This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

org/25005

Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop

in Brief (2018)

DETAILS
12 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PDF
ISBN 978-0-309-47127-5 | DOI 10.17226/25005

CONTRIBUTORS
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board; Division on Engineering and Physical
Sciences; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
BUY THIS BOOK

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. Aeronautics
2050: Proceedings of a Workshop in Brief. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25005.

Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)

This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

Proceedings of a Workshop
IN BRIEF
February 2018

Aeronautics 2050
Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

The Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB)

of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine organized a 1-day visioning workshop
to facilitate a dialog on the historical contributions of
the ASEB to development of the U.S. civil aeronautics
sector, recent advances and current challenges and
opportunities in civil aviation, and new directions in
air travel and technology in the coming 30 years. The
workshop took place on October 12, 2017, as part of
the board’s marking of its establishment in 1967. As
noted by participants throughout the day, the 50th
anniversary of the ASEB occurs in a rich historical con-
text of achievements in aeronautics. The 100th anni-
versary of the National Advisory Committee for Aero-
nautics (NACA) recently passed. The year 2017 marks
the 60th anniversary of the commercial jet age, which
began with the first flight of the Boeing 707 in 1957. The year 2018 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Finally, the workshop itself occurred on the 70th an-
niversary, almost to the day, of the breaking of the sound barrier.

The workshop opened with remarks from the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Marcia Mc-
Nutt. McNutt recalled that the ASEB was founded in 1967 to address the nation’s need for a board that would focus
the talents and energies of the engineering community on significant aerospace policies and programs. She noted
that ASEB studies have had clear impacts on the nation’s aeronautics research efforts and that this workshop con-
tinues that work by providing a forum for discussing the priorities of the nation’s future in civil aviation.

Robert Lightfoot, NASA acting administrator, spoke next and reiterated that the ASEB has been and con-
tinues to be essential in guiding the direction of NASA’s aeronautics agenda. He noted that aeronautics is the first
“A” in NASA and, to emphasize its national importance, reminded participants that aviation goods and services
provide $90.5 billion in positive trade balance, 10.6 million direct and indirect jobs, and $1.6 trillion in U.S. eco-
nomic activity. Today, NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) addresses many emerging chal-
lenges and opportunities. Among the opportunities emphasized by Lightfoot were ultra-efficient flight, supersonic
overland flight, electric aircraft propulsion, on-demand and urban-air mobility, and fully autonomous flight. Such
opportunities, however, present challenges because they must be balanced with operational flight requirements,
including safety. To address these challenges and yet sustain innovation in aviation technology, he suggested that
an environment of competition, cooperation, and collaboration between government and industry needs to be

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

fostered. After providing some examples of NASA’s current research portfolio, Lightfoot concluded by projecting a
future of aviation breakthroughs, with ARMD implementing the ASEB’s advice—advice that is used to benchmark
progress and help shape policies and guide research focused on the next 25 years and beyond.

Alan Epstein, chair of the ASEB, then introduced the four sessions of the day: a retrospective of the jet age
1958-2017, a look at current challenges for aviation, a dialogue on the future of commercial air travel, and a discus-
sion on new directions for aviation technologies.

60 YEARS OF AVIATION AND AERONAUTICS IN THE JET AGE (1958-2017)

Robie Samanta Roy, ASEB member, opened the first session and introduced the session panelists—Richard
Hallion of Florida Polytechnic University, Robert van der Linden of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and
Space Museum, and Jaiwon Shin of NASA ARMD.

Hallion’s presentation introduced the theme of the session and focused on highlights of aviation history.
He defined the past century as a revolution of progressive capability in aeronautics and astronautics, evidencing
this with benchmarks in technological developments since the first powered, sustained flight in 1903. He pointed
out that although flight speed, a common metric for measuring progress in aviation technology, plateaued in
1960, developments in areas such as propulsion and aircraft efficiency and range argue that the technological rev-
olution continues to the present. Hallion cautioned, however, that underlying societal and organizational factors
have both hindered and helped aeronautics advancements. He recalled on the one hand the self-limiting mindset
of the Wright brothers, who hobbled aviation development in the United States through excessive legal control,
with lasting impact through World War I. He noted that U.S. leadership was re-established in the 1930s with, for
instance, the Douglas DC-1, which he called America’s “First Scientific Airplane.” He posited that U.S. leadership
in the 1930s and a true revolution in U.S. aeronautics was a result of incorporating advanced academic research in
flight together with government programs at NACA and the U.S. Bureau of Standards, along with industrial prac-
tice and increasingly friendly legal, policy, and economic environments. He also noted that the dual-use civilian
and military industrial base for the aeronautics sector, a connection that remains today, led to immense success.
He concluded by noting that the United States entered the 18th century at 6 mph—the speed of animal-moved
transport, departed the 19th century at 60 mph—the speed of the steam locomotive, and departed the 20th cen-
tury at 600 mph—the speed of the intercontinental jet liner. Might we not enter the 22nd century at 6,000 mph?

Shin, offering NASA’s perspective, opened by saying that he associates with the ASEB’s integrity, expertise,
trust, and openness. He reiterated Hallion’s observation that the key to U.S. success in developing its aeronautics
technology portfolio has been cooperation and collaboration between government agencies, industry, and aca-
demia—a purpose for which the ASEB is essential. He highlighted that the role of NASA ARMD is as a funder and re-
quirement setter, and that NASA and the ASEB work together to achieve a common goal of ensuring that the United
States stays at the leading edge of the field of aviation, advancing the nation’s global leadership and sustaining the
economic advantage of the U.S. civil aviation sector in a climate of increasing international competition. He noted
that by 2035 the number of passenger trips is forecast to double—with the Asia Pacific outstripping North America
and Europe combined. He stressed that there is a lot at stake if we do not collectively concentrate and focus our
national intellectual capacity to advance U.S. global leadership in a more competitive future. Shin praised the ASEB
for focusing, through innovative mechanisms such as the Aeronautics Research and Technology Roundtable, on
helping NASA develop its current set of strategic thrust areas and implementation of the ARMD program under a
constrained budget. He concluded with the theme that NASA aeronautics, the ASEB, industry, and academia have
worked together to advance the state of the art in aeronautics research. He said this national effort has given the
United States “the edge,” but that this collaboration should not be taken for granted.

Samanta Roy began the discussion by asking panelist van der Linden to comment on the dynamics be-
tween technology “push” and user “pull” and economics in the context of supersonic transport (SST). van der
Linden responded that speed in civil aviation has plateaued because of the high cost associated with fuel require-
ments for overcoming drag rise at high speeds. Thus, the operational efficiency of commercial supersonic flight
was surpassed by the Boeing 747 jet, which lowered seat-mile cost and demonstrated that economics drive avia-
tion trends.

Samanta Roy then moved the conversation to the dynamics of today’s rapid international diffusion of avia-
tion technology in an increasingly globalized world. Hallion commented that the nature of competition between
manufacturers has changed because all airplanes contain products from other countries. Nevertheless, he added,
competition will be needed to ensure that the aerospace industry will retain its innovative nature, which is essential

2
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

in spurring technological development.

Citing modern workforce concerns, Samanta Roy asked how the aeronautics sector historically has attract-
ed the best and brightest engineers. Hallion responded by saying we will have to integrate the workforce of today
with the future workforce, while also integrating current technology—which will still be flying in 2050—along with
innovations that will be adopted over the next 30 years. van der Linden agreed and emphasized that as early as the
1920s, Boeing invested in specific universities to create a workforce pipeline. Shin noted that the future workforce
in aerospace will be a product of the digital revolution rather than traditional aerospace disciplines and highlighted
that because of the speed of change in the digital sector, one of the prevailing characteristics of this workforce is im-
patience—the expectation of rapid product development and impact. He suggested that if traditional timescales of
technological development in aerospace are maintained, it will create a poor match with the incoming workforce.

Opening the discussion to the workshop participants, David van Wie, ASEB member, asked what major
advancements led to the increase in reliability and safety within the national air system. Hallion noted that the
introduction of the jet engine was a key advance in safety, along with the introduction of the all-metal aircraft and
associated deep knowledge of aircraft structure. He emphasized that aircraft operate within a safe system that
benefits from combined improvements in weather prediction, training, maintenance, and technology, as well as a
system-of-systems approach to safety. Shin added more recent advances in weather monitoring, synthetic vision,
and safety data sharing and monitoring to identify the precursors of accidents.

Returning to Asian expansion in aeronautics and aerospace, Nancy Young of Airlines for America (A4A)
asked if Chinese companies will become “the new Douglas,” alluding to Boeing’s former rival. In response, Hallion
predicted that, barring internal disruption, all indications exist that the Chinese will become very strong global
rivals in aeronautics because of the investments they are making in education, industrial infrastructure, and mili-
tary systems. van der Linden agreed, adding that he hopes Boeing and Airbus are not taking competition posed by
China lightly, but also noting that if they recognize the competition and respond, it will be beneficial to everyone.
Shin noted that he expects high entry barriers for new entrants in the large transport category. But he added, in
emerging markets, such as urban air mobility involving the production of possibly millions of units, those new
markets will be more like the automotive industry with much lower entry costs. He also noted that U.S.-educated
immigrant engineers are now returning in high numbers to their home countries in Asia, for instance, because
those countries can offer exciting opportunities in emerging markets—and we need to pay attention to this issue.
Shin added that the agency has been working to provide an attractive culture to a next generation, notwithstand-
ing NASA’s bureaucratic shortcomings. The work is not done yet to overcome being too rigid, inflexible, and
struggling to integrate new ideas. NASA Aeronautics is working hard to transform that culture. Shin concluded by
reiterating that agency leadership does understand that this is an issue.

CURRENT CHALLENGES FOR AVIATION

Valerie Manning, ASEB member, opened the session by noting the breadth of current challenges facing the
civil aviation industry—from those unique to operators versus passengers versus lessors, for example, to environ-
mental impacts, to research and technology, to business management.

John Hansman of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology introduced the theme of challenges and op-
portunities for today’s commercial aviation sector. He started by reviewing 11 of what he believes are the greatest
challenges (and opportunities) facing the industry today. These include (1) international growth trends in tradi-
tional aviation markets, with emphasis on growth potential in Asia; (2) growth in emerging nontraditional markets,
such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), urban air mobility, and commercial space launches—he noted that there
are now over 940,000 registered UAV operators in the United States; (3) stimulating innovation in high-integrity
markets in which innovation leads to financial loss; (4) engendering excitement in and meeting the expectations of
the young workforce; (5) modernizing the national civil aviation system while maintaining safety—the current high
level of safety can lead to conservatism, but how much do you want to spend to mitigate a concern that is a very
low risk; (6) emerging nontraditional safety threats, such as the proficiency of human interactions with increasingly
automated systems that require nontraditional training; (7) the emerging shortfall of pilots and technicians; (8)
the capacity of the national airspace system (NAS), in particular capacity around markets such as New York City
and runway capacity at key locations; (9) low-altitude urban airspace capacity with the inclusion of MedEvac and
Uber-type transport ideas; (10) low success in implementation of modernization, partly because of the high level
of safety in the current system; and (11) environmental issues, including greenhouse gas emission, noise pollution,
and ultrafine particles.

3
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

Manning then introduced the panelists—John-Paul Clarke of the Georgia Institute of Technology, Carl Bur-
leson of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Nancy Young of A4A. Manning began by asking Young to
address environmental challenges in civil aviation. Young responded that civil aviation has done well decreasing its
environmental impact and integrating new technologies into the NAS—increasing fuel efficiency (which reduces
greenhouse gas emissions) and reducing noise (95% reduction in the United States for those people exposed to
significant noise since 1975 while also tripling the number of enplanements). She noted that technology is not
always “the answer” when the industry has to consider how to accustom the public to changes in civil aviation—
such as perhaps the reintroduction to supersonics or the deployment of new aircraft configurations, such as the
blended wing design. To this, Manning asked Clarke which challenge is the greatest for modernization. Clarke
noted that the NAS is a sequence of bottlenecks as currently configured, and the challenge of managing such a
system only becomes compounded when you add in increasingly autonomous vehicles. He listed the challenge
of “multimodal coordination,” that is, different types of aircraft operating in different modes, and noted that the
traditional approach is separation. He warned that, in addition to security, characterizing and managing uncer-
tainty—in airline scheduling, for example—is a huge challenge. Also, diminishing human capital is a challenge,
while at the same time the interface between the human and the machine is evolving. Manning then prompted
Burleson to comment on safety and human capital. He noted that identifying risk has become truly challenging
and suggested that this is part of a larger problem—the system works so well, it is exceedingly difficult to envi-
sion an improved way of doing business. Other challenges for the FAA include the aging workforce—the need to
improve the inflow into the industry of younger personnel; integrating disruptive technologies like drones, which
caught the FAA off guard; and socializing change in a system that now has to accommodate new nontraditional
players from Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Burleson added that the FAA has learned from the implementation of
NexGen that large changes to the airspace system cannot simply be thought of as technology solutions and that
community engagement is mandatory.

In response to Manning’s prompt to discuss business and operational opportunities provided by data
produced by aircraft and passengers, Hansman noted these data are not being fully exploited today, often because
they are restricted under privacy agreements with crew. But he added the data would be valuable, through data
mining, not only for improving safety and operational efficiency but also in developing and testing autonomous
technologies. Young agreed and suggested focusing on “little data” (discrete computer systems) as a transitional
effort to maximize operations and manage a transition to where we want to go with the industry in the future.
Clarke advocated for the analysis of parallel data onboard vehicles as key to safety, stating that gathering and ana-
lyzing big data are vital to advancing autonomous technologies because of the statistical strength they provide.
Burleson interjected that there are surprising linkages between government and the private sector—for instance,
companies have built businesses based on data provided by the FAA, underscoring the role of the market viability
in guiding which data are valuable.

Burleson then returned to the topic of safety, expressing concern that there is a mismatch between where
there is growth in aviation and where there is regulatory capability in the world. Young agreed, emphasizing that
international aviation standards have been, until recently, developed by a group of like-minded countries with
comparable regulatory structures, but that this dynamic is changing as new aviation powers with different regu-
lation cultures emerge. Burleson built on this by saying that the United States is still a catalyst of discussion and
negotiation but no longer the dominant voice in the international aviation standards and policy forum.

Manning then asked the panel how the demand for human capital might be reduced with efficiency or
technology. Hartman advocated for improved manpower efficiency; however, he stressed the continued impor-
tance of quality crew training because the new workforce is coming from a different experience base (e.g., UAVs,
video games), which potentially sets us up for a new class of accidents. Clarke contributed that, as noted in the
National Research Council report on increasing autonomy in civil aviation,1 an autonomous system might be used
to monitor the human as opposed to the inverse case, which would open up new operational modalities.

Opening up the discussion to the audience, and providing NASA’s perspective, Jay Dryer, of NASA ARMD,
focused on the challenge of balancing on the one hand safety, regulation, and certification and on the other the
drive for innovation and the quick introduction of new technologies. He also noted the challenges that drive op-
portunities in new markets, how societal expectations drive markets, and the necessity that the incoming work-
force be multidisciplinary because of increasing integration of nontraditional technologies with more traditional
aeronautics technologies. He closed by suggesting that having a risk-taking culture will be key.

1
National Research Council, Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation: Toward a New Era of Flight, The National Academies
Press, Washington, D.C., 2014.

4
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

Epstein asked the panel what the capacity of the NAS will be in the year 2050. Hartman projected that
long-term traditional commercial growth in the United States will be tied to population growth, and congestion
will be problematic—the NAS is approaching infrastructure capacity, and there will be a surge in small vehicles in
urban airspace. He noted that one challenge will be figuring out how to reduce separation standards. Burleson
added that the breadth of the definition of infrastructure in the NAS is growing; whereas systems in the past have
been self-contained, future systems will be integrated into a complex ecology of increasing interdependence.
Clarke noted that flight control systems, for example, have no software parallels or redundancies.

Samanta Roy noted that the ability to integrate new materials into mainstream aerospace systems has been
disappointing and asked how certification and validation can help. Hartman referred back to the high level of safety
in the NAS and although the FAA is making it easier to introduce new technologies, it is often not economically
favorable to undergo testing and certification to, for instance, introduce new materials into a vehicle. Furthermore,
there is no easy way to take risk or assess which risk should be taken. Burleson agreed, pointing out that legisla-
tive discourse around technology introduction often also constrains regulation. Additionally, global supply chains
make certification more difficult. He proposed that lawmakers must be educated on risk and how risk should be
taken.

In response to a question from online viewers about what federal agencies should be doing today to both
mitigate the risk of globalization and take advantage of the challenges, Hunsman highlighted that because of the
level of safety in the U.S. systems, it is easier to test new technologies elsewhere as in Singapore (self-driving cars)
or Dubai (Uber Elevate). This reality creates a competitive advantage outside of the United States. Young agreed
and emphasized that the government needs a strong national aviation policy, recognizing the importance of the
aviation and aerospace industry and investing in aeronautics development in the national interest—especially if
we want as a nation to remain the world leader. Burleson responded that the United States has invested heavily
in engaging with international aviation through training and improving standards—focusing on where Americans
are traveling.

5
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

Brian Argrow, ASEB member, then asked how privatization of air traffic control intersects with politics and
policy in aviation. Young responded that U.S. airlines believe it makes sense to privatize air traffic control, leaving
regulation with the regulator and operations with another entity to achieve efficiencies within the system in a bet-
ter way. Hartman expressed “grave concern” that the United States privatize air traffic control in the right way. He
said that we already have a very efficient system and is not sure what the nation will gain from such a move, and
he noted such a move may restrict innovation capability. Burleson noted that there are many international models
for accomplishing privatization. He said the Administration is supportive, but that there is a clear split in Congress.

FUTURE VISIONS—COMMERCIAL AIR TRAVEL

Mark Lewis, ASEB member, introduced the sessions panelists—Juan Alonso of Stanford University, Robert
Liebeck of Boeing, and Graham Warwick of Aviation Week—and invited Pierre Chao of Renaissance Strategic Advi-
sors to introduce the theme of future visions for commercial air travel.

To demonstrate how much can change in 30 years, Chao began by recounting in 30-year increments de-
velopments in aeronautics and how 30 years (the time period to 2050) has in the past been a significant time pe-
riod with regard to the implementation of technology and the shape of the aviation industry overall. He noted that
commercial aviation has been a 40-year growth market and that there is little sign that the relationship between
GDP and market growth is weakening, thus predicting that it should remain a healthy growth market on which
new players try to capitalize. He noted that cycles do come and go in a market, but when it comes to aviation, the
cycles are occurring on a trend of net growth. He also argued that the rationality in the industry has been due to
the emergence of a duopoly. On the latter point, Chao commented that countries with inherent national need for
aircraft, such as China because of its size, tend to develop their own industry from necessity. Chao then moved on
to talk about industry life cycles, indicating that the UAV industry represents the early phase—the so-called “entry
and experimentation” phase of the life cycle—during which product innovation is key, whereas commercial avia-
tion is in a mature “stability and decline” phase of its life cycle, and now benefits more from process innovation.
Alluding to the keynote address, he stated that incrementalism is the appropriate mindset for a mature market,
but that market maturity should not be conflated with high and low technology. At the same time, he noted that
in a mature phase, it becomes an imperative to pursue innovation that will re-start the cycle. He suggested that
autonomy is such a technology and that it is appropriate for NASA to invest in technologies that would restart the
aviation industry cycle. In conclusion, Chao focused on innovations in areas such as supersonics, autonomy, elec-
tric propulsion, urban air transport, and novel aircraft configurations as being the technologies being pursued for
the aviation restart—but there is work to be done to see which ones may succeed.

Lewis then invited panelist opening comments, and Alonso began by suggesting that there are guideposts
for technologies that might be in end states in 2050, and that these include the following: increased automation
and reduced energy intensity, environmental impact, and cost. He also noted an acceleration in aeronautics in-
novation is likely in the near future—possibly by a factor of two or more. He also noted he expects that new un-
conventional configurations could mature in that environment. Liebeck believes that by 2050 the industry will be
transitioning away from jet-A fueled engines, and we need to figure out how to do that. Warwick concluded by
stating that the industry is changing because of investors willing to finance new ideas, but that the biggest changes
will not be in response to new technologies, but rather to new business models, because even with the best efforts
in technological development, 2050 is only about one “tech refresh” away, and industry actors want to be “fast in
relative terms.”

Lewis then asked the panelists what commercial air transportation will look like in 2050. Warwick re-
marked that there can be cultural resistance to new technology, and to get it off the ground, its capabilities must
be overstated—in turn, the distillation of the visionary idea is what becomes the product. He also noted that as we
get to the end of the model of two turbofans under a wing, it is likely that electric distribution of power will enable
the transition to the next architecture. Liebeck suggested the future lies in structures, materials, manufacturing,
and flight mechanics. Chao responded that there will be a third major player in aircraft manufacturing—most likely
in Asia—but 80 percent of the aesthetic will be familiar. He also noted that the risk is that the technologic break-
through does not come from the United States, but is driven by different flight requirements elsewhere (e.g., the
perception of speed and distance could be different in Asia).

Robert Pearce of NASA ARMD provided a NASA perspective, beginning with enthusiasm for the idea of
NASA’s role in helping industry’s restarting of “the cycle” but pointed out that the innovations are not being made
for novelty’s sake, but to lower cost, lower noise, increase efficiency, and expand operational choices, which when
blended together, drive us to new configurations, such as blended wing body aircraft. He noted that one thing the

6
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

A MARKET ANALYST INTRUDES - INDUSTRY CONDITIONS AND

THOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF FLIGHT

In the keynote address, Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group addressed three topics:
aviation market drivers and conditions, aviation market characteristics, and tech-
nology and its commercial drivers. He noted that the aviation market is perform-
ing extremely well—better than any other part of the aerospace industry—but has
departed from the 10-year cycles of the past, indicating diminished volatility, and
since 2004, revenue has been on an upward trajectory. He attributed this trend to
three enablers: an increase in the number of people converting disposable income
to air travel and a healthy freight sector, bifurcation between oil prices and the cost
of capital (interest rates), and the emerging market in China (passing the United
States in deliveries in 2015). The market is characterized by mass transport with
large aircraft, a strong relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) and air
travel demand, decreasing yield per revenue passenger mile (something to consider
when thinking about the application of new technologies), and decreasing aircraft
unit cost. Aboulafia postulated that the industry has been deflating in real terms
and that the “empire of growth and critical mass” is largely based on sacrificing
profitability. He suggested that in this environment technology must pay for itself
quickly by either raising revenue or lowering cost. On the subject of technological
trends, he noted that we have a terrible record of predicting future technologies
and that they commonly take longer to develop than is expected. More important-
ly, development does not mean commercialization, and commercialization does
not mandate mass utilization. Aboulafia finally noted that military developments
are much less of a source of civil technology than in the past—meaning that the
civil sector will have to be responsible for more of its own technology development.
John Langford of Aurora Flight Sciences asked how NASA’s Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate should use its limited budget. Aboulafia answered that rather
than look at high-payoff performance, NASA should pursue high-payoff economics
and technological developments that can be realized incrementally to bring down
costs. John Hunsman of M.I.T. contested that it is not NASA’s role to pursue incre-
mental developments that industry will pursue anyway, and that NASA should be
pursuing more fundamental, high-risk opportunities as well as changes that might
have significant societal impact—for instance, a reduction in the cost of MedEvac
helicopter transport. Aboulafia conceded the point but suggested focusing on re-
ducing cost. Mark Lewis, ASEB member, asked if Aboulafia’s concerns about SST
extend to SST business jets. Highlighting cabin size requirements as being key in
this sector, Aboulafia responded that SST business jets are a niche market and must
respond to customer surveys. Juan Alonso of Stanford University asked if there are
historical examples of disruptive technologies that were not cost-effective but have
caused industry revolutions. Aboulafia responded that war accelerates technologi-
cal development and that regulations for the public good sometimes skew things
in favor of new technologies that can be catalysts for revolution.

7
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

panel hadn’t mentioned was the increasing integration of traditionally isolated aviation systems with the Internet
and other systems on which the economy depends (e.g., global positioning systems) and that he anticipates this
trend will continue and will be driven by UAS. Lastly, Pearce mentioned that while NASA continues to systemati-
cally improve SST efficiency and cost, it is not NASA’s job to figure out what the market will absorb, only to try to
knock down technology barriers so the market can develop new products.

Expanding the discussion to other attendees, Argrow asked if the next generation might be more comfort-
able with remote communication, thus diminishing demand for air travel. Chao responded that millennials, who
are now in the flying population, do not appear to have different air travel habits, according to available data.
However, tele-connectivity has already altered working practices, making it necessary to constantly check for any
evidence of a consumer shift in the aviation sector. Liebeck commented that he is not sure in-person contact will
prevail, owing to cost and convenience. Warwick agreed that who travels and why will change, but that industry
will not face a problem until those who stop flying are no longer replaced by those who have never flown.

Tom Irvine of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) asked the question, As the
market grows, because of socioeconomic changes in Asia, will new flyers have a strong appetite for new technolo-
gies that will force sectoral change? Chao replied that the new flyers have no preconceived notions about what the
flight experience looks like, and this encourages the introduction of new technologies to improve the passenger
experience (e.g., reduced security measures or back-of-the-airplane comfort and entertainment). At the same time,
the United States has so much invested in the current flight system that change is unlikely to occur here first. Alonso
commented that he believes the passenger experience is unlikely to change substantially, but how it is delivered
will change during the two or so product cycles between now and 2050. For example, hybrid-electric and electric
technologies will percolate up to the larger aircraft to open the design space. Warwick built on this idea, saying
that the potential disruption to the market will come if a supplier provides a new product that is of higher value to
the flying and future flying population.

Liebeck then returned to the topic of autonomy, stating that operator error is the most common cause
of safety incidents and that autonomy could overcome this. Warwick interjected that you do not have to take the
pilot out of the cockpit, you simply change their job—autonomy will help the human for decades before it comes
into its own right. Manning asked if the aircraft can be automated without automating traffic control, to which
Warwick responded that autonomy is one of the most important technologies existing because it can be pervasive,
and it simplifies complicated jobs and will help to reduce training and personnel requirements. Alonso agreed that
autonomy is a system-level solution and must be applied to aviation system-wide all at once. Chao suggested that
the economic imperative will come from the pilot shortage because autonomy is the solution.

The session concluded with an online guest asking if there is another end state for aviation in which travel
is not about reaching the destination quickly but rather about the enjoyable passenger experience, as on cruise
ships. Warwick commented on the possibility, saying that airlines are struggling with the commoditization of their
service and with differentiating themselves, which has spurred interest in unique products, such as Boom’s 55-seat
aircraft. Chao agreed that this is a timely question and drew attention to a shift in the economy away from mass
production and toward mass customization of experience, leading to niche markets supported by private invest-
ments.

FUTURE VISIONS—NEW DIRECTIONS FOR AVIATION

Nicholas Lappos, ASEB member, introduced the panelists—Ilan Kroo of Stanford University, Atherton Carty
of Lockheed Martin SkunkWorks, Pradeep Fernandes of Boeing HorizonX, and John Langford of Aurora Flight Sci-
ences—for the final session and briefly reviewed key technologies in the future of aviation, including the increased
use of autonomy, urban mobility, and electric propulsion. In particular, he noted that U.S. society has been shaped
by transportation—river transport, railroads, and so on—and this trend is likely to continue as the transportation
ecosystem evolves.

Kroo began with the observation that despite automation in aircraft preceding autonomy in cars, “driver-
less” cars are perceived by the public as state of the art. He pointed to how autonomous aircraft may fulfill the
societal needs of delivering goods and enabling personal mobility and could affect urbanization, traffic, housing,
communication, and the environment. Yet urban airspace autonomous vehicles face regulatory challenges (safety,
traffic management, noise, security, privacy, etc.) and still require technical advances (electric propulsion and
infrastructure, energy storage, precision navigation, deep learning, etc.). Kroo emphasized the difficulty of ac-
complishing mass integration of personal aircraft into the urban airspace. He was encouraged by the enthusiasm

8
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

and engagement of the young workforce in this field when it comes to personal mobility and so on. He concluded
with future-looking questions for the panel to discuss—such as how close in time is this vision of the future, what
are the barriers, what infrastructure is needed, and so on—and a summary of critical technologies, such as vehicle
autonomy and augmentation, revolutionary propulsion, safety-critical software, machine learning, applying new
materials, low-cost electronics, etc.

Carty noted that the cross-disciplinary application of new technologies in aviation must be cultivated in
the incoming workforce. He predicted that these technologies would be transformative in societies with less robust
existing transportation systems. He expressed the hope that increased collaboration across the industry will spur
innovation. Langford suggested that the real revolution happening today is the “democratization of flying.” He
also posited that understanding the spectrum of autonomy is key and that autonomy does not remove the human
from the system but shifts where the human operates within the system. He concluded by commenting that the
“drone revolution” has been driven in part by entrepreneurial storytelling and how that has, in turn, shaped soci-
etal perceptions and demand. This demand results in an incredibly dynamic and exciting time in aviation, which
will permeate every part of the economy, creating new markets. Fernandes summarized three themes coming out
of the day’s discussion: the challenge of creating innovation in a massive industry; the speed, or lack thereof, at
which development happens; and the powerful drivers of economics and market demand in the success of tech-
nology. He also asked the following questions when considering the future: Who is going to invest in improving
the energy density of batteries, in beating the noise challenge, and activating the dormant capacity in our aviation
infrastructure across the country?

Turning to the role of NASA, Langford noted that NASA must be dedicated over the long term to autonomy
research, which includes both working on the infrastructure for autonomous vehicle traffic management as well
as the certification of “trusted-autonomy” systems. Kroo then noted that many of the companies now getting in-
volved in autonomous aircraft have little expertise in aerospace, and one of NASA’s roles continues to be advising
the industry on how to integrate themselves into the aeronautics community and combining the computer science
with the physics. Carty responded that NASA needs to continue to be willing to take risks in research and develop-
ment that others cannot or will not take. He noted that NASA is doing a good job of evolving into a leadership role
and partnership with business—including being focused on the business case for the insertion of new technolo-
gies. Following on this, Fernandes envisioned increased opportunities for collaboration between NASA, equipment
manufacturers, and the FAA on fundamental, critical challenges such as infrastructure and the system capacity.
Lappos added that NASA has an important role to act as the honest, unbiased broker that provides guidance mate-
rials to the regulators—as it has done in the past—such as with the application of fly-by-wire technologies.

Turning to the role of the FAA, Carty noted that the NAS is incredibly robust because of the processes the
FAA has defined to create a stable, safe system that is characterized by predictability and redundancy. Looking to
a future with much more crowded air space, however, the FAA needs to streamline these processes such that they
can be applied on an order of magnitude larger scale while retaining the system’s stability, predictability, robust-
ness, and safety. Langford added that the FAA is antiquated and needs to follow the model of the wireless com-
munications market, which has taken a remarkably complex system, masked the complexity with technology, and
made it useable by everyone. He held up his cellular telephone and compared it to the ham radio of the past. This
transformation has not happened in the NAS.

Opening the dialogue to the attendees and contributing a NASA perspective, Ed Waggoner said that NASA
ARMD has begun to address all of the issues mentioned today—societal needs, regulatory issues, infrastructure,
scalability, multimodal systems, unmanned and tended vehicles, and autonomy. He noted how short the period of
time has been between the first mention of package delivery by drone to opening the conversation about personal
urban air mobility, and he believes this is a sign that the innovation cycle is restarting. He commented that NASA
and the FAA are working together—better than ever before—to address these problems and concluded by saying
that NASA is always working the margin between revenue and cost.

Steven Battel, ASEB member, asked if NASA’s test facilities are sufficient or if they need to be improved to
meet coming opportunities. Langford said NASA’s facilities have historically been a critical part of establishing U.S.
leadership in aviation, but today without restoring the ARMD budget, it will be difficult to find the right balance
between supporting these facilities and the ability to start new programs. Responding to the need for the facilities,
Langford said that yes, the existing facilities are critical, particularly to encourage the growth of new companies in
the sector.

Hansman returned to the issue of engaging the new workforce, the shift in NASA to larger, team-based
projects, and the agency’s risk-averse environment. He suggested that new mechanisms in NASA are needed to en-

9
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

able its engineers to take more risks as a small part of the portfolio, which would encourage new ideas within the
agency. In short, it is necessary to inject more risk at a low level in the system to bring in the innovators.

Argrow asked why NASA portrays its supersonic flight demonstrator with a cockpit for the pilot, if auton-
omy is the way of the future. Langford pointed that there is a cultural bias and resistance in the need to maintain
a crew member. Shin noted that the objective of the jet is not to demonstrate a complicated autonomous system
but rather demonstrate low sonic boom.

Alonso then asked what the panelists suggest NASA should do to attract the autonomous system work-
force that exists outside of aerospace. Langford said this should be an easy job because people love things that fly,
but it will require a considerable effort by the community to nurture the interest in the youngest generation.

In response a question from Epstein on when he will be able to fly commercially from his home or office
to the airport, Fernandes noted that such a vision will require operating costs to be sufficiently reduced so that the
economic market exists—when that will happen is unknown. Kroo agreed, saying that, technically, much autono-
mous urban air mobility is possible, but the average person needs to be able to buy the vehicles, which must be
reliable and safe—and how long it takes to get to that point will depend on a lot of investment.

The final question asked, by Lewis, was if industry is currently in a position in which innovation is stifled by
antiquated regulations. Lappos responded that the only risk would happen when regulators stonewall—the FAA
must be committed to allowing change and have the resources to institute that change. Langford contested, say-
ing that the FAA has already stifled innovation. He used as evidence that UAVs were developed in China because in
the United Staes every vehicle had to have an airworthiness certificate and a pilot. This is a typeset example of how
regulation was a contributing factor to the United States losing quadrotor manufacturing, he suggested.

10
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

WORKSHOP SUMMARY DISCUSSION

In a final closing session and reflecting on the day’s discussion, Shin emphasized the following four points:

• NASA Aeronautics plays a unique role in building a research and development ecosystem that is equally
accessible to universities and industry. He noted that, in his experience, NASA is still a leader in global
aeronautics research, and this role is summarized by the words lead, collaborate, and leverage. He said
we should capitalize on this strength. NASA’s role is to lead as a role model both in fostering open, honest
communication and in technological development—even if that technology does not become commer-
cially viable. However, of the words, Shin suggested that collaborate—with both industry partners and
universities—deserves the largest concentration of investment. This collaboration defines the competitive
advantage of the U.S. aviation sector. The collaborations should, in turn, be leveraged to maximize what
partners, new and established, can learn from each other across the whole sector, he suggested.

• It is difficult to forecast what the aerospace industry will look like in 2050. It seems likely, given trends of
increasing integration, that the lines between traditionally disparate business sectors, such as aviation and
information technology, will be blurred. These sectors will be integrated within corporations, and success-
ful business models will need to anticipate this increasing integration.

• NASA is struggling to attract the brightest talents of the incoming workforce and should transform itself.
The agency is asking if it has become too difficult to enter the organization, and once inside does young
talent find a risk-averse culture with no room for innovation. In an effort to create that space for innovation
and enhance collaboration across all levels of talent, NASA ARMD has dedicated a tiny portion of its budget
to the Convergent Aeronautics Solution project, which allows teams to take risks and demonstrate a new
idea over accelerated time scales.

In closing summary comments, Epstein commented that the workshop has allowed us to discuss how value can be
added to the nation’s aeronautical enterprise. He concluded the day by voicing his opinion on the following topics
that he, personally, took away from the discussion:

• A major strength of the U.S. aviation system is the FAA’s regulatory system, supported by NASA’s depth of
technical expertise, the combination of which enables change.

• We have to be aware of the concept of safety as a barrier to innovation.

• The importance of considering Revenue per Available Seat Mile (RASM) versus Cost per Available Seat Mile
(CASM) as a driver of technological success in aviation was discussed a lot during the workshop.

• Two models were proposed for NASA’s role in the aeronautics sector: NASA invests in improving current
technologies (incrementalism), or NASA invests in creating new technologies (innovation). Both, he said,
are vital and of value, and NASA needs to consider both models when choosing how to allocate its re-
sources.

• The role of NASA is less about specific technologies than it is about technology leadership and stimulation
and the restoration of the innovation cycle.

In his final comments, Epstein noted that the present is as dynamic and exciting a time in aeronautics and aviation
as it was when the ASEB was established 50 years ago. There is as much future for U.S. aeronautics as there has
been in the past as we go forward to 2050.

11
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Aeronautics 2050: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief

DISCLAIMER: This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief has been prepared by Sarah Brothers and Michael Moloney
as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The committee’s role was limited to planning the event.
The statements made are those of the individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views
of all participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. The Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief
was reviewed in draft form by Raymond S. Colladay of RC Space Enterprises, Inc., Thomas B. Irvine of the American
Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, Karen A. Thole of Pennsylvania State University, and Ian A. Waitz of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology to ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity. The
review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.

PLANNING COMMITTEE: Alan H. Epstein Pratt & Whitney (Chair); Elizabeth R.Cantwell, Arizona State University
(Vice Chair); Brian M. Argrow, University of Colorado, Boulder; Michael P. Delaney, The Boeing Company; Nicholas
D. Lappos, Sikorsky; Mark J. Lewis, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute; Valerie Manning, Airbus; Parviz
Moin, Stanford University; Robie I. Samanta Roy, Lockheed Martin Corporation; Agam N. Sinha, ANS Aviation Inter-
national. STAFF: Nathan Boll, Associate Program Officer Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board; Sarah Brothers,
Associate Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board; Michael H. Moloney, Director, Aeronautics
and Space Engineering Board

SPONSORS: This workshop was supported by NASA and the 58-67 Fund for Space and Aeronautics (with support
from the Lockheed Martin Corporation).

Watch the recorded webcast of the event at https://vimeo.com/album/4829980.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Aeronautics 2050: Proceed-
ings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25005.

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.