and the development of indi-
genously owned and operated Euro-
pean Union space systems to support
security missions worldwide. The ma-
jor surprise—especially given the per-
ilous state of many European econ-
omies—included a new emphasis on
space exploration activities. According
to the policy document, “The Union
seeks to identify and support the de-
velopment of essential technologies for
exploration, in particular in the fields
of energy, health, and recycling (sup-
The Czech space industry and ESA
The Czech Republic has committed itself to
contributing around €45 million to ESA
programs until 2013 and is now integrated
into ESA’s major projects. By 2010 it had
completed 14 projects in cooperation with
ESA, was working on a further 36, and
planned to become involved in 31 more,
the work coordinated through the Czech
Space Office.
The country is an active participant in
the European program for life and physical
sciences, with work taking place on the ISS.
In Earth observation, the Czech Republic
committed itself to cofinancing the GMES
program at the ESA Ministerial Council in
2008. It is also involved in the ESA Earth
observation envelope program and the
Envisat and Meteosat projects. It is a major
partner in ESA’s European GNSS evolution
program, developing technologies associated
within the EGNOS (European GNSS overlay
service) and Galileo systems, and is integrated
within the ESA advanced research in
telecommunications systems (ARTES)
program. The Czech Republic has a major
financial stake in Iris, a subelement of ARTES
that focuses on satellite solutions for air
traffic management.
4 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
port for life in isolated environments).”
Among the issues raised but not
answered is the challenge of develop-
ing a space industry policy that fully
reflects the needs of the entire EU
community—but with the key industry
and service providers concentrated in
a single demographic area.
For Europe’s space industry is cen-
tered on three or four major compa-
nies based entirely in the west. In east-
ern and central Europe, where annual
economic growth rates for some coun-
tries are likely to be over 4% this year,
the industry hardly exists at all. This is
strange, given the scientific and aca-
demic centers of excellence in the re-
gion, the close links these countries
had to Russia’s aerospace industry
(with Czech, Polish, Romanian, and
Slovakian astronauts having flown on
Russian spacecraft), the recent integra-
tion of some of these countries within
the EU, the low wage demands and
high skills of the available workforce,
and, finally, ESA’s efforts to integrate
many of these states within Europe’s
space infrastructure.
Underlying causes
The Soviet Union concentrated its
space industry efforts in Russia, Kaz-
akhstan, and Ukraine. The ‘Interkos-
mos’ space exploration program was
developed to engage fellow Warsaw
Pact states in manned and unmanned
programs but focused mainly on plac-
ing cosmonauts of neighboring coun-
tries into space, rather than on devel-
oping a space industrial infrastructure.
As a result, when the Soviet Union
collapsed in 1991, there were hardly
any space manufacturing capabilities
at all in central and eastern Europe,
apart from a few academic research
institutes. Poland hosted a small in-
dustry based on sensors and spec-
trometers. The Czech Republic built
scientific instruments on 23 Interkos-
mos science satellites (1969-1991), the
movable platform for the Vega 1 Hal-
ley comet probe, and five Magion mi-
crosatellites for magnetosphere and
ionosphere research between 1978
and 1996. Romania contributed aca-
demic research to more than 30 scien-
tific and technological space missions.
Although ESA offered the opportu-
nity for new EU states to develop their
space industries in cooperation with
those of Western Europe, the funding
and commissioning of work within
ESA was not helpful for those coun-
tries that wanted to develop their in-
dustries but lacked a mature science
and industrial base.
Says Pierre Lionnet, research direc-
tor at the European trade association
Eurospace, “The way that ESA works
is that every euro generated by France
for funding ESA activities is spent
within France on space programs. In
other words, the funding rule trans-
lates directly into a spending rule.”
ESA member states contribute to
these programs on a scale based on
their gross domestic product, which
means that countries such as Poland
or Hungary would have to make size-
able contributions to the ESA budget
even though they have no indigenous
industry capable of carrying out the
ensuing work domestically. The only
central European former communist
states that are now full members of
ESA are the Czech Republic—which
joined as a full member in November
2008—and Romania, which signed its
accession agreement to become the
19th member state in January.
New approach, new opportunities
ESA recognized the problem and in
2001 set up a new agreement for cen-
tral European nations, the Plan for Eu-
ropean Cooperating States (PECS), in
which countries would spend five
years working with ESA with no obli-
gation to become full members. In
January 2010, Slovenia became the
sixth European Cooperating State
(ECS), following Estonia in 2009,
Poland in 2007, Romania in 2006, and SPACE INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT BY COUNTRY
Hungary and the Czech Republic in 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2003. When Hungary and the Czech Austria 263 289 294 279 290 301 318
Republic became PECS members, the Belgium 1,123 1,193 1,189 1,187 1,288 1,284 1,523
two states agreed to make an annual Denmark 233 153 175 180 200 167 216
payment to ESA of €5 million over a Finland 141 136 136 131 129 153 172
France 13,017 12,699 11,157 11,145 11,453 11,641 11,225
five-year period—93% of which has Germany 5,065 4,630 4,415 4,481 4,812 4,962 5,270
returned to each country in the form Ireland 48 48 45 42 42 42 30
of contracts to industry and research Italy 5,100 4,770 3,814 3,738 3,963 3,985 4,490
institutes, with the remaining 7% as an Luxembourg N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 27 31
Netherlands 511 543 505 559 491 460 610
administration fee to ESA to cover the Norway 155 312 247 223 205 254 276
costs of integrating the participation of Portugal 24 80 55 73 53 109 101
these two countries. Other countries Spain 1,971 2,022 1,896 1,901 1,915 2,095 2,231
are negotiating with ESA about joining Sweden 693 679 699 686 689 641 664
the PECS initiative. Switzerland 705 683 670 671 707 743 783
U.K. 3,186 3,239 3,287 3,576 3,242 3,437 3,429
In the past few years, however, the
Source: Eurospace.
space market has seen some changes
that will open up new opportunities
for those European countries that have
only a modest space industry heritage. in France to examine how Baltic states latest work focuses on using satellite
“With programs such as Galileo,” can make a “continuous and sustain- technology to monitor land surface
says Lionnet, “the European Commis- able contribution in major ongoing and and land border areas within the EU
sion (EC) is starting to become a major planned European space programs.” as part of the EC’s GMES program.
procurer of space systems without the The Slovak Academy of Sciences And at the very least, the advent of
ESA rule—in other words, there is no has participated in the IMPRESS proj- Galileo navigation equipment will al-
direct link between the ESA funding ect, a cofunded EC and ESA research low ‘value added’ service companies
rule and countries obtaining work on effort to understand the critical links in central Europe to set up operations
such programs.” between the solidification processes of in the software enhancement sectors,
Although the EC’s new direct in- intermetallic alloys. According to early along the lines that already exist there
volvement in space activities is rela- findings, the research could lead to a for GPS-derived products.
tively modest, it is allowing several 40-50% weight reduction for low-pres-
countries to develop space industry sure turbine stages compared with Low wages, high skills
expertise from a relatively low base- conventional nickel superalloys. In European manufacturers are also start-
line. For example, the EC-funded sev- Warsaw, the Space Research Center of ing to exploit opportunities to use
enth framework project ‘Nordic-Balt- the Polish Academy of Sciences (CBK highly skilled workforces in the low-
Sat’ has seen Lithuania, Estonia, and PAN) has contributed work to a wide wage economies of central European
Latvia partner with Sweden, Poland, range of NASA, Russian, Ukrainian, countries. Satellite and spacecraft man-
and the International Space University and EU space research programs; its ufacturer EADS-Astrium set up an op-

Ukraine and Kazakhstan: Looking beyond Russia
The first launch of Cyclone-4, capable of carrying a
single or multiple payload of 5,300 kg to LEO or a
1,600-kg satellite to geostationary transfer orbit, is
planned for 2012. The launcher, being built by the
Yuzhmash State Enterprise in Ukraine, is the latest
in the organization’s long line of rockets, which
include the Zenit and Dnepr launchers.
Although the Ukrainian space sector still relies
on the Russian market for around 80% of its overall
space business—worth around $254 million in
2009—it has been forging more links with other
customers in recent years. In February, Systema
JFC and Switzerland’s Leica Geosystems signed a
collaborative agreement for development and
application of satellite navigation systems and
spacecraft docking systems.
Ukraine is a partner in the Brazilian Alcantara
spaceport program and will provide Cyclone-4
launchers when the complex is finished in 2012.
The country participates with China in over 50 space
projects, including a joint Earth observation satellite
program, implementation of an ionosphere satellite
project for earthquake forecasting, and the supply
of launcher equipment by Chinese partners.
Ukrainian companies provide assemblies to the
Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles, transporting
crews and supplies to the ISS. In addition, they are
now producing the first-stage fuel compartment
and second-stage propulsion system to the Orbital
Sciences Tauris-II launch vehicle.
Other cooperative agreements have recently
been signed with Japan and Saudi Arabia. Ukrainian
rockets are being employed in the Sea Launch
program, which went into bankruptcy in 2009 but
has plans for relaunch this year.
Although Yuri Gagarin blasted off on the first
manned space rocket in 1961 from the Baikonur
cosmodrome center in Kazakhstan, the center is
on a 50-year lease to Russia. So Kazakhstan has
started building its own space launch complex, a
€130-million facility in Astana. Work started on the
center in July 2010 under the direction of Kazakhstan
Gharysh Sapary (KGS), the company in charge of
developing the country’s space program. KGS and
EADS-Astrium have signed an agreement in which
Astrium will provide mechanical, radiometric,
thermal, and acoustic testing facilities at the new
center and will help in its construction. KGS and
Astrium will jointly manage the Astana center and
implement Kazakhstan’s future satellite programs.

AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 5

eration in the Czech Republic in Sep-
tember 2010 and in Poland the fol-
lowing December, as part of the As-
trium Central Europe program.
Astri Polska is a 50/50 joint ven-
ture between Astrium and CBK PAN,
Poland’s largest space institute. The new
company will focus on developing
space technologies in the areas of
spacecraft electronics, photonics, and
materials, as well as in Earth observa-
tion, navigation, and telecommunica-
tions services. This will involve devel-
oping tailored satellite applications for
end users, particularly in disaster man-
agement and security. Astrium is also
working closely with ECS countries
such as Hungary, Estonia, Romania, and
Poland “to facilitate the development of
space programs in these countries as
In Cyberscience and 21st-century edu-
cation, April, page3), Lyle Long con-
tends, in a provocative and interesting
commentary, that the “physics-based”
disciplines of aerodynamics, structures,
propulsion, dynamics, and control are
“fairly mature,” and calls for aerospace
curricula to deemphasize these in fa-
vor of computers and electronics.
As important as these technologies
are, they are still only one of a num-
ber of subsystems. A Boeing 787 has
billions of times more computational
capability than a 707, but it is still only
about twice as efficient by any meas-
ure, and it is not at all clear that the in-
creased efficiency is due to the elec-
tronics. Have aerospace engineers
failed to take full advantage of the rev-
olution in computing, or is there sim-
ply a limit to what computing has to
offer aerospace?
A graduate curriculum in systems
engineering or technical management
might well benefit from more compu-
tational content, but most students go
into aerospace engineering because
they want to build physical flight hard-
ware. And even if they move into man-
agement, they will still need a firm
foundation in the technologies govern-
ing what can be built and flown. There
6 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
they work towards full ESA member-
ship,” according to the company.
It is still very early days in the his-
tory of space activity in central and
eastern Europe. But the work of the
EC and the new cooperative agree-
ments between academic and research
institutes throughout the region are
creating a building block of space sci-
ence knowledge on which an industry
can eventually develop. With more
PECS agreements in the pipeline, and
with Romania and the Czech Republic
now full ESA members, there will be a
rapid increase in space industrial de-
velopment in these two countries over
the next few years.
Philip Butterworth-Hayes
phayes@mistral.co.uk
Brighton, U.K.
are already too many systems engi-
neers and program managers who are
bored or confused by the physics-
based subject matter. Aerospace engi-
neers who don’t focus primarily on the
physics will not be able to effectively
manage aerospace projects.
There is also a reach-down effect
into the physics-based disciplines
themselves. Managers more comfort-
able with computers than with the me-
chanical realities often fail to recog-
nize irrelevant solutions or incorrectly
posed problems. Those of us who do
a great deal of computational model-
ing know, perhaps more than anyone,
that we must always work to capture
the physics better and generate results
relevant to the messy and uncertain
physical world. To borrow from
Richard Hamming’s famous statement,
computing must not become a self-
justifying exercise in which numbers
substitute for insight.
I was recently at the National Air
and Space Museum. Near the Apollo
capsule, a young guy showed his girl-
friend a cell phone and said the phone
“has more technology than that cap-
sule.” His comment betrayed a narrow
and limiting, though all too common,
definition of technology. Limits in ma-
terial strength, propulsion efficiency,
and structural reliability cannot be
overcome primarily by computation.
Better aerospace systems will still re-
quire greasy old test rigs that smell
like hydraulic fluid. We can only com-
pute our way around failures if we
clearly understand the physics behind
those failures. Grant Henson
Chief scientist
Invariant Laboratories
www.invariantlabs.com
Reply by author I am not advocating
drastically reducing the teaching of the
physics-based disciplines, but if that is
all the students learn then they will
not be prepared for the future.
I am advocating that aerospace
students learn all they can about cy-
berscience, not get pure cyberscience
degrees. They need to fully under-
stand aerospace systems, and since
the systems are roughly 50% cybersys-
tems (and cybersystems are also used
in the design and building of them)
they need to learn about that.
I had an eye-opening experience
about 10 years ago that helps illustrate
the problem. When we first started
doing UAV research, the first thing we
did was buy some large R/C aircraft
and an autopilot, and for very little
money we had covered aerodynam-
ics, structures, propulsion, dynamics
and control. And we quickly realized
that the existing aerospace engineer-
ing students were of little help in fur-
ther developing the system. We
needed students trained in cyber-
science to develop the system into an
interesting platform capable of per-
forming useful missions. So we have
changed our curriculum to allow
them more freedom in choosing
courses and in getting minor degrees.
They learn a great deal about the tra-
ditional aerospace topics and then
can easily supplement this with more
depth or breadth in aerospace or in
other areas.
This increases the credits required,
but they get recognition for this addi-
tional work (a minor). We also offer a
graduate minor in computational sci-
ence, which has been very successful.
As to the Hamming quote, I agree.
I think computer science programs (in
fact, all university programs) need to
be revised, too. In fact, I think almost
every college student should get a mi-
nor in cyberscience (even if they are
not in science or engineering).
The F-35 is several years behind
schedule, not because of aerodynam-
ics, structures, propulsion, dynamics
and control, but because of software
problems, and we are not educating
enough people to address these issues
(or to build systems beyond the F-35).
񡑀񡑀񡑀
Wow! Prof. Long’s commentary contains
a lot to think about. I suspect that he has
intenionally gone a bit over the top to
get people thinking about his funda-
mental premise.
One thing we need to get out on
the table right away: Current aerospace
curricula do not deal in technology.
Curricula began to drop such courses
in the early 1970s. Curricula were re-
duced from 160 hours when I was in
school to 120 hours nowadays. In ad-
dition, to make room for greater liberal
arts content, even more technical or
scientific content was removed.
These changes took place because
a) technology courses are much more
expensive than straight lecture courses;
b) faculty versed in technology fre-
quently do not have Ph.D.s nor do
they write many technical papers—ad-
ministrators therefore have a hard time
evaluating such faculty for raises and
promotions; c) industry has never urged
universities to provide specific techno-
logical content in their curricula; d)
without a decent background in the
fundamentals of solid and fluid me-
chanics an engineer is unequipped to
undertake the creation of unconven-
tional vehicles or those that must oper-
ate in unconventional environments.
Courses in software engineering,
systems engineering, electronics, com-
puting, autonomus systems, naviga-
tion, etc., are little more than hand-
book references unless the needed
physical and mathematical foundation
is provided beforehand.
All letters addressed to the editor are considered to be submitted for possible publication, unless it is expressly stated otherwise. All letters are subject to
editing for length and to author response. Letters should be sent to: Correspondence, Aerospace America, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston,
VA 20191-4344, or by e-mail to: elainec@aiaa.org.
Long says physics-based teaching
is ‘mature,’ but it is not for new stu-
dents. Has he looked at what freshmen
bring with them from high school?
I for one am reluctant to go back
to the 1930s, when engineering educa-
tion emphasized practical experience
and the application of handbook
knowledge at the expense of funda-
mental knowledge. I grew up in such
a system and when I was confronted
with trying to build systems to operate
in a space environment I was com-
pletely at sea until I acquired the nec-
essary fundamental background.
The curriculum needs constant up-
dating, but in small steps, not in super-
man leaps. Frederick O. Smetana
Professor emeritus, mechanical
and aerospace engineering
North Carolina State University
P.S. Here are some projects I under-
took during my career. How many of
Long’s courses would have helped me
tackle them: Heat a low-density super-
sonic gas stream; interpret the indica-
tions of a Langmuir probe in a moving
plasma; build a low lag, position-error-
compensated pitot-static tube to oper-
ate successfully from M=0 to M=5 at
angles of attack to 30 deg and sideslip
angles up to 10 deg; build a 10-kW so-
lar electric system that can be built by
the average refrigeration mechanic;
build a low-cost 1-kW wind energy
system that can be built without using
precision milling or casting equipment;
design a light airplane that uses only a
steering wheel and a foot pedal for
controls yet remains at the same atti-
tude for all forward flight conditions;
and devise a scheme to find the roots
of a 12th-order polynomial accurate to
20 significant digits.
Reply by author I am glad my com-
mentary has stimulated discussion on
this topic; it is long overdue.
I don’t know if future curricula
would prepare someone to address
those seven tasks; but that is the
point—we should not be educating
students to solve yesterday’s prob-
lems. I agree the number of credits re-
quired to graduate has been greatly
reduced, which means the entry-level
engineering degree should be a mas-
ter’s degree, and these could be in an-
other field such as business, computer
science, cyberscience, software engi-
neering, systems engineering, etc.
These choices should be driven by
what they love, but tempered by what
will allow them to have a long and ful-
filling career.
Also, mature does not mean easy—
calculus is mature but is still difficult
to learn. Likewise, classical aerospace
engineering is fairly mature but still
difficult to learn. However, because
they are fairly mature, we essentially
know how to do them, and we can
teach people how to do it.
Teaching a mature discipline is dif-
ferent than teaching very new mate-
rial, and it is irresponsible to teach
these topics in the same way they
were taught 50 years ago.
Fluid dynamics and structural me-
chanics today are primarily done using
CFD and FEM, and the students must
know how to intelligently interpret
those results; but do they also need to
know all the material that was taught
20 years ago too?
While we can teach someone the
mature disciplines fairly well, topics
such as critical systems software, intelli-
gent systems, etc., are difficult to teach
because we do not know all the answers
yet. So part of the reason these are not
being taught is because it is much easier
to teach the mature topics. Why do we
teach the students the mature technol-
ogy and then ask them to learn the less
mature information on their own? The
changes we have made to our curricu-
lum have had an impact, and other de-
partments can emulate them.
So we have made some small
steps that do have a significant impact,
which will allow superman to focus
on more important problems! Also,
keep in mind that my commentary
was limited to 500 words; some of my
recent papers, curricula descriptions,
and webpages discuss these issues in
more depth (http://lylelong.com).
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 7
In China, aviation gets back on track
A SERIES OF ANNOUNCEMENTS AND A
change in policy direction at the top
of China’s government indicate that a
measure of realism has been restored
to the direction of the country’s civil
aviation industry, and indeed to its
plans for major industrial expansion in
general. The announcements indicate
that events have forced a reassessment
and a cutting back of the massive Chi-
nese effort to build high-speed rail-
ways over huge swaths of the country.
Yes, that’s railways: If you think
high-speed trains have little or nothing
in common with making aircraft, you
may want to think again. The major
factors are money, allocation of pre-
cious resources such as experienced
designers and engineers, and interna-
tional credibility.
A planner’s dream
For China, building its own large com-
mercial aircraft has long been the
dream of planners, principally for
three reasons. First is the economic ra-
tionale of not having to buy only from
foreign manufacturers—both for inter-
national routes and for vital links
across a huge country. Second is to
bring about the technical training and
engineering experience that comes
from hands-on aircraft production line
Comac is hoping to get an FAA stamp of approval for its C-919.
8 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
work, practical learning that goes be-
yond the theoretical knowledge im-
parted by universities. Third, and
hugely important, is the international
mark of respectability that would
come from having a Chinese-designed
and built airliner certificated by West-
ern regulators.
It is a long-term process, and
China has been taking small bites at it
since the 1960s, though the effort has
been accelerating over the past few
years. The country’s aircraft makers,
which produce both civil and military
types, subsisted on a diet of former
Soviet designs and subcontract assem-
bly, with just one serious foray into
building a four-engined jet airliner in
the 1970s—the handful that were built
were deemed unacceptable for pas-
senger service within a short time.
A joint project undertaken in the
1980s with McDonnell Douglas (now
Boeing) saw MD-80s built in Shanghai
to FAA standards from kits. More re-
cently, Airbus has started assembling
A320s in China, while China’s own de-
signers and engineers have worked
with Western companies and individu-
als to design a regional jet—the ARJ-
21, about the size of a Fokker F100 or
a DC-9—and a larger aircraft called the
Comac 919.
Seal of approval?
Comac is short for the Commercial
Aircraft Corporation of China, and the
919 is intended to be certificated
jointly with the FAA so that it will have
the stamp of foreign approval, which
its makers hope will enable foreign
sales to boost its manufacturing num-
bers. How real such expectations
might be is a matter for debate: The
aircraft’s various models are intended
to have about 165-190 seats, so they
will fall squarely into the marketing
brackets now comfortably occupied
by Boeing and Europe’s Airbus. The
C-Series of jets from Canada’s Bom-
bardier and planned products from
Brazil’s Embraer are soon to join the
fray as well.
The Comac products are not ex-
pected to fly until 2014, with entry
into service likely in 2016, so they will
be well behind the competition in
numbers. Also, because Comac is rely-
ing on Western companies to supply
systems and many components, the
level of technology shown in the
C-919 is unlikely to be as good as that
in the competition, even if it is using
the same engines. Price is another
matter, of course, and arguments via
the World Trade Organization about
subsidies could be interesting.
 No matter—the project is happen-
ing, and it will continue. It can be dif-
ficult to appreciate from outside the
mainland just how much determina-
tion and effort is being put into the
C-919—it is a national project with
huge amounts of foreign and domestic
prestige riding on its success, and it
therefore cannot be allowed to fail.
A new path
What is also often not evident from
outside the mainland is that, far from
its external image, China’s government
is anything but monolithic. Elsewhere,
the democratic process ensures that
many major differences over policy
are aired in public. In China they are
aired behind closed doors, but they
are still aired. Factional fighting is the
norm, just as it is anywhere else.
In this regard, there has been a
significant change of direction very re-
cently. China needs mass transit to
shift huge numbers of people around
the country during national holidays.
It also needs mass employment for a
rapidly growing population. Commer-
cial aviation cannot do either: It is
considered inherently elitist because
of its cost to the consumer in China’s
low-wage economy, and its employ-
ment opportunities are for the top end
of the education stream, thus limiting
available jobs to a relatively small pool
of talent.
So how will China offer an alterna-
tive form of transport across the na-
tion, one that would cost the con-
sumer less, absorb large numbers of
people building it, and be faster than
existing ground-based modes? High-
speed rail has been around a long
time in Japan and parts of Europe, and
in China it quickly became the answer
to planners’ dreams. They diversified
the effort and costs of building it by
letting regions be given or borrow
large amounts of cash under local
control to set up infrastructure such as
rail tracks and stations.
At first glance, the idea is hugely
attractive. The rolling stock is cheaper
than aircraft. Stations can be in or near
town centers, cutting total travel times
The CRH3 is a version of the Siemens Velaro high-speed train used in China on several lines.
over short distances by so much that
rail journeys of roughly 300-350 mi.
take about the same time as air trips.
Further, baggage is less of a problem
because the passenger takes care of it,
and security is less intrusive—so far, at
any rate.
To sum it up, proponents of high-
speed rail say it offers “freedom from
airport security hassles, freedom from
never-ending flight delays and cancel-
lations, freedom from being forced to
spend hours stuck in airports, freedom
from having to turn off your electronic
devices, freedom from endless traffic
jams, freedom from car accidents,
freedom from foreign oil dependency
and rogue nations controlling us, free-
dom from oil price spikes, freedom
from transferring our wealth (money
we spend on transportation) to terror-
ist-ridden nations that don’t like us,
and freedom from being pulled into
resource wars.”
No, that’s not what was said in
China; it is a statement on the Website
of the U.S. High Speed Rail Associa-
tion, which followed up with, “Pro-
moting HSR for America is promoting
freedom for Americans!” And just so
you get the message, “HSR is as Amer-
ican as we can get.” Unless of course
you are in China, where that message
or something similar has led to a high-
speed rail network that by the end of
last year covered more than 5,200 mi.,
to be extended to 8,125 mi. by 2015
and 10,000 mi. by 2020.
The down side
Unfortunately, contracts associated
with China’s high-speed rail have
been subject to substantial amounts of
corruption, and the public exposure
has led to changes at the top of the
Ministry of Railways. Separately, there
is now a realization that high-speed
rail is no more viable a means of mass
transport than aviation. The proof of
this was widely trumpeted in main-
land Chinese media after the Lunar
New Year national holiday break in
February, when literally millions of
people all over the nation wanted to
take trains home to their families.
Many had journeys that were far from
easy, and there was an outpouring of
ill will about how expensive high-
speed rail is compared with the older,
slower trains.
These were not the only nega-
tives—short cuts taken in the system’s
construction were uncovered, in the
form of inappropriate and substandard
materials used for the rail beds in var-
ious places. This was not necessarily
because of backhanders at high levels,
but because the proper materials were
not available, and the pressure to get
the job done led to a fall in standards.
The potential safety risks were obvi-
ous. The country’s leadership re-
sponded by ordering safety checks
across the country, and by announc-
ing a decrease in planned speeds and
fares, while planned expenditure on
the system has been slashed.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 9

Brazil’s Harbin manufacturing line will switch to
building Embraer Legacy jets.
Unstated by the aviation faction (at
least in public), but almost certainly a
major factor in its overcoming the rail
faction’s sapping of potential funding,
is the issue of international monitoring
of standards of aircraft manufacture—
monitoring voluntarily sought by Co-
mac. FAA and European regulatory
approval will be necessary for China’s
commercial aircraft to have any hope
of success in the outside world; hav-
ing started down that road, it is impos-
sible to go back. No such approval is
necessary for the rail system. There is
nothing wrong with high-speed rail in
the right circumstances, but in China it
now has a public black eye both at
home and abroad.
Teaming for success
The aviation faction’s victory in this in-
The fate of the ARJ-21 is still uncertain.
10 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
stance came through the rail faction
shooting itself in the foot. But a hand-
ful of other events indicate that Comac
and its supporters are pushing hard to
ensure the 919 project’s success. One
major such event is the teaming of Co-
mac with Bombardier to cooperate in
technology, marketing, and customer
support—the last being the most im-
portant, given that China has virtually
no experience supporting high-tech-
nology products outside its own bor-
ders. Another is the gradual shifting of
its publicity and marketing to outside
hands with experience.
The final major event is a deal
with Embraer, which for more than a
year had been sweating over possibly
having to close its Harbin production
line that makes the 50-seat ERJ 145 re-
gional jet. The Brazilian company had
wanted to upgrade to making the 90-
seat E190, but there were fears that
this would be stopped because this is
the market the ARJ-21 was intended
for. Under the new deal, Embraer will
switch the Harbin line to making its
Legacy business jets that are part of
the ERJ 145 family, while China will
buy 35 E190s.
No one has said what is to happen
with the ARJ-21. It has been flown, but
there is no indication that it is in pro-
duction. It would not be too surprising
WigetWorks plans to sell its small craft as
private transport.
if that project has ceased, because it
has served its purpose as a develop-
ment and systems integration labora-
tory for China’s engineers working
with foreign companies, enabling all
new civil aircraft work to be concen-
trated on the C-919.
Completely unrelated, and out of
left field from Singapore, is an ap-
proach being made to China by Singa-
pore company WigetWorks to sell its
‘wing in ground effect’ craft as a pri-
vate transport or lake-crossing ferry.
The concept has been taken seriously
in Russia, where very big ‘Wigs’ have
been seen crossing large expanses of
water. Like its Russian forebears, the
Singapore craft flies at about 6-20 ft
above the water, cruising at 90 kt and
carrying eight passengers.
The makers say it is powered by a
V8 automobile engine that runs on au-
tomotive gasoline and is capable of
‘flying’ across stretches of coastal wa-
ters or large lakes. The Singapore com-
pany developed the AirFish after buy-
ing out the intellectual property of its
German builder in the 1990s, and then
spent a long time getting it certificated
because it was outside the rules of the
time. Now it is certificated by Singa-
pore’s maritime authorities, and its
manufacturers estimated a six-passen-
ger version made of carbon fiber will
cost less than $500,000. It may well be
an immensely practical proposition,
but getting it licensed in China may be
an interesting challenge.
Michael Westlake
Hong Kong
michael_westlake@yahoo.com
At AIAA we see a new era of
discovery driven by bold
new visions to aerospace.
How far can you see?

Imagine • Share • Connect

www.aiaa.org/imagineIt
Waking up to harsh realities
WITH SPRING ENDING AND SUMMER AT
hand, Washington is debating the fu-
ture of human spaceflight, problems
in the civil aviation arena, and the
seemingly endless issue of govern-
ment spending, deficits, and debt. Af-
ter reaching a last-minute deal con-
taining $38.5 billion in cuts from 2010
funding levels, on April 15 Congress
finally enacted a budget for FY11.
Bolden testimony
NASA’s handling of the human space-
flight program drew barbs from law-
makers when Administrator Charles
Bolden testified on Capitol Hill on
April 11.
Bolden told legislators his agency
is attempting to comply with a con-
gressional mandate that bars NASA
from canceling contracts in the Con-
stellation next-generation spaceflight
program, which the Obama adminis-
tration wants to terminate. Bolden said
NASA can comply with legislation re-
quiring it to develop a ‘multipurpose
crew vehicle’ (MPCV) at reasonable
cost by exploiting shuttle infrastruc-
ture. He said the Orion crew explo-
ration vehicle (CEV)—part of Constel-
lation—and the MPCV are similar, and
that NASA can develop the capsule
Congress wants under existing Orion
contracts with Lockheed Martin. He
cautioned, however, that the scope of
work may have to be revised because
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
12 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
of lowered funding prospects.
Impatient with the pace of MPCV
work, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-
Texas) told Bolden that President
Obama “wanted Orion continued, and
your staff and managers agree that
Orion is the reference vehicle and eas-
ily falls within the scope of the author-
ization law that you have said you are
following. Yet it doesn’t seem that the
contract modifications to achieve this
result are happening.”
Any delays with MPCV, Bolden
said, are about money: “I will tell you
that in any of the contracts that we
have today, we cannot pay the amount
of money that was contracted x-num-
ber of years ago. So there will be ne-
gotiations among us and all our con-
tractors, because we have got to get
our costs down.” He added, “We may
have to descope the vehicle in some
manner,” referring to potential changes
in the configuration and capabilities of
the MPCV.
In early 2010, Obama proposed
canceling Constellation, including the
then-planned version of the CEV be-
ing built by Lockheed Martin Space
Systems of Denver. Hutchison asked
Bolden whether he intends to proceed
with the scaled-back Orion or, “is it just
going to be strung out, so that eventu-
ally it just can’t be revived?” Bolden
replied that “the existing Orion con-
tract, as a deep-space exploration ve-
hicle, easily maps to the scope of what
we call a multipurpose crew vehicle.”
Though it is not clear that Con-
gress and the executive branch will be
able to agree on a federal budget for
FY12, Hutchison told Bolden the $1
billion in the administration’s FY12
spending plan for NASA falls short of
the $1.4 billion lawmakers insist is nec-
essary to field an operational MPCV by
2016. She pressed the administrator
to seek more money next year for
Orion—a prospect few in Washington
view as realistic in today’s constricted
and contentious budget climate.
Under the original plan for Orion,
initial models were to carry astronauts
to the ISS; later versions would take
them to lunar orbit. In April 2010
Obama announced that Orion would
be spared Constellation’s fate, but only
to be scaled back to serve as an emer-
gency lifeboat at the space station—
meaning it would launch without a
crew. Since then, Congress has en-
acted the MPCV requirement into law.
Bolden will now be under pressure to
produce the lifeboat/MPCV without
any increase in funding.
Asleep at the FAA
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
and FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt
are conducting damage control—in-
cluding a nationwide tour of control
tower facilities by Babbitt—after eight
separate incidents in which air traffic
controllers were found sleeping on
the job. In a ninth incident, a control-
ler mishandled a landing by a C-40B
carrying first lady Michelle Obama.
Although no one has been hurt in
an aircraft mishap as a result of con-
The Orion crew module ground test structure is
inspected prior to integration with an encapsu-
lating aeroshell. The NASA administrator believes
work on the Orion CEV can be integrated with
development of an MPCV.

FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt
trollers succumbing to drowsiness,
professional associations and lawmak-
ers say the FAA must make a greater
effort to ensure that controllers are
awake and alert.
With lawmakers looking over their
shoulders, officials of the FAA and
other agencies are confronting other
civil aviation issues as well. Rep. John
Mica (R-Fla.) is concerned that the
FAA has missed a deadline to develop
pilot identity documents that meet a
standard set by Congress. In addition,
an aerial mishap aboard a Southwest
Airlines jet raised questions about gov-
ernment officials’ monitoring of the
structural condition of the nation’s ag-
ing airliners.
Babbitt’s whirlwind tour of FAA fa-
cilities to talk to employees about
work practices was accompanied by
an order that at least two controllers
will be on duty at every facility when-
ever that facility is in operation. This
brings an end to the practice of having
a single controller at work during the
midnight shift at 29 controlled airports
around the country.
Said Babbitt, “We absolutely cannot
and will not tolerate controllers sleep-
ing on the job when they’re supposed
to be controlling airplanes. We’re work-
ing with controllers to take a good
hard look at some of the scheduling
practices. Some of the things we’ve
done will provide a better sleep oppor-
tunity, rest opportunities for the con-
trollers, so that they can in fact arrive to
work rested and ready to go to work.”
In the incident involving the first
lady, a C-40B (a military derivative of
the 737-800) was approaching for a
landing at Joint Base Andrews outside
Washington, D.C. —where air traffic
control is provided by the FAA—when
a controller noticed that the plane was
following too closely behind a C-17
Globemaster III, a huge airlifter that
can create blasts of wake turbulence.
The controller ordered the C-40B to
make a routine go-around, after which
it landed without incident. The con-
troller on duty was not a supervisor.
The agency has since changed its
rules to require a supervisor on duty
whenever the first lady or vice presi-
dent is flying, a requirement already in
effect when the president is flying.
Rep. Mica, who follows the FAA
most closely, so far has not followed
through on an earlier pledge to hold
hearings about air traffic controller
problems. However, he told reporters
he is “miffed” about the executive
branch’s performance in introducing a
new pilot ID card using embedded
biometric data that Congress first man-
dated in 2004.
On April 14, in a rare snub of Con-
gress, TSA officials declined to attend
a hearing by Mica’s Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, leaving the
FAA unable to answer legislators’ ques-
tions on progress, or lack of it, in pro-
ducing secure pilot ID. “They are not
building a good strong fuzzy relation-
ship in working with us,” Mica said of
TSA. A symbolic empty chair for TSA
director John Pistole left Peggy Gilli-
gan, FAA associate administrator for
aviation security, on her own and un-
On April 1 a 5-ft hole opened in the roof of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-300 on its way to Sacramento.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
able to tell lawmakers the status of
stalled efforts to issue biometric IDs.
Mica says he might convene a joint
hearing with the House Homeland Se-
curity Committee. The TSA comes un-
der that department and would be
likely to participate without lawmak-
ers having to take the extreme step of
issuing a subpoena.
All these issues were percolating
when a 5-ft hole was ripped out of the
roof of a Southwest Airlines Boeing
737-300 on April 1 en route from
Phoenix to Sacramento. In a public
gaffe, the FAA first called it “a purely
random occurrence.” That did not pre-
vent several legislators from calling for
a review of FAA policy on aging airlin-
ers. There were lingering memories of
an April 1988 mishap in which the
cabin roof was torn off an Aloha Air-
lines 737-200 and a flight attendant
was swept to her death.
Despite serious efforts to upgrade
and inspect airliners that might be vul-
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 13
nerable, experts say structural cracks
from metal fatigue remain a persistent
problem on older planes.
The 737 is by far the most widely
used airliner in the world. According
to Boeing, over 6,000 have been built
or ordered. Many flying today are re-
cently built or even fresh out of the
factory door. Boeing says, however,
that some 570 older models may be at
risk for the same kind of fuselage
cracks that disrupted the Southwest
flight. No one was injured in that inci-
dent, and the stress cracks were antic-
ipated, but they were expected to oc-
cur only after the plane had made at
least 50,000 flights. Acknowledging
that a particular joint failed much ear-
lier than expected on the Southwest
flight, Boeing said checks were now
advisable after just 30,000 flights.
Solons on the Hill are expected to in-
sist the FAA make this a requirement.
Announcement of the New Book:
“Theoretical and Computational Aeroelasticity”
by William P. Rodden, Ph.D.
The book is intended as a text for students
and a basic reference for the aerospace in-
dustry, and is based on Dr Rodden’s expe-
rience since 1948 in structures, structural
dynamics, aerodynamics, and aeroelastic-
ity, and teaching since 1958. He has been a
consulting engineer for aerospace, civil engi-
neering, insurance, and law ¿UPV throughout
the United States, on a wide range of topics
in applied mechanics, as well as investiga-
tion of aircraft accidents. Over the years he
has taught several Aerospace Engineering
courses in night school at USC and UCLA
as well as the MSC.Nastran Aeroelasticity
training course worldwide for The MacNeal-
Schwendler Corp. He is the author of numer-
ous journal articles and industrial reports.
He holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil En-
gineering from the University of California,
Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in Engineering from
the University of California, Los Angeles. He
is also a Fellow of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
Publication is by Casa Graphics, Inc, in Bur-
bank, CA, and Sales by Advance Book Ex-
change (AbeBooks.com). The book has 830
pages and the price is $250 + S&H (+9.75%
sales tax to California residents).
Contact: billrodden@aol.com
14 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
Defense budget been in gestation for a decade, and no
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has one argues it is not needed.
been telling lawmakers for months The Navy littoral combat ship pro-
that the Pentagon will have to get by gram may be costlier than necessary,
with fewer dollars in the near term, because the service chose two designs
and that he “accepts” small defense re- and is developing them along parallel
ductions in the FY11 legislation. In the tracks, but experts say the technology
context of the president’s April 13 an- is so advanced there is no other way
nouncement of a government-wide to proceed. It is unclear whether in
plan to reduce the federal deficit—the the current spending climate the Navy
White House’s response to larger cuts will be able to move ahead with its
proposed by deficit hawks like Rep. plan to order 20 of the ships, to be
Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.)—Gates says he is built between now and 2012.
launching a “comprehensive review” Defense spending makes up about
to find $400 billion in spending cuts one-fifth of the federal budget. Even
by 2023. In the context of a target date
eight years away, that is not a huge Rep. Paul Ryan
sum, but it may prove difficult to attain.
When Gates’ acquisition chief Ash-
ton Carter spoke to reporters about
the secretary’s cost-cutting program in
an April 20 speech, he had little to of-
fer that was new. He cited the Navy’s
Zumwalt-class destroyers and the Ma-
rine Corps’ proposed new presidential
helicopter and expeditionary fighting
vehicle (EFV) as examples of high-
tech systems the nation might well dis-
pense with.
But the Zumwalt-class ships were
already facing criticism, almost noth-
ing is being spent currently on a new Capitol Hill’s most ardent proponents
presidential helicopter, and Gates had of spending cuts have mostly steered
already announced cancellation of the clear of the Pentagon budget for fear
EFV months ago. Rep. Duncan Hunter of appearing unsupportive of U.S.
(R-Calif.) and others say they will try troops. That may change this spring
to keep EFV alive, but most in the na- and summer if Congress follows the
tion’s capital believe Gates’ decision to traditional pattern of debating the ad-
cancel the costly, long-delayed ship- ministration’s proposed FY12 budget
to-shore Marine vehicle will stick. before FY12 actually arrives on Octo-
The armed forces today are largely
dependent on weapons that date to
the 1970s, such as the M1 Abrams
main battle tank, F-15C Eagle fighter,
and Los Angeles-class submarine.
Thus Obama, Gates, and other admin-
istration leaders will not easily find a
big military program they can cut.
The F-35 Lightning II program has
suffered from technical and fiscal con-
cerns and has been restructured—
meaning delayed—several times, but
leaders in both parties acknowledge
that it is needed too badly to be can-
celed outright. The Air Force’s KC-46A
air refueling tanker program will have
a tab of over $35 billion, but it has CIA Director Leon Panetta
 Events Calendar
JUNE 2
Aerospace Today...and Tomorrow: An Executive Symposium,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Contact: 703/264-7500
JUNE 5-8
Seventeenth AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Portland, Oregon.
Contact: 703/264-7500
JUNE 6-8
The Space Shuttle: An Engineering Milestone, Atlanta, Georgia.
Contact: Cindy Pendley, cindy.pendley@ae.gatech.edu
JUNE 9-11
Gen. David H. Petraeus Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies,
Istanbul, Turkey.
ber 1. A range of congressional voices, Contact: 703/264-7500
from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), argue that JUNE 13-17
the time has come to include the DOD International Conference on Aircraft and Engine Icing and Ground
in any new cuts—to a greater extent Deicing, Chicago, Illinois.
than Obama and Gates are proposing. Contact: Frank Bokulich, fbokulich@sae.org
These cuts will not be Gates’ prob- JUNE 26-30
lem much longer. As the secretary’s International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics 2011,
planned retirement date nears, the Paris, France.
president has nominated current CIA Contact: Anne Venables, secr.exec@aaaf.asso.fr
Director Leon Panetta to step into that
JUNE 27-30
office. Other nominees announced
Twenty-ninth AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference; 41st AIAA Fluid
were Afghanistan commander Gen. Dynamics Conference and Exhibit; 20th AIAA Computational Fluid
David H. Petraeus as the new head of Dynamics Conference; 42nd AIAA Thermophysics Conference; Sixth AIAA
the CIA; Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, deputy Theoretical Fluid Mechanics Conference; 42nd AIAA Plasmadynamics
chief of the Central Command, to take and Lasers Conference in conjunction with the 18th International
over in Afghanistan; and Ryan C. Conference on MHD Energy Conversion; and Third AIAA Atmospheric
Crocker as ambassador to Afghanistan. and Space Environments Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Contact: 703/264-7500
Debt ceiling JULY 17-21
With the battle over the current year’s Forty-first International Conference on Environmental Systems,
budget temporarily out of the way, Portland, Oregon.
Congress began to debate raising the Contact: 703/264-7500
statutory $14.3-trillion federal debt
ceiling in the near future. JULY 31-AUG. 3
Nothing in the Constitution limits Ninth Annual International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,
the government’s ability to borrow, San Diego, California.
but Congress established a ceiling in Contact: 703/264-7500
1917 in response to the fiscal needs of JULY 31-AUG. 3
the Great War. In fact, the overall fed- Forty-seventh AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and
eral debt has been increasing since Exhibit, San Diego, California.
1835. Lawmakers will be searching for Contact: 703/264-7500
ways to rein in government excess
JULY 31-AUG. 4
without allowing the federal govern-
2011 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Girdwood, Alaska.
ment to default. Despite much talk on
Contact: William T. Cerven, 571/307-4208, william.t.cerven@aero.org
both sides of the aisle, Congress is ex-
pected to raise the cap on government AUG. 8-11
spending because, in the end, it really AIAA Conferences on Guidance, Navigation, and Control; Atmospheric
has very little choice. Flight Mechanics; and Modeling and Simulation Technologies.
Robert F. Dorr Portland, Oregon.
Robert.f.dorr@cox.net Contact: 703/264-7500

AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 15

Christian Scherer
What do you think are the major
step changes in new aerospace tech-
nologies that will change the shape
and operating dynamics of future
aircraft?
If you bring it back to basics, the
biggest cost of flying is fuel. So our re- They could be brought to maturity
search has always been focused on
consuming less energy. There are
some step changes available here, be-
yond the generation of engines we are
proposing for the Airbus A320neo.
And, assuming that the next genera-
tion of engine will still be burning
kerosene, that means counterrotating
or open rotors. I’m beating the drum
very hard on this—the laws of physics
suggest we could be looking at a 15-
20% improvement over neogeneration
engines with an open rotor, so we
must try to make this technology
work.
But there are two major hurdles
to clear—first, they look like a meat
chopper, and the stigma of propeller-
driven power is still around. Second,
there is the issue of noise. Many peo-
ple equate noise with emission issues,
but this is totally
wrong. Carbon emis-
sions stay in the at-
“[The pilot] will be less involved in flying the aircraft or
mosphere for a long being the guarantor of safety in flight and much more
time, but noise dissi- an asset manager of the machine tool.”
pates very quickly.
Do you believe these engines will
have applications within the short-
haul and long-haul markets?
We would need to start with
short-haul aircraft; this is fairly sophis- do you see major changes to future
ticated technology, employing gears
and pitch mechanisms, so we will
have to start with small thrust levels.
So the first application would be on
short-haul aircraft, in our opinion.
But later on, perhaps, there might be
some long-haul applications?
As far as we can see, it’s a tech-
nology that we could master on paper
today for thrust levels that we would
16 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
Interview by Frank Sietzen
need for typical replacements for 150-
seaters. The time frame jibes nicely
with our product strategy, because we
think these [open-rotor engines] could
be brought to maturity if we clear any
show-stoppers that we might face.
let’s say in the mid-2020s, and that
would coincide nicely with the post-
A320neo timing that we have in mind.
Actually, that is one of the underpin-
ning reasons for why we think the neo
strategy is the right one.
So would you say the neo program
has met expectations?
It’s going really well commer-
cially, and we’re extremely agreeably
surprised by the market reaction on
A320neo—and on the combination of
A320s and A320neo, with airlines ac-
tually taking both, because they have
large fleets and the A320 is still better with these engines will generally not
than anything else until the A320neo
comes. In fact it is going so well that
we are actually studying whether or
not we can accelerate the develop-
ment timing of A320neo, to hit the
market a little bit earlier than the offi- for example.
cial entry into service of early 2016.
Apart from new engines, where else
aircraft performance?
Energy conservation—the electric
aircraft is very important for us. More
automation and ground operations
without aircraft engines are some of
the main areas of interest. Then there
is biofuel, of course, but the develop-
ment of that is more or less beyond
our control.
Another possibility is the applica-
tion of laminar flow technology that
will help provide a less turbulent flow
over the wing. This could lead to an
overall drag reduction of 2-5%, which
of course translates into further lower
fuel-burn rates.
How far ahead do you look when
you consider which technology paths
you are going down?
We adopt the standard technology
readiness level concept developed by
NASA as the timeframe to assess the
maturity of evolving technologies in
materials, components, and equipment
prior to incorporating that technology
into a system or subsystem. That puts
us generally in the 15-20-year time
scale, which is why we’re looking at
open rotors now.
One of the perceived drawbacks of
open rotors is that aircraft flying
be as fast as a conventional jet.
Actually, there are some technical
benefits to slower speed; some tech-
nologies prefer slower speeds. From
our research so far, airlines don’t really
care as long as their air-
craft, their machine
tools, are not handi-
capped in the complex
air traffic situation—we
don’t want to have to
fly at lower altitudes,
But there is an issue of how we
can offset the time lost through slower
flight, and we don’t want to be in the
business of having to compete with a
rival who will be able to arrive at the
destination airport 10 minutes ahead.
So we may have to look at a way of
giving the aircraft some extra speed if
it’s needed. Of course if we had an air
traffic management system which al-
lowed us to fly the most efficient
routes, we would save 10 minutes on
our current short-haul routes and we
wouldn’t need the extra speed.
A perfectly optimized ATM system

would give us a 10% fuel saving—but
that would be possible only if the air-
craft were more directly linked into an
ATM system as part of an interactive,
real-time management network.
And that would be possible only if
there were more automation on the
ground and in the air.
Yes—but introducing automation
is a double-edged sword because of
the social issues involved. From my
personal perspective I would say that
we will not introduce automation for
automation’s sake. There would have
to be clear financial reasons. On that
point I have to point out that labor, in
and around the aircraft, is an airline’s
second largest cost factor, after fuel.
So do you have a roadmap in mind
as to how we can introduce more au-
tomation into the cockpit, and which
technologies will replace which man-
ual operations at certain points in
the future?
We have a roadmap to develop-
ing SESAR [Single European Sky ATM
Research] technologies and a roadmap
to developing enhanced systems capa-
bilities. But that is not automation for
automation’s sake. Our company now
has the technologies to fly an aircraft
without a pilot in the cockpit. We
don’t necessarily want to build such
an aircraft, but we have the technolo-
gies to allow it. We could make pro-
posals to our customers, but it’s up to
the airlines and certification bodies to
make these decisions.
I don’t want Airbus to make the
same mistakes that we made in the
1970s and the 1980s, when we an-
nounced we could reduce the cockpit
from a three-person to a two-person
operation. The result was that for
some time we were initially met with
skepticism, even though we devel-
oped money-saving technologies,
which the rest of the industry has
since adopted.
Interview by Philip Butterworth-Hayes
But if you ask, ‘How is further au- much more an asset manager of the
tomation going to enter the cockpit?,’ machine tool.
it is clear that air traffic integration is Automation is then introduced
going to be one important driver. under the pressure of new technology
The role of the pilot is going to and economics. So the asset manager
change. For an airline, an aircraft is a will play a great role in maintaining
production tool, which means the air- the asset, and we will move away
craft will have to produce more and from calendar-based maintenance-
more and become less and less cycle overhauls to a self-diagnostic
greedy. That means a change to the system, managed by the ‘manager.’
pilot’s role. He or she will be less in-
volved in flying the aircraft or being So how will the new aircraft tech-
the guarantor of safety in flight and nologies that you are planning to
Christian Scherer was appointed executive In 1994 he returned to Airbus’ headquarters
vice president at Airbus in September in Toulouse as vice president, leasing
2007, with responsibility for strategy and markets. In 1999 he was appointed vice
future programs as well international president for contracts and pricing
cooperation. Scherer is in charge of defining worldwide, retaining leadership of the
Airbus’s long-term strategic objectives in leasing markets division. He became
diverse areas, including analysis of the Airbus’ permanent deputy head,
market environment, research on its commercial, in 2003.
trends and evolution, product policy and
Scherer was born in Duisburg, Germany,
development of future programs, industrial
in 1962. He holds an MBA in international
strategy, and international partnerships
marketing from the University of Ottawa,
and cooperative programs. He reports
and was graduated from the Paris Business
directly to the Airbus CEO.
School with a degree in organization
Previously, beginning in March 2006, and management
Scherer headed Airbus’s future programs information
and was responsible for driving the vision, systems in 1984.
genesis, and development of any future
aircraft product offerings and programs.
His duties extended to development of the
processes and industrial structure needed
to support these future innovations. He
retains responsibility for this activity in his
current role.
Scherer began his professional career in
1984, joining Airbus Industrie as a contracts
administrator before being promoted to
sales contracts manager. In 1987 he became
contracts director to Airbus Industrie North
America (AINA) in Washington, D.C., and
was then promoted to vice president of
contracts at AINA, responsible for pricing,
financial performance, negotiation, and
implementation of all sales proposals and
resulting transactions in North America.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 17
introduce impact what Airbus will be
doing in 10 years’ time?
With the decision on the neo
now made, we will be building air-
craft with energy consumption levels
15% better than today. But neo is part
of a wider strategy to supersede
what our competitors are going to be
doing. And we do have a lot of new
competitors.
But what these new manufactur-
ers, from China, Brazil, Russia, and
Canada, are doing is not new; they’re
not inventing anything. In 2015 they
“For years Airbus and Boeing have been locked into a stable
duopoly, and for the first time we are going to be challenged.”
will have new aircraft in the market,
with fly-by-wire avionics invented by
Airbus. For years Airbus and Boeing
have been locked into a stable duop-
oly, and for the first time we are going
to be challenged.
So our strategy is to invest $1 bil-
lion [in the neo program], while the
new manufacturers will have to invest
$10 billion or more, and it will take
them years to see any return on this.
By then, we will have our next gener-
ation of technology-efficient aircraft
ready, so that by 2025 we will have a
new generation of aircraft, with more
automation, new engines, new main-
tenance capabilities, in place, which
will make the aircraft of our competi-
tors obsolete.
Will we have a regulatory regime in
place capable of managing the intro-
duction of these new technologies?
Yes, I’m sure we will, for two rea-
sons. First, we are maturing these
technologies in a step-by-step way,
and we are already engaging with the
regulators on some of the issues sur-
rounding these new ideas. Second, if
you can bring to the market a technol-
ogy which improves operating costs
by 5% or more, then ways will be
found for it to enter the market.
I have no doubts that, in terms of
safety, more automation in aviation
18 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
correlates directly to improved levels
of safety; most mishaps are human-in-
duced. Anyway, new open-rotor en-
gines and better aerodynamics should
not offer safety challenges.
And how will the passenger benefit
from the application of new tech-
nologies such as open rotors and
more automation?
The ‘travel experience’ should be
made much easier. But first and fore-
most, the passenger will feel the bene-
fit in his or her wallet, because aircraft
will become increasingly cheap to op-
erate, and that means much better
connectivity. We are looking at, after
all, double-digit improvements in air-
craft efficiencies.
What technology improvement ‘leaps’
have you made on the A350?
The A350 XWB brings together
the very latest in aerodynamics, design
and advanced technologies to provide
a 25% step change in fuel efficiency
compared to its current long-range
competitor. Over 70% of the A350
XWB’s weight-efficient airframe is
made from advanced materials com-
bining composites (53%), titanium,
and advanced aluminum alloys. The
aircraft’s innovative all-new carbon
fiber reinforced plastic fuselage results
in lower fuel burn as well as easier
maintenance. The A350 XWB benefits
from Airbus’s high level of expertise in
incorporating composite material into
its aircraft.
Robust state-of-the-art systems
also help to lower maintenance costs
which, combined with the aircraft ex-
ceptional fuel efficiency, reduces op-
erating costs by 25% compared to
equivalent, in-service long-range air-
craft. The A350 XWB’s commonality in
engines, systems, and spare parts
throughout the family helps reduce
operating costs even further.
Steady Aircraft Flight
and Performance
N. Harris McClamroch
This undergraduate textbook offers
a unique introduction to steady
flight and performance for fixed-
wing aircraft from a twenty-first-
century flight systems perspective.
Emphasizing the interplay between
mathematics and engineering, it
fully explains the fundamentals of
aircraft flight and develops the basic
algebraic equations needed to obtain
the conditions for gliding flight,
level flight, climbing and descending
flight, and turning flight.
Cloth $65.00 978-0-691-14719-2
Engineering
E i i D Dynamics
A Comprehensive Introduction
N. Jeremy Kasdin &
Derek A. Paley
This textbook introduces
undergraduate students to
engineering dynamics using an
innovative approach that is at once
accessible and comprehensive.
Combining the strengths of both
beginner and advanced dynamics
texts, this book has students solving
dynamics problems from the very
start and gradually guides them
from the basics to increasingly more
challenging topics without ever
sacrificing rigor.
Cloth $99.50 978-0-691-13537-3
press.princeton.edu
 Inspire | Challenge | Enable
The AIAA Foundation is a nonproTt, 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
Space shuttle: Memories at Mach 25

THE 30-YEAR FLIGHT HISTORY OF THE

space shuttle culminates this month in
one grand finale, a microcosm of its
134 previous missions. On STS-135,
Atlantis and her crew will deliver the
Raffaello multipurpose logistics mod-
ule, laden with supplies, logistics, and
spare parts, to the ISS. The vehicle will
also fly a system to investigate the
possibility of robotically refueling ex-
isting spacecraft. In addition, Atlantis
will return a failed ammonia pump
module to help NASA diagnose the
failure mechanism and improve future
pump designs.
The space shuttle’s flight history
can be summarized neatly with eye-
popping facts and figures about satel-
lites launched, cargo upmass hoisted
to orbit, and modules delivered to the
ISS. But Atlantis’ last flight should also
remind us of the uniquely human
achievements of hundreds of thou-
sands of shuttle engineers, techni-
cians, scientists, managers, and sup-
port staff, offered willingly to sustain
this amazing fleet of spaceships. This
dedicated team—in mission control, at
NASA centers, at industries and labs
across the nation, as well as in the
cockpit—propelled the space shuttle to
its successes. On the eve of the shut-
tle’s final mission, here are some per-
sonal memories of their contributions.

Vaya con Dios!

Endeavour was my first shuttle, carry-
ing five veteran crewmates and one
rookie—me. At T-2 minutes during the
STS-59 count, the last call to the crew
from the orbiter test conductor was:
Endeavour lifts off from launch Pad 39A on April 9, 1994, at 7:05 a.m. on STS-59.
“Endeavour, close and lock your vi-
sors, initiate O2 flow, and ‘Vaya con
Dios!’” Commander Sid Gutierrez re- real translation is ‘God be with you as cabin, until six seconds later booster
plied crisply with, “Thanks a lot, Mark, you go.’” ignition hit us with a massive crash-
and we’ll see you in about 10 days.” God is who I wanted lying next to bang wallop. Explosives split the eight
On the flight deck, pilot Kevin Chilton me 90 seconds later, when Endeav- hold-down nuts clamping the SRBs to
jokingly asked Sid, a favorite son of our’s three main engines coughed fire the pad, and the shuttle leaped clear
Albuquerque, if he could translate and shivered their way up to full of Earth under 7 million lb of thrust.
Mark’s Spanish sendoff. power. My middeck seat rattled and The brutal ride on the solids was like
“Nope, I think I got that one. The shook along with every fitting in the hurtling down a dirt road in a pickup

20 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011

truck at about 50 mph, and Endeavour
wasn’t backing off the accelerator.
After two minutes of crackling and
shaking, the boosters left us with a
metallic Clang!, and we traded brute
power for smoother, sustained accel-
eration on the main engines. Six-and-
a-half minutes later, after a full, chest-
squeezing minute of 3-g throttling, we
were in orbit over the North Atlantic at
just over 17,000 mph. For my first or-
bital experiment, I unzipped and
tugged off my left glove, then released
it to float and spin lazily, inches from
my face. My grin could have lit up the
world.
see the shimmering curtain below us,
and when we flew over the top of it, it
would become edge-on to us, and we
could look straight down on this line…
just a fantastic sort of ghostly sight…
swirling all around the shuttle…pul-
sating curtains and rippling ribbons of
light.
Of course, daytime held even
more spectacular sights: On Septem-
ber 30, my STS-68 crew and I roared
vents, hot lava and mud flows, and
melting of the summit’s icy hood.
Kliuchevskoi was just one of our
572 science targets, and Endeavour
nailed them all: Flight controllers
handily developed a software patch to
work around a faulty steering jet and
restore precise radar pointing. Later in
the mission, with the help of payload
and in-flight maintenance controllers,
astronauts Steve Smith and Jeff Wisoff

Through the Aurora

The payloads on my first two shuttle
flights, in April and October 1994,
were space radar labs (SRL-1 and -2),
synthetic aperture imaging radars
scanning Earth’s changing surface with
wide-ranging geological and ecologi-
cal applications (see http://southport.
jpl.nasa.gov/). Endeavour carried us
around the globe at an altitude of 121
n.mi., at an orbital inclination of 57°.
JPL scientists and Johnson flight con-
trollers had come up with an ingen-
ious steering technique that enabled
the shuttle to pirouette delicately
through each orbit, aiming the radar
beam precisely and canceling out the
Doppler error in the echoes caused by STS-68, orbiting just 120 n.mi. up for its SRL-2 mission, cruises through the Aurora Australis
the Earth’s rotation. The result was a in October 1994.
nearly 24/7 swath of crisp, multifre-
quency radar portraits of our planet, off the launch pad the day Russia’s removed and replaced an oven-sized
imaged at 20-m resolution. Kliuchevskoi volcano blew its top. high-rate digital recorder on the flight
In April the vehicle carried us on Late on launch day we soared over deck, restoring full data flow from
three orbits daily through the autumn the Kamchatka peninsula, but could SRL-2. After 11 days STS-68 glided
darkness, well south of Australia and see little of the twin-peaked volcano’s home with 13,000 still photos of Earth,
New Zealand, where we sailed among summit, entirely shrouded in charcoal and enough radar imagery to fill a
the glowing curtains of ionized nitro- clouds of ash boiling up 50,000 ft into stack of CDs more than 65 ft high.
gen and oxygen atoms called the Au- the stratosphere. The jet stream threw In total, the NASA/JPL, German,
rora Australis. My recorded notes re- that vast eruption plume of steam and and Italian radars imaged 150 million
veal sightings on Flight Days 4 and 6: dust nearly 350 mi. out across the Pa- km2 of the Earth’s surface, observing
At times we were flying right cific. Crowding Endeavour’s windows, about 15% of the globe. That’s over
through the long thin streamers of the cameras in hand, we captured dra- 100 terabits of data—an imagery col-
aurora, projecting straight up through matic, down-the-throat views of this lection that would fill a 45,000-volume
the atmosphere, a very ghostly pale yel- live geology lesson, as explosions encyclopedia. We tested radar interfer-
low green….We could see these long from Kliuchevskoi fed the turbulent ometry (stereo imaging) techniques
streamers going up above us, but at shaft of steam shot through with dirty- that in 2000 enabled the shuttle radar
times we flew right over the long shim- brown ash. The radar was able to pen- topographic mission to generate a pre-
mering arcs of the aurora. We could etrate the cloud, revealing active cise, 30-m-resolution topographic map

AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 21

of 80% of the world’s landmass. These
three flights were typical of the shut-
tle’s superb performance as an orbital
science platform.
Are you turning the handle
clockwise?
The shuttle showed off its scientific
versatility again on STS-80 in Novem-
ber 1996. At the outset, KSC launch
controllers wrestled with a hydrogen
leak in Columbia’s main engine com-
partment that held our count at T-31
seconds. On the flight deck, I was
sure we had scrubbed for the day, but
within a couple of minutes propulsion
engineers had eyeballed the leak rate
and determined it was within safety
limits. With studied coolness, the con-
sole lead announced, “NTD, it appears
to me that we’re on the edge, but that
this is an acceptable condition. My
recommendation is that we continue.”
A few seconds later the NASA test di-
rector had approval from his launch
director, and intoned, “Copy, resume
on my mark: three, two, one, mark!”
My reaction? Holy smoke, they’re
going ahead! Thirty-one seconds later
the twin boosters blasted us off the
pad, and the five of us were soon
safely in orbit. The experts on the
Kennedy launch team had saved a
scrub and saved our hides. I’m still
grateful!
Ten days later Tammy Jernigan
and I were floating at vacuum inside
Columbia’s five astronauts launched and retrieved ORFEUS-SPAStelescope as well as the Wake Shield
Facility materials processing satellite during STS-80. Mission duration was a record at nearly 18 days.
22 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
Columbia’s airlock, ready to rehearse
a toolbox full of space station assem-
bly techniques on the first of two
EVAs. With a ‘GO!’ from Houston,
Tammy swung the outer hatch handle
to crack the seals and open the door
to the payload bay. But instead of de-
scribing an easy circle, her gloved
hand stopped abruptly after 30 de-
grees of travel, hard against some
mysterious resistance. Ten minutes of
fruitless shoving couldn’t budge the
handle further; frustrated, we called in
Houston for advice.
Flight controllers scrambled with
the hatch schematics while walking us
through troubleshooting steps. A quar-
ter of an hour later we were still
locked inside by the jammed handle. I
couldn’t really blame Capcom Bill
McArthur for his next transmission:
“Tom, uh, forgive us for asking the ob-
vious, but could you please confirm
you’re turning the handle clockwise?”
His tone was apologetic—Mission Con-
trol had to cover every possibility.
If only that had been the problem;
after two hours of troubleshooting, we
admitted defeat. Our $2-billion space
shuttle’s doorknob was broken. The
jammed mechanism was on the far
side of a sealed cover, impossible to
reach from the airlock. We were
stumped, and our Thanksgiving night
spacewalk was scrubbed.
It was a crushing blow to Tammy
and me, but my disappointment was
salved somewhat by membership in a
team that could exercise such cool
and thorough decision-making. I later
learned that Houston and cape engi-
neers had meticulously examined
every branch of the hatch mechanism
failure tree, zeroing in on where the
failure must be—in the hub gearing.
We could bypass the faulty mech-
anism only by applying a hammer and
chisel. Punching through the hatch
might leave us stranded in the airlock
with no way to repressurize and get
back inside, forcing an emergency
landing and abandoning our free-fly-
ing ORFEUS-SPAS astronomical satel-
lite. The shuttle team made the right
call in canceling: Spacewalks could be
(and were) rescheduled. Our disap-
pointed crew took satisfaction in haul-
ing in and berthing a successful OR-
FEUS-SPAS, its recorder packed with
two weeks of high-quality astronomi-
cal observations. We also logged the
longest shuttle mission ever, including
a weightless Thanksgiving dinner I’ll
never forget.
Destiny in space
Atlantis was our ship for the STS-98
mission, which delivered the U.S. Des-
tiny Laboratory to the ISS in February
2001. On Flight Day 4, Marsha Ivins
expertly flew the Canadian robot arm
to swing Destiny out of the cargo bay
and nestle it permanently into its berth
at Unity’s forward hatch.
Meanwhile, pilot Mark Polansky
had suited up Bob ‘Beamer’ Curbeam
and me, and propelled us out of the
airlock for our first EVA—this time, I
managed to rotate the hatch handle all
the way ‘round. We were soon clam-
bering about the station’s exterior, re-
leasing launch locks and connecting
utility lines to the new lab.
Beamer had to disconnect four
ammonia coolant lines from the sta-
tion’s cooling loops and plug them
into the new lab’s heat exchangers.
Within seconds of releasing the first
hose from its ISS receptacle, its busi-
ness end sprayed my partner with a jet
of ammonia vapor and ice crystals
from a cold-soaked poppet valve. My
heart sank: We were venting vital
coolant for the new lab.

Backdropped by Atlantis’ cargo bay, spacewalker Bob Curbeam peers into the orbiter’s airlock to retrieve
the Destiny Lab’s protective window shutter for installation on Feb. 12, 2001.
“Yeah, I know,” Beamer exclaimed.
“I’ve got ammonia…definitely ammo-
nia coming out, and ice crystals form-
ing all over the place.” Against the
empty black sky, fat ammonia
snowflakes tumbled in brilliant sun-
light, blasted outward by a barely visi-
ble jet of vapor.
But Curbeam had already thought
through this failure—back on the
ground. Just weeks before launch, sta-
tion and shuttle payload flight con-
trollers conferred with us about a pos-
sible leak. We agreed on a strategy in
case one should occur: Cut off the am-
monia supply, then seat the connector
into the new lab fittings.
Engulfed in an ammonia snow-
storm, Beamer muscled open an up-
stream valve, choking off the leaky
connector. Within minutes of the ini-
tial leak, he had wrestled the stiff hose
and its spewing connector safely into
its lab receptacle. His quick thinking
Mission accomplished, Columbia nears touchdown at Kennedy Space Center for a dawn landing on
December 7, 1996. The next national space system will build on the accomplishments of the space
shuttle team’s 30-year record of excellence.
and execution, building on thorough
contingency planning by the ground
team, had preserved 95% of the cool-
ant supply. In the end, the potentially
crippling leak merely gave us a
glimpse of a spectacular but transient
ammonia comet tail.
Another curve ball: Inside Atlantis,
Ken Cockrell and Marsha Ivins got
word from flight controllers that a
faulty thermostat had pushed the lab’s
interior temperature to over 100 F.
Tapping laptop keys on the flight
deck, they promptly worked with
Houston to step through the module’s
activation procedures, taking just 45
minutes instead of the planned two-
plus hours. Their quick response re-
stored cooling and prevented heat
damage to Destiny’s avionics and life-
support systems.
That was a tense day in orbit, in-
side and out, but the combined Hous-
ton/Atlantis team had dealt with every
problem, inaugurating the $1.4-billion
lab’s operations. Ten years later, Des-
tiny is still the hub of control and re-
search activity at the ISS.
✈✈✈
What a privilege you’ve given me:
representing the U.S. on four flights of
its marvelous space shuttle. I’ve seen
almost everything the shuttle can do:
delivering space station modules,
hauling supplies to crews in orbit,
serving as a ‘workbench’ for complex
spacewalks and robotics work, ob-
serving both Earth and the universe
with cutting-edge scientific payloads,
and launching and returning satellites
for refurbishment and reuse.
We will miss the shuttle’s ample
lifting power and, even more, its flex-
ibility and versatility. Serving as our
classroom in space, the orbiter fleet
has taught us invaluable skills: orbital
repair, outpost construction, precision
rendezvous and docking, complex
EVA, and intense, round-the-clock sci-
ence operations. Even its shortcom-
ings will help us build safer and more
efficient vehicles.
When the shuttle retires, what we
will miss most is its human compo-
nent. That superbly professional team
overcame innumerable technical ob-
stacles and recovered from devastating
tragedy in compiling an unmatched
record of success in Earth orbit. The
nation should not surrender their tal-
ent, but rather build on their dedica-
tion and experience to capture our fu-
ture in space.
Thomas D. Jones
Skywalking1@gmail.com
www.AstronautTomJones.com
Thanks to my crewmates Jay Apt, Mike
Baker, Dan Bursch, Kevin Chilton,
Rich Clifford, Ken Cockrell, Bob Cur-
beam, Linda Godwin, Sid Gutierrez,
Marsha Ivins, Tammy Jernigan, Story
Musgrave, Mark Polansky, Kent Rom-
inger, Steve Smith, Terry Wilcutt, and
Jeff Wisoff; ISS crewmembers Yuri Gid-
zenko, Sergei Krikalev, and Bill Shep-
herd; and the thousands of shuttle col-
leagues with whom I had the privilege
of working. Your record in 30 years of
space exploration is second to none.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 23
Mission model offers snapshot
of space payloads
EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST TWO DEC-
ades, we have tracked proposed satel-
lites, probes, capsules, space shuttle
missions, and ISS assembly hardware
around the world to develop a snap-
shot of known possible future space
payloads.
That picture, which we call the
Worldwide Mission Model, is the first
step in putting together a forecast of
the payloads market for the next 10
years. It is meant as a rough draft from
which to begin piecing together the
puzzle of what we believe the future
market may look like, based on cer-
tain assumptions about current and
upcoming programs, competitors, in-
vestors, political priorities, and tech-
nology trends, as well as related his-
torical cycles.
We account for all the payloads
we know to have been proposed for
manufacturing and launching over the
next 20 years. We also include those
that we believe would have to be built
and launched to replace systems cur-
rently in orbit, or that we expect will
soon be operational—in other words,
payloads about which we know noth-
ing yet, but which are based on pay-
loads we view as a ‘sure thing’ or
close to it.
Getting specific
The strength of the mission model is
that it contains the specific name of
each payload and basic data about it,
including its type, its intended orbit, its
mass, its host country or region, its pri-
mary manufacturer, its owner/operator,
and its launch vehicle program.
Unlike a forecast, which by its na-
ture must include unnamed or made-
up payloads, the mission model is
more straightforward. We simply col-
lect the payloads that governments,
companies, universities, and other or-
ganizations announce they are devel-
oping or planning. We avoid making
judgments about whether these will
24 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
be completed and go up on schedule,
or even go up at all. We accommodate
only the publicly available information
and use it as a starting point to get a
sense of ‘what is currently out there.’
In last year’s mission model for the
period 2010-2029, we accounted for
2,229 proposed payloads. That num-
ber was up 9% from the previous
year’s model, which contained 2,033
payloads. This year, for the 2011-2030
time frame, we count a total of 2,315
proposed payloads, or an increase of
4% over our 2010 survey.
More than meets the eye
Nearly two-thirds of the payloads are
listed for launch during 2011-2016,
which makes it look as though we are
expecting a huge drop in the payloads
market for the remaining 15 years. But
that is not the case, because this is not
a forecast, and we are factoring in
only the payloads that have been an-
nounced or are based on these pro-
grams. Since most of the available in-
formation is about payloads intended
to be launched within the next five
years, it is natural that the model will
have considerably fewer payloads in
the ‘out’ years.
In a forecast of the market for
space payloads, it is likely you would
see steady growth in the numbers dur-
ing the next 20 years, rather than de-
clines, as suggested in the mission
model. Most of the growth would
probably be attributable to major in-
creases in the number of small, micro-,
nano-, and picosatellites. There will
also be many new flights into space
related to emerging markets such as
the commercial resupply of the ISS,
crew transport, and space tourism.
Of course, we assume there will
be more and more countries entering
the market—building, launching, and
operating a wide range of payloads.
The national space programs and in-
dustries of countries such as China
and India are still in their relative in-
fancy and appear destined to continue
developing for the foreseeable future,
until they too produce Earth-orbiting
space stations and crewed missions to
the Moon. Other nontraditional players
in the market, such as Brazil, Iran, and
South Korea, also seem determined to
invest in their space infrastructures and
compete in the payloads market.
Analyzing by type and orbit
What is most useful about the mission
model is not the annual totals, which
do not tell a story about the market,
but rather the totals of the different
breakdowns of the data by category.
For example, if you look at the break-
down by the type of payload, the nar-
rative begins with the fact that there
are more commercial payloads being
proposed than any other kind. Of the
2,315 payloads, 38% are commercial,
35% are civil, 20% are military, and 7%
are university and ‘other’ types.
If you then look at the breakdown
by orbit, what you see is that most of
the payloads, by far, are destined for
LEO. Of the total payloads, 63% are
LEO, 23% are GEO, 8% are medium
Earth orbit, 5% are deep space, and
1% are elliptical.
Given the extremely high number
of LEO payloads and the dominance
of commercial types, there is a strong
indication that a main driver of the
mission model is mobile communica-
tions satellites. An overwhelming num-
ber of all the payloads that have been
PAYLOADS1
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-30 Total
Payloads 351 397 335 198 193 139 89 83 59 60 411 2,315
By Type1
Commercial 59 135 103 68 116 80 42 21 13 25 224 886
Civil 178 152 121 93 39 30 27 44 20 25 90 819
Military 72 57 59 35 35 29 20 17 26 10 97 457
University and other 42 53 52 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 153
Total 351 397 335 198 193 139 89 83 59 60 411 2,315
By Orbit1
Low Earth orbit 246 268 245 124 111 95 51 49 32 24 220 1,465
Geostationary 56 94 63 34 58 22 21 21 15 22 126 532
Medium Earth orbit 12 9 13 26 12 16 10 8 9 11 33 178
Deep space 24 24 13 7 6 4 7 5 3 3 11 107
Elliptical 13 2 1 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 2 33
Total 351 397 335 198 193 139 89 83 59 60 411 2,315
By Mass1
1-500 kg 157 172 181 85 50 34 7 6 1 2 3 698
501-2,000 kg 106 118 86 60 78 63 42 36 23 22 166 800
2,001-4,000 kg 28 37 22 19 27 15 18 19 15 14 78 292
4,001-6,500 kg 42 22 31 21 25 14 13 12 12 13 100 335
Over 6,500 kg 18 18 15 13 13 13 9 10 8 9 64 190
Total 351 397 335 198 193 139 89 83 59 60 411 2,315
By Host Region1
North America 114 173 133 85 87 79 41 21 24 12 141 910
Europe 70 87 120 55 38 28 15 30 9 20 82 554
Russia and CIS 58 44 38 22 44 15 13 13 15 10 122 394
Asia and Pacific Rim 81 52 33 34 20 15 16 16 11 14 45 337
Africa and Middle East 19 18 6 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 14 66
Latin America and Caribbean 9 23 5 2 2 0 3 1 0 2 7 54
Total 351 397 335 198 193 139 89 83 59 60 411 2,315
By Owner/Operator1, 2
Rosaviakosmos (Russia) 28 22 14 8 9 7 6 7 6 6 61 174
NASA (U.S.) 36 23 40 39 10 4 3 3 2 2 5 167
ESA (Europe) 13 18 19 28 3 4 5 21 1 12 4 128
Air Force (U.S.) 20 21 8 12 15 14 3 4 2 3 17 119
NRO (U.S.) 9 17 37 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 111
Ministry of defense (Russia) 14 5 4 4 9 4 7 4 7 4 49 111
Globalstar (U.S.) 6 12 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 86
Iridium Communications (U.S.) 0 0 0 0 36 29 16 0 0 0 0 81
Orbital Communications (U.S.) 6 6 6 6 6 12 6 0 0 0 28 76
CNSA (China) 13 5 4 5 6 5 7 7 6 9 2 69
ISRO (India) 20 6 9 7 5 0 2 1 1 0 9 60
Von Karman Inst (Belgium) 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
Intelsat (U.K.) 4 10 3 1 3 0 3 1 2 1 10 38
SES (Europe) 2 3 4 5 4 2 1 1 1 2 13 38
CNES (France) 6 1 15 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 3 33
BMDO (U.S.) 1 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 12 0 0 31
JAXA (Japan) 11 6 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 25
CMA (China) 6 3 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 5 24
GeoOptics (U.S.) 6 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
Gazprom (Russia) 2 6 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 8 22
Izmiran Institute (Russia) 3 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
Loral Space & Comm (U.S.) 1 2 0 4 0 2 1 1 1 1 8 21
Intersputnik (Russia) 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
O3b Networks (U.K.) 0 0 8 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 20
CSA (Canada) 3 8 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 19
RSCC (Russia) 1 0 7 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 4 19
DGA (France) 5 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 17
CONAE (Argentina) 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Satellite Observing Sys (U.K.) 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
China Satellite Comm (China) 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 7 15
Eutelsat (Europe) 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 15
INSA (Spain) 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
ICO Global Comm (U.K.) 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 12
KARI (South Korea) 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 12
Other 128 197 49 28 34 26 15 18 8 12 97 612
Total 351 397 335 198 193 139 89 83 59 60 411 2,315
1
In payload units. 2Top 25.

AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 25

PAYLOADS1 (continued)

By Primary Manufacturer1, 2 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-30 Total
Thales Alenia (Europe) 18 32 37 6 37 46 16 3 0 0 0 195
Energia (Russia) 11 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 60 127
Boeing (U.S.) 12 13 43 17 7 1 2 5 0 2 7 109
CASC (China) 17 8 5 7 4 3 8 7 5 6 7 77
Lockheed Martin (U.S.) 6 13 5 7 10 5 3 3 4 2 16 74
Reshetnev (Russia) 15 12 12 0 7 3 3 2 3 0 9 66
NASA (U.S.) 5 3 25 25 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 65
ISRO (India) 19 6 10 7 5 1 2 1 1 0 9 61
Von Karman Inst (Belgium) 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
EADS (Europe) 13 16 8 5 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 49
Sierra Nevada (U.S.) 6 6 6 6 6 12 6 0 0 0 0 48
Surrey Satellite Tech (U.K.) 9 6 1 6 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
Space Systems/Loral (U.S.) 8 14 5 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 32
Khrunichev (Russia) 2 4 1 1 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 30
Orbital Sciences (U.S.) 10 6 4 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 28
OHB-System (Germany) 1 3 2 2 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 26
CALT (China) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 20
Arsenal Design (Russia) 0 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
CONAE (Argentina) 1 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
INSA (Spain) 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
KARI (South Korea) 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 12
Ball Aerospace (U.S.) 3 0 2 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 12
Pumpkin (U.S.) 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
SpaceX (U.S.) 3 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
IAI (Israel) 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 10
JAXA (Japan) 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10
Miltec Missiles & Space (U.S.) 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10
Other 178 212 96 67 56 43 38 33 35 38 299 1,095
Total 351 397 335 198 193 139 89 83 59 60 411 2,315
By Launch Vehicle Program1
Soyuz (Russia) 37 25 45 17 7 18 6 6 6 6 60 233
Atlas V/Delta IV (U.S.) 31 24 10 16 12 12 9 10 14 4 11 153
Long March (China) 29 13 8 14 9 6 10 11 8 10 19 137
Ariane 5ECA/5ESV (Europe) 39 17 25 15 4 4 1 3 0 12 1 121
Proton K/M (Russia) 20 8 9 2 6 1 4 1 5 1 20 77
Falcon 9 (U.S.) 3 3 2 2 38 14 0 0 0 0 0 62
Shtil (Russia) 2 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
PSLV (India) 19 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
VEGA (Europe) 13 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
Dnepr (Russia) 23 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
Falcon 1 (U.S.) 15 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
Rockot (Germany/Russia) 5 0 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
GSLV (India) 4 4 5 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
Delta II (U.S.) 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
H-2A (Japan) 10 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 19
Tsyklon (Ukraine) 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Minotaur (U.S.) 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Zenit 2/3F (Ukraine) 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Taurus II/XL (U.S.) 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Pegasus XL (U.S.) 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Strela (Russia) 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Cosmos (Russia) 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Molniya (Russia) 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Space Shuttle (U.S.) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Naro (South Korea) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
Safir (Iran) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
VLS (Brazil) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Zenit 3SL (U.S./Russia/Ukraine) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Epsilon (Japan) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sea Star (U.S.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Shavit (Israel) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Start 1 (Russia) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Volna (Russia) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other 28 246 153 119 90 84 59 52 25 26 297 1,179
Total 351 397 335 198 193 139 89 83 59 60 411 2,315
1
In payload units. 2Top 25.

26 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011

launched to LEO during the past two
decades have been mobile comsats,
specifically for three major constella-
tions—Globalstar, Iridium, and Orb-
comm. Each of these programs is cur-
rently in the process of launching
replenishment satellites or developing
them in preparation for launch within
the next 4-5 years.
The only other commercial pay-
loads in LEO tend to be small Earth
imaging satellites for systems such as
India’s IRS, DigitalGlobe’s QuickBird/
WorldView, ImageSat International’s
Eros, and the SPOT Image SPOT. But
none of these constellations compare
in size to those of the LEO mobile
comsat programs.
Another narrative can be that,
given the relatively high number of
civil payloads, and how few of these
have traditionally been in either GEO
or MEO, many of the civil payloads
are scientific and Earth observation
satellites in LEO or scientific and ex-
ploratory probes in elliptical orbits or
deep space trajectories.
The story on the significant num-
ber of payloads destined for GEO is
self-explanatory, since most payloads
in this orbit are medium- to large-sized
commercial telecommunications, di-
rect broadcast television, and broad-
band satellites.
Mass breakdown
When we break down the payloads
by their mass, we see that 65% weigh
somewhere between 1 kg and 2,000
kg. It is within this range that we find
pico-, nano-, micro-, and small satel-
lites, as well as some that are consid-
ered on the lower end of medium
size. An extremely high proportion of
these satellites are destined for orbits
other than GEO. Most are destined for
LEO, particularly those weighing un-
der 500 kg, which make up 30% of the
total payloads.
Those payloads with masses be-
tween 2,000 kg and 6,500 kg account
for 27% of the total. More than two-
thirds of these are satellites intended
for launch to GEO, and more than half
of them are commercial communica-
tions satellites. Payloads that weigh
more than 6,500 kg make up 8%, and
most of those are crew transport and
resupply capsules for the ISS.
The players
In terms of who is building or order-
ing payloads, the breakdowns by host
region and owner/operator clearly
show that North America (mainly the
U.S.) and Europe together account for
nearly two-thirds of the payloads. Rus-
sia and the Commonwealth of Inde-
pendent States (CIS), or former Soviet
Republics, account for 17%; Asia and
the Pacific Rim, 15%; Africa and the
Middle East, 3%; and Latin America
and the Caribbean, 2%.
Together, Rosaviakosmos (the Rus-
sian space agency), NASA, and ESA
account for one-fifth of all the pay-
loads. If you add payloads for the
USAF, the National Reconnaissance
Office, and the Russian ministry of de-
fense, the percentage goes up to more
than one-third. The top 25 payload
owner/operators account for three-
quarters of the payloads.
We know that 53% of the 2,315
payloads either have been contracted
for manufacturing or have named a
company or an agency as the primary
builder. On the strength of its prime
contracts to build dozens of satellites
for the second-generation Globalstar
and Iridium mobile comsat systems, as
well as other commercial, civil, and
military satellite business, Thales Ale-
nia Space alone accounts for 16% of
the payloads that have a designated
manufacturer.
Slightly under two-thirds of the
payloads with a designated manufac-
turer are assigned to the top eight
companies or agencies, including Boe-
ing, Thales Alenia Space, Energia,
CASC (China Aerospace Science and
Technology), Lockheed Martin, Resh-
etnev, NASA, and the Indian Space Re-
search Organization.
Finally, depending on the way you
define a launch vehicle program—for
instance, whether you count Long
March as one or break it out into its
many models and variants—there are
at least three dozen of these programs
that have payloads on their manifests
or have been designated as the likely
launch vehicle.
Approximately half the payloads
have a firm or tentative launcher. The
Soyuz medium-lift rocket accounts for
one-fifth of those payloads. During the
past few years, Soyuz has consistently
been the world’s most active launch
program and, based on its current
manifest, will probably remain so.
Together with Soyuz, the other
four of the top five launch vehicle pro-
grams—Atlas V/Delta IV, Long March,
Ariane 5ECA/5ESV, and Proton K/M—
account for almost two-thirds of the
payloads that have an assigned launch
vehicle.
Reality vs. fantasy
Now the task is to begin sifting
through all of the payloads in our sur-
vey and decide which ones are real, or
potentially real, and which are merely
wishful thinking.
Of our 2,315 payloads, we estimate
that at least half will never make it past
the drawing board or early stages of
development, because of insufficient
funding, technical challenges, or the
perceived lack of a user market. On
the other hand, payloads of which we
are not yet aware also will be ade-
quately financed, built, and launched.
The trick is to have enough material
with which to begin realistically gaug-
ing the market, so that it is more than
just guesswork. Marco Cáceres
Teal Group
mcáceres@tealgroup.com
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 27
Birds, bees, and nanos

THE PUBLICITY SURROUNDING AERO-

Vironment’s hummingbird-inspired ro-
botic Nano Air Vehicle has injected
fresh life into the engineering debate
over the merits of flapping versus ro-
tary flight for tiny aircraft.
The Monrovia, California, com-
pany flew its 19-g, 16.5-cm-wingspan
craft in front of reporters in February
with permission from its sponsor,
DARPA, which had just concluded a
4.5-year, $4-million investment in the
project. DARPA tightly constrained
what AeroVironment could say about
the engineering details. The company
also said it wanted to avoid tipping off
competitors as it searches for a spon-
sor to continue the development to-
ward a smaller and more automated
operational version.
Some details were provided in the
company’s December patent applica-
tion for an “aircraft having flapping Although it did not meet DARPA’s original goal of an 8-g vehicle with a 7.6-cm wingspan, the Nano is
wings where angular orientation con- about the same size as the largest of the hummingbird species. Courtesy AeroVironment.
trol is effected by variable differential
sweep angles of deflection of the flap- into your hand, you wouldn’t be able The rotors, including quad-rotor
pable wings.” Inside the Nano Air Ve- to see them. We want to keep our pro- craft, are highly maneuverable, but
hicle, a system consisting of a small prietary edge for as long as possible,” there is disagreement about whether
battery-powered electric motor and says AeroVironment’s Matt Keennon, their maneuverability could ever equal
gears flaps the wings. Pivoting each the project manager. that of a biological hummingbird, or of
wing at a different angle creates yaw a manmade craft based on the bird’s
torque, giving the aircraft its life-like Are hummingbirds the key? aerodynamics.
maneuverability. Aside from the patent, the spectacle of In addition, quad rotors cannot be
AeroVironment says the vehicle a remote-controlled aircraft maneuver- dressed up as biological creatures. By
has flown for as long as 11 min. Re- ing and hovering like a hummingbird contrast, the Nano Air Vehicle was
ducing the weight of the components was enough to spark a torrent of news outfitted with a fairing painted to look
could double that endurance, or the coverage and a call for a possible fly- like a hummingbird, although the fair-
same endurance could be maintained off between flapping aircraft, also ing was not part of its aerodynamic
while reducing the size of the craft. known as ornithopters, and propeller- design. “We could have just made it
The vehicle was not as small as driven robotic types. Engineers say look like a football [with a] winged
DARPA and AeroVironment engineers quad-rotor aircraft, which have pro- body, but it’s more intriguing to have
originally hoped, but it hovered for 8 pellers on the tips of plus-sign-shaped it look like a biological creature,” says
min with no external power source, frames, are especially worthy competi- Keennon. For the wing design, biolog-
flew forward to a speed of 11 mph tors because of their maneuverability. ical hummingbirds were an inspiration
and returned to a hover, then with- At the heart of the debate is a fun- rather than a template.
stood a 2-m/sec wind gust from the damental question: Are there inherent “We pulled up some high-speed
side without drifting more than 1 m. aerodynamic advantages to flapping video of hummingbirds in flight, but it
The Nano Air Vehicle was the cul- devices, or is their only real advantage was mostly inspirational. We did not
mination of a “bunch of little details that they can be disguised to look like try to follow the bone structure, for
that are very important. If I put this birds or insects? example,” Keennon says.

28 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011

 The fairing and long beak did
their job of suggesting the poten-
tial for a more advanced version
that could serve as spy craft.
The Nano Air Vehicle’s ma-
neuverability impressed other en-
gineers in the flapping flight
community, but AeroVironment
acknowledges that there is a lot
left to do. The aircraft as cur-
rently designed is about the same
size as the largest of the hum-
mingbird species. It did not meet
DARPA’s original goal of an 8-g
vehicle with a 7.6-cm wingspan,
which would be closer to the di-
mensions of the most common
breed of hummingbirds.
Although a video feed was
available, the vehicle was typi-
Three synchronized views of a hovering hummingbird
cally controlled ‘heads up,’ or vi- were captured during one downstroke. Photo Credit:
sually, by a person equipped with Doug Altshuler, UC Riverside.
a model airplane controller. An
operational version would need more
cameras and an onboard processor to
control its wings more autonomously.
The human controller could then hide
a safe distance away and steer the
craft by looking at video feeds and
sending basic commands, much as op-
erators do today with AeroVironment’s
fixed-wing military drones, Puma,
Raven, and Wasp.
AeroVironment left the automated
control issues for another day.
Fixed versus flapping
In the debate between rotorcraft pro-
ponents and flapper advocates, the
tone was set in 2001 by Kenneth C.
Hall of Duke University and Steven R.
Hall of MIT. After running a series of
aerodynamic calculations, they pub-
lished a paper concluding that flap-
ping wings were ‘probably disadvanta-
geous’ except in cases where ‘stealth
mimicry’ was desired.
Their paper formed a chapter in
the AIAA book, Fixed and Flapping
Wing Aerodynamics for Micro Air Ve-
hicle Applications, edited by Thomas
J. Mueller.
Flapping enthusiasts have been
busy in the years since, especially on
the question of aerodynamic effi-
ciency, which for a battery-powered
device corresponds directly to flight
duration.
“I don’t think the efficiency argu-
ment has been answered fully yet,”
says engineer Ron Fearing of the Bio-
mimetic Millisystems Lab of the Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley.
As magical as hummingbirds are to
watch, biomechanics and humming-
bird expert Douglas Altshuler of the
University of California at Riverside is
not so sure nature places a premium
on efficiency. “For the animals, it’s not
at all clear to us that their wings are
designed to be efficient,” he says.
Altshuler videotapes humming-
birds in his lab and regularly advises
flapping wing engineers.
As to the question of efficiency,
Keennon concedes that a rotorcraft
with a diameter about the size of the
Nano Air Vehicle’s wingspan would be
more efficient. He suspects that might
not be the case as engineers learn to
make smaller and smaller craft.
“The fact is, a fruit fly can fly and
hover all day long,” he says.
Fearing says engineers are still
working to understand the aerody-
namics of flapping wings, whether
natural or manmade.
Tiny mechanical ornithopters have
been around for only about five years,
which means engineers have not had
much time to fly them and make
measurements of lift, drag, and effi-
ciency. After more testing, new advan-
tages could be discovered. For exam-
ple, flapping craft could turn out to be
more maneuverable than rotorcraft, or
better equipped to handle wind gusts
from open windows or from doors
opening and closing. Those are signif-
icant challenges for a craft that weighs
just grams.
Then there is maneuverability. The
flapping community sees humming-
birds and insects as the Holy Grails of
flight. “If I compare something like a
hummingbird to a helicopter, the
hummingbird has such amazing con-
trol over its wings,” Fearing says. “You
can generate huge amounts of control
authority there. It’s going to be pretty
hard for a helicopter to match the ma-
neuverability of a hummingbird,” he
concludes.
One hurdle is that at this point, en-
gineers understand legged location far
better than the aerodynamics of flap-
ping flight, Fearing says. Engineers
and biologists have videotaped cock-
roaches running along and examined
them in slow motion. “A cockroach
can hit some bump and, because of
the way the legs and suspension sys-
tem are working, just ignore that bump
and keep on going. There may be sim-
ilar things with a flapping flight, where
it may be just intrinsically more robust
with respect to certain classes of distur-
bance,” says Fearing.
At a minimum, “the jury’s still out
for helicopters versus ornithopters,”
Fearing concludes.
Engineers are using a variety of
techniques to help them understand
flapping ornithopters. Force sensors
are sometimes attached to craft in
wind tunnels. Motion capture systems
can be used to sense the path of free
flight. Onboard accelerators and gyros
can record movements. Velocimetry
and motion tracking systems can be
used to understand wing deflection
and loading.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 29

A hummingbird begins the initial phase of load
lifting. A rubber-band harness around the neck
is connected to a string loaded with color-coded
beads. Photo Credit: Jim Hamilton.
Limits of evolution
Engineers and biologists have thought
hard about why rotary wings are not
seen in nature. Could that fact suggest
that flapping wings are superior? Even
flapping enthusiasts like Altshuler and
Fearing do not think so.
“The reason we don’t see helicop-
ters in biology is that it’s very hard for
evolution to make wheels,” says Alt-
shuler. “Arguably there’s only one true
wheel that nature’s ever created”—the
bacterial flagellum, he says.
It is difficult to imagine how na-
ture, with the need for nerves and
blood vessels, could produce rotary
motion.
Altshuler says there is an amazing
fact of nature that suggests a possible
wide range of utility for man-made
flappers. Using video cameras, he says,
“We’ve studied the wing motions of
hummingbirds and honeybees and
fruit flies. It’s shocking how similar
they are. If you just sort of see a trace
of those wing motions, you can’t tell
whether you’re looking at a humming-
bird or a fruit fly.”
This is true even though a fruit fly
weighs only a milligram or two, while
a typical hummingbird weighs about
4,000 mg. “Despite that, they flap with
30 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
almost the exact same wing
pattern,” Altshuler notes.
Moreover, insects and humming-
birds are surprisingly similar in their
biological construction, he says.
If animals of such different sizes
and weights can use the same flying
tactics, the implication is that un-
known fundamentals of fluid could be
at play. If engineers can find them,
they might be able to tap them for
their mechanical designs.
Practicality
If nature has a hard time making heli-
copters, so do engineers who are rac-
ing to make insect-sized craft. Aero-
space engineers cannot miniaturize
every part they need, so they must
rely on advances in commercial micro-
electromechanical systems—MEMS.
“If you want to go really small,
you run into bearing problems,” says
Fearing.
Fearing chose flapping wings for
his Micromechanical Flying Insect,
whose propulsion system was demon-
strated in a bench-top experiment in
2006. “Our device was attached to a
force sensor and did not take off,” he
explains.
The device’s wing-drive system
flapped at 270 Hz with about a 90-deg
flapping angle, and a ±30-deg control-
lable angle of attack during the stroke.
In 2007, engineer Rob Wood at Har-
vard, who used to work in Fearing’s
lab, showed how a tethered fly could
lift off using external power and use a
vertical post for guidance/stabilization.
Wood is now working on a craft he
calls Robobee.
Flight control
While Wood and others continue to
work on shrinking the mechanics of
flight, Fearing has shifted his research
into flight control technologies. For his
experiments, Fearing and his students
use a 12-g off-the-shelf ornithopter
called iBird. Fearing says iBird is not
nearly as aerodynamically advanced
as the Nano Air Vehicle, but he chose
The Biomimetics
Millisystems Lab at
Berkeley uses an
off-the-shelf iBird ornithopter
equipped with a processor
and camera to test autonomous flight.
Credit: Stan Baek, University of
California at Berkeley.
it so he could focus on the problem of
developing miniaturized control pro-
cessors and algorithms.
In February, one of Fearing’s grad-
uate student researchers, Stan Baek,
demonstrated autonomous flight with
the iBird and its control system.
The iBird senses its location in the
air with input from an infrared sensor
taken from Nintendo Wii games, plus
a three-axis gyro and a three-axis ac-
celerometer. By contrast, the Nano Air
Vehicle’s patent lists two-axis gyros,
one for yaw and one for pitch and roll.
Fearing is also experimenting with cell-
phone cameras for his craft. Inputs
from these sensors are turned into
control commands by an onboard
processor programmed in C language.
“We had to come up with our own
processor board. There wasn’t any-
thing out there that included all these
devices and still met the weight con-
straint,” he says.
Fearing is trying to understand the
flight dynamics well enough to perfect
the control algorithms. One challenge
is that the infrared or cellphone cam-
eras have narrow fields of view, which
makes it hard for them to keep a tar-
get in sight as the craft’s body moves
because of the wing flapping. “You
may be losing sight of the target for
half of every link stroke,” he says.
With engineers making good prog-
ress on tiny rotorcraft and ornithop-
ters, Fearing makes an interesting sug-
gestion: “At some point in time, we’re
going to have to have a competition,”
he says. A ‘bakeoff’ in a controlled set-
ting could show the aerodynamic ad-
vantages of each, once and for all.
Ben Iannotta
biannatta@aol.com
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
 FUNDAMENTALS
OF AIRCRAFT
FUNDAMENTALS OF AIRCRAFT AND
AIRSHIP DESIGN n
Volume I—Aircraft Desig

AND AIRSHIP
Leland M. Nicolai
Grant E. Carichner

DESIGN
Volume I–
Aircraft Design
of
AIAA EDUCATION SERIES
JOSEP H A. S CHET Z
Leland M. Nicolai and
American Institute

Grant E. Carichner
Astronautics
Aeronautics and EDITO R-IN-CHIEF

Praise for Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design

T his book is a fantastic collection of history, philosophy, analysis, principles, and data relating
to the design of aircraft. I predict it will become a ‘classic’ and will be found on the desk of
anyone concerned with aircraft design.—Dr. Barnes W. McCormick, The Pennsylvania
State University

This book will be a very useful textbook for students of aeronautical engineering as well as for
practicing engineers and engineering managers.—Dr. Jan Roskam, DARcorporation

A genuine tour de design, skillfully delivering cogent insights into the technical understanding
required for designing aircraft to mission.—Dr. Bernd Chudoba, University of Texas at
Arlington

10-0430
T
he aircraft is only a transport mechanism for the payload,
and all design decisions must consider payload first. Simply
stated, the aircraft is a dust cover. Fundamentals of Aircraft
and Airship Design, Volume 1— Aircraft Design emphasizes that
Featuring a new
the aircraft design process is a science and an art, but also a internal page d
esign
compromise. While there is no right answer, there is always a best
answer based on existing requirements and available technologies.

This book is a revision and expansion of the 1975 classic aircraft

design textbook that has been used worldwide for more than 30
years. Completely updated with the latest industry processes and
techniques, it will benefit graduate and upper-level undergraduate
students as well as practicing engineers.
2010, 883 pages, Hardback
ISBN: 978-1-60086-751-4
AIAA Member Price: $89.95
List Price: $119.95

CONCEPTS DISCUSSED
The authors address the conceptual design phase comprehensively, for both
civil and military aircraft, from initial consideration of user needs, material
selection, and structural arrangement to the decision to iterate the design
one more time. The book includes designing for
■ Survivability (stealth)
■ Solar- and human-powered aircraft systems
■ Very high altitude operation with air breathing propulsion

SPECIAL FEATURES
■ Step-by-step examples throughout the book,
including designing a wing
■ Lessons captured from historical case studies of aircraft design
■ Full-color photographs of multiple aircraft

Order online at
www.aiaa.org/books
BF-4, the fourth F-35 STOVL test aircraft, flew mode 4 for the first time on April 7, 2011, at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

Despite the F-35’s mounting

񡑀
n January 6, Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates issued his first formal
statement on the FY11 defense author-
problems with cost, schedule, ization bill—passed as one of the final acts
of the 111th Congress—and how he plans to
and performance, the implement it, especially with respect to the
F-35 JSF. For the Marine Corps and the F-
35B STOVL (short takeoff/vertical landing)
administration is betting on variant, the news was mixed, but leaning
toward bad.
a successful restructuring of “The Marine Corps’ short takeoff and
vertical landing variant is experiencing sig-
nificant testing problems. These issues may
the Air Force fighter and its lead to a redesign of the aircraft’s structure
and propulsion—changes that could add yet
Navy variant. The future is more weight and more cost to an aircraft
that has little capacity to absorb more of ei-
ther,” Gates explained at a Pentagon press
murkier for the Marine Corps conference.
“As a result, I am placing the STOVL
version, which the secretary variant on the equivalent of a two-year pro-
bation. If we cannot fix this variant during
of defense has placed on this time frame and get it back on track in
terms of performance, cost, and schedule,
then I believe it should be canceled. We
probation for two years. will also move the development of the Ma-
rine variant to the back of the overall JSF
And that is only one of the production sequence. And to fill the gap
created from the slip in the JSF production
schedule, we will buy more Navy F/A-18s.”
issues that continue to plague
Marines keep the faith
this joint international program. In keeping with the Marine Corps tradition
of taking on whatever challenges it faces,

34 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 Copyright ©2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 񡑅񡑁񡑂񡑃
񡑄񡑀񡑔񡑉񡑑񡑇񡑀񡑒񡑈񡑀񡑔񡑓񡑉񡑆񡑐
Gen. James F. Amos quickly responded
with a vow not only to meet Gates’ dead-
line, but to personally see that it happens.
“I am confident that we will field this
aircraft in accordance with responsible
timelines,” the corps commandant told the
Congress on March 1. “This matter has my
unwavering attention—and I am personally
overseeing this program.”
However, Amos also demonstrated Ma-
rine pragmatism, bowing slightly to the
combination of pressure from the defense
secretary and the continued opposition of
the Navy to having the STOVL variant
aboard their carriers. Two weeks after de-
livering his promise to Congress, the gen-
eral took a step in direct opposition to
long-standing corps desires to build an all-
STOVL aviation force. He signed a memo-
randum of understanding with the secretary
of the Navy and the chief of naval opera-
tions on “tactical aircraft integration.”
Under the new TACAIR agreement, the
Marine Corps will give up 80 of its origi-
nally planned buy of 420 F-35Bs, replacing
them with F-35C Navy carrier variants.
Those aircraft would form five Marine
Corps squadrons assigned to Navy carriers,
half the original plan, using F-35Bs. The re-
maining 340 F-35Bs still in the corps acqui-
sition plan would be assigned to corps am-
phibious flattops, which are being modified
to carry them.
“This decision to purchase C-model
JSFs is representative of USMC commitment
to tactical air integration with the Navy. It is
important to note that the continued devel-
opment of F-35B remains the centerpiece
of the USMC TACAIR fixed wing modern-
ization program,” Amos said in signing the
MOU. “The F-35B STOVL Joint Strike
Fighter is vital to our ability to conduct ex-
peditionary operations in the future and the
STOVL JSF is still our primary focus.
“We’ve always been fans of TACAIR in-
tegration. It’s good for both our service and
the naval force. When we set the require-
ment in for STOVL aircraft, our hope was
that we would be able to someday fly those
versions off of naval aircraft carriers. In the
meantime, it would seem prudent that we
would buy some number of C variants —
even early on—so that we can begin to tran-
sition our force.”
By moving the corps into an early po-
sition in F-35C production, he added, the
Marines can continue to meet their commit-
ment to flying alongside the Navy from the
big carriers and, to some degree, respond
to congressional concerns there would not
be enough F-35s, of either type, available
for carrier duty as legacy aircraft were re-
tired. That had led lawmakers to order ad-
ditional buys of new F/A-18E/F Super Hor-
nets, presumably all for the Navy fleet as
the corps has never wavered from its deci-
sion not to buy anything but the F-35 for by J.R. Wilson
future operations. Contributing writer
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 35

Two of the previous stealth
aircraft were the B-2 (above)
and F-117.
Indeed, Amos made that crystal clear to
Congress, responding to Gates’ threat to kill
the F-35B if he was not satisfied with its
progress during probation.
A week before his comment that “the
Marine Corps remains unequivocally com-
mitted to the success of the F-35B program”
as part of a “measured transition to a 5th
Generation F-35B expeditionary capability,”
Amos told the Senate Armed Services Com-
mittee, “If we lose the F-35B, there is no
Plan B for fixed-wing airplanes on the
large-deck amphibs.”
A month later, Lt. Gen. Terry G. Rob-
ling, assistant commandant for aviation,
said the corps’ continued commitment to
and increased oversight of the F-35B pro-
gram already was showing dramatic im-
provements. “We completed more than 78
vertical landings [through March 31], almost
triple last year already. There have been
technical issues—four or five main ones of
concern—but nothing insurmountable. We
need to get the fixes done and retrofitted
into the early lot aircraft as soon as possi-
ble, but right now it looks to me
like the F-35B is doing everything
we’re asking of it,” Robling said.
“F-35 development will “We have 29 of these already
ordered and I do not plan to slow
cost more and take down the start-up or training.…
longer than reported to Our IOC has slipped to early or
mid-2014, but I think the aircraft
the Congress [in 2009]; will meet all the requirements we
despite cost and schedule want and will stand up on time.”
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus
troubles, [the Pentagon] and F-35 deputy program man-
wants to accelerate ager Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore (USAF)
also have reported major progress
[F-35] procurement.” on the F-35B since January and in-
dicated they still believe the
Government Accountability STOVL variant will be part of the
Office report to Congress Lightning II family down the line.
36 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
Moore says the increased testing schedule,
especially vertical landings, has given pro-
gram engineers a better understanding of
the impact of the aircraft’s unique aerody-
namics on the reliability of some F-35B-
only components.
As for Gates, he has had little to say
about the STOVL aircraft since announcing
its probation.
Jointness and other troubles
Gates’ statement came on the heels of an
announcement by the U.K.—the second-
largest expected operator of the F-35B—to
cancel its order for 187 STOVL aircraft and
instead order a far smaller number of the F-
35C carrier-landing-capable variant. With
other potential F-35B customers also now
wavering, it seems increasingly likely the
STOVL variant will be the first victim of the
‘joint’ program curse.
Whether viewed as conventional wis-
dom or just dark humor, it has long been
held that the fastest way to cripple, if not
kill, a major military program is to make
‘joint’ the first word in its name. Add ‘inter-
national’ and the number of successful ma-
jor programs is as rare as a unicorn.
Almost every major weapons system—
certainly every new military aircraft—has
had a more difficult time with funding and
critics after, rather than before, being ap-
proved as a program. Perhaps the most vil-
ified in recent times were the Navy/Marine
Corps F/A-18 Hornet—which one congress-
man claimed could not land on a carrier—
and the Marines’ V-22 Osprey, which many
claimed simply could not fly.
The F-22 Raptor, the world’s first fifth-
generation (Gen-5) fighter, seemed to have
avoided the worst of such controversies.
Nonetheless it faced a production shut-
down at the end of 2010, with only a frac-
tion of the originally planned fleet deliv-
ered to the USAF. And despite continued
campaigns by Australia and other allies, a
foreign sales ban remains in effect, elimi-
nating a route that airframers have long
used for continued production.
But the F-35 Lightning II has one of the
more unusual ongoing histories. As the
world’s second—and in some respects most
advanced—Gen-5 fighter, it has the largest
international production team in aviation
history, with nine nations cooperating in
the funding, development, production, and,
presumably, purchase of one or more of its
three variants. In short, it is the most ambi-
tious international joint program of record.
Having three distinct versions, for the
land-based (F-35A), carrier-based (F-35C),
and STOVL (F-35B) requirements of the Air
Force, Navy, and Marines, respectively, also
is unique. Multiservice aircraft have been
attempted in the past, but one or another
service typically pulled out before produc-
tion began.
In this case, all three variants are avail-
able to the international partners, and to
any other approved friendly nation that
might want to add a superpower super-
plane to its fleet.
But with that many ‘cooks,’ not to men-
tion Congress and the secretary of defense,
along with their counterparts in the partner
nations, it should surprise no one that the
F-35 is seriously behind schedule, over
cost, and targeted by budget-cutters every-
where. It is also the subject of an intense
battle between the Marines, who want the
aircraft to replace the F/A-18 and complete
their conversion to an all-STOVL force, and
the Navy, which does not want the ‘B’ on
their carriers. In short, the program cer-
tainly has not escaped the curse of its ‘in-
ternational joint’ designation.
As stealth dwindles, orders fall
The JSF also has fallen far short of what the
partners and customers had anticipated for
the first stealth fighter to be operated by
any military service except the Air Force,
which has had sole possession of all three
previous stealth aircraft—the F-117 Night-
hawk (retired in 2008 after 25 years); the
B-2 Spirit bomber (just 21 of a planned 132
built, the last delivered in 1997); and the
F-22 Raptor, on which Gates ordered pro-

Engine battle
One battle still being waged across Washington is whether to continue
production of two separate engines for the F-35: the Pratt & Whitney F135,
designated the primary engine for all three JSF variants, and the General Elec-
tric/Rolls-Royce F136, developed as an alternative engine. President Obama
and Secretary Gates have argued the F136 is an unnecessary expense and or-
dered it canceled, but the 111th Congress balked, with the House steadfastly
supporting continuation of the dual engine track and the Senate less commit-
ted to either path.
According to a Joint Explanatory Statement from both congressional
Armed Services Committees: “The House bill contained a provision (sec. 802)
that would require the Secretary of Defense to designate the F135 and F136
engine development and procurement programs as major subprograms of the
F-35 Lightning II aircraft major defense acquisition program, in accordance with
Section 2430a of Title 10, United States Code. The Senate committee-reported
bill contained no similar provision. The agreement includes the House provision,
amended to require that the Secretary designate an F-35 engine development
and procurement program as a major subprogram.”
In short, the 111th Congress, facing a threatened presidential veto if they
funded a second engine, instead wrote language that did little more than punt
the issue to the 112th Congress.
“It’s a little bizarre at this point, at the tail end of the development
process, becoming such political dynamite,” said Richard Aboulafia, a senior
analyst at Teal Group, earlier this year. It would “make sense to have a second
engine. You’re trying to preserve what competition you can in a downselect to
one prime, and turbine engines are definitely an enabling technology.
“Starting a second engine today would certainly be foolish, but finishing up
the last parts of one that already has been around for 10 years makes sense.
Why Gates chose to make a battle out of this, knowing Congress would go out
on a limb to preserve the GE engine, I don’t know.”
With Republicans in control of the House and narrowing the power
gap in the Senate, the battle was expected to resume. Indeed, on February
16, the House voted 233-198 to halt FY11 funding for the GE/Rolls-Royce
alternative engine.
Following what some considered a surprise—as it had been the House that
had kept the second engine program alive—Gates immediately called on the
Senate to complete the kill when they began debating the issue in March.
Early reactions from the new Republican House leadership to both the
FY11 authorization and Gates’ January 6 comments made it clear the battle is
far from over.
For example, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), new chair of the House Armed
Services Committee , and Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), defense appropriations
subcommittee chair, both expressed deep concern about the scope and nature
of the Gates cuts. Meanwhile, a number of Republican HASC members met to
discuss strategies for modifying or reversing budget cuts impacting the Marine
Corps—which was hard hit beyond the F-35B—including ways to ensure the
STOVL aircraft survives beyond Gates’ two-year probation.
The GE/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine for the F-35 has proven to be one
of the most difficult “kills” in DOD and congressional history. The Pentagon
has been adamantly opposed to continuation of the second engine option for
more than half a decade, but Congress kept it alive with continued funding
DOD did not want.
After the last Congress, with its seemingly unstoppable Democrat majority,
simply passed the issue to their successors—with a Republican majority in the
House and closer to parity in the still-Democrat controlled Senate—many
expected the second engine to gain even greater strength. They were wrong.
In mid-February, the House, led by freshmen Republicans, voted for the
first time to halt additional funding for the F136, which was retained in the
House-Senate compromise on a stopgap funding measure in April. That seemed
to give weight to a stop-work order the Pentagon had issued a short time earlier,
although a spokeswoman made it clear that was not a cancellation order but a
90-day stop during which the Pentagon would give the question further study.
In the end, she added, the engine’s fate was in the hands of Congress.
This gave GE enough encouragement to ignore the Pentagon order and
continue work on the engine with its own funds, with the expectation that
Congress, in passing a final budget later this year, once again would ressurrect
the F-35. “We feel so strongly about this issue, as do our congressional sup-
porters, that we will, consistent with the stop-work directive, self-fund the
F136 program through this 90-day-stop work period,” company spokesman
Rick Kennedy said.
GE’s position was somewhat bolstered by House Armed Services Committee
Chair Howard McKeon (R-Calif.), who criticized Gates for issuing the stop-work
order before Congress had finished its debate and made a final, rather than
temporary, decision. However, some Senate leaders agreed with Sen. Joe
Lieberman (I-Conn.), who called the stop-work order essential to the Pentagon’s
efforts to save money.
Despite repeating Pentagon opposition to continuing the F136, Under-
secretary of Defense for Acquisition Ashton Carter gave GE another reason for
hope when he criticized Pratt & Whitney for not adequately dealing with cost
overruns already estimated at $3.4 billion—$2.7 billion of which P&W says
were due to changes requested by DOD. However, he also said the $2.9 billion
the Pentagon estimates it would cost to bring a second engine to the point the
F135 already has reached “does not show the payback.” But subcommittee
member Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) told Carter the GE/RR alternate engine is “not
a dead issue—it still has substantial support.”

AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 37

 duction halted after delivery of fewer than
30% of the original requirement of 650.
The JSF was initially planned as the na-
tion’s fourth aircraft to feature stealth (a ma-
jor aspect of fifth-generation fighters). But
much of its stealth capability was lost dur-
ing structural changes made early in the
program’s system development and dem-
onstration (SDD) phase.
The F-35 employs structural fiber mat
instead of the high-maintenance coatings of
previous stealth aircraft. Like the F-22, it
also forgoes the multifaceted surface of the
F-117 or ‘flying wing’ design of the B-2,
rely-ing instead on a smoother low-observ-
able shape. However, while the F-22 is con-
sidered stealthy against all types of radars
and from all directions, the F-35’s lowest
radar signature is directly ahead and prima-
rily intended to defeat the X- and upper S-
band radars typically found on fighters, sur-
face-to-air missiles, and tracking radars.
From all other angles and against L-band
and other surveillance radars, it has been
compared to a Gen-4 F-16.
“The Joint Strike Fighter has a complex
lower fuselage shape, as well as a wing
and fuselage lower join shape, unlike any
other aircraft designed with stealth in
mind,” says an analysis by think tank Air
Power Australia. “The result of this design
choice is that the beam/side aspect radar
cross section will be closer in magnitude to
a conventional fighter flown clean than a
‘classical’ stealth aircraft.”
The F-35B was expected to be popular
with international buyers, many of whom
were planning to build smaller, less expen-
sive carriers specifically for STOVL opera-
tions. The U.K. was expected to be the
Congress will keep the
F-18E/F in production largest of these customers, originally plan-
to cover any shortfalls ning to buy F-35Bs as a joint combat aircraft
from F-35 delays. for the Royal Navy
and RAF. But the re-
cent release of the
Ministry of Defence’s
Strategic Defence
and Security Review
(Britain’s equivalent
of the U.S. Quadren-
nial Defense Review)
called for canceling a
second aircraft carrier
and canceling pro-
curement of all F-
35Bs, instead buying
a far smaller number
of F-35Cs for use by
both services.
38 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
The loss of the second-largest order
will mean a higher acquisition cost for the
Marines, who want approximately 400 of
the new supersonic STOVLs to replace their
current fleet of F/A-18s and AV-8B Harrier
subsonic jumpjets. The extent of that in-
crease will depend on finalization of British
plans, along with those of other expected
F-35B customers, primarily Italy and Spain.
Betting on restructuring
Even as the future of the STOVL variant
grew murky, Gates went ‘all in’ on the F-35,
canceling further production of the F-22
and placing the money saved into restruc-
turing—and extending—the JSF SDD phase.
“The Joint Strike Fighter program re-
ceived special scrutiny given its substantial
cost, ongoing development issues, and its
central place in the future of U.S. military
aviation. In short, two of the JSF variants,
the Air Force version and the Navy’s carrier-
based version, are proceeding satisfacto-
rily,” Gates told reporters.
“The Marine Corps made a compelling
case that they need some time to get things
right with the STOVL, and we will give
them that opportunity.”
That was a bit of a surprise, as both the
‘A’ and ‘C’ variants of the F-35 had come
under considerable criticism in the past
year or two for being overweight, over
cost, behind schedule, and failing to meet
planned capabilities in stealth, maneuver-
ability, range, and so on.
Even so, Gates’ decision notwithstand-
ing, the F-35 has accomplished what no
other aircraft or air defense system on the
planet has been able to do—shoot down
463 F-22 Raptors, the balance of the origi-
nal Air Force requirement canceled by
Gates in favor of the Lightning II. For the
record, in nearly 30 years of combat opera-
tions, only one stealth aircraft has been lost
to enemy fire—an F-117 shot down over
Kosovo in 1999, which even the com-
mander of the air defense unit involved
called essentially a lucky shot.
Holding on to Super Hornets
Despite Gates’ enthusiasm for the F-35, the
Congress took a far less sanguine view of
the future of U.S. air power in both the De-
fense Authorization bill and accompanying
summaries and explanations. Lawmakers
highlighted the list of problems plaguing
the JSF—especially the STOVL variant—and
made it clear Congress would keep the
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in production to
cover any naval aviation shortfall resulting
from further JSF delays.
“The bill authorizes $18.9 billion for
aviation programs for the Navy and Marine
Corps. However, concerns remain about
the Navy and Marine Corps managing and
accepting an unprecedented level of oper-
ational risk within their tactical air force
structure while waiting for the completion
of the F-35B and F-35C. It is estimated that
by FY2017, the Navy and Marine Corps in-
ventory could be at least 250 aircraft short
of requirements—the equivalent of five car-
rier air wings,” lawmakers warned.
“This is an unacceptable outcome, and
Congress will not support future budget re-
quests that fail to address the factual reali-
ties of a naval strike fighter shortfall. Bar-
ring a complete reversal of the develop-
ment and performance failures in the Joint
Strike Fighter program, Congress expects
future budget submissions to continue the
production of F-18s to prevent our naval
airpower from losing significance in our na-
tion’s arsenal.”
In his announcement roughly two
weeks later, Gates turned these congres-
sional concerns and threats into official ad-
ministration policy, moving the F-35B from
the front to the back of the production and
delivery schedule and directing the Navy to
“buy more of the latest model F-18s and ex-
tend the service life of 150 of these aircraft
as a hedge against more delays in the de-
ployment of the Joint Strike Fighter.”
Mandate for measuring progress
Congress did not limit its concerns about
the program to the Navy and Marine Corps
variants. The House accepted a Senate
amendment requiring the secretary of de-
fense to create a system management plan
for measuring the F-35 program’s progress
through the remainder of SDD.
“There is concern that progress on F-35
development and testing is behind a sched-
ule that would warrant planned future pro-
duction levels. Significant cost risks can re-
sult from buying large quantities of the F-35
with only 5% of its flight testing complete,”
an overview of the amended legislation
stated. “To address concerns over the seri-
ous delays and cost overruns in the F-35
program, the bill requires the Dept. of De-
fense to establish a management plan un-
der which decisions to commit to specified
levels of production are linked to progress
in meeting specified program milestones,
including design, manufacturing, testing,
and fielding milestones for critical system
maturity elements.”
In a brief response to both the legisla-
tion and Gates’ comments, F-35 prime con-
tractor Lockheed Martin took a cautiously
optimistic view: “We recognize that long-
term confidence in the program must be
earned over time by executing and meeting
commitments,” and the restructuring repre-
sents “an essential foundational require-
ment to ensure future success.”
Frozen in time The F-22 stealth fighter
Despite efforts to keep the aircraft design is banned from export.
‘open architecture’ for both hardware and
software, the F-35 still suffers from the long
design-to-production schedule accompany-
ing any major military program, according
to Don Bolling. He is senior manager for
advanced targeting systems at Lockheed
Martin Missiles & Fire Control, which is re-
sponsible for the electrooptical targeting
system that gives the F-35 its long-range de-
tection and precision targeting.
“We’ve been at war now since 2001, and
JSF has been on the drawing board better
than 10 years. Technologically, on our side,
we’ve been frozen in system design and de-
velopment time. Because of the war, we’ve
had rapid advances in ISR [intelligence, sur-
veillance, reconnaissance] capabilities. At the
time our sensor was frozen in the JSF design,
it was a leading-edge technology—nobody
else was even close,” he explains.
“But as we get closer to fielding, that
will certainly be less so. Sensors with HD-
TV, IR pointers, and other things have con-
tinued to move along while we have been
marking time in place. That has been frus-
trating, because we know we could make
adjustments—which we will in due time
with block upgrades to the airplane. That is
just the way it is with JSF acquisitions.”
Not out of the woods
Despite arguments by some—especially
overseas—that F-35 funds should instead go
to building more F-22s, it seems highly un-
likely that JSF will face the drastic cuts in
planned production suffered by its prede-
cessors. Low-rate initial production (LRIP)
alone will produce more than twice as
many F-35s as the combined total of F-117s,
B-2s, and F-22s—and the Raptor cannot re-
place the aging Navy and Marine Corps
fleets of F/A-18s and AV-8Bs. But the most
expensive DOD program on the books is
far from out of the woods.
(Continued on page 45)
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 39
The AMS is positioned in the aft payload bay of Endeavour. Note the manipulator arm at the left of AMS and the bright silver lining of the partially
open payload bay doors. The crew cabin is at the opposite end of the payload bay. ©Michele Famiglietti.

񡑁񡑂񡑃񡑖 񡑃񡑈񡑆񡑅񡑅񡑉񡑒񡑇񡑀񡑑񡑉񡑇񡑈񡑕񡑀
by Craig Covault
Contributing writer
񡑓񡑒񡑀񡑕񡑈񡑆񡑀񡑅񡑄񡑔񡑐
40 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 Copyright ©2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
񡑀
he Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer
(AMS), the largest scientific instrument
on the ISS, will conduct an unprece-
dented search for previously undetectable
antimatter and for invisible dark matter,
which (along with dark energy) makes up
95% of the universe, theorists believe. As-
tronauts were to deliver the instrument and
attached it to the left end of the space sta-
tion’s 300-ft truss during STS-134, the last
flight of the shuttle Endeavour and the
penultimate mission of the 30-year space
shuttle program.
The AMS high-energy particle detector
will be gathering evidence concerning two
of the greatest mysteries of the universe:
What caused the disappearance of primor-
dial antimatter, which was formed in equal
amounts with the visible matter that makes
up the current universe; and just what is
this stuff called dark matter, which neither
reflects nor emits light, yet bends light from
other sources, and exerts such a powerful
gravitational force that it has shaped galax-
ies and formed them into giant linked struc-
tures up to 10 billion light-years across?
Bone of contention
But while the AMS science team probes
momentous issues governing the universe,
political controversy in Congress and else-
where could arise over the 4,000 lb of Chi-
nese hardware that has finally made its way
onto the ISS as a critical element of the sta-
tion’s most historic instrument. This has oc-
curred in spite of NASA, White House, and
congressional opposition to Chinese partic-
ipation in the ISS program.
The 15,000-lb AMS is a Dept. of Energy
project, and most of its $1.5-billion cost has
been borne by multiple European and
Asian participants, including China.
The two tons of Chinese components
include 4,000 permanent magnets. These
comprise the inner walls of the barrel-
shaped instrument through which AMS sci-
entists hope to track cosmic particles from
the Big Bang so that detectors can measure
their properties. The researchers hope that
finding key particles and atoms will prove
the existence of dark matter, dark energy,
and antimatter.
The AMS-02, loaded with 2 tons
of Chinese magnets, undergoes
final processing at the Kennedy
Space Center before its launch
to the ISS.
The Chinese magnets are important
from a U.S. policy standpoint. These mag-
nets and support hardware were retrofitted
in place of a canceled multimillion-dollar
U.S./European cryogenically cooled elec-
tromagnetic system that AMS project lead-
ers determined would not perform as well
as hoped. The heating needed to run the
electromagnets was greater than expected
and would consume roughly double the
planned amount of liquid helium, reducing
useful life to less than two years. Thus the
cryogenic system in the works for 10 years
was removed and replaced with the perma-
nent magnets, which can keep the AMS
functional through the remaining 20-30-
year life of the station.
Now mounted on the ISS, the Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer will probe cosmic mysteries, seeking
evidence that dark matter, dark energy, and
antimatter do exist. Such a discovery could explain
what occupies most of the known universe.
However, political controversy involving China’s
participation in the effort could cast a shadow
over this exciting prospect.
The retrofit of this unique space instru-
ment with such a large amount of Chinese
equipment comes face-to-face with strong
debate—and some outright hostility—in
congressional and policy circles about
whether the U.S. should engage in space
cooperation with the Chinese, given their
internal human rights record and a surging
military space program aimed at countering
the U.S. There had been congressional
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 41

After delivery to the station, the
AMS will sit atop the far left truss.
The AMS will wait for signs of
antimatter and dark matter to
pass through it for the next
20-30 years of ISS operations.
42 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
oversight and, in 2008, approval to fund de-
lays. However, this came before the deci-
sion to replace the cryogenic system with
magnets that had been used for a short
proof-of-concept flight on STS-91 in 1998.
AMS-02, as large as an automobile, is to
be attached to the exterior of the station’s
port truss—a large instrument in a promi-
nent place. That is ironic, because for more
than 10 years NASA has rejected all Chinese
overtures seeking involvement with the
space program in general and the space
station specifically.
The head of the Chinese National
Space Administration (CNSA) even used
this author, during one of six trips to Bei-
jing, as an intermediary between himself
and then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin
in an attempt to open talks on Chinese par-
ticipation in the station effort. “Without
China’s participation, the ISS is not a true
international program,” said CNSA Admin-
istrator Luan Enjie. Goldin rejected the Chi-
nese overture, as has every administrator
and administration since. But now, with
AMS-02’s thousands of pounds of critical
Chinese components, China’s technology
has made it onto the station as a key aspect
of ISS science operations.
Breakthroughs in detection
The 7.5-ton instrument could detect direct
evidence of the dark matter that scientists
believe forms the framework of the uni-
verse, holding galaxies together, forming
them into groups, and then linking those
groups into mammoth cosmic structures,
including one that spans 10 billion light-
years. Once analyzed at the cosmic particle
level, dark matter could also help to prove
whether antimatter indeed makes up entire
galaxies that could be part of an unseen
parallel universe, and whether that antimat-
ter could annihilate everything in the
known cosmos.
The key technological theories and
components making dark matter and anti-
matter detection possible result from Chi-
nese breakthroughs, according to Samuel
C.C. Ting, a 1976 Nobel Prize-winning sci-
entist at MIT, where one AMS Payload Op-
erations Control Center will be based. Ting
has spent most of the past 20 years building
a coalition of 500 scientists from 60 institu-
tions in 16 countries, to develop, build, and
test AMS-02. All the international agree-
ments involving the instrument are the re-
sponsibility of DOE, says NASA. However,
the DOE connection may not make much
difference to members of Congress.
The key to solving the performance is-
sue that brought about the need for China’s
technology is that the Chinese magnets use
a neodymium, iron, and boron alloy from
Germany. Says Trent Martin, AMS project
manager at NASA Johnson, the Chinese
took this raw, unmagnetized material to
shape, magnetize, and fit into the instru-
ment’s structure. “The latest development
of the Chinese technologies for making per-
manent magnets has made AMS experiment
possible,” said Ting in a letter to DOE.
Assembly and testing of the Chinese
hardware have taken place at some of the
most important defense plants in China, in-
cluding the Institute of Electrical Engineer-
ing and the Chinese Academy of Launch
Vehicle Technology in Beijing. Lockheed
Martin engineers traveled to these Chinese
plants to ensure components were assem-
bled precisely and safely—the magnetic
force between adjoining blocks is 4 tons.

Difficult timing
Sharp restrictions against any NASA rela-
tionship with China were levied just as the
AMS-02 instrument has been in final devel-
opment. NASA tries to avoid any contro-
versy by noting that the international as-
pects of AMS are managed by DOE.
But the agency’s new FY11 budget just
signed by the president precludes coopera-
tion with China. The bill specifically bans
NASA and the White House Office of Sci-
ence and Technology Policy from spending
any funds to discuss or arrange space coop-
eration with China unless specifically au- MIT Nobel Laureate Samuel
Ting stands in the middle of
thorized to do so by Congress. •The electromagnetic calorimeter will the covered AMS-02 that he
In June 1998 a prototype version of the measure the energy and coordinates of conceived.
instrument, AMS-01, including the same 2 electrons, positrons, and gamma rays.
tons of Chinese components flew for 10 With over 300,000 data channels, the
days as an attached payload on board the AMS-02 instrument will gather an extremely
orbiter Discovery’s STS-91 mission. But it large amount of data that will be processed
carried more than a test version of the in- and sent to Earth using the ISS power, com-
strument. With NASA and DOE concur- munication, and data infrastructure.
rence, the orbiter carried ‘Chinese sou-
venirs,’ according to a history of the AMS-01
mission, including a gold-plated memorial
tablet with an inscription by ‘Comrade’ TRANSITION
RADIATION
Deng Xiaoping’ and a copper tablet en- DETECTOR
graved with the name of the Chinese Acad-
emy of Sciences and the Institute of High STAR TRACKER
Energy Physics in Beijing, a facility tied
closely to the Chinese military. The sprawl-
ing complex is the biggest and most com-
prehensive fundamental research center in
China, according to U.S. defense analysts.
Other Chinese facilities that had
a hands-on role in the assembly
and test of the AMS hardware
include Beijing’s Satellite Envi-
ronmental Engineering Institute.

A closer look
The permanent magnets will produce a
strong, uniform magnetic field (about 0.14
Tesla) over a volume of 1 m3. The magnetic
field will be used to bend the path of
charged cosmic particles as they pass
through different types of detectors:
•The transition radiation detector will
measure particles passing at nearly the
speed of light. GRAPPLE FIXTURE
•The time of flight instrument will meas-
ure the charge and the velocity of passing VACUUM CASE TIME OF FLIGHT
particles. INSTRUMENT(S)
•The silicon tracker will measure the co- ELECTRONIC CALORIMETER
ordinates of charged particles in the mag-
netic field.

AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 43


The Hubble Space Telescope
images a ghostly ring caused by
the gravitational pull of dark
matter. The 2.6-million-light-year-
wide ring was formed long ago
during a titanic collision between
two massive galaxy clusters.
Though astronomers cannot see
dark matter, they can infer its
existence in galaxy clusters by
observing how its gravity bends
the light of stars, and that is
what is seen here. The features are
5 billion light-years from Earth.
The AMS instrument, located in
the large white cargo transfer
canister, is elevated for transfer
into Endeavour several weeks
prior to launch.
44 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011
The critical invisible
Particles of dark matter and its associated
dark energy are the most enigmatic, invisi-
ble, yet critical elements in the cosmos.
This is because they totally dominate the
structure of the universe.
The visible matter in the universe adds
up to less than 5% of the total mass that is
known to exist, based on many other ob-
servations. The other 95% of the mass is
dark—either dark matter (which is estimated
at 20% of the universe by weight), or dark
energy, which makes up the balance. The
exact nature of each is still unknown. The
AMS-02 detectors are geared to solving ma-
jor questions about them.
According to AMS researchers, one of
the leading candidates for dark matter is the
neutralino particle. If neutralinos exist, they
should be colliding with each other and
giving off charged particles that can be de-
tected by AMS-02. Any peaks in the back-
ground positron, antiproton, or gamma flux
could signal the presence of neutralinos or
other dark matter candidates.
The detection of antimatter would also
be a major cosmological discovery. All evi-
dence currently indicates that the universe
is made of matter; however, the Big Bang
theory requires equal amounts of matter
and antimatter. Theories that explain this
apparent asymmetry violate other measure-
ments. Whether or not there is significant
antimatter is one of the fundamental ques-
tions of the origin and nature of the uni-
verse. Any observations by AMS-02 of an
antihelium nucleus would provide strong
evidence for the existence of antimatter,
AMS researchers believe.
Finding a flight
AMS-02 successfully completed final inte-
gration and operational testing at the Euro-
pean Organization for Nuclear Research
(CERN), where it was tested with powerful
nuclear particle beams generated by CERN
particle accelerators. The instrument was
then shipped to ESA’s European Space Re-
search and Technology Center in the
Netherlands, where it underwent thermal
vacuum, electromagnetic compatibility, and
interference testing. Then, after another
round of testing at CERN, it was delivered
to Kennedy Space Center on board a USAF
C-5M Super Galaxy.
For several years it was uncertain if
AMS-02 would ever be launched, because it
was not manifested to fly on any of the re-
maining shuttle flights. After the 2003 Co-
lumbia reentry accident, several flights, in-
cluding that of AMS-02, were removed from
the manifest. But in May 2008 a bill was
proposed to launch AMS-02 to ISS on an
additional shuttle flight in 2010 or 2011.
The bill was signed into law by President
George W. Bush in October 2008, well be-
fore the AMS team decided to fill AMS-02
with 2 tons of Chinese magnets divided
into 4,000 components.
񡑀񡑀񡑀
At the Kennedy Space Center prior to
launch, Ting said he did not know exactly
what to expect, but that he had several
ideas of what he hopes to find using the
AMS. One hope is that the AMS data will
open up an entirely new field of particle
physics. Up until now, he said, the study of
cosmic rays has been limited to measuring
light using telescopes and instruments like
those on NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope.
“The AMS is to be the first to study charged
particles in space,” he noted.
Ting also hopes that the particles
recorded by AMS prove the existence of a
parallel universe made up of antimatter, or
particles that are, in electrical charge and
magnetic properties, the exact opposite of
ordinary particles. Such a universe has been
theorized but not proven. The discovery of
massive amounts of antimatter could an-
swer fundamental questions about the ori-
gin of the universe. “Unless you do the ex-
periments, you don’t know who is right,”
Ting explained.
F-35
(Continued from page 39)
As the new decade dawned and the
10th F-35 entered flight tests, reports out of
Washington indicated Gates was prepared
to extend the SDD phase by up to two
years beyond the 13-month extension it re-
ceived in a restructuring last year. That in
turn would trigger the congressional vow to
buy additional F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to
keep Navy carriers stocked through 2020.
Adding to the muddle as JSF moves into
its first major LRIP is that the Pentagon is es-
sentially wagering everything on the suc-
cessful completion and integration of three
F-35 variants into the U.S. fleet, even as the
international side grows murkier than ever.
“Everybody is justifiably nervous about
the future acquisition of JSF. The U.S. Air
Force, Navy, and Marines have not backed
off their stated numbers, but we’ve seen a
recent slide to decouple concurrence, and
international customers back off because
there is no incentive to buy an aircraft early
in production when they can wait a few
more years and get a less expensive—and
likely more capable—later block airplane,”
Bolling says. “But that is a slip-
pery slope; they invested for the
business case, but if they start
backing off, the costs will go up,
and Congress wants to reduce
the buy due to rising costs. So
you get into an affordability
question our competitors will
take advantage of, as Boeing is
doing with the Navy now on
what they term their ‘good
The Marines will replace some of
enough’ 4.5-generation solution. its STOVL aircraft buys with the
“And clearly the administration has F-35C Navy varient.
made it known we need to get away from
elegant, gold-plated solutions to get to
‘good enough’ with a rapid acquisition cy-
cle. But I can tell you there is no way to
take something designed with an entirely
different threat in mind, make it perform
the missions this aircraft will do, and sur-
vive,” says Bolling. “But as the economies
of several countries force scalebacks in de-
fense expenditures, a naturally cut-throat
defense industry will increasingly see the
F-35 as a huge target to attack and attempt
to take money away from; so everyone is
justifiably leery.”

m
g
n
M
a
e
o
.ItD
s
Ye
.
u
o
h
filty
d
n
ra
e
w
Po

3
1
iw
V
ld
e
Fi
g
B
s
a
H
tin
lu
o
v
R
e
Th

:Fo
e
o
rm
o
fd
rtc
a
m
.s
w
ww

-Ch
o
s
R
h
"H
G
P
g
u
B
.M
,N
rjin
e
d
a
",
W
lfR
u
m
s
k
r-S
ve
a
N
n
tio
lu
y
S
lp
H
ra
m
A
fth
s
g
in
d
e
c
o
Pr
.
c
e
B
ig
,V
rm
o
lF
a
u
n
A
th
67
.
1
0
,2
-5
3
y
Ma

AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 45

25 Years Ago, June 1986 June 25 Aviation pioneer John
Alexander Douglas (‘J.A.D.’) McCurdy,
June 9 The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident regarded as the first in the British
releases its final report. It states that the cause of the Jan. 28, 1986, accident was Empire to fly a controlled powered
a failure in the joint between the two lower segments of the right solid rocket aircraft, dies at age 75. Born in Nova
motor. The specific failure was the destruction of the seals that were designed to Scotia, he spent 1907-1909 developing
prevent hot gases from leaking through the joint during the propellant an aircraft in
burn of the rocket motor. NASA History Program Office Web site, close association
www.history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch4.htm. with Alexander
Graham Bell, as a
50 Years Ago, June 1961 member of Bell’s
Aerial Experiment
June 1 Capital Airlines is merged into United Airlines, which becomes the Association.
largest airline in the world. Capital started in 1926 as the Clifford Ball Airlines, Eventually,
which delivered mail. By 1928 it began carrying passengers. In 1948, after McCurdy flew his
several mergers, it became Capital Airlines and was based in Washington, own machine, the
D.C. United Airlines eventually has a fleet of 267 aircraft and serves 116 Silver Dart, at
cities. D. Baker, Flight and Flying, p. 376; The Aeroplane, May 11, 1961, Baddeck Bay,
p. 512; Aviation Week, June 5, 1961, p. 39. Nova Scotia, on Feb. 24, 1909, for
1.5 mi. The plane featured ailerons
June 3 A 500,000-lb-thrust segmented solid-propellant rocket motor is for control and had a 35-hp Curtiss
successfully test fired by Aerojet General. The most powerful solid-fuel rocket engine. This was the first controlled
motor fired to date, the 30-ft-long, 8-ft, 4-in.-diam motor contains more than flight of a flying machine in Canada.
100,000 lb of propellant. The three segments of propellant are manufactured The Canadian Aeronautical Institute’s
separately and assembled on site. The Aeroplane, July 13, 1961, p. 32; The 1962 premier award was later named the
Aerospace Year Book, p. 471. McCurdy Award in his honor. The
Aeroplane, June 29, 1961, p. 739;
June 16 The Discoverer XXV satellite is launched from Vandenberg AFB, Calif., C. Gibbs-Smith, Aviation: An Historical
with reentry set for June 18. However, the aerial retrieval fails when the capsule Survey, p. 130.
misses the drop zone near Hawaii and falls too far into the sea. Air Force parachutists
trained in skin diving are flown to the new landing area, then jump into the water June 25
and successfully haul the capsule aboard a 20-man life raft. The data are later BOAC
retrieved. Aviation Week, June 26, 1961, p. 32. inaugurates
the first
June 17 India’s Hindustan HF-24 Marut, the first nonstop air
supersonic fighter designed and built in Asia, service between London and Ghana.
makes its maiden flight. Powering the plane are two The Aeroplane, June 29, 1961, p. 742.
4,850-lb-thrust Rolls-Royce Orpheus 703 turbojet
engines. D. Baker, Flight and Flying, p. 376. June 26 The Navy announces it will
give up using airships for antisubmarine
June 22 An advanced Atlas E test missile explodes 2 min after launch at work, except for two that will continue
Cape Canaveral, Fla. It had been aimed for a target 7,300 mi. operating for another year. One stated
out in the South Atlantic. The missile did not have to reason for the decision is economy,
self-destruct. The Aeroplane, July 6, 1961, p. 6. although airships are cheaper to
operate than conventional planes
June 23 The North American X-15 rocket and can fly when other aircraft are
research aircraft sets a new world speed record grounded. Another reason that is
of 3,603 mph (Mach 5.30), the first time a offered is a review of the accidental
manned aircraft exceeds Mach 5. Flown by Air loss of one of the airships, the
Force Maj. Robert White, the mission beats the ZPG-3W, with its 12-member
previous record of 3,370 mph, also set in the crew. The Aeroplane, July 20,
X-15. D. Jenkins, X-15: Extending the Frontiers of 1961, p. 59; D. Baker, Flight and
Flight, p. 618. Flying, p. 376.

46 AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011


June 26 Hélène Dutrieu, the famous
Belgian-born aviatrix who
was one of the first
women to obtain a pilot’s
license, dies at age 84.
A cycling world champion,
stunt cyclist, stunt motor-
cyclist, and automobile driver,
she became qualified to fly in 1910.
She made her first flight on a Demoi-
selle of Alberto Santos-Dumont. Prior
to WW I, Dutrieu won numerous
awards for speed, and altitude,
attaining endurance aviation records
as well. Hélène Dutrieu file, NASM;
The Aeroplane, July 6, 1961, p. 7.
And During June 1961
—X-15 pilots A. Scott Crossfield,
Joseph A. Walker, and Air Force Maj.
Robert A. White are named the 1960
winners of the Harmon International
Aviation Trophy, the first time three
pilots are chosen as joint winners.
Aviation Week, June 26, 1961, p. 67.
75 Years Ago, June 1936
June 6 Sacony-Vacuum Oil of New
Jersey begins production of 100-octane
aviation gasoline by the catalytic
cracking method. This technological
breakthrough paves the way for
increased engine performance and
provides the Allies with a significant
advance over the Axis powers during
WW II. E. Emme, ed., Aeronautics and
Astronautics 1915-60, p. 34.
June 6 London’s new Gatwick Airport
opens with an air show featuring a
wide variety of civil and military
planes, ranging from a Pou-du-Ciel
to D.H. 86s, a Vildebeest, and the
Monospar S.T. 18. Flight, June 11,
1936, pp. 616-619.
June 7 Major Ira C. Eaker, Army Air
Corps, makes the first transcontinen-
tal blind flight, from New York to Los
Angeles. E. Emme, Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1915-60, p. 34.
An Aerospace Chronology
by Frank H. Winter, Ret.
and Robert van der Linden
June 8 Capel W. McNash, president of the newly
formed American Institute for Rocket Research, requests
the affiliation of Robert H. Goddard, the nation’s leading
rocket pioneer, and proposes that a convention of “all the
rocketeers in the country” be held in Chicago to decide,
by consultation, the best plans for ‘one great experiment.’
Goddard, however, refuses on the grounds that his work
is not yet complete so he cannot share his results.
E. Goddard and G. Pendray, eds., The Papers of Robert
H. Goddard, Vol. II, pp. 1007-1008.
June 9 The Dutch mail rocket experimenter, known as ‘Professor’ Dr. Adam J. de
Bruijn, begins a nine-year period of mail rocket flights in his country, with his first
attempt at Ijsselmonde, the Netherlands. De Bruijn is later jailed for the falsification of
‘rocket stamps.’ J. Ellington and P. Zwisler, Ellington-Zwisler Rocket Mail Catalog, p.
105; F. Winter, Prelude to the Space Age: The Rocket Societies 1924-1940, p. 109.
June 11 The first of the
Handley Page 42s, known
as Hannibal, completes five
years of service between
London and Paris. The giant
all-metal biplane has flown
5,950 hr and has covered 565,000 mi. at its modest speed of 95 mph. The
Aeroplane, June 17, 1936, p. 773.
June 29 An Army Douglas OA-5 type
amphibian sets a world nonstop dis-
tance record for such aircraft by flying
1,425 mi. from San Juan, Puerto Rico,
to Langley Field, Va., in 11 hr 9 min.
Leading the flight and its crew of six
are Maj. Gen. Frank M. Andrews and
Maj. Gen. Frank R. McCoy. Andrews, commander of the General Headquarters Air
Force, is seeking to keep the Army Air Corps in the public eye to generate good
publicity and more congressional funding. Aero Digest, Aug. 1936, p. 76.
100 Years Ago, June 1911
June 26 In Germany, Zeppelin rigid
airship LZ 10 Schwaben completes its
maiden flight. A. van Hoorebeeck, La
Conquete de L’Air, p. 91.
June 28 From western New York, famed stunt pilot Lincoln Beachey flies his Curtiss
biplane over Niagara Falls without incident. A. van Hoorebeeck, La Conquete
de L’Air, p. 91.
And During June 1911
—In Britain, F.T. Nettleingham claims to have originated flight insurance there as a
result of articles he had written in Aeronautics magazine on the subject. Aeronautics
(London), June 1911, p. 89, and May 1912, pp. 117-118.
AEROSPACE AMERICA/JUNE 2011 47
 AIAABulletin JUNE 2011
AIAA Meeting Schedule B2
AIAA Courses & Training B4
Program Schedule
AIAA News B5
AIAA Publications B12
AIAA Meeting Program B13
AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition
AIAA Calls for Papers B19
AIAA Strategic and Tactical Missile Systems
Conference
AIAA Missile Sciences Conference
18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference
(33rd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference)
28th Aerodynamics Measurement Technology and
Ground Testing Conference
30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
4th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments
Conference
6th AIAA Flow Control Conference
42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
43rd AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers
The Mississippi River reached nearly 48 feet in Memphis, TN, on 10 May, according to Conference
the U.S. National Weather Service. It was the highest water level for Memphis since 43rd AIAA Thermophysics Conference
1937. Several of NASA’s fleet of Earth-observing satellites have been gathering data AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference
on the current Mississippi flooding. The progress of the floodwaters can be tracked in
a series of satellite images posted on the NASA Earth Observatory Web site. AIAA Courses and Training B41
The Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper captured an image on 10 May 10 showing in Program
natural color the area around Memphis as it would look to the human eye (top). Standard Conference Information B44
This month muddy water has pushed over the Mississippi’s banks both east and west
of the normal river channel. Floodwaters span the distance between Memphis and
West Memphis. Another Landsat 5 image—from 21 April 2010 (bottom)—shows non-
flooded conditions. (Credit: NASA Earth Observatory/United States Geological Survey)

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, ext. * Also accessible via Internet.
Use the formula first name
7575* • AIAA Foundation / Dave Quackenbush, ext. 7514*, Suzanne Musgrave, ext. 7518* • Book Sales / 800/682-AIAA or last initial@aiaa.org. Example:
703/661-1595, Dept. 415 • Corporate Members / Merrie Scott, ext. 7530* • International Affairs / Megan Scheidt, ext. 3842*; megans@aiaa.org.
† U.S. only. International callers
Emily Springer, ext. 7533* • Editorial, Books / Heather Brennan, ext. 7568* • Editorial, Technical Journals / Amanda Maguire,
should use 703/264-7500.
ext. 7507* • Education / Lisa Bacon, ext. 7527* • Exhibits / Fernanda Swan, ext. 7622* • Honors and Awards / Carol Stewart,
ext. 7623* • Proceedings / 800/682-AIAA or 703/661-1595, Dept. 415 • Professional Development / Patricia Carr, ext. 7523* • Addresses for Technical
Public Policy / Steve Howell, ext. 7625* • Section Activities / Chris Jessee, ext. 3848* • Standards, Domestic / Amy Barrett, Committees and Section Chairs
ext. 7546* • Standards, International / Nick Tongson, ext. 7515* • Student Programs / Stephen Brock, ext. 7536* • Technical can be found on the AIAA Web
Committees / Betty Guillie, ext. 7573* site at http://www.aiaa.org.

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)

2011
2 Jun Aerospace Today ... and Tomorrow: An Executive Symposium Williamsburg, VA
5–8 Jun 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (Mar) Portland, OR Jun 10 9 Nov 10
(32nd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference)
6–8 Jun† The Space Shuttle: An Engineering Milestone—A Symposium Atlanta, GA
to Celebrate the Accomplishments of the Contact: Cindy Pendley, cindy.pendley@ae.gatech.edu;
NASA Space Shuttle Program www.ae.gatech.edu/shuttlesymposium
9–11 Jun† 5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies Istanbul, Turkey
13–17 Jun† International Conference on Aircraft and Engine Icing and Ground Chicago, IL
Deicing Contact: Frank Bokulich, fbokulich@sae.org
26–30 Jun† International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics 2011 Paris, France (Contact: Anne Venables, secr.exec@aaaf.
(IFASD2011) asso.fr, www.ifasd2011.com)
27–30 Jun 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference (Mar) Honolulu, HI Jun 10 17 Nov 10
41st AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
20th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference
42nd AIAA Thermophysics Conference
6th AIAA Theoretical Fluid Mechanics Conference
42nd AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference in conjunction with the
18th International Conference on MHD Energy Conversion (ICMHD)
3rd AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference
17–21 Jul 41st International Conference on Environmental Systems (Apr) Portland, OR Oct 10 15 Nov 10
31 Jul–3 Aug 9th Annual International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference San Diego, CA Jul/Aug 10 23 Nov 10
31 Jul–3 Aug 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit San Diego, CA Jul/Aug 10 23 Nov 10
31 Jul–4 Aug† 2011 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference Girdwood, AK Dec 10 5 Apr 11
Contact: William Cerven, 571.307.4208, william.t.cerven@aero.
org, http://www.space-flight.org/docs/2011_astro/2011_astro.html
8–11 Aug AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference (May) Portland, OR Jul/Aug 10 17 Jan 11
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference
20–22 Sep 7th AIAA Biennial National Forum on Weapon System Effectiveness Virginia Beach, VA Sep 10 14 Feb 11
(SECRET/U.S. ONLY)
20–22 Sep 11th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Virginia Beach, VA Sep 10 7 Feb 11
(ATIO) Conference
including Lighter-Than-Air and Balloon Systems
21–22 Sep AIAA Centennial of Naval Aviation Forum Virginia Beach, VA Sep 10 7 Feb 11
“100 Years of Achievement and Progress” (Jointly held with ATIO)
27–29 Sep AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition (Jun) Long Beach, CA Sep 10 25 Jan 11
3–7 Oct† 62nd International Astronautical Congress Cape Town, South Africa (www.iac2011.com)
13–14 Oct† Acoustic Liners and Associated Propagation Techniques Lausanne, Switzerland
Contact: H. Lissek, herve.lissek@epfl.ch, http://x3noise.epfl.ch
26–28 Oct† 2nd Aircraft Structural Design Conference London, UK (Contact: Hinal Patel-Bhuya, Hinal.patel@
aerosociety.com, www.aerosociety.com/conferences)
2–4 Nov† 6th International Conference “Supply on the Wings” Frankfurt, Germany Feb 11 31 Mar 11
Contact: Prof. Dr. Richard Degenhardt, +49 531 295 3059;
richard.degenhardt@dlr.de; www.airtec.aero
28 Nov–1 Dec† Japan Forum on Satellite Communications (JFSC) and Nara, Japan Contact: http://www.ilcc.com/icssc2011
29th AIAA International Communication Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC)

2012
9–12 Jan 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Nashville, TN Jan 11 1 Jun 11
Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition
23–26 Jan† The Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS) Reno, NV (Contact: Patrick M. Dallosta, patrick.dallosta@
dau.mil; www.rams.org)

B2 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

 DATE MEETING LOCATION CALL FOR ABSTRACT
(Issue of AIAA Bulletin in PAPERS DEADLINE
which program appears) (Bulletin in
which Call
for Papers
appears)
24–26 Jan AIAA Strategic and Tactical Missile Systems Conference Monterey, CA Jun 11 30 Jun 11
AIAA Missile Sciences Conference
(SECRET/U.S. ONLY)
29 Jan–2 Feb† 22nd AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting Charleston, SC Apr 11 3 Oct 11
Contact: www.space-flight.org
3–10 Mar† 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana (Contact: David Woerner, 626.497.8451;
dwoerner@ieee.org; www.aeroconf.org)
23–26 Apr 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, Honolulu, HI Apr 11 10 Aug 11
and Materials Conference
20th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference
14th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference
13th AIAA Gossamer Systems Forum
8th AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Specialist Conference
22–24 May Global Space Exploration Conference (GLEX) Washington, DC
4–6 Jun 18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference Colorado Springs, CO Jun 11 9 Nov 11
(33rd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference)
4–6 Jun† 19th St Petersburg International Conference on Integrated St. Petersburg, Russia (Contact: Prof. V. Peshekhonov,
Navigation Systems +7 812 238 8210, elprib@online.ru, www.elektropribor.spb.ru)
19–21 Jun AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference Garden Grove, CA Jun 11 21 Nov 11
25–28 Jun 28th Aerodynamics Measurement Technology New Orleans, LA Jun 11 17 Nov 11
and Ground Testing Conference
30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
4th AIAA Atmospheric Space Environments Conference
6th AIAA Flow Control Conference
42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
43rd AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference
44th AIAA Thermophysics Conference
11–14 Jul† ICNPAA 2012 – Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vienna, Austria
Aerospace and Sciences Contact: Prof. Seenith Sivasundaram, 386/761-9829,
seenithi@aol.com, www.icnpaa.com
14–22 Jul 39th Scientific Assembly of the Committee on Space Research Mysore, India
and Associated Events (COSPAR 2012) Contact: http://www.cospar-assembly.org

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 / JUNE 2011 B3

 DATE COURSE VENUE LOCATION

2011
25–26 Jun Computational Multiphase Flow Fluid Dynamics Conferences Honolulu, HI
25–26 Jun Modern Flow I Fluid Dynamics Conferences Honolulu, HI
25–26 Jun Turbulence Modeling for Computation Fluid Dynamics Fluid Dynamics Conferences Honolulu, HI
25–26 Jun Sensitivity Analysis and Uncertainty Propagation for Computational Models Fluid Dynamics Conferences Honolulu, HI
25–26 Jun Microfluidics and Nanofluidics: Fundamentals and Applications Fluid Dynamics Conferences Honolulu, HI
16–17 Jul Space Environment and Its Effects on Space Systems Int’l Conf. on Environmental Systems Portland, OR
4–5 Aug Liquid Propulsion Systems—Evolution and Advancements Joint Propulsion Conf San Diego, CA
4–5 Aug Pressure Vessel Design Requirements and Veri⇒cation Guidelines Joint Propulsion Conf San Diego, CA
4–5 Aug Hybrid Rocket Propulsion Joint Propulsion Conf San Diego, CA
4–5 Aug A Practical Introduction to Preliminary Design of Air Breathing Engines Joint Propulsion Conf San Diego, CA
4–5 Aug Electric Propulsion for Space Systems Joint Propulsion Conf San Diego, CA
6–7 Aug Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification Engineering Methods and GNC Conferences Portland, OR
Hands-on Training using CIFER®
6–7 Aug Aircraft Handling Qualities GNC Conferences Portland, OR
6–7 Aug Mathematical Introduction to Integrated Navigation Systems with Applications GNC Conferences Portland, OR
6–7 Aug Modeling Flight Dynamics with Tensors GNC Conferences Portland, OR
6–7 Aug Modern Missile Guidance GNC Conferences Portland, OR
6–7 Aug Vision Based Control for Autonomous Vehicles GNC Conferences Portland, OR
17–19 Sep Spacecraft Design and System Engineering ATIO/LTA/Balloons & Weapons Conf w/Naval Aviation Forum Virginia Beach, VA
18–19 Sep Missile Design and System Engineering ATIO/LTA/Balloons & Weapons Conf w/Naval Aviation Forum Virginia Beach, VA
25–26 Sep Introduction to Space Systems SPACE Conference Long Beach, CA
25–26 Sep Systems Engineering Validation and Verification SPACE Conference Long Beach, CA
25–26 Sep The Space Environment: Implications for Spacecraft Design SPACE Conference Long Beach, CA

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.

Fellow and Honorary Fellow Nominations

Now is the time to start thinking about nominating a peer
for Fellow or Honorary Fellow.

FELLOW candidates are persons of distinction in aeronautics or astronautics, who have made
notable and valuable contributions to the arts, sciences, or technology thereof.

HONORARY FELLOW candidates are persons of eminence in aeronautics or

astronautics, recognized through their long and highly contributive careers in the arts,
sciences, or technology thereof.

Nominations are due to AIAA Headquarters by 15 June 2011 and

references are due by 15 July 2011.

To submit a nomination online, please visit our Web site at

www.aiaa.org or contact AIAA Customer Service
at 800.639.AIAA (2422) or 703.264.7500.

11-0280

B4 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

 “ANTICIPATING CHANGE –
SKATING TO THE PUCK”
Brian Dailey, AIAA President
As I now begin my term as AIAA
President, I am profoundly aware
of the changes occurring in our
aerospace industry. This can be
viewed as a challenging time, but
I see it as an exciting opportunity
for AIAA. However, as an Institute
we cannot simply observe these
changes, but we must play a key
role—what I describe, metaphori-
cally, as “Skating to the Puck”.
We are in a time when indus-
try, academic, and government
sectors of the aerospace community have all identified inter-
national cooperation as an essential part of their 21st-century
strategies. AIAA has recognized this trend, and this March
signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the International
Astronautical Federation (IAF) to organize the Global Lunar
Exploration Conference (GLEX) in the Washington, DC area in
2012. Additionally, for the second time an AIAA-led industry del-
egation will travel to China in October 2011 to meet with leaders
on important discussions on cooperation. The initial visit in 2010
was focused on space. The upcoming visit will be focused on
aviation.
In the United States and internationally, our member compa-
nies continue to experience uncertainty in government funding
of programs and increasing competition to maintain a strong and
highly technical professional workforce. Again, AIAA recognizes
these challenges and is a constant advocate of member concerns
and interests throughout the aerospace community. In particular,
I am personally committed to supporting current and new initia-
tives, which focus on the incredible talent we find in young profes-
sionals who are interested in making aerospace their career.
To appreciate the overall direction of the Institute, I ask that
you take time to read both our Annual Report and our 2010–2014
Strategic Plan, both of which are now posted at www.aiaa.org.
The Strategic Plan challenges all members in our seven Regions
to accept an even more active level of participation in AIAA to
increase and maintain strong membership; participate in confer-
ences; support education initiatives, public policy, and the many
other opportunities available to all members.
I want to close by thanking Dr. Mark Lewis, Immediate Past
President, and the Senior Leadership of AIAA for your guidance
and friendship in the past year, which prepared me to assume
the job of President. We have a very strong Board of Directors
and my congratulations to those who are newly elected. My per-
sonal congratulations also go to Dr. Mike Griffin, new President-
Elect 2011–2012. We have an extraordinarily busy year ahead. I
am ready to get started!

AUGUST IS FOR AEROSPACE
Duane Hyland
The AIAA “August is for Aerospace” program is a great way
to showcase the aerospace profession and show members of
Congress the value and impact that aerospace has both locally
and nationally.
Every August, members of Congress return to their home dis-
tricts as part of a summer work period. Without the distraction of
endless meetings, votes on legislation, and committee hearings,
meeting with your Representative in your home district is easy
and effective. It enables a continuation of relationships started
at AIAA’s Congressional Visits Day (CVD) or an opportunity to
begin an ongoing dialogue between you and your member of
Congress.
Unlike CVD, where there is a prepared script for our meet-
ings, visits in the home district office can be less formal. You
could even invite your Representative to tour the facility where
you work, or to come to an AIAA section dinner or special event.
The key purpose is to tell your Representative why aerospace is
important to you and your congressional district; to thank them
for the work they’ve been doing during the current session; and
to talk about the things that are important to you and how they fit
with the overall theme of the value the aerospace sector provides
the United States. Be sure to thank them and give them a photo
opportunity for meeting with you, and don’t forget to ask them
what you can do for them too!
Whether it’s harnessing aerospace experience and capabilities
to better our understanding of the Earth’s climate; enabling the
development of alternative fuels and energy efficient aviation sys-
tems; overcoming the emerging technology acquisition “valley of
death”; establishing and implementing a viable national cyberse-
curity strategy; or improving air cargo security and scanning—or
any of the other issues that AIAA seeks to make Congressional
decision makers aware of—taking part in the national discourse
is our only way to make policymakers aware of the crucial impor-
tance of aerospace to national and economic security. “August
is for Aerospace” is your opportunity to explain how these issues
affect us all locally, and highlight some of the things that AIAA
members are working on for the future.
A good place to start is by coordinating with your local AIAA
chapter—to see who else is interested or already planning activi-
ties. Sections are encouraged to apply for sponsorship funds from
AIAA Headquarters. Sponsorships are available on a first-come,
first-served basis, and must demonstrate a specific need such as
defraying the costs of catering, event promotion, or travel. AIAA
will award sponsorships in amounts between $250 and $1,000.
For more details, please visit http://www.aiaa.org/A4A or con-
tact Duane Hyland at duaneh@aiaa.org or 703.264.7510.

At AIAA, we see aerospace transforming the future ... How Far Can You See?

How Far What is your hope for the future of aerospace? What discoveries and breakthroughs are on
the way and what difference will they make? Share your vision at www.aiaa.org/imagineit.

Can You I see us harnessing the power of gravity as a means of propulsion (after discovering the

See properties of the Higgs Boson). Something along the lines of Bob Lazar’s [reverse engineered
;-)] ideas of a gravity generator.—David Termohlen

AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B5

AIAA STUDENT “DESIGN/BUILD/FLY” WINNERS
ANNOUNCED

AIAA is pleased to announce the winners of the 2010–2011

Cessna Aircraft Company/Raytheon Missile Systems/AIAA
Foundation Student Design/Build/Fly Competition, held 15–17
April, at the Tucson International Modelplex Park Association
(TIMPA) Airfield, Tucson, AZ. This annual competition, which
encourages and recognizes excellence in aerospace engineering
skills at the undergraduate and graduate levels, drew a record
high 71 teams from 68 colleges and universities, representing 25
states and 8 foreign countries.
The winning team, “There Will Be Buzz,” from the Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, received the $2,500 first
place award. “The RFB,” team from the University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA, took the $1,500 second place prize.
The “Golfstream” team from Purdue University, West Lafayette,
IN, received the $1,000 third place prize.
2nd place team: University of Southern California’s “The RFB”

radio-controlled aircraft conforming to strict guidelines, fly it over

a defined course while carrying a payload, and land it without
damage. The judges also evaluate the written design report
submitted by each team with its aircraft. The final score is a
combination of the points awarded for an aircraft’s flights and for
its design report. For more information about the AIAA Design/
Build/Fly Competition, visit www.aiaadbf.org.

1st place team: Georgia Tech’s “There Will Be Buzz”

Sponsored by the AIAA Foundation, Cessna Aircraft, and

Raytheon Missile Systems, the Design/Build/Fly Competition
is now in its fifteenth year. This year’s event featured over 200
flights, with over 30 teams successfully completing all three
mission profiles comprising the event. The competition also
saw its first community college participant, a team from Monroe
Community College, in Rochester, NY.
The Design/Build/Fly Competition challenges teams of
undergraduate and graduate students to design and fabricate a 3rd place team: Purdue University’s “Golfstream”

Group shot of the DBF participants.

B6 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

 SAGA WINS AIAA/
AAAE/ACC JAY
HOLLINGSWORTH SPEAS
AIRPORT AWARD

The Sustainable Aviation

Guidance Alliance (SAGA)
received the 2011 Jay
Hollingsworth Speas Airport
Award on 24 February
2011 during the awards lun-
cheon at the ACC/AAAE
Airport Planning, Design and
Construction Symposium.

(Left to right) Kelly Johnson, Vice

Chair, American Association of
Airport Executives; Dirk Speas,
Award Presenter; Paula Hochstetler,
President, Airport Consultants
Council; and Greg Principato,
President, Airports Council
International – North America.

11-0336

AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference 8–11 August 2011

Oregon Convention Center
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference Portland, Oregon
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference

Visit the /Conference Web site for the Full Agenda,

Updates, and Special Events, or to Register!
Visit the Conference Web site for the
www.aiaa.org/events/gnc
Full Agenda, Updates, Special Events,
or to Register!
www.aiaa.org/events/jpc

AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B7

LEARN • SUCCEED • LEAD

Professional Development Short Courses

Registration is now open for the following courses co-located with the 41st International
Conference on Environmental Systems in Portland, Oregon; the AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference in San Diego, California; the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference (and co-located conferences) in Portland, Oregon; the AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference (and co-located conferences) in
Virginia Beach, Virginia; and the AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition in Long Beach,
California.

16–17 July 2011 • Marriott Portland Downtown Waterfront • Portland, OR

Space Environment and Its Effects on Space Systems

4–5 August 2011 • San Diego, CA

A Practical Introduction to Preliminary Design of Air Breathing Engines
Electric Propulsion for Space Systems
Hybrid Rocket Propulsion
Liquid Propulsion Systems—Evolution and Advancements
Pressure Vessel Design Requirements and Verification Guidelines

6–7 August 2011 • Portland, OR

Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification: Engineering Methods and Hands-on
Training using CIFER®
Aircraft Handling Qualities
Mathematical Introduction to Integrated Navigation Systems with Applications
Modeling Flight Dynamics with Tensors
Modern Missiles Guidance
Vision-Based Control for Autonomous Vehicles

17–19 September 2011 • Virginia Beach, VA

Spacecraft Design and System Engineering

18–19 September 2011 • Virginia Beach, VA

Missile Design and System Engineering

25–26 September 2011 • Long Beach, CA

Introduction to Space Systems
Systems Engineering Verification and Validation
The Space Environment: Implications for Spacecraft Design

Register for a Course Today and Receive FREE Conference Registration

(sessions only) to the conference where your course is scheduled!

www.aiaa.org/courses
11-0084
OBITUARIES development of the P-51, one of the most famous aircraft of
World War II. The original design was prone to overheating
Control Systems Pioneer Rauch Died in March and Ashkenas developed an air inlet design that overcame this
problem. During his fourteen years with Northrop Aircraft, he
Herbert E. Rauch died on 29 March.
worked on the aerodynamics and control system design of such
He was 75 years old.
pioneering aircraft as the Northrop flying wings, and the P-61
Rauch’s electrical engineering interest
and F-89 fighters.
was piqued by an early morning non-
In 1957, Irving Ashkenas co-founded Systems Technology,
credit radio course taken his senior year
Inc., an internationally acclaimed company specializing in
in high school. Following his interest,
systems analysis of air, sea, and ground vehicles and human
he received his B.S. from the California
operator dynamics, which is celebrating its 54th anniversary this
Institute of Technology, and his M.S.
year. Here Ashkenas had responsibility for and made significant
and Ph.D. from Stanford University, all in
and innovative contributions to over 30 aircraft and missiles.
Electrical Engineering. He was elected
During his long and distinguished career, Ashkenas served on
president of the student electrical engi-
a number of investigative and government oversight commit-
neering organization.
tees, generated some 70 technical papers, wrote five books
For many years, Dr. Rauch was
and held eight patents for various aircraft control systems and
employed at the Lockheed Palo Alto
a device for measuring the psychomotor capability of pilots and
Research Laboratory (now called Lockheed-Martin Advanced
astronauts. Ashkenas co-authored the widely acclaimed Aircraft
Technology Center), where his area of expertise was control
Dynamics and Automatic Control along with his colleagues
systems. With John V. Breakwell, he wrote several papers on
Duane McRuer and Dunstan Graham.
interplanetary trajectories, including creating a Venus swing-by
Ashkenas was an AIAA Fellowand a recipient of the AIAA
trajectory that was part of an optimal low thrust Earth-Mars-
Mechanics and Control of Flight Award for 1970. He was cited
Earth round trip. This work led to the development of the Rauch-
in 1984 for his AIAA paper, “25 Years of Handling Qualities
Tung-Striebel (R-T-S) algorithm, which is now used for tracking
Research”. He directed and assembled a 1988 international
interplanetary spacecraft and Earth satellites. He was recog-
lecture series sponsored by the Advisory Group for Aerospace
nized at Lockheed with numerous service awards, including the
Research and Development (AGARD), the aeronautical
Robert E. Gross award for Technical Excellence.
research and development arm of the North American Treaty
Among his many notable contributions to the engineering
Organization (NATO). Ashkenas was the AIAA “Distinguished
field were his terms as President of the Institute of Electrical
Lecturer” for 1990–1992, and in 1992 was elected to member-
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Control Systems Society,
ship in the National Academy of Engineering. He served as an
and Editor-in-Chief of three publications: the Journal of the
independent consultant to Northrop Aircraft’s stealth bomber
Astronautical Sciences, the IEEE Control Systems Magazine,
project from 1982–1987, reflecting expertise derived from
and the IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, of which he
his early work on Northrop’s XB-35 and YB-49 “Flying Wing”
was Founding Editor. Dr. Rauch was also Associate Editor for
aircraft. In 1989, he reported on a NASA-sponsored study of
the AIAA Journal, and Chairman of the International Federation
performance improvements attainable through longitudinal auto-
of Automatic Control (IFAC) Working Group on Control
matic stabilization in tailless Flying Wing aircraft. After his retire-
Applications of Nonlinear Programming. In the course of his
ment at age 77, he remained an active member of the Board of
career, he published numerous technical papers and gave many
STI and in 2007 was elected Chairman.
lectures on his work.
In recognition of his pioneering contributions and leader-
ship in the field of optimal estimation and control, Dr. Rauch
was elected an IEEE Life Fellow, as well as AIAA Fellow,
Fellow of the American Astronautical Society, and Fellow of the
IEEE Control Systems Society. He received the IEEE Control
Systems Distinguished Member award for his significant tech-
nical contributions and outstanding long-term service to the
Control Systems Society.
After retiring, Dr. Rauch advised Ph.D. candidates at Stanford
University, consulted in the aerospace industry, and enjoyed
traveling.

Distinguished Aerospace Engineer Ashkenas Died

in April
Irving Ashkenas, distinguished
aerospace engineer and co-founder
of Systems Technology, Inc., passed
away on 10 April 2011. He was 94
years old.
Mr. Ashkenas attended the
California Institute of Technology
where he earned his Bachelor of
Science degree and two Masters
Degrees and graduated with hon-
ors in 1939. His professional career
began at North American Aviation
where he played a key role in the

AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B9

AIAA PUBLISHES 2010–2011 ANNUAL REPORT
From AIAA Immediate Past President Mark Lewis: "It has been
a positive year for AIAA, despite the struggling economy and
the increasingly difficult government R&D environment that has
resulted. The troubled world economic climate, reductions in
military spending, and uncertainties at NASA pose significant
threats to the aerospace industry as a whole, as well as to AIAA.
In this context, our stability is reflected not only in our overall fis-
cal health, but also in the new initiatives we have successfully
undertaken, from international cooperative agreements to pro-
grams bringing value to our members in creative new ways. All
of these initiatives help build the foundation for a healthy future
for AIAA, responsive to the evolving face of the aerospace pro-
fession." The Annual Report is available at http://www.aiaa.org/
pdf/inside/AIAA_Annual_Report_2010-11.pdf.
PAPER COMPETITION ANNOUNCED FOR U.S.
CELEBRATION OF WORLD STANDARDS DAY 2011
The 2011 World Standards Day Paper Competition has been
announced by the U.S. Celebration of World Standards Day
Planning Committee and the paper competition’s sponsor,
SES—The Society for Standards Professionals. The theme
for this year’s paper competition is “Advancing Safety and
Sustainability Standards Worldwide.” Issues of safety and sus-
tainability are important causes for stakeholders around the
world, from alternative energies and environmental protection
to the safety of products, services, homes, and workplaces.
As governments, organizations, and individuals alike strive to
address these transnational challenges, globally relevant stan-
dards provide the technological and scientific foundations that
drive health, safety, and environmental innovation.
This year, the U.S. Celebration of World Standards Day will
recognize the crucial role of standards, codes, and conformity
assessment in assuring the health and safety of people and the
environment, today and for future generations. Standardization
speeds innovation, facilitates harmonized trade, and boosts con-
sumer and government confidence in products, services, sys-
tems, and processes. But above all, standardization provides an
adaptive framework for developing the most effective solutions to
critical global challenges.
Paper competition winners will be announced and given their
awards during a banquet at the celebration, which will be held
on 13 October 2011, at the Fairmont Hotel in Washington, DC.
Cash prizes will be awarded for up to three papers selected by
a panel of judges. The first place winner will receive a plaque
and $2,500. Second and third place winners will receive $1,000
and $500, respectively, along with a certificate. In addition, the
winning papers will be published in SES’s journal, Standards
Engineering.
All paper contest submissions must be received with an
official entry form by midnight, 12 August 2011, by Leona
Nisbet, SES Executive Director, 1950 Lafayette Road, Box 1,
Portsmouth, NH 03801. For details on the winners’ recognition,
cash awards, judging, and rules, visit the SES Web site: www.
ses-standards.org.

REGISTER TODAY!
Early Bird Deadline
TM

The Evolution of
Aviation Technology 22 August 2011
AIAA Honors Naval Aviation Pioneers and Pacesetters

11TH AIAA AVIATION TECHNOLOGY, INTEGRATION,

AND OPERATIONS (ATIO) CONFERENCE
11-0336

20–22 September 2011

www.aiaa.org/events/atio 8–11 August 2011
Oregon Convention Center
and the CENTENNIAL OF NAVAL AVIATION FORUM Portland, Oregon

100 Years of Achievement and Progress

21–22 September 2011
www.aiaa.org/events/NAVY2011
Virginia Beach Convention Center
in conjunction with the NAS OCEANA AIR SHOW

11-0349

B10 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

Recognize the achievements of your colleagues by nominating them for an award. Nominations
Check Out How
are now being accepted for the following awards, and must be received at AIAA Headquarters AIAA Membership
no later than 1 July. Works for You!
AIAA members may submit nominations online by logging into www.aiaa.org, “MY AIAA” or
downloading the nomination form from www.aiaa.org.
AIAA Special Benefits and
Children’s Literature Award is presented for an outstanding, significant, and original contri- Money-Saving Opportunities
In addition to supporting your
bution in aeronautics and astronautics. (Presented odd years)
professional requirements, AIAA can
also help with your personal, financial,
Dr. John Ruth Digital Avionics Award is presented to recognize outstanding achievement and health care needs. AIAA has
in technical management and/or implementation of digital avionics in space or aeronautical sys- partnered with various service providers
tems, including system analysis, design, development or application. (Presented odd years) to offer members discounts on home,
health and auto insurance, and travel
Excellence in Aerospace Standardization Award is presented to recognize contributions services. See the savings for yourself!
by individuals that advance the health of the aerospace community by enabling cooperation, Credit Card
competition, and growth through the standardization process. (Presented odd years) The AIAA WorldPoints®
MasterCard Credit Card: The
Faculty Advisor Award is presented to the faculty advisor of a chartered AIAA Student Most Rewarding Card of All.
Branch, who in the opinion of student branch members, and the AIAA Student Activities Earn points and get the rewards you
Committee, has made outstanding contributions as a student branch faculty advisor, as evi- want, “cash, travel, merchandise, and
denced by the record of his/her student branch in local, regional, and national activities. gift certificates,” now with easy online
redemption, too! Only the WorldPoints®
Gardner-Lasser History Literature Award is presented for the best original contribution card gives you the freedom to choose so
to the field of aeronautical or astronautical historical nonfiction literature published in the last much, so easily – and with no annual fee.
five years dealing with the science, technology, and/or impact of aeronautics and astronautics Home and Auto Insurance
on society. Purchase high-quality auto,
home, and renters insurance
History Manuscript Award is presented for the best historical manuscript dealing with the at low group rates.
science, technology, and/or impact or aeronautics and astronautics on society. Group Medical Insurance
Find competitively priced insurance
Lawrence Sperry Award is presented for a notable contribution made by a young person to including: Comprehensive Health Care,
the advancement of aeronautics or astronautics. The nominee must be under 35 years of age Catastrophe Major Medical, Cancer
on 31 December of the year preceding the presentation. Insurance, Disability Insurance, Medicare
Supplement, and Life.
Losey Atmospheric Sciences Award is presented for recognition of outstanding con-
tributions to the atmospheric sciences as applied to the advancement of aeronautics and Long Term Care Insurance
Long Term Care Resources (LTCR), an
astronautics. elite network of LTC Specialists repre-
senting the industry’s leading product
Missile Systems Award providers with unmatched flexibility
The award is presented in two categories. The Technical Award is presented for a significant and carrier options to get the protec-
accomplishment in developing or using technology that is required for missile systems. The tion that is right for you and superior
Management Award is presented for a significant accomplishment in the management of mis- benefits that emphasize customized
sile systems programs. care plans.
Car Rental
Pendray Aerospace Literature Award is presented for an outstanding contribution or con-
Reduce your travel costs with
tributions to aeronautical and astronautical literature in the relatively recent past. The empha- substantial discounts.
sis should be on the high quality or major influence of the piece rather than, for example, the
importance of the underlying technological contribution. The award is an incentive for aero- These extra benefits and money-saving
space professionals to write eloquently and persuasively about their field and should encom- services are just a few more examples
pass editorials as well as papers or books. of how AIAA membership works for
you around the clock, throughout the
Space Processing Award is presented for significant contributions in space processing or year.
in furthering the use of microgravity for space processing. (Presented odd years) For more information about additional
benefits of AIAA membership, contact
Summerfield Book Award is named in honor of Dr. Martin Summerfield, founder and initial Customer Service at:
editor of the Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series of books published by AIAA. The
award is presented to the author of the best book recently published by AIAA. Criteria for the Phone: 800.639.2422
selection include quality and professional acceptance as evidenced by impact on the field, cita- 703.264.7500 (outside the U.S.)
tions, classroom adoptions, and sales. Fax: 703.264.7657
E-mail: custserv@aiaa.org
James Van Allen Space Environments Award is presented to recognize outstanding con-
tributions to space and planetary environment knowledge and interactions as applied to the Or visit the Membership section
advancement of aeronautics and astronautics. The award honors Prof. James A. Van Allen, an of the AIAA Web site
outstanding internationally recognized scientist, who is credited with the early discovery of the www.aiaa.org
Earth’s “Van Allen Radiation Belts.” (Presented even years)
09-0438_1/3

If you need further information, please contact Carol Stewart, Manager, AIAA Honors &
Awards Program, at carols@aiaa.org or at 703.264.7623.

AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B11

New and
Forthcoming Titles
Engineering Computations and Modeling in MATLAB/ Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAVS Design,
Simulink Development and Deployment
Oleg Yakimenko Reg Austin
AIAA Education Series AIAA Education Series
2011, 800 pages, Hardback 2010, 360 pages, Hardback
ISBN: 978-1-60086-781-1 ISBN: 978-1-60086-759-6
AIAA Member Price: $79.95 AIAA Member Price: $94.95
List Price: $104.95 List Price: $124.95

Introduction to Theoretical Aerodynamics and Cooperative Path Planning of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Hydrodynamics Antonios Tsourdos, Brian White, & Madhavan
William Sears Shanmugavel
AIAA Education Series Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 235
2011, 150 pages, Hardback 2010, 216 pages, Hardback
ISBN: 978-1-60086-773-6 ISBN-13:978-1-60086-779-8
AIAA Member Price: $54.95 AIAA Member Price: $94.95
List Price: $69.95 List Price: $124.95

Eleven Seconds into the Unknown: A History of the Multiple Scales Theory and Aerospace Applications
Hyper-X Program Rudrapatna Ramnath
Curtis Peebles AIAA Education Series
Library of Flight 2010, 613 pages, Hardback
2011, 330 pages, Paperback ISBN: 978-1-60086-762-0
ISBN: 978-1-60086-776-7 AIAA Member Price: $74.95
AIAA Member Price: $29.95 List Price: $99.95
List Price: $39.95
Optimal Control Theory with Aerospace Applications
Principles of Flight Simulation Joseph Ben-Asher, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology
David Allerton, University of Sheffield AIAA Education Series
AIAA Education Series 2010, 264 pages, Hardback
2010, 417 pages, Hardback ISBN: 978-1-60086-732-3
ISBN: 978-1-60086-703-3 AIAA Member Price: $69.95
AIAA Member Price: $74.95 List Price: $89.95
List Price: $94.95
Advances in Collaborative Civil Aeronautical
Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
Volume I—Aircraft Design Ernst Kesseler and Marin Guenov, Cranfield University
Leland Nicolai and Grant Carichner Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 233
AIAA Education Series 2010, 438, Hardback
2010, 926 pages, Hardback ISBN: 978-1-60086-725-5
ISBN: 978-1-60086-751-4 AIAA Member Price: $79.95
AIAA Member Price: $89.95 List Price: $109.95
List Price: $119.95
The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering: 9-Volume Set Jack Connors
Richard Blockley and Wei Shyy, University of Michigan Library of Flight
2010, 5500 pages, Hardback 2010, 529 pages, Hardback
ISBN-13: 978-0-470-75440-5 ISBN: 978-1-60086-711-8
AIAA Member Price: $3,375 AIAA Member Price: $39.95
List Price: $3,750 List Price: $49.95

View complete descriptions and order 24 hours a day at www.aiaa.org/new

B12 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

 AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition
Enhancing Today, Inspiring Tomorrow
27–29 September 2011
Long Beach Convention Center
Long Beach, CA

Event Overview
Space has an unmatched ability to inspire mankind. Our fascination with space has led to the discovery of dozens of Earth-like plan-
ets orbiting other suns in our galaxy, enabled the development of global communications that bring the world closer together; led to a
space-based position, navigation, and timing utility that has impacted the lives of billions; and created a new era in human spaceflight.
We are witnessing technologies in the 21st century that could scarcely have been imagined a century ago. Our national space and tech-
nology goals to explore, to educate, to build, and to innovate are not without their challenges. The current economic climate, reduced
budgets, and problems in our educational system require that we bring our best ideas forward to inspire and educate the next genera-
tion in the “STEM” subjects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, so as to preserve and enhance our nation’s scientific
and technological capabilities.
The AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition provides a unique forum that encourages exchange and dialogue. SPACE 2011
brings together scientists, engineers, and key government and industry leaders to discuss the important issues, challenges, business
aspects, and synergies we face as a nation. Together we can explore solutions that will enhance today and inspire tomorrow.
This year’s program focuses on a wide range of important topics, including:
• How can Commercial Space enhance our current space program and what are the current issues and challenges?
• How might the role of National Security Space change with recent international political events?
• What are the latest innovations in robotic exploration technologies?
• What are the recent discoveries in space science and what is the future for space science in this reduced-budget era?
• What are the key technologies required to meet the needs of NASA and the Department of Defense?
• What is the legacy of the Space Shuttle Program and what are the developments in human spaceflight and space exploration?
• How can we better encourage and support education in space-related subjects?
• What are the key technologies required for utilization of extraterrestrial resources?
• How can current operational platforms meet the space needs of today? What opportunities exist for development of new space sys-
tems and sensors?
The conference will also address space colonization and tethers, history, society, policy, logistics, operations, transportation and
launch systems, systems engineering, and space economics.

Special Events 1400–1530 hrs

Plenary Session: NASA Exploration Missions in
Opening Day: Tuesday, 27 September the Next Decade
0800–1000 hrs
Opening Ceremony and Plenary Session: Enhancing Today, 1800–1930 hrs
Inspiring Tomorrow William H. Pickering Lecture: TBD

1230–1430 hrs National Security Space Day: Thursday, 29 September

Keynote Luncheon 0800–0930 hrs
Sponsored by The Boeing Company Plenary Session: Strategic Vision for Space Cyber
Technology Investments
1430–1600 hrs
Plenary Session: Commercial Satellites 1200–1400 hrs
Keynote Luncheon
1830–2000 hrs
Sponsored by Lockheed Martin Corporation
Opening Reception and Poster Session
1400–1530 hrs
Civil Space Day: Wednesday, 28 September Plenary Session: Technical Impact of the National Space
0800–0930 hrs Policy and National Security Space Strategy
Plenary Session: NASA Science Missions in the Next Decade
Young Professional Networking Reception
1200–1400 hrs The AIAA Young Professional Committee is hosting a net-
AIAA Awards Luncheon working reception for early career professionals on Monday, 26
Sponsored by Northrop Grumman Corporation September, 1900–2130 hrs, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach.

AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B13

 Co-Chaired by Tuesday Networking Coffee Breaks Sponsored by
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Stellar Solutions, Inc.
U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center
Wednesday Networking Coffee Breaks Sponsored by
Organized by AIAA United Launch Alliance
Sponsored by General Industry Sponsors
The Boeing Company Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.
Northrop Grumman Corporation Astrium
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Technical Program Co-Chaired by
Attendee Bags Sponsored by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
AIAA Technical Activities Committee (TAC) Space & Missiles Group
Lanyards Sponsored by Space Systems/Loral The Aerospace Corporation

USB Memory Sticks Sponsored by Dynetics, Inc. Supported by California Space Authority
Official Media Sponsors
Aerospace America
Space News

Executive Chairs
Charles Elachi Jeff Grant
Director Vice President and General Manager, Space Systems Division
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Lt Gen (S) Ellen Pawlikowski
Commander Joanne Maguire
U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center Executive Vice President
Roger Krone Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company
President, Boeing Network and Space Systems Lockheed Martin Corporation
Boeing Defense, Space, and Security
The Boeing Company
General Chairs
Jeff Trauberman Alison Schneider David Zabalaoui
The Boeing Company The Boeing Company Northrop Grumman Corporation
Teresa Segura John Jacobson
Northrop Grumman Corporation Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company

Technical Program Chairs

Jeffery Puschell Donna Speckman
Raytheon Company The Aerospace Corporation
Program Committee
Grant Aufderhaar Mary Jo Higgason
The Aerospace Corporation Lockheed Martin Corporation

Joe Betser Elaine Knauf

The Aerospace Corporation Northrop Grumman Corporation
Rick Ohlemacher
Roberta Ewart
Northrop Grumman Corporation
U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center
Virendra Sarohia
Pamela Falls NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Jeanette Smith
Allan Frew Northrop Grumman Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Trevor Sorensen
Carol Hail University of Hawaii at Manoa
Lockheed Martin Corporation AIAA TAC Space & Missiles Group Director

Thank You to Our Sponsors and Supporters

AIAA would like to thank NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, The Boeing Company,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Space Systems/Loral, Dynetics, Inc., Stellar
Solutions, Inc., United Launch Alliance, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., Astrium, the AIAA Technical Activities Committee (TAC) Space
& Missiles Group, The Aerospace Corporation, the California Space Authority, Aerospace America, and Space News for their dedication
and support of the 2011 Conference.

B14 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

This is a great opportunity for space professionals age 35 and
under to meet and make new contacts. Join the AIAA Young
Professional Committee for food, drinks, and relaxed socializing.
Young Professionals Program: Optimize Your
Engineering Career from the Start
Tuesday, 27 September, 1700–1800 hrs
You’re studying engineering at college or a newly gradu-
ated engineer ready to give it your all, but you have way more
questions than answers. You’re not interested in war stories or
another speech about “back in the day,” but you are looking to
a respected colleague for advice presented in such a way that
you can take action. You’re looking for a mentor who is close
enough in age to be connected to you, but who’s senior enough
to have demonstrated success in the past by practicing what
they preach. You’re looking for guidance that speaks to the chal-
lenges you face—in entering the workforce, in making sense
of engineering, and understanding what it takes to get ahead.
Young Engineer of the Year Reece Lumsden offers frank guid-
ance on navigating the early years of your engineering career
through a combination of personal accounts and meticulously
researched facts.
Networking Coffee Breaks
Networking coffee breaks for all attendees will take place in
the exhibit hall. Times are designated in the program. Coffee
and other beverages will be served.
Luncheons
Luncheons with keynote addresses will be held Tuesday–
Thursday, 27–29 September, in Exhibit Hall A at the Long
Beach Convention Center. The cost is included in the registra-
tion fee where indicated. Additional tickets may be purchased
upon registration or at the on-site registration desk.
Opening Reception and Poster Session
The opening reception and poster session will be held
Tuesday, 27 September, 1830–2000 hrs, in the exhibit hall.
The cost is included in the registration fee where indicated.
Additional tickets may be purchased upon registration or at the
on-site registration desk.
Poster Session
The conference technical program committee has organized
special poster sessions to highlight high-quality technical pre-
sentations. All poster sessions will be held in the exhibit hall
during the opening reception on Tuesday evening and during
the networking coffee breaks on Wednesday and Thursday. All
poster session papers are included in the conference proceed-
ings. Session times are indicated in the program.
Awards Presentation
The following AIAA awards are scheduled to be presented at
the AIAA Awards Luncheon on Wednesday, 28 September:
• AIAA Space Automation and Robotics Award
• AIAA Space Operations and Support Award
• AIAA Space Systems Award
• AIAA von Braun Space Program Management Award
• AIAA Sustained Service Award
Exhibits
The 2011 exposition will include exhibits from industry, gov-
ernment, and academic organizations in the space industry.
Networking coffee breaks and a reception are held in the exhibit
hall to give exhibitors even more exposure to the conference
attendees. Exhibit hours are as follows:
Tuesday, 27 September 0930–1630 hrs
Reception 1830–2000 hrs
Wednesday, 28 September 0930–1600 hrs
Thursday, 29 September 0930–1400 hrs
Attention Exhibitors: Exhibit space is still available at the
AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition, AIAA’s premier
event for engineering and management professionals focused
on space technologies, systems, programs, and policy. The
2010 conference had 1,100 attendees from more than 100 orga-
nizations in the space industry. To reserve your exhibit space
today, contact Fernanda Swan, AIAA Exhibit Sales Manager, at
703.264.7622 or 800.739.4422, or fernandas@aiaa.org.
Education Alley
27–29 September, 0900–1330 hrs
Education Alley comes to SPACE 2011, giving students and
teachers a sensational opportunity to learn more about space.
Each day will open with a NASA Live event, featuring programs
from various NASA facilities around the country. K–12 students
will attend presentations, view exhibits, and talk with engineers
about why they became part of this exciting industry. Supported
by the AIAA STEM K–12 Committee, Education Alley will feature
displays from invited organizations such as NASA, the U.S. Air
Force, and NOAA, as well as from the aerospace industry, and
will include special sessions and hands-on demonstrations to
interest students in the opportunities the space program could
provide for them in the future. Sponsors of this year’s Education
Alley are Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, Raytheon Company, The
Aerospace Corporation, Wyle, and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne.
Cyber Café
Computers with complimentary Internet access for conference
attendees will be available at the AIAA Cyber Café, located in
the exhibit hall. Hours of operation are as follows:
Tuesday, 27 September 0700–1700 hrs
Wednesday, 28 September 0700–1700 hrs
Thursday, 29 September 0700–1400 hrs
Accompanying Persons Program
Accompanying persons are invited to meet on Tuesday, 27
September, at 1000 hrs, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach.
Information about local attractions, activities, tours, shows, and
restaurants will be available. Coffee and tea will be served.
Conference Proceedings
Proceedings for this conference will be available in an online
format. The cost is included in the registration fee where indicat-
ed. The online proceedings will be available on 19 September
2011. Attendees who register in advance for the online proceed-
ings will be provided with instructions on how to access them.
Those registering onsite will be provided with instructions at
that time.
Pre-Conference Book Sale—15% Off for Conference
Attendees
Conference attendees can save 15% on any books when
placing their orders prior to the conference using the promo code
SPACE2011 upon checkout. Orders must be placed via AIAA’s
Web site between 26 August and 29 September 2011 to take
advantage of this special offer.
Registration Information
AIAA is committed to sponsoring world-class conferences
on current technical issues in a safe and secure environment.
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B15
As such, all delegates will be required to provide proper iden- Option 7: Discounted Group Rate
tification prior to receiving a conference badge and associated $801 per person $801 per person N/A
materials. All delegates must provide a valid photo ID (driver’s 10% discount off AIAA member rate for 10 or more persons from
license or passport) when they check in. For student registra- the same organization who register and pay at the same time
tions, a valid student ID is also required. We thank you for your with a single form of payment. Includes sessions, all catered
cooperation. events, and single-user access to online proceedings. A com-
All participants are urged to register online at www.aiaa. plete typed list of registrants, along with completed individual
org/events/space. Registering in advance saves conference registration forms and a single payment, must be received by the
attendees up to $200. A check made payable to AIAA or credit preregistration deadline of 22 September 2011.
card information must be included with your registration form.
A PDF registration form is also available on the AIAA Web site. Option 8: Professional Development Courses
Print, complete, and mail or fax the form with payment to AIAA. (Includes FREE Conference Registration for Sessions Only)
Address information is provided. By 19 Aug 20 Aug–16 Sep On-Site
Early-bird registration forms must be received by 29 August AIAA Member $995 $1195 $1345
2011, and standard registration forms will be accepted until 25 Nonmember $1145 $1345 $1495
September 2011. Preregistrants may pick up their materials at Includes sessions only. Food function tickets and proceedings
the advance registration desk at the conference. All those not may be purchased separately.
registered by 25 September 2011 may do so at the on-site reg-
istration desk. Extra Tickets
Cancellations must be in writing and received no later than 12 Tuesday Luncheon $40
September 2011. There is a $100 cancellation fee. Registrants Wednesday Luncheon $40
who cancel beyond this date or fail to attend the conference will Thursday Luncheon $40
forfeit the entire fee. For questions, please contact Lynne David Tuesday Reception $75
at 703.264.7503 or lynned@aiaa.org. Extra Online Proceedings $170
Registration fees are as follows:
On-Site Registration Hours
Early Bird Standard On-Site On-site registration will be held on the Anaheim Convention
By 29 Aug 30 Aug–25 Sep On-Site Center as follows:

Option 1: Full Conference with Online Proceedings Sunday, 25 September (courses only) 0730–1700 hrs
AIAA Member/ Monday, 26 September 1500–1900 hrs
Government $890 $990 $1090 Tuesday, 27 September 0700–1700 hrs
Nonmember $1045 $1145 $1245 Wednesday, 28 September 0700–1700 hrs
Includes sessions and exhibits, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 29 September 0700–1700 hrs
Thursday luncheons, Tuesday reception, and single-user access
to online proceedings. Meeting Site
AIAA SPACE 2011 returns to Long Beach. All conference
Option 2: Full-Time Undergraduate Student sessions, exhibits, and special events (unless otherwise indi-
AIAA Member $20 $30 $40 cated) will be held at the Long Beach Convention Center.
Nonmember $50 $60 $70 Long Beach is a vibrant city by the sea, centrally located to all
Includes sessions and exhibits only. Students may purchase Southern California attractions. It is blessed with miles of spar-
food function tickets separately or select the Student Ticket kling Pacific Ocean coastline and temperate climate year-round.
Package when registering online. Visit the Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific, dine at the restau-
rants along Pine Avenue, and shop in the charming waterfront
Option 3: Full-Time Undergraduate Student with Tickets Shoreline Village. For more information, visit the Long Beach
AIAA Member $215 $225 $235 Area Convention and Visitors Bureau Web site at www.visit-
Nonmember $245 $255 $265 longbeach.com.
Includes sessions and exhibits, Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday luncheons, and Tuesday reception. Hotel Reservations
AIAA has arranged for a block of rooms at the Hyatt Regency
Option 4: Full-Time Graduate or Ph.D. Student Long Beach, 200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802.
AIAA Member $60 $70 $80 Rooms are being held at the conference rate of $189 single,
Nonmember $90 $100 $110 $214 double occupancy, plus applicable taxes. For reserva-
Includes sessions and exhibits only. Students may purchase tions, please contact 1.800.233.1234 or go to https://resweb.
food function tickets separately or select the Student Ticket passkey.com/go/AIAA2011LB. Rooms will be held until 6
Package when registering online. September 2011 or until the block is full.
Federal Government Employees—A portion of the room block
Option 5: Full-Time Graduate or Ph.D. Student with Tickets has been arranged at the federal government per diem. You
AIAA Member $255 $265 $275 must be a federal government employee and present your fed-
Nonmember $285 $295 $305 eral government I.D. upon check-in to receive this rate. To book
Includes sessions and exhibits, Tuesday, Wednesday, and your room at this rate, please visit https://resweb.passkey.
Thursday luncheons, and Tuesday reception. com/go/AIAA2011LBgov (Pass code: AIAGOV0911).

Option 6: Full-Time Retired AIAA Member Only Help Keep Our Expenses Down (And Yours Too!)
AIAA Member $40 $50 $60 AIAA group rates for hotel accommodations are negotiated as
Includes sessions and exhibits, Tuesday, Wednesday, and part of an overall contract that also includes meeting rooms and
Thursday luncheons, and Tuesday reception. other conference needs. Our total event costs are based in part

B16 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

on meeting or exceeding our guaranteed minimum of group-rate
hotel rooms booked by conference participants. If we fall short,
our other event costs go up. Please help us keep the costs of
presenting this conference as low as possible—reserve your
room at the designated hotel listed in this Preliminary Program
and on our Web site, and be sure to mention that you’re with the
AIAA conference. Meeting our guaranteed minimum helps us
hold the line on costs, and that helps us keep registration fees
as low as possible. All of us at AIAA thank you for your help!
Car Rental
Hertz Car Rental Company saves members up to 15% on
car rentals. The discounts are available at all participating Hertz
locations in the United States, Canada, and where possible,
internationally. For worldwide reservations, call your travel
agent or Hertz directly at 800.654.2200 (U.S.) or 800.263.0600
(Canada). Mention the AIAA members savings CDP #066135 or
visit www.hertz.com. Don’t forget to include the CDP number.
“No Paper, No Podium” and “No Podium, No Paper”
Policies
If a written paper is not submitted by the final manuscript
deadline, authors will not be permitted to present the paper at
the conference. Also, if the paper is not presented at the confer-
ence, it will be withdrawn from the conference proceedings. It
is the responsibility of those authors whose papers or presenta-
tions are accepted to ensure that a representative attends the
conference to present the paper. These policies are intended to
improve the quality of the conference for attendees.
Certificate of Attendance
Certificates of Attendance are available for attendees who
request documentation at the conference itself. Please request
your copy at the on-site registration desk. AIAA offers this ser-
vice to better serve the needs of the professional community.
Claims of hours or applicability toward professional education
requirements are the responsibility of the participant.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
AIAA speakers and attendees are reminded that some top-
ics discussed in the conference could be controlled by the
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
responsible for ensuring that they do not discuss ITAR export-
restricted information with non-U.S. nationals in attendance.

Professional Development Courses

In today’s highly competitive marketplace, you need every advantage to stay on top! Let AIAA Professional Development pave the
way to your future and continuing success! As the premier association representing professionals in aeronautics and astronautics,
AIAA has been a conduit for furthering professional development for more than sixty years. AIAA is committed to keeping the aero-
space professional at their technical best. AIAA offers the best instructors and courses to meet the professional’s career needs.
Three short courses will be offered in conjunction with the AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition. They will be held 25–26
September 2011 at the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, CA, on the two days prior to the conference. Registration
for a short course includes admittance to the AIAA SPACE 2011 technical sessions and exhibits. Tickets for the reception, lun-
cheons, online proceedings, and other specific conference-related functions must be purchased separately.
Please note that course materials will not be distributed onsite. AIAA and your course instructor highly recommend that you bring
your computer with the course notes already downloaded. Once you have registered for the course, the course notes will be avail-
able about two weeks prior to the course event, and remain available to you in perpetuity.
For detailed information on these courses, visit the AIAA Web site at www.aiaa.org.
Introduction to Space Systems (Instructor: Michael Gruntman)
This course provides an introduction to the concepts and technologies of modern space systems. Space systems combine engi-
neering, science, and external phenomena. We concentrate on scientific and engineering foundations of spacecraft systems and
interactions among various subsystems. These fundamentals of subsystem technologies provide an indispensable basis for system
engineering. The basic nomenclature, vocabulary, and concepts will make it possible to converse with understanding with subsys-
tem specialists. This introductory course is designed for engineers and managers—of diverse background and varying levels of
experience—who are involved in planning, designing, building, launching, and operating space systems and spacecraft subsystems
and components. The course will facilitate integration of engineers and managers new to the space field into space-related projects.
The Space Environment for Spacecraft Design (Instructor: Alan Tribble)
This course is designed to provide an introduction to the subject of spacecraft-environment interactions, also known as space
environments and effects or space weather effects. The course addresses each of the major environments: vacuum, neutral,
plasma, radiation, and micrometeoroid/orbital debris. In each section, the basic physics behind the environment is reviewed, but the
emphasis is on quantifying the magnitude of the various interactions and identifying mitigation techniques and design guidelines.
This course would be of interest to spacecraft designers and operators, payload providers, space scientists, and anyone having an
interest in the space environment and its effects.
Systems Engineering Validation and Verification (Instructor: John Hsu)
This course focuses on the verification and validation aspect that is the beginning, from the validation point-of-view, and the final
part of the systems engineering task for a program/project. It will clarify the confusing use of verification and validation. Familiarize
yourself with validating requirements and generating verification requirements. Start with the verification and validation plans and then
learn how to choose the best verification method and approach. The course will go over the concepts and importance of test and
evaluation while reviewing simulation and modeling. This is all part of systems engineering validation and verification requirements.
Follow AIAA Professional Development on Twitter—@AIAACourses

AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B17

 Sessions at a Glance
Commercial Space (CS) Poster Session: Space Operations I, II, III
Commercial Crew Development Space Exploration Operations
Commercial Space Market Analysis Space Operations Missions
Human Body in Space: Astronaut Perspective Space Operations Technology
Poster Session: Commercial Space
Satellite and Space Exploration Design Considerations Space Resources (SR)
In-situ Resource Processing
National Security Space (MIL) Resource Exploration and Planning
Advanced Concepts Surface Mobility, Excavation, and Sampling
Emerging Trends
Enterprise Architecting Space Systems and Sensors (SYS)
Poster Session: National Security Space Adaptive and Resilient Space Systems
Prototypes and Demonstrations CubeSAT Technologies and Fractionated Spacecraft Architectures
Science and Technology Innovation Poster Session: Space Systems and Sensors I (Space and
System Acquisition Ground Systems Lessons Learned)
Technology Transition Poster Session: Space Systems and Sensors II
(AOCS, Comm, and Architectures)
Robotic Technology and Space Architecture (RSA) Poster Session: Space Systems and Sensors III
Habitation and Infrastructure Space Systems and Sensor Technologies I and II
Envisioning Mid-21st-Century Space Habitation Designs Space Systems Technologies Lessons Learned
Planetary Surface Robotics Spacecraft Communications and Architecture
Poster Session: Robotic Technology and Space Architecture
Space Architecture: Modular Design and Interfaces Space Systems Engineering and Space Economics (SSEE)
Space Robotics Cost and Risk Trade-Offs for Space Systems
What Can Robotics Learn from Biology? Evolution of Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Teams
Poster Session: Space Systems Engineering and Space Economics I
Space and Earth Science (SPSC) (Space System Engineering Design and Analysis)
NASA Technology Thrusts Poster Session: Space Systems Engineering and Space Economics
New Directions in Astronomy II (Space System Engineering Design and Education)
Operational Remote Sensing Programs Space Systems Engineering Tradespace in a Constrained
Research Programs Budget Environment
Upcoming Earth Science Missions Systems Modeling and Simulation
Technical Direction in Systems Engineering
Space Colonization and Space Tethers (COL) Tradespace Exploration and Program Decisions
Access to Space: Infrastructure, Policy, Workforce
Design Strategies for Long Duration Exploration and Colonization Space Transportation and Launch Systems (ST)
Poster Session: Space Colonization and Space Tethers Commercial Space Transportation Systems
Space Tether Missions and Technologies COTS, CRS, CCDev, and CCT
Current Launch Vehicle Update
Space Exploration (EXPL) Design Considerations for a Reusable Booster
Advanced Exploration Concepts Heavy Lift Launch Systems
Entry, Descent, and Landing Systems for Exploration In-Space Propellant Depots
High-Power Electric Propulsion for Exploration Poster Session: Space Transporation and Launch Systems
Human Exploration Beyond Earth Orbit Reusable Booster Configuration Trade Space
Life Support Habitation Systems Reusable Booster Trajectories and Flight Testing
Modeling and Simulation for Exploration Missions Reusable Launch Vehicle Programs and Spaceports
NASA’s Exploration Programs Space Launch System Concepts
Poster Session: Space Exploration Space Transportation Advanced Technologies
Robotic Precursor Exploration Space Transportation Propulsion Systems
Surface Exploration Systems Space Transportation Safety Systems
Thermal Management Systems for Exploration Spaceports and Ranges
Transportation Systems for Human Exploration
Success Legacy of the Space Shuttle Program (SSP)
Space History, Society, and Policy (HS) The Big Picture
Coping with Space Law and Policy I and II Flying the Vehicle
Delta Forum: Averting Disaster on Earth Using Space Technology Attention to Detail
International Cooperation STS Elements
Poster Session: Space History, Society, and Policy Living Abroad
Space and Society The Living Legacy
Space History Poster Session: Success Legacy of the Space Shuttle
Program I, II, III
Space Logistics (SL)
Cis-Lunar Resource Infrastructure for Flexible Path and Joint Session
Space Commerce Cis-Lunar Resource Infrastructure: A Game Changing
Life Cycle Supportability and Affordability Approach (SL/SR)
Space Logistics and Supportability Technology Space Entrepreneurs (CS/ST)
Space Logistics Modeling and Analysis

Space Operations (OPS) For the full conference program, including all paper titles, authors, and
Future Satellite Operations panel speakers, visit www.aiaa.org/events/space.
Improving Space Operations

B18 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011


AIAA Strategic and Tactical Missile Systems
Conference
AIAA Missile Sciences Conference
SECRET/U.S. ONLY
24–26 January 2012
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California
Abstract Deadline: 30 June 2011
Event Overview
Two classified AIAA conferences—the AIAA Strategic and
Tactical Missile Systems Conference and AIAA Missile Sciences
Conference—will combine in January 2012 to provide one major
event for the missiles systems community.
The AIAA Strategic and Tactical Missile Systems Conference
and the AIAA Missile Sciences Conference are long-standing
AIAA conferences serving the weapons community. These
conferences will be collocated as a single event for the first
time in 2012 providing a forum for the exchange of information
on a larger scale than was possible at separate events. The
combined event will feature both programmatic and technical
information while fostering a beneficial networking opportunity.
Material presented and attendance allowed at the event will be
at the SECRET/U.S. ONLY clearance level. All attendees and
speakers must have a SECRET clearance in order to participate.
The AIAA Strategic and Tactical Missile Systems Conference
offers an excellent opportunity to hear senior Department of
Defense officials and other noted authorities from the strategic
and tactical missiles community speak about the issues and
challenges that face the United States. Past program topics have
included national defense strategy, defense acquisition, missile
programs, homeland security, missile defense, research and
development, and the industrial base.
The AIAA Missile Sciences Conference provides a forum
for the presentation and discussion of classified and unclassi-
fied technical material related to missile system and subsystem
technologies. The program addresses an array of topics includ-
ing Air Force and Navy strategic missiles, tactical air-to-surface,
surface-to-surface, anti-air missile systems, missile defense
systems, targets and countermeasures, cruise missile defense,
interceptors, weapon system effectiveness, hardware-in-the-loop
testing of smart weapons, mission planning, mission assurance,
system safety and insensitive munitions, and innovative tech-
nologies and concepts.
Technical Topics for Call for Papers
Air Force Strategic Missiles
Technical papers are solicited for a session focusing on the
role of science and technology in modernization and sustain-
ment of the Minuteman III weapon system and in technology
development and test of a strategic convention strike capabil-
ity. Challenges include lowering the future cost of ownership;
increasing safety, security, and reliability; opportunities and
means for common design approaches for solid rocket motors;
common missile electronics functional architectures; and lever-
aging commercial markets for solid-state electronic guidance
and control sensors to meet the unique strategic requirements.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
• Science and technology applications directed toward life
extension of aging systems, as well as cost-effective replace-
ment of obsolete technology
• Technology and hardware modification in improving weapon
system effectiveness and fuzing accuracy
• Critical science, technology, and development capabilities
threatened by reduced strategic investments that are being or
could be sustained via broadened applications or innovative
program approaches
• Subsystem technology advancements, including:
– Diagnostics
– Thermal protection materials
– Innovative flight data gathering and impact point identification
– Sensors
– Control systems
– Guidance systems
– Propulsion
– Material and structures
– Software upgrade and modernization
• Advanced test and evaluation (T&E) and modeling and simu-
lation (M&S) techniques for application to both missile booster
and reentry systems
• Innovative reuse of decommissioned strategic missile assets
for new and/or lower cost applications
• Missile and reentry systems technology topics of interest
to the general area of Conventional Prompt Global Strike
technologies
Navy Strategic Missiles
The major challenges for Navy Strategic Weapon Systems
(SWS) science and technology research and development are
to lower the life cycle costs of existing or modernized systems;
extend the operational service lifetimes of present operational
systems; develop affordable replacement systems, subsystems,
and/or components using COTS solutions wherever possible;
and sustain critical skills, capabilities, and expertise in unique
areas necessary for the design, development, and in-service
support of current or modernized systems. Requirements for an
adaptive deterrent may include the ability to threaten or destroy
a wide spectrum of targets with either nuclear or conventional
payloads. Technical papers are solicited for engineering, sci-
entific, and technology developments applicable to Submarine
Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) and Navy SWS. Technology
areas of particular interest include, but are not limited to:
• Boost propulsion
• Post-boost propulsion and control systems
• Launchers
• Conventional warhead reentry body technology
• Ordnance (conventional and nuclear) and fuzing
• Submarine navigation
• Guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) for missile and
payload
• Reentry body deployment
• Underwater launch systems
• Radiation hardening
• Modeling and simulation
• Testing and analysis
• Aging and surveillance
• Accuracy and lethality
• Materials and structures
• Antennas and antenna windows
• Terminal and en route sensors
• Telemetry, range safety, and flight termination systems
• Command and control, mission planning
• Nuclear weapons security
Papers may address new SWS concepts, systems, subsys-
tems, or components. Preference will be given to papers that
describe results of recent experiments and demonstrations or that
are supported by modeling and simulation. Generalized systems
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B19
papers that do not concentrate on specific elements of engineer-
ing, science, or technology are not suited for this session.
Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles
Papers are solicited on advances in the research, develop-
ment, test, and evaluation of Joint, Army, Navy, and Air Force
tactical air-to-surface missiles. Papers may address components
or systems. Subjects of particular interest include, but are not
limited to:
• Weapon effectiveness, lessons learned, and use assessment
from the recent conflicts
• Technologies applicable to internal and external carriage
• Technologies that have potential for increased mission
flexibility
• Advanced target acquisition capabilities, including autono-
mous, adverse weather, and all-aspect target acquisition
• State-of-the-art and advanced terminal sensors (laser, imag-
ing IR, MMW, multimode, GPS, inertial)
• Advanced GN&C technology, including midcourse sensors,
sensor fusion and estimation algorithms, guidance laws, and
autopilots
• Missile integration with launch platforms
• Simulation, test, and evaluation of missile/weapon system per-
formance and effectiveness
• Advances in warheads and kill mechanisms
• Low-cost design, development, and manufacturing techniques
and strategies
• Advanced airframe structures and materials
• Advanced solid, air breathing, and/or hybrid/hypersonic pro-
pulsion subsystems and components
• Simulation, test, and evaluation of missile/weapon system per-
formance and effectiveness
Tactical Surface-to-Surface Missiles
Papers are solicited for a joint, inter-service session on
tactical surface-to-surface missile systems, including ground-,
ship-, and submarine-launched tactical strike and land combat
weapons ranging from guided projectiles to cruise missiles. This
session is intended to bring together technology developers and
customers of all types to share not only new technology devel-
opments and results from analysis, simulation, and testing, but
also operational lessons learned. Papers may address systems,
subsystems, components, software, or algorithms. Subjects of
particular interest include, but are not limited to:
• Advanced target acquisition capabilities, including autono-
mous, adverse weather, and all-aspect target acquisition
(ATA, ATR, AiTR)
• Advanced and controllable propulsion
• Advanced GN&C technologies, including midcourse sensors,
fusion and estimation algorithms, guidance laws, and autopilots
• State-of-the-art and advanced terminal sensors and seekers
(laser, imaging IR, MMW, multi-mode, GPS, inertial)
• Control actuation subsystems (thrust vectoring, jet reaction
control, and aerodynamic control systems)
• System- and subsystem-level insensitive munitions
• Simulation, test, and evaluation of system performance and
effectiveness
• Advanced ordnance systems, warheads (including hard target
penetrators), other lethal or non-lethal effects mechanisms,
fuzes, and components
• Low-cost design, manufacturing, and packaging techniques
for systems and subsystems
• Technologies for improved reliability and maintainability, such
as embedded diagnostics and prognostics
• Advanced airframe structures and materials
• Advanced power generation and distribution concept
B20 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011
Organized by AIAA
Supported by Raytheon Company
Tactical Anti-Air Missile Systems
Papers are solicited on technical issues in the field of tactical
anti-air (air-to-air or surface-to-air) missile system capabilities,
particular interest are advanced technologies for new and exist-
ing systems to produce tactical anti-air missile systems that are
more capable, reliable, lower cost, and easier to use, maintain,
transport, and deploy. Papers may address one or more of the
following: component or system design and development, analy-
sis and evaluation, simulation, and testing. Subjects of particular
interest include, but are not limited to:
• System integration
• Missile integration with launch platforms
• State-of-the-art and advanced sensors (laser imaging IR,
MMW, multi-mode, GPS, inertial)
• GN&C of missiles or missile subsystems, including seeker
controls, guidance techniques, missile navigation, and actua-
tor controls
• Controllable propulsion systems (including air-breathing,
pulse, pintle, and gel)
• Missile TVC, jet reaction, and aerodynamic control systems
• System- and subsystem-level insensitive munitions
• Simulation, test, and evaluation of missile/weapon system
performance and effectiveness
• Low-cost design and manufacturing techniques and strategies
• Advanced airframe structures and materials, including com-
posite technologies
• Advances in ordnance systems, warheads, fuzes, and
components
Missile Defense Systems
Technical papers are solicited on advances applicable to
missile defense systems. Papers are desired that summarize
progress on missile defense programs and/or missile defense
subsystems or technologies that increase the effectiveness of
missile defenses. Papers addressing the new Ascent Phase
region of the BMDS are especially encouraged to submit papers
discussing integration and CONOPS. Papers that address the
engineering and development (to include T&E) process for a
system or subsystem are also desired. The engineering and
development process includes the identification of and tracing
of requirements to system components, the assessment and
mitigation of risks, the use of Modeling and Simulation (M&S)
and ground testing to reduce risks, and finally, live flight test-
ing to demonstrate system performance and validation of M&S.
Subjects of particular interest are:
• Development and integration of technologies that enhance
missile defense development
• Demonstration of new technologies or mechanisms that
improve interceptor lethality or survivability
• Planning for and conduct of demonstrations/testing
• Strategies for integration and mitigation of risk
• Demonstration and uses of new M&S software tools (including
significant upgrades in capabilities to older software tools)
• Data collection and analysis to validate M&S
• Uses of ground test facilities to reduce risk and demonstrate
flight readiness
• Integration of ground test facilities, M&S, and flight testing to
explore the entire system performance envelope
 Missile Defense Targets and Countermeasures
Technical papers are solicited for a session addressing mis-
sile targets and countermeasures required to support elements
of the BMDS. Technical papers should address design, prototyp-
ing, development, product improvement, and testing of targets
and countermeasures that provide threat-realistic challenges to
the evolving layered missile defense system. Papers of interest
include, but are not limited to:
• Reentry vehicles
• Short-, medium-, and long-range solid and liquid missile deliv-
ery vehicles
• Liquid missile systems with tunable plume signatures
• Counter-measure and counter-counter-measure presentation
techniques and objects
• IR and radar signatures and presentation techniques
• Onboard and flyaway sensor packages
• Target models and simulations
• Mobile land-, air-, and sea-launch concepts and platforms
• Range safety and telemetry advances
Missile Defense Interceptor Technologies
Technical papers are solicited on the innovative and
advanced technologies applicable to missile defense intercep-
tors. Innovative designs and technologies that offer significant
performance enhancements or significant cost reductions over
baseline missile interceptor systems or subsystems are encour-
aged. Emphasis is on creative application and integration of con-
cepts that incorporate either all new technologies or a mix of old
and new technologies in innovative combinations that may offer
large performance payoffs. It is desired that the paper be data
rich and be technical in nature rather than provide programmatic
summaries. Subjects of particular interest include:
• Insertion of Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR),
Manufacturing Technology (MANTECH), and other efforts into
baseline programs
• Evolutionary or revolutionary technologies
• Advanced interceptor concepts
• Propulsion, advanced structures, technologies
• Control system/guidance system
• Advanced test and evaluation applicable to interceptors
• Modeling and simulation techniques for interceptors
• Thermal protection for high-speed interceptors
Weapon System Effectiveness
The effectiveness of a weapon system and its elements is
determined by the interplay of all system components, as well as
by nonperformance parameters such as funding limitations and
operational policy. System effectiveness optimization requires
consideration and tradeoff among all these variables. Technical
papers are solicited for a session focusing on advancements in
technologies for predicting, measuring, evaluating, and improv-
ing weapon system effectiveness. Papers may address one or
more of the following: concept development, analysis and evalu-
ation, simulation, and testing. Papers are particularly desirable
that address factors that contribute to end-game effectiveness of
weapon systems, including, but not limited to:
• Lethality
• Aimpoint selection
• Fratricide/identification
• Battle damage assessment and evaluation
• Collateral damage, including post-engagement and ground
effects
• Guidance, navigation, and control
• Target identification including discrimination
• Capabilities against countermeasures
• Target vulnerability
• Target response
• Weapon-target interaction
• Assessment methodologies
Innovative Technologies and Concepts
Papers are solicited that describe the development or appli-
cation of innovative technologies and systems concepts for
advanced missiles and unmanned air vehicles. Innovative mis-
sile technologies and concepts relevant to missiles for tactical
and strategic strike, air and missile defense, air superiority and
advanced target applications are of interest. Papers are sought
on novel technologies in the following areas:
• Guidance, navigation, and control
• Enhanced maneuverability
• Affordability
• Drag reduction
• Advanced air-breathing or rocket propulsion
• Advanced materials
• Advanced seekers
• Modeling and simulation
• Improved accuracy in a GPS jamming environment
• Advanced warhead and payload technologies
• Miniaturization
• Innovative design and application of UAV
• UCAV capabilities, including cooperative autonomy
Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing of Smart Weapons
This session will address the broad spectrum of hardware-in-
the-loop (HWIL) testing of smart weapons with emphasis on the
integration of new test technologies and the associated meth-
odologies pertinent to HWIL simulation. Suggested topics for
presentation include:
• Facilities
– Technology needs, ongoing research efforts, and verifica-
tion/validation of new technologies/techniques
• Infrared projectors
– Recent advances in plasma display and 2-D LED (MWIR
and LWIR) devices, high temperature materials, device archi-
tecture, fabrication processes
– Characterization of ongoing technologies
– Ultimate temperature resolution capability—achieving the
10mK “holy grail”
– Test requirements: spatial sampling, radiometric and tempo-
ral fidelity, dual color, cold background, noise resolution
– Non-uniformity data collection, real-time implementation
• Cold chamber HWIL
– Chamber designs, capabilities, concept of operations, cur-
rent and projected uses, challenges, and lessons learned
• LADAR scene generation and projection
– LADAR simulation requirements, implementation solu-
tions, and research/characterization efforts into the enabling
technologies
– LADAR simulation/stimulation requirements
– Phenomenology modeling, digital rendering, and photon
generation technologies
– Validation with field measurements
• Flight motion simulation systems
– Design & implementation of unique flight table configurations
– Advancements in gimbal materials, hydraulic actuators,
electric motor materials
– Current state of the art in flight table design
– Advancements in controller design
– Meeting higher bandwidth requirements
– Challenges of complex target gimbal implementations
– Specifying performance for the application
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B21
• Scene-generation technologies
– Development/feasibility of low-cost PC scene generators
– User needs, development activities, challenges
– Real-time modeling and rendering of synthetic targets/back-
grounds: image projection, signal injection
– LADAR image generation and presentation for real-time HWIL
• Test bed examples/techniques
– Verification and validation of synthetic environments and
HWIL simulations with mission/test data
– Implementation of multi-mode
– MMW/RF/IR HWIL simulations
– Innovative solutions for real-time sensor, structural, aero-
thermal, aero-optical effects modeling
– Real-time high-fidelity control system and vehicle interaction
modeling
Mission Planning
Effective use of modern precision-guided weapons requires
timely use of sensor information, accurate and flexible mission
planning, and responsive strike coordination. Papers are solic-
ited on technical accomplishments that provide more automated
and simplified—but still accurate and timely—planning for mis-
siles. Technology areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
• System architecture and system performance advances
– Advanced system architectures, processing hardware, and
software techniques
– Graphical user interfaces/human factors
– Visualization
– System integration
– Data requirements
• Mission planning support
– Information generation and distribution
– Targeting
– Geopositioning database exploitation tools
– Coordinate visualization
– Geospatial intelligence (i.e., mapping, charting, and geodesy)
– Weather
– Intelligence
– Database management
– Exploitation of commercial data
– Exploitation of commercial applications
• Advances in modeling techniques
– Weaponeering/targeteering
– Vehicle performance simulation
– Sensor performance modeling, collection management,
prediction
– Data requirements
• Strike planning and execution
– Next-generation weapon data link communications
– Strike planning tools
– Strike execution and redirection tools
– Terminal area modeling and planning, coordinate extraction
– Target area strike coordination
– Joint target information system concepts
Mission Assurance
The term “mission assurance” has been used in industry to
describe a no-doubts approach to missile development and
deployment. It combines the disciplined application of system
engineering, risk management, quality, and management prin-
ciples, as well as independent assessment at key program
gates to maximize the probability of success during the develop-
ment and deployment. Within the industry, mission assurance
approaches vary, but focus on the same result: customer suc-
cess. Mission assurance is a common thread that ties together
B22 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011
different disciplines into a common philosophy utilized through-
out the development, manufacturing, and deployment of missile
systems. Papers are solicited that describe implementation and
results of the application of mission assurance philosophies
throughout the missile industry. Subjects of interest include, but
are not limited to:
• Implementation of built-in test (BIT) technologies
• Assessments of technology readiness
• Innovative manufacturing and test technologies
• Assessments of reliability and system safety
• Identification and management of system key characteristics
• Implementation of modular designs
• Simulation and modeling techniques
• Verification of system compatibility and interoperability
System Safety and Insensitive Munitions
Papers are solicited in the areas of missile systems safety
and insensitive munitions. Subjects of particular interest include:
• System safety analysis methodology
• Application of system safety analysis
• Assessment of risks
• Strategies for mitigation of risks
• Insensitive munitions policy
• Insensitive munitions testing methodology
• Results of insensitive munitions tests
• Methods and materials for mitigating insensitive munitions
hazards
• Demonstrations of improvements in insensitive munitions
responses relative to baseline systems
• Threat-hazard assessment methodology and tools
Long-Range Conventional Strike
Papers are solicited for a technical session on technology,
science, and missile system integration as applied to long-
range conventional strike and prompt global strike. This session
is intended to bring together technology developers, systems
architects, and customers to share not only new technology
developments and results from analysis, simulation, and testing,
but also operational requirements and lessons learned. Papers
may address systems, subsystems, components, software, or
algorithms. Subjects of particular interest include but are not
limited to:
• Current and planned system requirements, projects, and
initiatives
• System definition, integration, capabilities, and performance
• System concept of operation, mission planning, and control
• Simulation, ground, and flight test and evaluation of system
performance and effectiveness
• Propulsion and propulsion integration
• GN&C design and testing, including integrated GPS, mid-
course sensors, fusion and estimation algorithms, guidance
laws, and autopilots
• Terminal sensors, seekers, and seeker integration
• Control actuation subsystems, including aerodynamic, thrust
vectoring, and jet reaction control
• Lethal or non-lethal ordnance, warheads, and directed energy
systems, including mechanisms, fuses, and components
• Design, performance, testing and manufacturing of advanced
airframe structures, active and passive thermal protection sys-
tems and materials
• Power generation and distribution design, performance, test-
ing, and installation
• Global range communication, safety, and tracking, including
data acquisition, health monitoring, recording, and telemetry
 Asymmetric Missile Defense
Over the last several years, the subject of defense against
asymmetric threats has received increased visibility and attention
within the DoD and the administration. Our potential adversaries
continually demonstrate that they have the capability to launch
short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.
Military and government defense analysts are increasingly
concerned about the possibility of an asymmetric missile threat
against the U.S. homeland where terrorists would move short-
range ballistic missiles or cruise missiles closer to the United
States on sea-based platforms.
Contributing to the concern is the fact that our adversar-
ies may not have the same sensitivities and limitations as the
United States in using their missiles. Their military and political
objectives may be entirely different; these missiles could be
used as a terrorist or political weapon without regard to mili-
tary objectives or collateral damage. These missiles could be
launched from a variety of different offshore platforms or bas-
ing systems that would give citizens in coastal cities little or no
warning prior to impact.
Technical papers are solicited to address all aspects of the
asymmetric threat, mission, and kill chain. Emphasis on selec-
tion of papers will be given to integrated defense concepts,
technology innovation, concepts for positive hostile ID of cruise
missiles, and technology alternatives. Subjects of particular inter-
est include, but are not limited to:
• Current threat assessment and analysis
• Modeling and simulation of the asymmetric threat kill chain
• Asymmetric defense concepts and CONOPS for the tactical
battlefield
• Defensive options for an asymmetric missile homeland
defense capability that would protect population centers, use
mature technologies, and include progressions for spiral tech-
nology upgrades that would enhance missile defense capabili-
ties over time
• Integrated and Joint C2/BM concepts
• Sensor and sensor concepts (including net-enabled opera-
tions and fusion)
• Innovative uses of current technologies
• Technology and affordability advances
• Long-range classification and identification of air targets as
cruise missiles
• Interceptors/kill mechanisms
• End-game analysis
Additional Information
Refer questions for all technical topics to:
Darren Hayashi
Raytheon Missile Systems
Tucson, AZ
520.794.5432
E-mail: dkhayashi@raytheon.com
Abstract Submittal Guidelines
Abstracts for this conference must be UNCLASSIFIED. The
abstract should address technical progress on one or more of
the technical topics identified in this Call for Papers. Papers that
outline future plans or review major development programs are
not desired at this conference. Instead, papers that present tech-
nical results are encouraged. Each abstract should represent
an equivalent of approximately 500 words with figures equal to
approximately 75 words. All authors must first receive publica-
tion approval from their companies and/or sponsoring agencies
before submitting their abstracts.
Since the conference will be conducted in a SECRET/U.S.
ONLY environment, authors are strongly encouraged to develop
CLASSIFIED papers (up to the level of SECRET/U.S. ONLY) to
promote understanding and active discussion across topic areas.
Please indicate the intended classification level of your paper in
the abstract. Papers and presentations may not include classi-
fied RD, COMSEC, or NATO information.
Abstract Submittal Procedures
Abstract submissions will be accepted electronically through
the AIAA Web site at www.aiaa.org/events/missilesciences or
www.aiaa.org/events/strattac. Once you have entered the con-
ference Web site, on the right-hand side, click “Submit a Paper”
and follow the instructions listed on the screen to follow. The
deadline for receipt of draft manuscripts and abstracts via elec-
tronic submission is 30 June 2011. Authors will be notified of
paper acceptance via e-mail by 18 August 2011. Instructions
for preparation of final manuscripts will be provided for accepted
papers. It is the responsibility of those authors whose papers
or presentations are accepted to ensure that a representative
attends the conference to present the paper. Sponsor and/
or employer approval of each paper is the responsibility of the
author(s). Government review, if required, is the responsibility of
the author(s). Authors should determine the extent of approval
necessary early in the paper presentation process to preclude
paper withdrawals or late submissions. The electronic submis-
sion process is as follows:
1) Access the AIAA Web site at www.aiaa.org/events/
missilesciences or www.aiaa.org/events/strattac.
2) On the right-hand side, click the “Submit Paper” button.
3) To access the submission site, you must be logged in to
the AIAA Web site.
a. If you already have an account with AIAA, enter your User
Name and Password in the “Login” box on the left-hand side and
hit the arrow button.
b. If you do not have an account with AIAA, complete the
steps for “Create Account”.
4) Once logged in, you will be provided an active link for “Begin
a New Submission or View a Previous Draft/Submission”. Click
the link to be directed to the Welcome page of the submission site.
5) Click the Submission tab at the top of the page to begin
your submission. Select the appropriate conference to submit to
on the following page.
6) Once selected, you will be provided with general informa-
tion on the conference’s abstract submission requirements
and policies. To begin the submission, click the “Create a New
Submission” link on the left-hand side. Please Note: If you have
previously visited the site and begun a draft submission, click
the “View Submissions” link on the left-hand side to resume your
submission.
STEP 1: Type or paste the title of your abstract into the Title
field and upload your abstract/draft manuscript file. Accepted
file types are .pdf (preferred), .doc, and .docx. Add the present-
ing author’s biography (if requested by the conference) into the
Presenter Biography field.
Scroll down to read through the Rules and Reminders section
and check the box noting you agree. Click “Save & Continue” to
proceed to the next step.
STEP 2: Select your Presentation Type and the Topic Area
of your abstract. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the next
step.
STEP 3: In this system, affiliations are added before author
information. The information will be filled in for the person logged
in to the site. Add additional author affiliations, if necessary, by
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B23
clicking the “Add” button after each new affiliation. Click “Save &
Continue” to proceed to the next step.
STEP 4: To create a list of co-authors for this submission,
click the “Add Author” button and enter the required information.
Click “Save” after entering each one and then associate each
author with their respective affiliation by entering the appropriate
reference number from the drop down boxes to the right of each
name. When you have finished entering all authors YOU MUST
put them in the order they should appear on the abstract and
program. Use the drop-down boxes in the far left column of the
list to do this. Failure to order the authors properly will result in
them being incorrectly listed when the submission is published.
After you have reordered the authors, click the “Save” button at
the bottom of the list. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the
next step.
STEP 5: Select at least one technical area that best repre-
sents your work. While only one selection is required, you may
list up to six for your submission. Click “Save & Continue” to pro-
ceed to the next step.
STEP 6: If you have no errors or omissions in your abstract,
a “Submit” button will appear at the end of the proof. If the Error
Box appears, you must correct all errors before the abstract can
be submitted. Once the errors have been resolved the “Submit”
button will appear at the bottom. If you exit the system without
submitting the abstract, it will be logged in the system as a draft
and will appear in the “Draft” section of your “View Submissions”
page when you reenter the system. After you submit the
abstract, you will receive a confirmation e-mail.
Special Notes
1) If authors wish to revise an abstract that has already been
submitted, they must go to “View Submissions” and select
“Return to Draft” to make any corrections. This removes the
abstract from the organizers’ view. Authors then need to submit
the abstract again for it to be considered. An abstract cannot be
returned to draft if it has been reviewed.
2) Once the abstract submission deadline passes, authors
will no longer be able to submit new submissions or return previ-
ous submissions to draft for revisions. Be sure that all of your
submission data—authors, keywords, title, and abstract file—are
accurate before finalizing your submission as no modifications
can be made to this data after the submission site closes.
Authors having trouble submitting abstracts electronically
should contact ScholarOne Technical Support at ts.acsupport@
thomson.com, or at 434.964.4100 or (toll-free, U.S. only)
888.503.1050.
Questions pertaining to the abstract or technical topics should
be referred to:
Darren Hayashi
Raytheon Missile Systems
Tucson, AZ
520.794.5432
E-mail: dkhayashi@raytheon.com
“No Paper, No Podium” Policy
If a written paper is not submitted by the final manuscript
deadline, authors will not be permitted to present the paper at
the conference. It is the responsibility of those authors whose
papers or presentations are accepted to ensure that a represen-
tative attends the conference to present the paper.
Final Manuscript Guidelines
An Author’s Kit containing detailed instructions and guide-
lines for submitting papers will be made available to authors of
accepted papers. Authors must submit their final manuscripts
directly to Raytheon Company, complete with all approval
B24 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011
information, no later than 3 January 2012. The conference pro-
ceedings will be made available through the Defense Technical
Information Center (DTIC) after the conference.
Warning—Technology Transfer Considerations
Prospective authors are reminded that technology transfer
guidelines have considerably extended the time required for
review of abstracts and completed papers by U.S. government
agencies. Internal (company) plus external (government) reviews
can consume 16 weeks or more. Government review if required
is the responsibility of the author. Authors should determine the
extent of approval necessary early in the paper preparation pro-
cess to preclude paper withdrawals and late submissions. The
conference technical committee will assume that all abstracts,
papers, and presentations are appropriately cleared.
18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference
(33rd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference)
4–6 June 2012
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Extended Abstract Deadline: 9 November 2011
The AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference has established
itself as the premier international forum for the field of aero-
acoustics. It offers scientists and engineers from industry, gov-
ernment, and academia an exceptional opportunity to exchange
knowledge and results of current studies and to discuss direc-
tions for future research. Papers are solicited that address all
aspects of the generation, propagation, and control of vehicle
noise, as well as the effect of noise on structures and individu-
als. The program’s technical content will include theoretical,
numerical, and experimental contributions that describe original
research results and/or innovative design concepts. In addition,
in-depth reviews and timely surveys will be considered. Topics
for the conference are listed below. Studies in other related
areas, particularly the application of aerospace noise suppres-
sion technologies in other industries and papers pertaining to
non-aerospace research with potential application to the aero-
space industry, are also encouraged.
Technical session topics will include:
Acoustic/Fluid Dynamic Phenomena
Analysis, measurement, and control of subsonic and super-
sonic flows, vortex-driven flows, reacting and non-reacting flows,
combustion instabilities, flow acoustic interactions and reso-
nance, and flow receptivity to acoustic disturbances.
Active Noise Control
Active control of noise and related unsteady flows and vibra-
tion; noise cancellation through active acoustic treatment, and
active source control as related to noise and vibration in the
cabin, and within engine ducts and jets; development of associ-
ated sensors and actuators; and feedback and feed-forward
control strategies.
Advanced Testing Techniques
Development and application of novel testing techniques,
advanced diagnostic methods, and test facilities: topics of par-
ticular interest are detailed measurements of mean and turbulent
flow phenomena that contribute to noise generation and/or affect
the radiated sound; source localization; flow, reverberation, and
“noise” effects on measured data and their suppression; proper-
ties of sound-absorbing materials, including bulk absorbers and
liners at high temperatures; interior-noise test facilities, including
source simulation and noise-source path identification; and com-
parisons of model and full-scale testing.
Airframe/High-Lift Noise
Noise source mechanisms of flow/surface interaction as relat-
ed to airframe acoustics; measurement, analysis, and prediction
methods for wing, flap, slat, and landing gear noise; noise reduc-
tion strategies including devices and methods of circulation and
boundary layer control.
Community Noise and Metrics
Response of individuals and the community to aircraft noise,
including noise from rotary wings, open rotors, sonic boom, and
subsonic and supersonic jets; noise assessment methodologies
and criteria for acceptability; tools for land-use planning with
respect to airport noise; and development of airport noise reduc-
tion strategies and airport noise monitoring methods.
Computational Aeroacoustics
Development of innovative numerical techniques for aero-
acoustics applications: emphasis is placed on the ability of
algorithms to simulate accurately and/or track acoustic informa-
tion from flows, and on the development of proper boundary
conditions for aeroacoustic applications. Applications are sought
in areas of sound generation by turbulence, unsteady flows, or
moving boundaries, and propagation, transmission, and scatter-
ing of sound through non-uniform flows.
Duct Acoustics
New and innovative methods to analyze, predict, and control
the turbomachinery noise propagating through and radiating from
47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit
Design/Test/FLY
Visit the Conference Web site for the
Full Agenda, Updates, and Special
Events, or to Register!
www.aiaa.org/events/jpc
nacelle ducts: topics of particular interest include modeling and
design of lightweight passive and active/adaptive liners to control
the noise in ducts.
General Acoustics
Theoretical, numerical, and experimental research involving
all areas of physical acoustics and those involving noise associ-
ated with commercial systems.
Integration Effects and Flight Acoustics
Aeroacoustics effects of propulsion and airframe integration;
understanding and predicting noise source modifications origi-
nating from the interaction of flow and/or acoustic propagation
mechanisms; noise reduction approaches based on aspects of
propulsion and airframe system integration or aircraft configura-
tion; integrated test model and flight vehicle acoustic experimen-
tal and/or prediction research.
Interior Noise/Structural Acoustics
Reduction of interior noise and vibration associated with
aircraft, manned spacecraft configurations, expendable launch
vehicles, and automobiles; noise transmission through struc-
tures; structure and payload response; and vibro/acoustic test
and prediction methods.
Jet Aeroacoustics
Aerodynamics and aeroacoustics of jets focusing on iden-
tifying and modeling noise production mechanisms; near-field
noise; shock noise; turbulence prediction and characterization for
subsonic, supersonic, and noncircular and multi-stream jets; and
suppression methods for both subsonic and supersonic jet noise.
11-0334
31 July–3 August 2011
San Diego Convention Center
San Diego, California
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B25
Of particular interest are new aeroacoustic modeling methods
and flow and noise diagnostics techniques, and the effects of jet
heating on the experimental data and on the modeling.
Loads/Sonic Fatigue
Prediction, testing, design, and control of sonic fatigue; sourc-
es of fluctuating loads on structures; jet/structure interactions;
flow resonance phenomena; structural and material stress-strain
responses; and high temperature effects.
Propeller, Rotorcraft, and V/STOL Noise
Conventional and advanced single and contra-rotating propel-
lers; tone and broadband noise; propagation and ground reflec-
tion effects; fuselage boundary-layer refraction and scattering;
noise source control; effects of inflow distortions and installation
effects; rotorcraft source studies, including rotor harmonic noise,
high-speed impulsive and blade-vortex interaction noise, blade-
turbulence interaction noise, jet-surface interaction noise (includ-
ing both ground and aircraft surfaces); component and system
noise prediction and validation; ground and flight test measure-
ments; and noise control/reduction strategies.
Sonic Boom
Modeling and prediction of noise from supersonic busi-
ness jets; methods for sonic boom prediction and minimization
through design and/or operation; response studies and metrics;
atmospheric effects on noise propagation including refraction,
diffraction, absorption, and turbulence scattering.
Turbomachinery and Core Noise
Generation, propagation, and control of noise from fans, com-
pressors, combustors, and turbines; propagation and interaction
with the mean flowfield; transmission and reflection from blade
and vane rows; generation of afterburner noise; control using
active or passive techniques; and measurement techniques for
source identification.
Student Paper Competition
Undergraduate and graduate students are encouraged to
submit papers for consideration in the Aeroacoustics Student
Paper Competition. Student papers should report on thesis work
conducted by students in collaboration with faculty advisors. The
student submitting a paper for consideration must be the primary
author, and must have been a student at the time of the preced-
ing Aeroacoustics Conference. Papers submitted by students
must be presented by the primary author at the conference.
The student author of the best paper will receive a monetary
award and certificate during the conference. The best student
paper award will be selected on the basis of the technical qual-
ity of the paper, including its presentation. Papers not received
by the student paper submission deadline or not presented
by the student at the conference will not be considered for the
award. Interested students should submit abstracts electronically
through AIAA’s Web site at www.aiaa.org (see below). Please
submit to the appropriate topic and be sure to select “Student
Paper Submission” as the presentation type. In addition, at the
time you submit your extended abstract, send an e-mail to the
Organizing Committee (Florence.v.hutcheson@nasa.gov and
dpapamos@uci.edu) stating that you want your paper to be
considered for the student award. It is the authors’ responsibil-
ity to contact the Organizing Committee to make sure that the
paper is entered in the competition.
Authors participating in the Student Award competition
must also send a copy of their manuscript to the Education
Subcommittee Chair (tony.pilon@lmco.com) no later than 7 May
2012. Authors must send a manuscript prior to this deadline to be
considered in the competition. Please use “STUDENT PAPER
MANUSCRIPT” as the subject line of your e-mail.
B26 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011
Abstract Submittal Requirements
An extended abstract of at least 1000 words is required, with
key figures and references to pertinent publication in the exist-
ing literature. Authors must clearly identify in the abstract new
or significant aspects of their work. Abstract reviewers will base
recommendations for acceptance or rejection on: 1) Whether the
abstract meets the requirements described above; 2) The rele-
vance of the work; 3) The originality of the work; 4) Contributions
to the field, i.e., does it advance the current state of knowledge;
and 5) Are significant results presented to ensure timely comple-
tion of the paper?
Extended abstract submissions for the conference will be
accepted electronically through AIAA’s Web site at www.aiaa.
org. To submit to the conference, please follow the steps listed
below in “Abstract Submittal Information”. Questions about the
abstracts themselves should be referred to:
Technical Co-Chair, AIAA
Florence V. Hutcheson
757.864.1054 • 757.864.8290 FAX
E-mail: Florence.v.hutcheson@nasa.gov
Technical Co-Chair, CEAS
Sjoerd Rienstra
+31-40-247-4603/4760 • +31-40-244.2150 FAX
E-mail: s.w.rienstra@tue.nl
Administrative Chair
Dimitri Papamoschou
949.824.6590 • 949.824.8585 FAX
E-mail: dpapamos@uci.edu
Abstract Submittal Information
Abstracts must be submitted no later than 9 November
2011. Authors will be notified of paper acceptance via e-mail by
1 February 2012. An Author’s Kit containing detailed instruc-
tions and guidelines for submitting papers to AIAA will be made
available to authors of accepted papers on the conference
Web site. Authors of accepted papers must upload a complete
manuscript online to ScholarOne’s Manuscript Central by 21
May 2012 for inclusion in the online proceedings and for the
right to present at the conference. It is the responsibility of
those authors whose papers or presentations are accepted to
ensure that a representative attends the conference to present
the paper. Sponsor and/or employer approval of each paper
is the responsibility of the author(s), as is government review,
if required. Authors should determine the extent of approval
necessary early in the paper presentation process to preclude
paper withdrawals or late submissions.
Abstract submissions for the conference will be accepted
electronically through ScholarOne’s Abstract Central. This Web
site will be open for abstract submittal through 9 November
2011. The electronic submission process is as follows:
1) Access the AIAA Web site at http://www.aiaa.org/events/
aeroacoustics.
2) On the right-hand side, click the “Submit Paper” button.
3) To access the submission site, you must be logged in to
the AIAA Web site.
a. If you already have an account with AIAA, enter your User
Name and Password in the “Login” box on the left-hand side and
hit the arrow button.
b. If you do not have an account with AIAA, complete the
steps for “Create Account”.
4) Once logged in, you will be provided an active link for “Begin
a New Submission or View a Previous Draft/Submission”. Click
the link to be directed to the Welcome page of the submission site.
5) Click the Submission tab at the top of the page to begin
your submission.
 6) Once selected, you will be provided with general informa-
tion on the conference’s abstract submission requirements
and policies. To begin the submission, click the “Create a New
Submission” link on the left-hand side. Please Note: If you have
previously visited the site and begun a draft submission, click
the “View Submissions” link on the left-hand side to resume your
submission.
STEP 1: Type or paste the title of your abstract into the Title
field and the presenting author’s biography (if requested by the
conference) into the Presenter Biography field. Upload your
abstract file. Accepted file types are .pdf (preferred), .doc, and
.docx. Scroll down to read through the Rules and Reminders
section and check the box noting you agree. Click “Save &
Continue” to proceed to the next step.
STEP 2: Select your Presentation Type, Topic Area, and sub-
topic of your abstract. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the
next step.
STEP 3: In this system, affiliations are added before author
information. The information will be filled in for the person logged
in to the site. Add additional author affiliations, if necessary, by
clicking the “Add” button after each new affiliation. Click “Save &
Continue” to proceed to the next step.
STEP 4: To create a list of co-authors for this submission, click
the “Add Author” button and enter the required information. Click
“Save” after entering each one and then associate each author
with their respective affiliation by entering the appropriate refer-
ence number from the drop-down boxes to the right of each name.
When you have finished entering all authors YOU MUST put them
in the order they should appear on the abstract and program.
Use the drop-down boxes in the far left column of the list to do
this. Failure to order the authors properly will result in them being
incorrectly listed when the submission is published. After you have
reordered the authors, click the “Save” button at the bottom of the
list. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the next step.
STEP 5: Select at least one technical area that best repre-
sents your work. While only one selection is required, you may
list up to six for your submission. Click “Save & Continue” to pro-
ceed to the next step.
STEP 6: If you have no errors or omissions in your abstract,
a “Submit” button will appear at the end of the proof. If the Error
Box appears, you must correct all errors before the abstract can
be submitted. Once the errors have been resolved the “Submit”
button will appear at the bottom. If you exit the system without
submitting the abstract, it will be logged in the system as a draft
and will appear in the “Draft” section of your “View Submissions”
page when you reenter the system. After you submit the
abstract, you will receive a confirmation e-mail.
Special Notes
1) If authors wish to revise an abstract that has already been
submitted, they must go to “View Submissions” and select
“Return to Draft” to make any corrections. This removes the
abstract from the organizers’ view. Authors then need to submit
the abstract again for it to be considered. An abstract cannot be
returned to draft if it has been reviewed.
2) Once the abstract submission deadline passes, authors
will no longer be able to submit new submissions or return previ-
ous submissions to draft for revisions. Be sure that all of your
submission data—authors, keywords, title, and abstract file—are
accurate before finalizing your submission as no modifications
can be made to this data after the submission site closes.
Authors having trouble submitting abstracts electronically
should contact ScholarOne Technical Support at ts.acsupport@
thomson.com, or at 434.964.4100 or (toll-free, U.S. only)
888.503.1050.
“No Paper, No Podium” Policy
If a written paper is not submitted by the final manuscript
deadline, authors will not be permitted to present the paper at
the conference
Warning—Technology Transfer Considerations
All authors are reminded that technology transfer guide-
lines have substantially extended the time required for review
of abstracts and completed papers by government agencies.
Internal (company) plus external (government) review can con-
sume 16 weeks or more. Government review is the responsibility
of the author. Authors should determine the extent of approval
necessary early in the paper preparation process to preclude
paper withdrawals and late submissions.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
AIAA speakers and attendees are reminded that some top-
ics discussed in the conference could be controlled by the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). U.S. nation-
als (U.S. citizens and permanent residents) are responsible
for ensuring that technical data they present in open sessions
to non-U.S. nationals in attendance or in conference proceed-
ings are not export restricted by the ITAR. U.S. nationals are
likewise responsible for ensuring that they do not discuss
ITAR export-restricted information with non-U.S. nationals in
attendance.
BANC-II Workshop
The second AIAA Workshop on Benchmark Problems for
Airframe Noise Computations (BANC-II) will be held in conjunc-
tion with the 18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. The
anticipated dates for this workshop are 7–8 June 2012, i.e.,
immediately following the conference. The objectives of the
BANC-II Workshop are to:
1) Provide a forum for a thorough assessment of simulation-
based noise-prediction tools in the context of airframe configura-
tions, including both near-field unsteady flow and the acoustic
radiation generated via the interaction of this flow with solid
surfaces
2) Identify current gaps in physical understanding, experimen-
tal databases, and prediction capability for the major sources of
airframe noise
3) Help determine best practices, and accelerate the develop-
ment of benchmark quality datasets
4) Promote future coordinated studies of common configura-
tions for maximum impact on the current state of the art in the
understanding and prediction of airframe noise.
The BANC-II workshop will build upon the outcomes of the
BANC-I workshop held in June 2010 in Stockholm, Sweden,
and will include revised versions of BANC-I test cases along
with additional problems addressing other sources of noise and/
or critical aeroacoustic phenomena. It is open to participants
worldwide and is jointly sponsored by the AIAA Aeroacoustics
Technical Committee and the AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical
Committee. Participation in the BANC-II studies is not required to
attend the workshop; everyone is welcome. Details of the BANC-
II problem statements will be posted at the Web site: https://
info.aiaa.org/tac/ASG/FDTC/DG/BECAN_files_/BANCII.
To receive timely communications regarding Workshop activi-
ties, all potential participants are urged to join the BANC-II mailing
list by entering their contact information at: https://spreadsheets.
google.com/viewform?formkey=dENURFpUQ2Zvd2VRaXJte
m5iSEg4eGc6MA.
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B27

28th Aerodynamics Measurement Technology and
Ground Testing Conference
30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
4th AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments
Conference
6th AIAA Flow Control Conference
42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
43rd AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference
43rd AIAA Thermophysics Conference
25–28 June 2012
Sheraton New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana
Abstract Deadline: 17 November 2011
Final Manuscript Deadline: 11 June 2012
Abstract Submittal Guidelines
Submittals should be at least 1000 words and in the form of
an extended abstract or draft paper; draft papers are encour-
aged. Submittals shall clearly describe the purpose and scope
of the work, the methods used, key results, contributions to
the state of the art, and references to pertinent publications
in the existing literature. The submittal should include figures
and data that support the results and contributions asserted.
Both abstracts and final papers should address the accuracy
of the numerical, analytical, or experimental results adequately.
Abstracts will be reviewed and selected based on technical con-
tent, originality, importance to the field, clarity of presentation,
and potential to result in a quality full paper. As such, abstracts
should describe clearly the work to be included in the full paper,
its scope, methods used, and contributions to the state of the
art. The abstract must include paper title, names, affiliations,
addresses, and telephone numbers of all authors. It must also
indicate on the front page the conference to which it is being
submitted and the technical topic or category, from the confer-
ence call, that best fits the paper, or mark “other” if appropriate.
Procedures for Abstract and Manuscript Submission
Abstracts must be submitted no later than 17 November
2011. Authors will be notified of paper acceptance via e-mail by
1 February 2012. An Author’s Kit, containing detailed instruc-
tions and guidelines for submitting papers to AIAA, will be made
available to authors of accepted papers. Authors of accepted
papers must provide a complete manuscript online to AIAA by
11 June 2012 for inclusion in the online proceedings and for
the right to present at the conference. It is the responsibility of
those authors whose papers or presentations are accepted to
ensure that a representative attends the conference to present
the paper. Sponsor and/or employer approval of each paper is
the responsibility of the author. Government review, if required,
is the responsibility of the author(s). Authors should determine
the extent of approval necessary early in the paper presentation
process to preclude paper withdrawals or late submissions.
Abstract submissions for the conference will be accepted elec-
tronically through AIAA’s Web site at www.aiaa.org. This Web
site will be open for abstract submittal through 17 November
2011. The electronic submission process is as follows:
1) Access the AIAA Web site at www.aiaa.org/events/
neworleans.
2) On the right-hand side, click the “Submit Paper” button.
3) To access the submission site, you must be logged in to
the AIAA Web site.
B28 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011
a. If you already have an account with AIAA, enter your User
Name and Password in the “Login” box on the left-hand side and
hit the arrow button.
b. If you do not have an account with AIAA, complete the
steps for “Create Account”.
4) Once logged in, you will be provided an active link for “Begin
a New Submission or View a Previous Draft/Submission”. Click
the link to be directed to the Welcome page of the submission site.
5) Click the Submission tab at the top of the page to begin
your submission. Select the appropriate conference to submit to
on the following page.
6) Once selected, you will be provided with general informa-
tion on the conference’s abstract submission requirements
and policies. To begin the submission, click the “Create a New
Submission” link on the left-hand side. Please Note: If you have
previously visited the site and begun a draft submission, click
the “View Submissions” link on the left-hand side to resume
your submission.
STEP 1: Type or paste the title of your abstract into the Title
field and the presenting author’s biography (if requested by the
conference) into the Presenter Biography field. Upload your
abstract file. Accepted file types are .pdf (preferred), .doc, and
.docx. Scroll down to read through the Rules and Reminders
section and check the box noting you agree. Click “Save &
Continue” to proceed to the next step.
STEP 2: Select your Presentation Type, Topic Area, and sub-
topic of your abstract. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the
next step.
STEP 3: In this system, affiliations are added before author
information. The information will be filled in for the person logged
in to the site. Add additional author affiliations, if necessary, by
clicking the “Add” button after each new affiliation. Click “Save &
Continue” to proceed to the next step.
STEP 4: To create a list of co-authors for this submission,
click the “Add Author” button and enter the required information.
Click “Save” after entering each one and then associate each
author with their respective affiliation by entering the appropriate
reference number from the drop-down boxes to the right of each
name. When you have finished entering all authors YOU MUST
put them in the order they should appear on the abstract and
program. Use the drop-down boxes in the far left column of the
list to do this. Failure to order the authors properly will result in
them being incorrectly listed when the submission is published.
After you have reordered the authors, click the “Save” button at
the bottom of the list. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the
next step.
STEP 5: Select at least one technical area that best repre-
sents your work. While only one selection is required, you may
list up to six for your submission. Click “Save & Continue” to pro-
ceed to the next step.
STEP 6: If you have no errors or omissions in your abstract,
a “Submit” button will appear at the end of the proof. If the Error
Box appears, you must correct all errors before the abstract can
be submitted. Once the errors have been resolved the “Submit”
button will appear at the bottom. If you exit the system without
submitting the abstract, it will be logged in the system as a draft
and will appear in the “Draft” section of your “View Submissions”
page when you reenter the system. After you submit the
abstract, you will receive a confirmation e-mail.
Special Notes
1) If authors wish to revise an abstract that has already been
submitted, they must go to “View Submissions” and select
“Return to Draft” to make any corrections. This removes the
abstract from the organizers’ view. Authors then need to submit
the abstract again for it to be considered. An abstract cannot be
returned to draft if it has been reviewed.
2) Once the abstract submission deadline passes, authors
will no longer be able to submit new submissions or return previ-
ous submissions to draft for revisions. Be sure that all of your
submission data—authors, keywords, title, and abstract file—are
accurate before finalizing your submission as no modifications
can be made to this data after the submission site closes.
Authors having trouble submitting abstracts electronically
should contact ScholarOne Technical Support at ts.acsupport@
thomson.com, or at 434.964.4100 or (toll-free, U.S. only)
888.503.1050.
“No Paper, No Podium” and “No Podium, No Paper”
Policy
This conference has a “No Paper, No Podium” and “No
Podium, No Paper” policy. Submittal of an abstract is interpreted
as an intention to attend the conference and to present the final
paper. If a written paper is not submitted by the final manuscript
deadline, authors will not be permitted to present the paper at the
conference. Also, if the paper is not presented at the conference,
the paper will not be published and it will be withdrawn from the
conference proceedings. Videotaped presentations will not be
allowed. These policies are intended to eliminate no-shows and to
improve the quality of the conference for attendees.
Warning—Technology Transfer Considerations
All authors are reminded that technology transfer guide-
lines have substantially extended the time required for review
of abstracts and completed papers by government agencies.
Internal (company) plus external (government) review can con-
sume 16 weeks or more. Government review is the responsibility
of the author. Authors should determine the extent of approval
necessary early in the paper preparation process to preclude
paper withdrawals and late submissions.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
AIAA speakers and attendees are reminded that some top-
ics discussed in the conference could be controlled by the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). U.S. nation-
als (U.S. citizens and permanent residents) are responsible for
ensuring that technical data they present in open sessions to
non-U.S. nationals in attendance or in conference proceedings
are not export restricted by the ITAR. U.S. nationals are likewise
responsible for ensuring that they do not discuss ITAR export-
restricted information with non-U.S. nationals in attendance.
Publication Policy
AIAA will not consider for presentation or publication any
paper that has been previously presented or published or is cur-
rently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors will
be required to sign a statement to this effect.
General inquiries concerning the program, format, or poli-
cies of the conference and suggestions for special high-interest
informational presentations should be directed to the conference
General Chair:
General Chair
Steven C. Dunn
Jacobs Technology Inc., ROME Group
NASA Langley Research Center
West Taylor Street, Mail Stop 267
Hampton, VA 23681-2199 USA.
757.864.1116 • 931.864.8850 FAX
E-mail: steven.c.dunn@nasa.gov
28th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and
Ground Testing Conference
The Aerodynamic Measurement Technology Technical
Committee (AMTTC) and Ground Testing Technical Committee
(GTTC) solicit abstracts of proposed papers for the 28th AMT/
GT conference. We encourage submission of paper abstracts for
research related to all aspects of the science, technology, and
application of ground testing and aerodynamic measurements,
from basic research, to measurements for understanding com-
plex flows, to facility development, to system test and evaluation,
to sustainment and advancement of capabilities. The following
are general areas where papers are sought: 1) measurement
and testing technology research and development; 2) advances
in ground test capability; 3) operations and policy; and 4) ground
test facilities infrastructure sustainment. Papers that address the
interface between measurement and testing, such as the transfer
of advanced diagnostics from research laboratories to test facili-
ties and the lessons learned, are encouraged. A more detailed
description of these four general areas of interest follows:
Measurement and testing technology research and development
• Advances in non-intrusive methods of flow property and
chemistry measurements,
• Advances in surface measurement techniques for boundary
layer transition, skin friction, heat transfer, and surface tem-
perature and pressure,
• Development and application of MEMS-based measurement
technology,
• Miniaturization of aerodynamic probes,
• Development of techniques for acquiring multiple flow properties,
• Improvements in uncertainty analysis for advanced diagnostic
techniques,
• Development of new experimental methods,
• Presentation of work in progress and/or completed work
directed to new techniques, and
• Transition from laboratory to test facility
Advances in ground test capability
• Development of new and/or improved facilities and associated
systems,
• Advances in measurement techniques and calibration
methodology,
• Improvements in flow quality,
• Projecting of requirements,
• Innovations in experiment design and post-test analysis,
• Development of automation sciences applications,
• Integration of modeling and simulation,
• Improvements in ground test support and integration, and
• Developments in test facility and data networking
Operations and policy
• Personnel and their skills,
• Organization, economic considerations, metrics,
• Transition process to new measurement techniques,
• Working relationships and alliances, industry/government/aca-
demia interface,
• Test process improvement, standardization,
• Safety and environmental compliance issues,
• Communications and data transfer, information security, and
• Agency policies
Ground test facilities infrastructure sustainment
• Integrated operations and maintenance,
• Consolidation of existing ground test facilities,
• Best practices in maintenance and capability sustainment,
• Prioritization and work selection process with limited budgets,
• Strategic investment planning
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B29
 In keeping with the multidisciplinary nature of this call for
papers, there will be several sessions held in conjunction with
the other collocated conferences (e.g., Fluid Dynamics, Flow
Control, and Plasmadynamics and Lasers). For these sessions,
papers are sought in any areas where the conferences have
overlapping interests, but the following areas are of particular
interest:
Fluid Dynamics
• The use of large data sets from modern measurement tech-
niques to provide greater insight into the dynamics of fluid
motion,
• Survey papers describing aspects of experimental techniques
important to the CFD community,
• Survey papers describing aspects of computational methods
important to experimentalists assessing and utilizing CFD
results
Flow Control
• The use of instrumentation, alone or coupled with flow-field
estimation models, for developing feedback flow control
methodologies,
• The development of novel sensors to meet the sensing
requirements of the estimation models for specific flow-control
applications, and
• The novel use of sensors in flow control systems
Plasmadynamics and Lasers
• The development or application of instrumentation in support
of studies of plasma methods for enhancement of ignition and
flame holding in high speed flow, and
• The development of electric discharge gas dynamic lasers
Thermophysics and Heat Transfer
• The use of non-intrusive and advanced measurement tech-
niques for studying heat transfer to and response of heat-
shields, materials, and structures in ground test and flight
Information pertaining to the above broad categories for
measurement of data, testing peculiar to any speed range (low
speed to hypervelocity), and for any type of ground test will be
considered. Sessions will be organized within the above broad
categories according to discipline and speed range, depending
on the response to this call for papers. The sessions will include
invited papers as well as contributed presentations. The Ground
Test Technical Committee will award certificates for the best
papers in the ground test sessions, based on feedback from the
session chairs.
In accordance with the general instructions, submit the
abstract electronically to AIAA. Submissions pertaining to aero-
dynamic measurements should select the AMTTC and submis-
sions specific to ground testing should select the GTTC during
the upload process. For the joint sessions, submit the abstract to
only one conference, but clearly indicate the joint session (e.g.,
AMTGT/Flow Control) for which the paper is targeted.
Please direct questions to the AMTTC/GTTC Conference
Technical Chairs:
Aerodynamic Measurement Technology Technical
Program Chair
Paul M. Danehy, Research Scientist
Advanced Sensing and Optical Measurement Branch
Mail Stop 493
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-2199
757.864.4737 • 757.864.4737 FAX
E-mail: Paul.M.Danehy@nasa.gov
B30 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011
Ground Testing Technical Program Chair
Amber Favaregh, Senior Research Engineer
ViGYAN Inc.
30 Research Drive
Hampton, VA, 23666
757.864.9397 • 757.865.8177 FAX
E-mail: Favaregh@Vigyan.com
30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
The Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee is solicit-
ing papers on topics related to aerodynamic design, vehicle
aerodynamics, and aerodynamic phenomena to include, but not
limited to:
• Unsteady aerodynamics
• Vortical/vortex flow
• High angle-of-attack and high lift aerodynamics
• Tumbling body and debris aerodynamics
• Transonic and supersonic aerodynamics
• Recent hypersonic vehicle and aerodynamic advances
• Sonic boom mitigation
• Low-speed, low-Reynolds number aerodynamics
• Bio-inspired aerodynamics
• Unmanned aerial vehicle designs/tests
• Solar powered aircraft
• Airfoil/wing/configuration aerodynamics
• Weapons carriage and store separation
• Innovative aerodynamic concepts and designs
• Aerodynamic and multidisciplinary design methodologies
• Optimization methods in applied aerodynamics
• Wind tunnel and flight testing aerodynamics
• Ground-to-flight scaling methodology and wind tunnel
correlations
• Active and passive flow control
• Missile/projectile/guided-munition aerodynamics
• Aerodynamic-structural dynamics interaction
• Applied CFD with correlation to experimental data
• Propeller/rotorcraft/wind turbine aerodynamics
• VSTOL/STOL aerodynamics
• Icing or roughness effects on vehicle aerodynamics
• Environmentally friendly and efficient aerodynamics and
enabling technology
• Special Session: Unsteady Aerodynamics at Low-Reynolds
Number
• Special Session: CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop follow-on
• Other topics in applied aerodynamics
The above contains three new topic areas. “Sonic boom
mitigation” focuses on applied aerodynamics flight test, experi-
mental, or computational efforts to mitigate the sonic boom of
supersonic aircraft. “Tumbling body and debris aerodynamics”
involves the aerodynamics and trajectories of launch debris
such as the fallback of missile or launch vehicle stages. It also
includes the analysis of the trajectories of objects such as ice
shed from structures on an aircraft. “Solar powered aircraft”
includes the aerodynamics of unmanned aerial vehicles powered
by solar arrays.
In addition to the topics listed above there are two CFD
High-Lift Prediction special sessions planned on the NASA
Trapezoidal Wing. The 1st AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction
Workshop (HiLiftPW-1) was held in Chicago in June 2010. At
the workshop, force/moment and surface pressure wind tunnel
test data were provided to the participants for use in comparing
to their CFD simulations. Although much was learned, additional
research and development was recommended. To this end, a
set of informal special sessions will be held to explore further
CFD prediction of the NASA Trapezoidal Wing high-lift configura-
tion. For these sessions, additional experimental data, including
7-hole probe velocity data, will be made available to participants.
Particular solicited areas of interest include,but are not limited
to, effects of transition, turbulence modeling, grid adaption, tun-
nel walls, and support brackets. Participants will be asked to
provide data from their CFD simulations to the special sessions
organizers. Participation in the special sessions is open to all
and is sponsored by the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical
Committee. An open, unbiased forum will be held at the conclu-
sion of the special sessions to discuss the results and promote
cross-pollination of best practices. For more information, visit the
HiLiftPW Web site: http://hiliftpw.larc.nasa.gov.
There will also be a special joint session with the Fluid
Dynamics Technical Committee on “Unsteady Aerodynamics
at Low-Reynolds Number.” The session theme is flow separa-
tion and aerodynamic loads history for a high angle of attack
pitch ramp-hold-return motion of a flat plate, initially in 2D, but
now extended to 3D. Any work relating to the canonical case is
welcome. For questions, please contact Prof. Aaron Altman at
Aaron.Altman@notes.udayton.edu or Dr. Michael OL at Michael.
Ol@wpafb.af.mil.
Authors should indicate under which of the above topics they
prefer their paper to be included.
Please direct questions to:
Steven L. Morris
Senior Consultant and Regional Officer Manager – Colorado
Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI)
4775 Centennial Blvd., Suite 106
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
E-mail: slmorris@esi-co.com
Brian E. McGrath
Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
M.S. 24-W411
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel MD 20723-6099
E-mail: brian.mcgrath@jhuapl.edu
Kenrick Waithe
Applied Aero Specialist
Gulfstream Aerospace
E-mail: kenrick.waithe@gulfstream.com
4th Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference
Papers are sought that provide the aerospace community
(aviation, rockets, launch vehicles, and spacecraft) with scien-
tific and technical information concerning interactions between
aerospace systems and the atmospheric/space/planetary envi-
ronment. In addition, new or refined information improving the
basic understanding of the atmosphere, space, planets, or their
applications to aviation and aerospace vehicle design and opera-
tions issues is solicited. Atmospheric and Space Environments
includes the follow areas:
• Aircraft Icing: Aerodynamic degradation (including rain effects,
etc.), certification: policies and procedures, computational
modeling, flight and ground testing: techniques and facilities,
ice protection: systems and sensors, ice accretion physics
and scaling, ground de-icing, icing education and training:
material development, icing environment characterization: in
situ measurements, remote sensing, and forecasting.
• Atmospheric Environment: Reference and standard atmo-
sphere and other environment model developments and
implementation for aviation and space vehicle design and
operations within the Earth’s atmosphere, including on-orbit
environment; space weather and atmospheric ionizing radia-
tion, and impacts of aviation on climate and air quality.
• Aircraft Wake Vortex Technology: Observation, modeling,
atmospheric effects, operational implementation to optimize
traffic rates and flight safety, etc.
• Atmospheric Dynamics: Meso- and micro-scale modeling and
observations to characterize the nature of aviation weather
hazards and their expected time, location, and intensity more
accurately.
• Aviation Weather Accident Prevention: Includes present safety
statistics as well as improved concepts for measurement,
prediction, and display systems for icing, turbulence, wind
shear, wake vortices, hail, lightning, low ceiling, and visibility
hazards.
• Green Aviation: Assessment of the impacts of aviation on
climate and air quality; improvements in environmental obser-
vations and models; atmospheric radiation, chemistry and
contrail studies; environmental impacts of improved and alter-
native designs for airframes, propulsion systems and fuels.
• Meteorological Applications to Aerospace Operations: Basic
design criteria and design verification; day of launch proce-
dures; launch commit criteria; economic impact of weather
information on operations; severe storms; communication of
weather information to flight crews; improved techniques for
extrapolation and short-term forecasting; cloud-free line-of-
sight observations, and forecasting. Additional topics include
the upper atmospheric environment, space weather and atmo-
spheric ionizing radiation, aviation weather and range meteo-
rology, AIM Weather Integration, and impacts of aviation on
climate and air quality are also sought.
• Satellite and Ground-Based Measurement Systems: Earth
observing systems, measurements, monitoring, modeling, and
assessment; data and information systems requirements for
global climate change research; remote sensing of land and
oceans; airborne and spaceborne remote and in situ sensors
for tropospheric, stratospheric, mesospheric, and thermo-
spheric investigations; evaluation of advanced instruments;
performance verification/validation/calibration of remote sens-
ing instruments; and sensor performance and evaluation.
• Environment Standards: Reference and standard atmosphere
and other environment model developments and implemen-
tation for aviation and space vehicle design and operations
within the Earth’s atmosphere, including on-orbit environment.
• Meteoroid and Debris Environment: Description of on-orbit
and deep space meteoroid and debris model developments,
applications, and effects on satellites and spacecraft relative
to technical, programmatic, and political issues.
• Space Environment: Plasma, neutral, and radiation environ-
ments in the magnetosphere, ionosphere, and the Van Allen
radiation belts; correlation between space weather and tropo-
sphere weather; impacts of space weather on space systems
and on climate; space environment ground or flight experi-
ments. Planetary space, surface, and atmospheric environ-
ments are also of interest.
• On-Orbit Spacecraft–Environmental Interactions: Interactions
of spacecraft and the on-orbit environment. Environments of
interest include the environment in the absence of the space-
craft (i.e., natural) and the induced neutral and charged envi-
ronments. Possible topics include anomalous behavior due to
the space environment, spacecraft charging, material interac-
tions, and fault mitigation strategies.
• Natural environment definitions for space vehicle design and
development.
• Surface Environments of Planets, Moons, Asteroids, and
Comets: Characterization of the environments of the surface
of planets, moons, asteroids, and comets as well as their
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B31
 ground-based simulation. This includes descriptions of the
dust, electrostatic fields, radiation environment, and the like.
Of particular interest are effects on spacecraft, rovers, habi-
tats, and other human and robotic exploration systems and
methods to mitigate those effects.
Other areas of atmospheric environment pertinent to aircraft
and aerospace vehicle applications are also welcome.
Abstracts should be submitted electronically to AIAA as
directed in the general instructions for this call for papers. An
abstract of at least 1000 words, with key figures and references to
pertinent publications in the existing literature, is required. Authors
must clearly identify in the abstract new or significant aspects
of their work. The submission of a draft of the paper instead of
an abstract is encouraged. The draft paper should include key
figures that illustrate the primary intent of the author’s message.
Dummy figures are acceptable if final data are not available, pro-
vided that final data will be submitted with the manuscript. The
review and acceptance process will be weighted in favor of those
authors submitting more relevant documentation of their proposed
papers. The length of the final paper should be appropriate for a
conference paper—not a major project, final report, or final thesis.
Please direct questions to:
Atmospheric and Space Environments Technical Chair
Nelson W. Green
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, CA 91109-8099
818.393.6323
E-mail: Nelson.W.Green@jpl.nasa.gov
6th AIAA Flow Control Conference
The 6th AIAA Flow Control Conference is being held in con-
junction with the 42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference. This
biennial event is the central forum for all aspects of fluid control
technology while emphasizing the multidisciplinary interaction
among a diverse range of research disciplines with a common
basis in fluid dynamics.
Papers are being solicited over a very broad area from fun-
damental studies to actual, closed-loop flow control applications
in vehicle systems. Theoretical, numerical, and experimental
approaches, especially combinational approaches demonstrating
methods and tools to model or predict capability are highly encour-
aged. Papers are requested on both external (airframe) and inter-
nal (propulsion) flow control and within all flow regimes. Of special
interest is the development of actuation, sensing, and closed-loop
control technologies to optimize some aspect of system perfor-
mance. Authors are requested to consider carefully how informa-
tion is reported so as to reach as broad an audience as possible
and to convey a sense of the system impact of the technology.
The program will consist of invited papers, contributed papers,
and a poster/demonstration session. Themes for special ses-
sions and panel discussions should be submitted to the technical
chair well in advance of the abstract deadline.
Session topics include, but are not limited to:
• Circulation control
• Separation and wake control
• Shear layer and mixing control
• Boundary layer control
• Laminar, transitional and turbulent flow tailoring and vortex
control
• Jet flow and noise control
• Combustion flow control
• Inlet, fan, compressor, and turbine flow control
• Bio-inspired flow control
B32 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011
• High-speed flow control
• Impact of flow control in vehicle design cycle
• Interaction between flow control and vehicle acoustics
• Closed-loop investigations of flow control
• Flow control system architectures, theory, and models
• Flow control modeling including simulations of flow control
• Measurement techniques for flow control
• Best practices for flow control reporting
• Novel sensors and systems for feedback flow control
• Novel actuators for flow and noise control
• Actuator-induced flow physics
• MEMS-based flow control and actuation
• Coupled fluid/structure interactions for flow control actuators
• Smart materials/structures applications for flow control
• Multidisciplinary actuator design and fabrication
• Flow control testing facilities
Sessions will be coordinated with the Fluid Dynamics,
Applied Aerodynamics, Plasma Dynamics and Lasers, and
Aerodynamics Measurement Technology and Ground Testing
Conferences. See the General Information section regarding
procedures and expectations for abstract submission, general
information on publication policy, and technology considerations.
Indicate on the first page of your abstract the most relevant ses-
sion from the above list. Authors who wish for their abstract to be
considered for a joint session with one of the above conferences
should also clearly indicate this preference on the first page.
Special Poster Event
A “Progress in Flow Control” poster session will be held dur-
ing a break in the regular Flow Control technical sessions. The
poster session will emphasize current or recent projects utilizing
flow control. Posters should be in large font size, colorful, and in
a presentation-style format. Demonstration and displays of hard-
ware are also acceptable and desired. Small-font reproductions
of text from papers are discouraged from this event.
The content should be clear and concise to stimulate and
inform the observer. Entries may be from simulations, experi-
ments, or system-level demonstrations. Posters could empha-
size comparisons of the flow phenomena with “control on” ver-
sus “control off”. No paper is required to participate in this event.
A poster title and an abstract, not to exceed 100 words, must be
submitted to participate in the poster event. Abstracts that show
control on and control off phenomena are highly encouraged.
Please e-mail the submittal to the conference technical chair with
the subject line “Flow Control Poster” prior to the abstract dead-
line to participate in this event. Do not submit poster abstracts to
the AIAA Web site.
Flow Control Technical Program Chair
James W. Gregory
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
The Ohio State University
2300 West Case Road
Columbus, OH 43235-7531
614.292.5024
E-mail: gregory.234@osu.edu
42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit
Papers are solicited in the areas of experimental, theoreti-
cal, and computational fluid dynamics relevant to aerospace
applications, including basic research and development, applied
research, and advanced technology development. Papers that
present new insights into flow physics, introduce innovative
applications, address emerging technical areas, or combine
experimental, computational, and/or theoretical approaches are
strongly encouraged. Authors who have recognized expertise in
a particular area and are interested in writing a comprehensive
review are encouraged to contact the track chair. Potential sub-
ject areas include, but are not limited to:
• Laminar instability and transition to turbulence
• General stability, including local, global, and transient growth
analysis
• Theoretical techniques and analyses in fluid dynamics
• Turbulent jets, mixing layers, boundary layers
• Turbulence modeling, analysis, simulation and experimentation
• Hypersonics (flight test, experimentation, and computation)
• Shock-wave/boundary layer interaction
• Structured and unstructured CFD algorithm development,
methodology, and validation
• CFD applications, including case studies, modeling, optimiza-
tion, and uncertainty quantification
• Fluid structure interaction, including adaptive systems and
morphing
• Internal aerodynamics, including rotating machinery, combus-
tion systems, inlets, and nozzles
• Wind energy aerodynamics
• Vortex dominated flows
• Unsteady fluid dynamics
• Multidisciplinary fluid dynamics
• Innovative and unconventional applications of fluid mechanics
• Multi-phase and chemically reacting flows
• Nonequilibrium gas dynamics
• Biologically-inspired flight mechanisms and propulsion
• Biological and physiological fluid dynamics
• Studies integrating experimental, theoretical, and/or computa-
tional approaches
• Experimental methods and innovative measurement
technologies
• Aero-optics
• Micro/nanofluidics and MEMS devices
• History of fluid mechanics, aeronautics, and astronautics
• Educational initiatives
Authors should indicate under which of the above topics they
prefer their paper to be included. Abstracts should be submit-
ted electronically to AIAA as directed in the general instructions
for this call for papers. Please note that the extended abstract
minimum word count is identified in the Abstract Submittal
Guidelines at the beginning of this call for papers.
Questions about the abstracts, manual abstract submis-
sions, or the conference program should be referred to the Fluid
Dynamics Technical Program Chair.
Fluid Dynamics Technical Program Chair
Darren L. Hitt
Mechanical Engineering Program
School of Engineering
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405
802.656.1940
E-mail: darren.hitt@uvm.edu

4 st International Conference
41 17–21 July 2011

on Environmental Systems
o Marriott Portland
Downtown Waterfront
Portland, Oregon

Organized by

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

Supported by
AIAA Life Sciences and Systems Technical Committee
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Environmental Systems Committee
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Crew Systems Technical Committee
ICES International Committee (INT)
Space Environmental Systems Committee (SES)

11-0269

w w w . a i a a . o r g / e v e n t s / i c e s
Early Bird Registration Deadline: 20 June 2011

AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B33

43rd AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference are delivered by that student will be considered for a “Best
Papers describing basic and/or applied research and devel- Student Paper Award.” Please identify the principal author as
opment results in the areas of plasmadynamics and lasers and a student (graduate or undergraduate student) at the time the
related topics are solicited. Efforts combining contemporary abstract is submitted.
theoretical/computational analyses with experimental verifica- Comprehensive abstracts of several pages that state the
tion/validation and which represent notable advancements in the purpose and scope of the work, methods used, and relevant
aerospace sciences are especially encouraged. Special consid- contributions including figures and preliminary results are recom-
eration will be given to works reporting milestone R&D and/or mended for accurate evaluation.
engineering achievements related to aerospace system applica- Please direct questions to:
tion of plasma and laser technologies. Survey papers on the cur-
rent state of the art and historical perspectives are also desired. Mark Rennie
Specific topics of interest include, but are not limited to: Multidisciplinary Research Building, Rm 140
University of Notre Dame
• Plasma and Laser Physics: Including fundamental processes, Notre Dame, IN 46556
laboratory plasma generation and characterization, experi- 574.631.1695 • 574.631.8355 FAX
mental research or methods, plasma chemistry and kinetics, E-mail: rrennie@nd.edu
non-equilibrium reacting flows, properties, and advances in
theory and/or computational simulation methods 43rd AIAA Thermophysics Conference
• Space Plasma Physics and Applications: Including spacecraft- The Thermophysics Technical Committee solicits abstracts
plasma interactions, space laser applications, and space of papers on topics in thermophysics and heat transfer. Papers
experiments are solicited on topics related to all aspects of thermal energy,
• Laser Devices and Systems: Including the physics, engineer- heat transfer, and aerospace applications therein. Contributions
ing, and application of high-energy lasers, chemical lasers, related to analytical, numerical, and/or experimental studies are
electric lasers, laser material interaction, laser optics, and welcomed. Scientific and technical contributions are empha-
fluid-optic interactions sized, rather than status reports on work in progress. Areas of
• Highly Energetic Plasma Systems: Including the physics, specific interest include, but are not limited to:
engineering, and application of high-power gas discharge and
plasma generation devices, arc-heater technology, explosive- • Ablation
ly-generated plasma applications, compact pulse power, and • Aerothermodynamics
high temperature systems and environments • Aircraft and spacecraft thermal management
• Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD): Including MHD power gen- • Computational heat transfer
eration and propulsion technologies, terrestrial and aerospace • Cryogenics and cryogenic systems
systems applications, combustion plasma methods, innovative • Direct simulation Monte Carlo methods
non-equilibrium plasma techniques, nuclear MHD systems, • Electronic and microelectronic thermal management
electromagnetic fluid interaction and characterization, funda- • Heat exchangers
mental processes, and theoretical and/or computational simu- • Heat pipes
lation methods • Heat transfer: conduction, convection, phase change, and
• Plasma and Laser Propulsion: Including innovative and effi- radiation
cient plasma formation and acceleration approaches, high • Heat transfer and cooling in turbomachinery
power thruster concepts, electrode erosion issues, electro- • High-speed flows
deless discharge mechanisms, modeling of fundamental • Historical perspectives in thermophysics research
processes, experimental performance characterization, and • Hypersonic and low density facilities
beamed energy propulsion • Microgravity effects on thermal management systems
• Plasma Materials Processing and Environmental Applications: • Microgravity testing for aerospace applications
Including exhaust gas treatment, remediation, and hazardous • Missile thermal management
materials disposal • Molecular dynamics simulations
• Advanced Diagnostics: Including the development and utili- • Multiphase flows
zation of laser-based diagnostics, flow field characterization • Nonequilibrium flows
methods, and plasma diagnostics • Nonequilibrium radiation
• Weakly Ionized Plasma Physics and Aerospace Applications: • Nonintrusive diagnostics
Including plasma actuators for aerodynamic flow control • Particle-laden flow modeling and measurement
• Fluid-Optics Interactions: Including the propagation of laser • Plumes and combustion
beams through the atmosphere and the effects of aerodynam- • Power systems
ics on the transmission of laser beams • Propulsion
• Fusion Energy Science: Including emerging confinement con- • Radiation analyses and surface properties
cepts for terrestrial or in-space power or propulsion, experi- • Rarified flows
mental programs, enabling technologies, instrumentation and • Space environmental effects
diagnostic development, computational or theoretical model- • Spacecraft contamination
ing, and mission analysis • Surface catalysis
• Test facility diagnostics and instrumentation
Papers concerning dual-use technologies that address non- • Thermal challenges in lunar or planetary exploration
aerospace issues of major public concern, such as energy, envi- • Thermal contact conductance
ronment, and medicine, are strongly encouraged. Suggestions • Thermal control
for invited papers and joint sessions are also welcome. • Thermal protection systems
Students are strongly encouraged to present papers on their • Thermophysical properties
research at this meeting. Papers submitted and accepted for • Turbulent flow and heat transfer
the PDL meeting whose principal author is a student and that • Others (please specify)

B34 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

Emerging Topics
• Continuum methods for transition to rarefied flows
• Entropy generation minimization and the Second Law
• Integrated and multidisciplinary modeling and simulation
• MEMS and nanotechnologies
• Metamaterials
• Micro-scale heat transfer and micro-fluidics
• Wireless thermal measurements
Authors should indicate under which of the above topics they
prefer their paper to be included. Abstracts should be submit-
ted electronically to AIAA as directed in the general instructions
for this call for papers. Please note that the extended abstract
minimum word count is identified in the Abstract Submittal
Guidelines at the beginning of this call for papers and will be
strictly enforced.
Thermophysics Conference sessions will be coordinated
with the collocated Applied Aerodynamics, Fluid Dynamics,
Plasmadynamics and Lasers, and Atmospheric and Space
Environments conferences. Authors with multiple submissions
to these meetings are advised to alert the relevant Technical
Program Chairs via e-mail to minimize any scheduling conflicts.
Each year, the Thermophysics Technical Committee selects
a best paper award for both the Professional and Student
Categories (with the student receiving a monetary award).
Student submissions are strongly encouraged. Also, timely sur-
vey and review articles on the above topics are solicited. Authors
are encouraged to submit their manuscripts, either before or
after the meeting, to the AIAA Journal of Thermophysics and
Heat Transfer for possible publication.
Questions about the abstracts, manual abstract submis-
sions, or the conference program should be referred to the
Thermophysics Technical Program Chair.
Thermophysics Technical Program Chair
Greg F. Naterer
Associate Dean, Canada Research Chair Professor
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, L1H 7K4
905.721.8668, ext. 2810
E-mail: greg.naterer@uoit.ca
AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Conference
Intelligent Autonomy for Space and Unmanned
Systems
19–21 June 2012
Hyatt Regency Orange County
Garden Grove, CA
Abstract Deadline: 21 November 2011
Synopsis
Infotech@Aerospace (I@A) is AIAA’s premier forum for mod-
ern aerospace applications focusing on information-enabled
systems, algorithms, hardware, and software. I@A provides a
unique opportunity for fostering advances and interactions across
these disciplines. Attendees and authors span military, scientific,
commercial, and academic communities that are dominated by
the communication of information via computers and software.
These communities will shape the 21st-century development of
aerospace systems. I@A will cover scientific and engineering
issues related to architecting, designing, developing, operating,
and maintaining modern aerospace and defense systems—this
includes aircraft, spacecraft, ground systems, robots, avionics,
and sensors, as well as systems of systems. Of particular inter-
est are autonomous, cooperative, space, and unmanned sys-
tems, communication and networked systems, robotic systems,
and human-machine interactions. Select technical papers will
be considered for publication in AIAA’s Journal of Aerospace
Computing, Information, and Communication (JACIC).
2012 Conference Theme: Intelligent Autonomy for Space
and Unmanned Systems
Autonomous systems are increasingly being deployed in
many unmanned, space, and robotic platforms. Systems with
high-level autonomy capabilities can greatly improve efficiency
and reduce costs associated with the design and operation of
many aerospace systems. Examples include autonomous func-
tions for decision making, sensor measurements, data process-
ing, planning and scheduling, controls, and machine intelligence
with limited human operator interactions.
Space exploration robotic systems are highly autonomous and
are capable of high-level interactions with human operators to
accomplish mission objectives. NASA’s Mars Exploration Rovers
(MER) have demonstrated the benefits of autonomy and intel-
ligent systems in space exploration using machine vision, haz-
ard avoidance, onboard re-tasking, intelligent data processing,
and many other computational processes. Higher performance
embedded computing resources utilizing advanced multi-core or
graphic processors provide the raw performance needed to real-
ize these increases in autonomy and computations.
Spacecraft designs are developed increasingly to include
new, advanced capabilities for autonomy such as automated
rendezvous and docking, intelligent adaptive control, adaptive
mission operations, integrated systems health management, plug
and play mechanisms, and other intelligent functions that enable
complex operations to be performed in a space environment.
The increasing demand for use of unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS) in military, commercial, scientific, and civilian settings
has resulted in an explosion of many UAS applications. These
systems share common autonomous capabilities with space sys-
tems by leveraging on-board computational resources to perform
tasks such as intelligent terrain feature recognition and vision-
based guidance. U.S. government agencies such as the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) have recognized the need for
inserting UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). There
are many significant technology and policy challenges to the inte-
gration of UAS into the NAS that are currently being addressed.
Ground-based unmanned systems have begun to appear and
are being developed with autonomous guidance and navigation
capabilities. These systems are capable of sensing and feature
detection in terrain and urban settings, collision avoidance, and
self-guidance and navigation.
Technologies that enable autonomy in unmanned and space
systems are being developed at a rapid pace. These technolo-
gies are cross-cutting in nature. They integrate many foun-
dational disciplines to achieve integrated solutions that utilize
new and existing capabilities in intelligent systems, integrated
system health management (ISHM), sensor systems, software
and computers, communications, digital avionics, and informa-
tion and command and control. Infotech@Aerospace 2012 will
explore many of the core technologies and integration consid-
erations that will enable “Intelligent Autonomy for Space and
Unmanned Systems.”
Special Events: Technical Panels and Demonstrations
In addition to the hundreds of technical papers that will be
presented, the conference will offer several plenary-level events
that will focus on the demonstrated connections between the
core and enabling technologies and the emerging diverse array
of unmanned applications. In addition to plenary-level keynote
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B35
speakers, we are planning several specific plenary-level tech-
nical events and workshops to address both UAS and Space General Chair
Autonomy. Nhan Nguyen
NASA Ames Research Center
Technical Areas of Focus 650.604.4063
Infotech@Aerospace covers a broad range of topics related to E-mail: nhan.t.nguyen@nasa.gov
aerospace information systems. Authors are encouraged to sub-
mit abstracts in the following technical areas of focus. We also Technical Program Chair
encourage you to submit ideas for sessions and papers that fea- Timothy L. Howard
ture topics not listed below. Suggestions for additional session EOSESS LLC
topics should be referred to the Technical Program Chair. 714.883.3821
E-mail: tim@eosess.com
Space Autonomous Systems and Robotics
Papers are sought that address innovative approaches to Deputy Technical Program Chair
autonomous system development for spacecraft, including the Fernando Figueroa
integration of autonomy technologies into aerospace and robotic NASA Stennis Space Center
systems. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: 228.688.2482
E-mail: fernando.figueroa-1@nasa.gov
• Automated spacecraft rendezvous and docking
• In-space assembly and servicing Technical Events Chairs
• Space situational awareness (SSA) technologies for orbit Brian Argrow
determination, space object identification, and tracking University of Colorado, Boulder
• Real-time decision support and architecture concepts for SSA 303.492.5312
• Hazard avoidance for automated landing on planetary bodies E-mail: Brian.Argrow@colorado.edu
• Surface mobility
• Exploration robotics and telerobotics
• Human-robot interactions
• Automated planning and scheduling systems for space missions
• Computer vision systems • Crew coordination
• Planetary terrain mapping and feature detection • Air traffic management automation tools
• Dynamic airspace reconfiguration
Unmanned Systems Applications
Papers are sought addressing unmanned air vehicle (UAV) Intelligent Systems
and systems (UAS) technologies that enable new or expanded Papers are sought that describe the application of Intelligent
UAS applications through system integration. Topics of interest System (IS) technologies and/or their aerospace-related appli-
include, but are not limited to: cations. Of interest are papers that address fundamental topics
of IS such as the nature of IS or what constitutes an artificial
• UAS operational applications and experience in military, civil,
intelligent system. Other topics of interest include, but are not
and commercial missions/environs, including homeland secu-
limited to:
rity and disaster response
• Science applications, including climate monitoring, extreme • Evolutionary (genetic) algorithms
environment diagnosis, remote sensing, exploration, and natu- • Expert systems
ral resource assessment • Fuzzy logic
• Unmanned system-of-systems architectures, technologies, • Knowledge-based systems and knowledge engineering
and applications • Machine learning
• UAS sense-and-avoid strategies and sensors • Model-based reasoning
• System and vehicle survivability • Neural networks
• System safety and reliability • Planning and scheduling algorithms
• Autonomy technologies for dynamic UAS mission planning • Qualitative simulation
and management
• UAS intelligent mission management System Integrity, Verification, and Validation
• Cooperative unmanned systems Papers are sought that describe recent developments, chal-
• Spectrum management and communications advances that lenges, and future trends in the high-confidence design, develop-
enable UAS integration into the airspace system, including ment, certification, application, operation, and maintenance of
policy and/or technology issues networked information systems and software in commercial and
military aviation. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
Human-Machine Interface
Papers are sought that address innovative approaches to the • Verification and validation of complex intelligent systems
human-machine interface. Topics of interest include, but are not • Verification, certification, and accreditation for security
limited to: • Fault management
• Software-intensive, large-scale systems integration
• Mixed-initiative intelligent systems • System engineering and architecting for trust and high-confi-
• Intelligent decision supports dence systems
• Pilot and controller mode awareness • Aircraft software, data, and multimedia distribution
• Cockpit decision aids • Next-generation air traffic management
• Preventing display of hazardously misleading information • Aeronautical networks and airport wireless networks
• Pilot and controller workload • RFID systems

B36 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

 Adaptive Systems
Papers are sought that address innovative approaches to
intelligent adaptive control system development. Topics of inter-
est include, but are not limited to:
• Adaptive control
• Neural net and fuzzy logic intelligent control
• Machine learning control
• Applications in aerospace systems
• Experimental/flight validation
• Verification and validation of adaptive systems
• Analytical/experimental tools for design and validation
Integrated System Health Management (ISHM)
Papers are sought that describe innovative approaches for
determining the status and condition of all elements of a system,
including individual sensors and components. Topics of interest
include, but are not limited to:
• Architectures and standards for ISHM implementation
• Software environments to integrate data, information, and
knowledge for implementation of ISHM capability
• Algorithms and approaches to detect anomalies
• Automated diagnostics and prognostics
• User interfaces for integrated awareness of system health by
the user
• Implementations of ISHM capability
• Business case and evaluations of benefits from ISHM capabil-
ity implementation
• Verification and validation of ISHM systems
• Control of ISHM-enabled systems
• Systems engineering with ISHM-enabled systems
Sensor Systems
Papers are sought that address innovative approaches to
sensor system development and their integration into aerospace
systems. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
• New sensor technologies for unmanned and remotely piloted
payload sensors, including multi- and hyperspectral sensors,
active sensing with RF and lasers, multi-aperture systems,
and sensors in new spectral regions
• Novel applications of distributed sensing and sensor networks
• Sensor systems for navigation, tracking, and control
• Vision-based unmanned systems for GPS-denied navigation
environments
• Embedded vehicle sensor systems for autonomous operations
and system health management
• New mission sensors and techniques for atmospheric, natural
resource, environmental, and deep space mission applications
• Detection, recognition, and tracking of moving objects on
the ground, in the atmosphere, or in space, especially for
unmanned systems applications
• Fundamental technology advances for new aerospace sensor
applications, including micro- and nano-technology (MEMS
and NEMS), packaging methodologies, development of sen-
sors for ground and flight testing, harsh environment applica-
tions, and integrated systems of micro-sensors and actuators
Data/Information Fusion
Papers are sought that address innovative approaches to data
processing, real-time reasoning/learning, and information fusion
techniques allowing future systems to improve their performance
autonomously or non-autonomously. Topics of interest include,
but are not limited to:
• Knowledge extraction and update
• Data-based reasoning
• Centralized and distributed information fusion architectures
and resource management for real-time and non-realtime
operations
• Real-time information fusion software development, validation,
and verification
• Image fusion techniques for EO systems
• Data and information fusion of sensor networks on a single
vehicle or a multivehicle system for distributed sensing, navi-
gation, and tracking
• Novel tracking and filtering techniques for target detection,
acquisition, and classification methodologies
• New developments in the areas of multiple hypothesis track-
ing (MHT), particle filtering, and interacting multiple model
(IMM) estimators
• Multi-sensor and mixed-modality sensor applications of data
fusion
• Hardware and software integration issues relevant to data
fusion and information extraction
Computer Systems
Papers are sought that address the theoretical and practical
application of computer systems to aerospace problems. Areas
of interest include, but are not limited to:
• High performance computing
• Volatile and nonvolatile memory and data storage; processing
and memory applications
• Applications of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components,
subsystems and test equipment, especially in mission and
safety critical applications
• Convergence of software, hardware, and systems processes
and design techniques
• Embedded signal and data processing including parallel algo-
rithms and optimizations
• Secure computer design and information assurance
Software Systems
Abstracts are solicited on a wide range of topics in aerospace-
related applications of software engineering and software sys-
tems. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
• Architectures, design, development, testing, verification and
validation, quality, standards, software craftsmanship, soft-
ware sustainment, legacy system modernization
• Platforms, languages, frameworks, tools, techniques, COTS,
open source, model-driven development, auto generation,
user-centered approaches
• Project management, globalization
• Net-centric systems, network management, communications,
security, multi-level secure systems, trusted computing
• Real-time, mission critical, safety critical, embedded SW
systems
• Parallel processing, high performance, fault tolerant, recon-
figurable, survivable systems
• Data, signal, image, information, and knowledge processing
• Requirements management
• User expectation management
• Modeling, simulation, and training
• Education
Plug-and-Play Mechanisms
Submissions are sought for a variety of topics pertaining to
systems that employ mechanisms (hardware, software, proto-
cols, and tools) that can be considered “plug-and-play” (PnP),
including but not limited to:
• Self-consistent architecture frameworks for intelligent modularity
• Self-describing components and applications
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B37
• Self-organizing/topology-agnostic heterogeneous networks
• Ontology concepts for machine-understandable electronic
datasheets
• Scalable self-managing processing and networking approaches
• Composable software
• Self-test/hardware-in-the-loop approaches, especially those
that work with PnP architectures
• Push-button tool flow, concepts for automatic spacecraft
design connecting to plug-and-play components and inventory
management systems
Real-Time Embedded Computing Technologies
Submissions are sought for a variety of topics pertaining to
embedded computing systems for aerospace, including but not
limited to:
• Multi-core benchmarks, usage, programming, tools, electrical,
performance, and integration
• Graphical processing units, benchmarks, COTS usage, pro-
gramming, tools, performance, and integration
• Dependability approaches, implementations, tools, bench-
marks, and algorithms from silicon to full processing systems
• Onboard processing hardware architectures utilizing advanced
interconnect technologies
• Reconfigurable processors, support, and infrastructure along
with error mitigation in harsh or space environments
• Systems mixing some or all of the above
Abstract Submission Guidelines
Authors must submit an abstract of at least 300 words;
abstracts of 500 words or longer are strongly encouraged,
including extended abstracts with figure, tables, and citations.
The abstract should provide a clear and concise statement of the
problem to be addressed, the proposed method of solution, the
results expected or obtained, and an explanation of the signifi-
cance of the contribution.
Abstract submissions for the conference will be accepted elec-
tronically through AIAA’s Web site at www.aiaa.org/events/I@A.
This Web site will be open for abstract submittal through 21
November 2011. The electronic submission process is as follows:
1) Access the AIAA Web site at www.aiaa.org/events/I@A.
2) On the right-hand side, click the “Submit Paper” button.
3) To access the submission site, you must be logged in to
the AIAA Web site.
a. If you already have an account with AIAA, enter your User
Name and Password in the “Login” box on the left-hand side and
hit the arrow button.
b. If you do not have an account with AIAA, complete the
steps for “Create Account”.
4) Once logged in, you will be provided an active link for “Begin
a New Submission or View a Previous Draft/Submission”. Click the
link to be directed to the Welcome page of the submission site.
5) Click the Submission tab at the top of the page to begin
your submission.
6) You will be provided with general information on the confer-
ence’s abstract submission requirements and policies. To begin
the submission, click the “Create a New Submission” link on the
left-hand side. Please Note: If you have previously visited the
site and begun a draft submission, click the “View Submissions”
link on the left-hand side to resume your submission.
STEP 1: Type or paste the title of your abstract into the Title
field and the presenting author’s biography (if requested by the
conference) into the Presenter Biography field. Scroll down to
read through the Rules and Reminders section and check the
box noting you agree. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the
next step.
B38 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011
STEP 2: Select your Presentation Type and the Topic Area
of your abstract. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the
next step.
STEP 3: In this system, affiliations are added before author
information. The information will be filled in for the person logged
in to the site. Add additional author affiliations, if necessary, by
clicking the “Add” button after each new affiliation. Click “Save &
Continue” to proceed to the next step.
STEP 4: To create a list of co-authors for this submission,
click the “Add Author” button and enter the required information.
Click “Save” after entering each one and then associate each
author with their respective affiliation by entering the appropriate
reference number from the drop-down boxes to the right of each
name. When you have finished entering all authors YOU MUST
put them in the order they should appear on the abstract and
program. Use the drop-down boxes in the far left column of the
list to do this. Failure to order the authors properly will result in
them being incorrectly listed when the submission is published.
After you have reordered the authors, click the “Save” button at
the bottom of the list. Click “Save & Continue” to proceed to the
next step.
STEP 5: Select at least one technical area that best repre-
sents your work. While only one selection is required, you may
list up to six for your submission. Click “Save & Continue” to pro-
ceed to the next step.
STEP 6: Upload your abstract/draft manuscript file. Accepted
file types are .doc, .docx, and .pdf. Click “Save & Continue” to
proceed to the next step.
STEP 7: If you have no errors or omissions in your abstract,
a “Submit” button will appear at the end of the proof. If the Error
Box appears, you must correct all errors before the abstract can
be submitted. Once the errors have been resolved the “Submit”
button will appear at the bottom. If you exit the system without
submitting the abstract, it will be logged in the system as a draft
and will appear in the “Draft” section of your “View Submissions”
page when you reenter the system. After you submit the
abstract, you will receive a confirmation e-mail.
Complete guidelines and procedures may be found at www.
aiaa.org/events/I@A.
Special Notes
1) If authors wish to revise an abstract that has already been
submitted, they must go to “View Submissions” and select
“Return to Draft” to make any corrections. This removes the
abstract from the organizers’ view. Authors then need to submit
the abstract again for it to be considered. An abstract cannot be
returned to draft if it has been reviewed.
2) Once the abstract submission deadline passes, authors
will no longer be able to submit new submissions or return previ-
ous submissions to draft for revisions. Be sure that all of your
submission data—authors, keywords, title, and abstract file—are
accurate before finalizing your submission as no modifications
can be made to this data after the submission site closes.
Authors having trouble submitting abstracts electronically
should contact ScholarOne Technical Support at ts.acsupport@
thomson.com, or at 434.964.4100 or (toll-free, U.S. only)
888.503.1050. Questions about the manual abstract submission
or full draft manuscript themselves should be referred to one of
the Technical Program Chairs. Authors will be notified of paper
acceptance or rejection on or about January 2012.
Instructions for preparation of final manuscripts will be provid-
ed by AIAA for accepted papers only. Authors must submit their
manuscripts electronically to AIAA Headquarters for publication
no later than 28 May 2012. If your paper can fit under more than
one technical area, then please contact one of the Technical
Program Chairs to receive guidance on which area to submit
your paper under. Please do not make duplicate submissions.
Focused Session Proposals
Individuals interested in organizing focused sessions should
submit a Session Proposal to the Technical Program Chair.
Solicited papers in the proposed session should form a cohesive
set, focusing on the relevant topic with a reasonable diversity of
viewpoints encouraged. The Session Proposal should contain
a descriptive title of the session, a brief summary statement
describing the proposed session, session organizer contact
information (e-mail and phone), and potential authors.
Student Paper Competition
Papers from work not previously published are sought from
graduates and undergraduates registered as full-time students
through spring 2012. Both individual and group authored papers
are welcome on any of the areas listed above.
A complete draft of the paper, not to exceed 15 pages, should
be submitted to the Technical Program Chairs by 15 January
2012. The final manuscript is due by 28 February 2012. The
winner will be recognized at the Honors and Awards Luncheon.
“No Paper, No Podium” and “No Podium, No Paper”
Policy
This conference has a “No Paper, No Podium” and “No
Podium, No Paper” policy. Submittal of an abstract is interpreted
as an intention to attend the conference and to present the final
9th International Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference (IECEC)
Government, Academia, and Industry
working together toward clean energy.
Visit the Conference Web site for the
Full Agenda, Updates, and Special
Events, or to Register!
www.iecec.org
paper. If a written paper is not submitted by the final manuscript
deadline, authors will not be permitted to present the paper at the
conference. Also, if the paper is not presented at the conference,
the paper will not be published and it will be withdrawn from the
conference proceedings. Videotaped presentations will not be
allowed. These policies are intended to eliminate no-shows and
to improve the quality of the conference for attendees.
Warning—Technology Transfer Considerations
All authors are reminded that technology transfer guide-
lines have substantially extended the time required for review
of abstracts and completed papers by government agencies.
Internal (company) plus external (government) review can con-
sume 16 weeks or more. Government review is the responsibility
of the author. Authors should determine the extent of approval
necessary early in the paper preparation process to preclude
paper withdrawals and late submissions.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
AIAA speakers and attendees are reminded that some top-
ics discussed in the conference could be controlled by the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). U.S. nation-
als (U.S. citizens and permanent residents) are responsible for
ensuring that technical data they present in open sessions to
non-U.S. nationals in attendance or in conference proceedings
are not export restricted by the ITAR. U.S. nationals are likewise
responsible for ensuring that they do not discuss ITAR export-
restricted information with non-U.S. nationals in attendance.
31 July–3 August 2011
San Diego Convention Center
San Diego, California
11-0333
AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B39
 Winner of the Summerfield Book

Best Seller! 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!
n
and Performance, Enhanced and Enlarged, Version 5.1 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
 Upcoming AIAA Professional Development Courses
25–26 June 2011
Free Conference Registration to the 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, the 41st AIAA Fluid Dynamics
Conference and Exhibit, the 20th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, the 42nd AIAA Thermophysics
Conference, the 6th AIAA Theoretical Fluid Mechanics Conference, the 42nd AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers
Conference in conjunction with the 18th International Conference on MHD Energy Conversion (ICMHD), and the 3rd AIAA
Atmospheric and Space Environments Conference in Honolulu, Hawaii, when you sign up for one of these Courses!
Modern Flow Control: Intro to Fundamentals and Applications (Sponsored by the AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee)
This completely revised two-day short course will address introductory fundamentals as well as several emerging air-vehicle applications
of modern aerodynamic flowfield control techniques. Modern passive and active flowfield control is a rapidly emerging field of significant
technological importance to the design and capability of a new generation of forthcoming air-vehicle systems, spawning major research
initiatives in government, industry, and academic sectors of aeronautics.
Turbulence Modeling for Computation Fluid Dynamics (Instructor: Dave Wilcox)
This course on turbulence modeling begins with a careful discussion of turbulence physics in the context of modeling. The exact equations
governing the Reynolds stresses, and the ways in which these equations can be closed, is outlined. The course reveals a new k-omega
model that applies to boundary layers, free shear flows, and separated flows from incompressible to hypersonic speeds.
Sensitivity Analysis and Uncertainty Propagation for Computational Models (Instructors: Bennie Blackwell and Kevin Dowding)
The course will specifically focus on the following techniques for determining sensitivity information: differentiation of analytical models,
finite difference of computational models, complex step method, software differentiation, sensitivity equation methods, adjoint methods,
and sampling methods (Monte Carlo and Latin Hypercube). Practical examples will be taken from our experience with these methods.
Microfluidics and Nanofluidics: Fundamentals and Applications (Instructors: Terry Conlist, et al.)
Given the emerging importance of micro- and nanoscale transport phenomena, this course will provide working-level engineers, faculty,
and managers with an overview and understanding of the fundamental fluid mechanics, heat and mass transfer, and chemistry involved
in such devices, as well as the biochemistry and engineering principles governing the design of micro- and nanofluidic devices.
Computational Multiphase Flow (Instructors: Eric Loth, et al.)
This course will include a survey of multiphase flow computational fluid dynamics, with particular attention to turbulent flows. This will
include comparison of various “tools” (numerical methods) in terms of “performance” (accuracy with respect to specific predicted charac-
teristics) and “cost” (required computational resources).
16–17 July 2011
Free Conference Registration to the AIAA International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES)
in Portland, Oregon, when you sign up for this Course!
Space Environment and Its Effects on Space Systems (Instructor: Vincent Pisacane)
This course on the space environment and its effects on systems are intended to serve two audiences. First for those relatively new
to the design, development, and operation of spacecraft systems, and second, those experts in fields other than the space environ-
ment who wish to obtain a basic knowledge of the topic. The focus is on the space environment and the interactions with spacecraft
systems. The topics and their depth are adequate for the reader to address the environmental effects to at least the conceptual design
level. Topics covered include spacecraft failures, the physics of the space environment, and the effects of the space environment on
the design of spacecraft and instruments. Topics covered are from the textbook by the lecturer published by AIAA; attendees will have
the opportunity to purchase this textbook at a discount price.

4–5 August 2011

Free Conference Registration to the Joint Propulsion Conference (JPC) and the International Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference (IECEC) in San Diego, California, when you sign up for one of these Courses!
A Practical Introduction to Preliminary Design of Air Breathing Engines (Instructors: Ian Halliwell and Chen Chuck)
This course links the basic principles and fundamental engineering technologies of gas turbine engines to real-world applications. It
combines gas turbine theory with design practice, where thermodynamic concepts are turned onto hardware. The course defines the
scope of “preliminary design” activities and illustrates how the process is driven by mission requirements. The term “compromise to opti-
mize” is effected in the pursuit of the deliverables.
It will be seen, initially, that the engine cycle is defined primarily by the aircraft mission, and different types of engine configurations
will be covered. Subsequent chapters of the course will be devoted to major components of a gas turbine engine, namely inlets, fans
& compressors, combustors and augmenters, turbines, and exhaust nozzles. In each case the flow physics and design features will be
related to specific performance characteristics. Since a gas turbine engine is much more than its major components, some attention will
also be paid to secondary systems and sub-systems—all the stuff that makes an engine work! Finally, time permitting, the near-term
future of design methods and approaches will be discussed briefly.
Electric Propulsion for Space Systems (Instructors: Dan Goebel, Richard Hofer, and Richard Wirz)
This course describes the fundamental operating principles, performance characteristics and design features of state-of-the-art systems
in each of the three classes of electric thrusters (electrothermal, electromagnetic, and electrostatic). Key topics include principles of
operation of electric thrusters; discussion on when and why electric thrusters should be used; and lessons learned from mission studies
and flight experience.

AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011 B41

Hybrid Rocket Propulsion (Instructor: Joe Majdalani)
The course reviews the fundamentals of hybrid rocket propulsion with special emphasis on application-based design and system integration,
propellant selection, flow field and regression rate modeling, solid fuel pyrolysis, scaling effects, transient behavior, and combustion instability.
Liquid Propulsion Systems—Evolution and Advancements (Instructor: Alan Frankel)
This two-day course, taught by a team of government, industry, and international experts, will cover a topics of interest in launch vehicle
and spacecraft propulsion; non-toxic propulsion; and propulsion system design and performance.
Pressure Vessel Design Requirements and Verification Guidelines (Instructors: James Chang, Joseph Lewis, and Lorie Grimes-Ledesma)
This short course provides guidance for the implementation of the published standards for the design, analysis, and qualification of flight
PVs. Key topics include leak-before-burst demonstrations for metallic pressure vessels and metallic liners for COPVs; impact damage
tolerance test procedures for COPVs; general vibration tests for pressure vessels; and qualification by similarity conditions.

6–7 August 2011

Free Conference Registration to the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference (GNC),
the AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference (AFM), or the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies
Conference (MST) in Portland, Oregon, when you sign up for one of these Courses!
Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification: Engineering Methods and Hands-on Training Using CIFER®
(Instructor: Mark B. Tischler)
The objectives of this two-day short course are to 1) review the fundamental methods of aircraft and rotorcraft system identification and
illustrate the benefits of their broad application throughout the flight vehicle development process; and 2) provide the attendees with
an intensive hands-on training of the CIFER® system identification, using flight test data and 10 extensive Lab exercises. The course
will review key methods and computational tools, but will not be overly mathematical in content. The course is highly recommended for
graduate students, practicing engineers, and managers.
Aircraft Handling Qualities (Instructor: John Hodgkinson)
This course provides the insight to determine which of many requirements are key to development and evaluation of any particular air-
craft. The course features MATLAB methods, with expanded emphasis on lessons learned and with material to help you write a specifi-
cation for your vehicle. The emphasis is on fixed-wing aircraft, but some rotary-wing criteria are briefly discussed.
Mathematical Introduction to Integrated Navigation Systems with Applications (Instructor: Robert M. Rogers)
This course is presented to two parts. In the first part, elements of the basic mathematics, kinematics, equations describing various navi-
gation systems and their error models, aides to navigation and their error models, and Kalman filtering are reviewed. Kalman filtering
algorithm forms developed include; standard Kalman, Joseph, U-D factored, combining multiple filters, and derivative free algorithms—
UKF and DDF. Applications of the course material presented in the first part are presented for various integrated navigation systems in
the second part.
Modeling Flight Dynamics with Tensors (Instructor: Peter H. Zipfel)
Establishing a new trend in flight dynamics, this two-day course introduces you to the modeling of flight dynamics with tensors. Instead
of using the classical “vector mechanics” technique, the kinematics and dynamics of aerospace vehicles are formulated by Cartesian
tensors that are invariant under time-dependent coordinate transformations. This course builds on your general understanding of flight
mechanics, but requires no prior knowledge of tensors. It introduces Cartesian tensors, reviews coordinate systems, formulates tenso-
rial kinematics, and applies Newton’s and Euler’s laws to build the general six-degrees-of-freedom equations of motion. After taking the
course, you will have an appreciation of the powerful new “tensor flight dynamics,” and you should be able to model the dynamics of
your own aerospace vehicle.
Modern Missile Guidance (Instructor: Rafael Yanushevsky)
This course presents both fundamental concepts and practical implementation of parallel navigation. The guidance law design is consid-
ered from the point of view of control theory, i.e., as design of controls guiding missiles to hit targets. The design procedure is presented
in the time-domain and in the frequency-domain. The different approaches, in the time and frequency domain, generate different guid-
ance laws that supplement each other. The proportional navigation is considered also as a control problem. A class of guidance laws is
obtained based on Lyapunov approach. The problem of modification of the existing autopilots is presented as a problem of new guid-
ance laws design. Computational aspects of new missile guidance laws are considered.
Vision-Based Control for Autonomous Vehicles (Instructors: Warren Dixon, Andrew Kurdila, and Richard C. Lind)
This course will present an in-depth treatment on vision-based control and its application to autonomous vehicles. The maturation
of synthetic vision is rapidly advancing the capability for fully autonomous decision making to maneuver through environments with
unknown obstacles. This course will introduce the basics of synthetic vision and build up state-of-the-art developments in vision-based
control. Techniques such as scene reconstruction and state estimation are formulated to provide feedback.

B42 AIAA BULLETIN / JUNE 2011

 AIAA Courses and Training Program
Registration Form

Select your registration options below. Payment by

REGISTRATION FORM (or register online at www.aiaa.org)
2
check, credit card, or money order—payable to AIAA—
must accompany registration. To pay the member rate,
B0611 your membership must be in good standing.
All registrants please complete the information below. —REGISTRATION OPTIONS—
AIAA Non- AIAA Non- AIAA Non-

1
Member Member Member Member Member Member
Conference Badge Name First/Given Name M.I. Last/Family Name COURSES OFFERED AT FLUIDS CONFERENCES
Early Bird by 20 May 2011 Advance (21 May–17 Jun) After 18 Jun 2011
Organization Name/Division/Mailstop
Modern Flow Control: Intro to Fundamentals and Applications
Address $895 $1045 $1095 $1245 $1245 $1295
Turbulence Modeling for Computational Fluid Dynamics
City State Country/Zip/Postal Code
$895 $1045 $1095 $1245 $1245 $1295
E-mail Address Daytime Phone Number Sensitivity Analysis & Uncertainty Propagation for Comp. Models
$895 $1045 $1095 $1245 $1245 $1295
Fax Number (include country code) Job Title/Rank Microfluidics and Nanofluidics: Fundamentals and Applications
$895 $1045 $1095 $1245 $1245 $1295

3 AIAA MEMBERSHIP: If you are registering for one of the collocated professional Computational Multiphase Flow
development short courses at the nonmember rate, included with your registration fee is $895 $1045 $1095 $1245 $1245 $1295
one year of AIAA membership.
Included in your AIAA membership will be periodic communications about AIAA COURSE OFFERED AT ICES CONFERENCE
benefits, products, and services. Check here if you prefer not to receive membership Early Bird by 10 Jun 2011 Advance (11 Jun–8 Jul) After 9 Jul 2011
information via e-mail.
From time to time, we make member information available to companies whose products Space Environment and Its Effects on Space Systems
or services may be of interest to you. Check here if you prefer not to have your name $995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
and address used for non-AIAA mailings.
Signature_____________________________________________Date__________________ COURSES OFFERED AT JOINT PROPULSION CONFERENCE
Check here if you are renewing or reinstating your membership. (You must pay the full Early Bird by 24 May 2011 Advance (25 May–22 Jul) After 23 Jul 2011
nonmember conference fee.) Practical Intro to Preliminary Design of Air Breathing Engines
$995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
RETURN FORM TO: Electric Propulsion for Space Systems

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
$995 $1145
Hybrid Rocket Propulsion
$1195 $1345 $1345 $1495

$995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495

www.aiaa.org/courses 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Ste 500 703.264.7657
Liquid Propulsion Systems—Evolution and Advancements
Reston, VA, 20191
$995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
Cancellations Substitutions may be made at any time. Cancellations must be postmarked
four weeks before the course start date and are subject to a $100 cancellation fee to cover Pressure Vessel Design Requirements and Verification Guidelines
administrative overhead. AIAA reserves the right to cancel any program due to insufficient $995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
registration or any situation beyond its control. Each course will be reviewed three weeks
prior to the start date and may be canceled if a minimum enrollment has not been reached. COURSES OFFERED AT GNC/AFM/MST CONFERENCES
Participants will be notified immediately and a full refund will be issued. AIAA cannot be Early Bird by1 Jul 2011 Advance (2–29 Jul) 30 Jul –4 Aug 2011
responsible for expenses incurred because of course cancellation. AIAA reserves the right
to substitute speakers in the event of unusual circumstances. For additional information, call Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification
Chris Brown at 703.264.7504 or 800.639.2422; FAX 703.264.7657; E-mail: chrisb@ $995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
aiaa.org. Aircraft Handling Qualities
$995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495

5
Check here if you need to make special arrangements due to a disability.
Mathematical Introduction to Integrated Nav. Systems w/Apps.
Attach requirements on a separate sheet of paper.
$995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
Modeling Flight Dynamics with Tensors

6
FORM OF PAYMENT: All registrants must provide $995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
AIAA Member Number: ___________________________ a valid ID (driver’s license or Modern Missile Guidance
passport) when they check in. $995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
Purchase Order American Express
For student registration, valid
Check VISA student ID is also required. Vision-Based Control for Autonomous Vehicles
$995 $1145 $1195 $1345 $1345 $1495
Travelers Check MasterCard
.
Wire Transfer Diners Club 5% Group Discounts Please indicate if you qualify for the:
Deduct 5% for three or __ Prepaid Group Discount (One 5% discount per registrant)
Credit Card Number: more students from the
same organization, if
______________________________________________
registered simultaneously,
Expiration Date: _________Month _______ Year _____ prepaid, and postmarked
four weeks before the first TOTAL DUE: $ _______________________
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 / JUNE 2011 B43

 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 an
online format only. The cost is included 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 con-
ference technical papers. For those registering on-site, you will
be provided with instructions at registration.
Young Professional Guide for Gaining Management Support
Young professionals have the unique opportunity to meet and
learn from some of the most important people in the business
by attending conferences and participating in AIAA activities. A
detailed online guide, published by the AIAA Young Professional
Committee, is available to help you gain support and financial
backing from your company. The guide explains the benefits of
participation, offers recommendations and provides an example
letter for seeking management support and funding, and shows
you how to get the most out of your participation. The online
guide can be found on the AIAA Web site, www.aiaa.org/
YPGuide.
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. You may now submit your paper online at http://
mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aiaa.
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.
Committee Meetings
Meeting room locations for AIAA committees will be posted
on the message board and will be available upon request in the
registration area.
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
presenters wish to use the LCD projectors, it is their responsibil-
ity to bring or arrange for a computer on their own. Please note
that AIAA does not provide security in the session rooms and
recommends that items of value, including computers, not be left
unattended. Any additional audiovisual requirements, or equip-
ment not requested by the date provided in the preliminary con-
ference information, 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 bul-
letin board is solely for “open position” and “available for employ-
ment” 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 inappropriate notices, and cannot assume responsibil-
ity for notices forwarded to AIAA Headquarters. AIAA members
can post and browse resumes and job listings, and access
other online employment resources, by visiting the AIAA Career
Center at http://careercenter.aiaa.org.
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
member 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 exhib-
its as well as the unauthorized sale of AIAA-copyrighted material
is prohibited.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
AIAA speakers and attendees are reminded that some top-
ics discussed in the conference could be controlled by the
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
responsible for ensuring that they do not discuss ITAR export-
restricted information with non-U.S. Nationals in attendance.
STRATEGY for
SUCCESS
In today’s dynamic business environment,
effective outreach and customer interface are vital to
successfully capturing new partnership opportunities.

If your company is looking for a mechanism to heighten visibility,

expand networking capabilities among industry leaders, and
demonstrate your unique value to thousands of aerospace
professionals, AIAA can help to achieve your objectives.

With over 75 years’ experience, and a distinguished roster

of legendary aerospace policymakers and pioneers,
AIAA’s Sponsorship Program can provide access
to key industry, government, and academia contacts
all in one location.

Whether you are looking to build new

relationships within the aerospace community,
or strengthen your brand image as a major
industry contender, an AIAA sponsorship
will provide global marketing to the
individuals and companies that matter
most to your organization.

For more information on sponsorship opportunities with AIAA,

contact Cecilia Capece, AIAA Sponsorship Program Manager,
at 703.264.7570 or ceciliac@aiaa.org.
change your perception of

MESHING

VISIT US AT THE

AIAA
FLUID DYNAMICS
CONFERENCE
AND EXHIBIT
27-29 JUNE 2011

> THIS IS NOT THE SOCIAL PART OF THE PROJECT.

Gridding is a lonely business. Everybody puts pressure on you to

generate meshes quickly and accurately, but it’s up to you alone

to get it done. We’ve been in the meshing business for a long time,

and our experienced technical support staff is standing by to provide

you with personal, professional support. You’re not alone anymore.

Call us for a free evaluation. We’re ready to help. POINTWISE.

Reliable People, Reliable Tools, Reliable CFD Meshing.

Toll Free (800) 4PTWISE www.pointwise.com