[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NASA'S AERONAUTICS MISSION:
ENABLING THE TRANSFORMATION OF AVIATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-797PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida
DON BEYER, Virginia PETE OLSON, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
KATIE HILL, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
June 26, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Kendra Horn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, NASA
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. Alan H. Epstein, R.C. Maclaurin Professor Emeritus of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT; Chair, Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Dr. Ilan Kroo, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Stanford University
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Dr. Mark Lewis, Director, IDA Science & Technology Policy
Institute; Professor Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering,
University of Maryland
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 40
Discussion....................................................... 43
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, NASA...................................... 58
Dr. Alan H. Epstein, R.C. Maclaurin Professor Emeritus of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT; Chair, Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine................................................... 73
Dr. Mark Lewis, Director, IDA Science & Technology Policy
Institute; Professor Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering,
University of Maryland......................................... 84
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Kendra Horn, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 88
Article submitted by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 91
NASA'S AERONAUTICS MISSION:
ENABLING THE TRANSFORMATION
OF AVIATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:16 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kendra
Horn [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. This hearing will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at any
time. Good afternoon, and welcome. I'm especially pleased to
welcome our distinguished group of witnesses today, and want to
thank you all for being here, and for your patience as we were
on the floor with votes.
We are on the cusp of transformational changes in aviation.
Not only is the commercial aviation market robust with global
passenger air transport, but is projected to double by 2040.
Emerging new markets and innovative technologies are also
literally changing what we see on the horizon. These
innovations are not just about the novelty of pizza and package
deliveries to your door by flying drones, or the flying cars
that we've always envisioned from the Jetsons era. They're
about economic impact, competitiveness, and American jobs.
One estimate projects that the integration of unmanned
aircraft systems into the airspace could lead to 100,000 jobs
and $82 billion in economic activity. Market projections for
urban air mobility are also in the billions of dollars. Our
U.S. economy stands to gain significantly from these emerging
aviation markets. Yet, when combined with the current impact of
civil aviation, which in 2014 provided over 10 million jobs,
and represented $1.6 trillion of total U.S. economic activity,
and accounted for 5.1 percent of U.S. GDP, the importance of
commercial aviation to our Nation's economic growth is
magnified. In my own State of Oklahoma, aviation and aerospace
represent the second largest employment sector across the
State, a fact that many people don't know. According to a study
by the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission, aviation, aerospace,
and associated activities provide for over 200,000 jobs, and
about $44 billion in economic impact.
While there is much to celebrate in the success of U.S.
commercial air transportation, our competitiveness on the
global market is increasingly harder to maintain. The
International Aviation and Transportation Association predicts
that by the mid-2020s China will displace the United States as
the world's largest aviation market. That's why Federal
research investments to transform this industry are important,
and why we are here today to examine NASA's (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's) Aeronautics mission and
enabling role. Because maintaining our success, and realizing
the opportunities before us, means overcoming challenges.
Airplane noise complaints to the FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration) have seen sharp increases; growth in air
transportation is stretching the capacity of our national
airspace system, and new entrants, including drones and urban
air vehicles, add complexity to the airspace that must be
safely managed if we are to be successful.
Perhaps the most pressing of all is the impact of air
transportation on the environment. Not only does commercial
aviation account for about 2 percent of human-induced global
carbon emissions, the jet fuel that produces those emissions
represents a significant portion of commercial airline costs.
With expected compound annual growth rates of about 3.5 percent
in air passengers, the problem will only get worse.
Sustainability is not only critical to the environment, it's
becoming a competitive advantage.
At this year's Paris Air Show, which ended just days ago,
Chief Technical Officers (CTOs) of seven of the world's leading
aviation manufacturers came together in an unprecedented union
to commit to a sustainable future for commercial air
transportation. I am submitting a copy of their statement for
the record. And that's where NASA's aeronautic research plays a
vital role, carrying out fundamental research to improve
efficiencies, enabling the safe integration of new entrants
into the airspace, testing new aircraft systems and designs,
and developing enabling technologies and techniques to mitigate
the environmental impacts of aviation.
The question before us today is, are we, in Congress, and
the Federal Government, doing enough? Are we making the
necessary investments to help realize the full potential of
emerging markets that have significant implications for U.S.
competitiveness and economic growth? Do we have the workforce
facilities to support NASA's aeronautics R&D (research and
development), and the growing industries, and will our R&D
efforts help keep us on track to meet goals for commercial
aviation, to achieve carbon neutral growth in 2020, and reduce
CO2 emissions by 50 percent of what they were in
2005 by 2050?
In closing, I'd like to say this: The proposal for
aeronautical research and technology in NASA's Fiscal Year 1994
budget request was 2-1/2 times the 2019 year dollars than the
Administration's proposed investment in FY 2020 NASA
Aeronautics' research programs. Recognizing the magnitude of
the economic impact of U.S. commercial aviation today, and the
challenges and opportunities ahead, the question is, is that
sufficient? Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Horn follows:]
Good afternoon, and welcome. I'm especially pleased to
welcome our distinguished group of witnesses. Thank you for
being here.
We're on the cusp of transformational changes in aviation.
Not only is the commercial aviation market robust with global
passenger air transport projected to double by about 2040,
emerging new markets and innovative technologies are literally
changing what we see on the horizon. These innovations are not
just about the novelty of pizza and package deliveries to your
door by drones or the ``flying cars'' of the Jetsons cartoon,
they're about economic impact, competitiveness, and American
jobs. One estimate projects that the integration of unmanned
aircraft systems into the airspace could lead to 100,000 jobs
and $82 billion in economic activity. Market projections for
urban air mobility are in the billions of dollars.
Our U.S. economy stands to gain significantly from these
emerging aviation markets. Yet, when combined with the current
impact of civil aviation, which in 2014, provided over 10
million jobs, represented $1.6 trillion of total U.S. economic
activity, and accounted for 5.1 percent of U.S. GDP, the
importance of commercial aviation to our nation's economic
growth is magnified. In my own state of Oklahoma, aviation and
aerospace represent the second largest employment sector.
According to a study by the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission,
aviation, aerospace, and associated activities provide for over
200,000 jobs and about $44 billion in economic impact.
While there is much to celebrate in the success of U.S.
commercial air transportation, our competitiveness on the
global market is increasingly harder to maintain. The
International Aviation Transportation Association predicts that
by the mid-2020s, ``China will displace the United States as
the world's largest aviation market.'' That's why Federal
research investments to transform this industry matter, and why
we're here today to examine NASA's Aeronautics mission and
enabling role. Because maintaining our success and realizing
the opportunities before us means overcoming challenges.
Airplane noise complaints to the FAA have seen sharp
increases. Growth in air transportation is stretching the
capacity of our national airspace system, and new entrants,
including drones and urban air vehicles, add complexity to the
airspace that must be safely managed if they are to be
successful. Perhaps most pressing of all is the impact of air
transportation on the environment. Not only does commercial
aviation account for about 2% of human-induced global carbon
emissions, the jet fuel that produces those emissions
represents a significant portion of commercial airline costs.
With expected compound annual growth rates of about 3.5 percent
in air passengers, the problem will only get worse.
Sustainability is not only critical to the environment; it's
becoming a competitive advantage.
At this year's Paris Air Show, which ended just days ago,
Chief Technical Officers of 7 of the world's leading aviation
manufactures came together in an unprecedented union to commit
to a sustainable future for commercial air transportation. I'm
submitting a copy of their statement to the record. And that's
where NASA's aeronautics research plays a vital role-carrying
out fundamental research to improve efficiencies, enabling the
safe integration of new entrants into the air space, testing
new aircraft systems and designs, and developing enabling
technologies and techniques to mitigate the environmental
impacts of aviation.
The question before us today is: are we in Congress and the
Federal government doing enough? Are we making the necessary
investments to help realize the full potential of emerging
markets that have significant implications for U.S.
competitiveness and economic growth? Do we have the workforce
and facilities to support NASA's aeronautics R&D and the
growing industries? And will our R&D efforts help keep us on
track to meet goals for commercial aviation to achieve carbon
neutral growth in 2020 and reduce CO2 emissions by
50 percent of what they were in 2005 by 2050?
In closing, I'd like say this: the proposal for
aeronautical research and technology in NASA's fiscal year 1994
budget request was 2 and a half times more in 2019-year dollars
than the Administration's proposed investment for NASA's
Aeronautics research programs in the fiscal year 2020 budget
request. Recognizing the magnitude of the economic impact of
U.S. commercial aviation today, and the challenges and
opportunities ahead, is it sufficient?
Thank you.
Chairwoman Horn. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member
Babin for an opening statement.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
witnesses, for being here today. I'm looking forward to hearing
what you have to say.
Modern day aeronautics was founded by American ingenuity.
And while flying machines were proposed by great minds like
DaVinci, and balloons and gliders preceded aircraft, it was two
bicycle makers from Ohio that proved, in 1903, that dreams are
more than just imagination. They were the first to demonstrate
an aircraft with powered flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina,
which propelled America to the forefront of a new technological
revolution. Many were engaged in solving the riddle of flight
at the time. Some, like Samuel Langley, were supported by
significant government funding, and the backing of established
institutions like the Smithsonian. But it was the industrious
tinkerers, backed by nothing but their own curiosity, who made
the impossible possible.
Wilbur and Orville Wright, as well as many others, went on
to proselytize the potential of aviation, and participate in
the Nation's first government aviation organization, the
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA. Founded
in 1915 to supervise and direct the scientific study of the
problems of flight, with a view to their practical solution,
NACA's roots in aviation formed the foundation for NASA. Those
proud traditions continue today in the Aeronautics Mission
Directorate.
NASA is currently tackling several technological
challenges. They're developing the low boom flight demonstrator
to enable commercial supersonic flight that will drastically
reduce flight times. They're building off of the success of the
X-15, the X-43, and the X-51 to continue research and
development into hypersonic flight, which could revolutionize
space flight, enable faster transportation, and also promote
national security. And while the U.S. has been at the forefront
of hypersonic research for decades, Russia and China are making
significant progress in this field, which threatens our own
national security.
NASA is also supporting urban air mobility, electric
aircraft, and air traffic management research to promote
innovation, and enable more efficient use of our air space.
These are all fascinating fields of study. One aspect of
aeronautics research that we must diligently monitor is
international competitiveness. And while the U.S. has
historically led the world in aeronautics and aviation, this
lead cannot be taken for granted.
Other nations are investing significant resources to
challenge our leadership, but many of those countries embrace a
strategy based on subsidies and government-sponsored monopolies
that run counter to the American free-market spirit. And before
we adopt policies similar to our international competitors, we
should consider whether some technological challenges are best
left to the market to solve. After all, it was the Wright
brothers' curiosity and drive that made them successful, not
government subsidies or political favoritism.
Similarly, when we compare investments in aeronautics made
by countries like China to NASA, or the U.S. government's
investment, we must realize that virtually all of China's
investments are made by the public sector, whereas here in
America we have a vibrant private sector that is also investing
in our Nation's aeronautics future. Aeronautics and aviation
make up a significant portion of our nation's economy.
Preserving our leadership role is something that we can all
agree on.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
Committee, and with the Senate, and with the Administration to
ensure the future of our aviation economy is just as bright as
the past. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]
Modern-day aeronautics was founded by American ingenuity.
While flying machines were proposed by great minds like da
Vinci, and balloons and gliders preceded aircraft, it was two
bicycle makers from Ohio that proved in 1903 that dreams are
more than just imagination. They were the first to demonstrate
an aircraft with powered flight in Kitty Hawk North Carolina,
which propelled America to the forefront of a new technological
revolution. Many were engaged in solving the riddle of flight
at the time. Some, like Samuel Langley, were supported by
significant government funding and the backing of established
institutions like the Smithsonian. But it was the industrious
tinkerers, backed by nothing but their own curiosity, who made
the impossible possible.
Wilbur and Orville Wright, as well as many others, went on
to proselytize the potential of aviation and participate in the
nation's first government aviation organization - the National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). Founded in 1915 to
``supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of
flight, with a view to their practical solution,'' NACA's roots
in aviation formed the foundation for NASA. Those proud
traditions continue today in the Aeronautics Mission
Directorate.
NASA is currently tackling several technological
challenges. They are developing the Low Boom Flight
Demonstrator to enable commercial supersonic flight that will
drastically reduce flight times. They are building off of the
success of the X-15, X-43, and X-51 to continue research and
development into hypersonic flight which could revolutionize
spaceflight, enable faster transportation, and promote national
security. While the U.S. has been at the forefront of
hypersonics research for decades, Russia and China are making
significant progress in the field, which threatens our national
security. NASA is also supporting Urban Air Mobility, Electric
Aircraft, and Air Traffic Management research to promote
innovation and enable more efficient use of our air space.
These are all fascinating fields of study.
One aspect of aeronautics research that we must diligently
monitor is international competitiveness. While the U.S. has
historically led the world in aeronautics and aviation, this
lead cannot be taken for granted.
Other nations are investing significant resources to
challenge our leadership. But many of those countries embrace a
strategy based on subsidies and government sponsored monopolies
that run counter to the American free market spirit. Before we
adopt policies similar to our international competitors, we
should consider whether some technological challenges are best
left to the market to solve. After all, it was the Wright
Brother's curiosity and drive that made them successful, not
government subsidies or political favoritism. Similarly, when
we compare investments in aeronautics made by countries like
China to NASA or the U.S. government's investment, we must
realize that virtually all of China's investments are made by
the public sector, whereas here in America we have a vibrant
private sector that is also investing in our nation's
aeronautics future.
Aeronautics and aviation make up a significant portion of
our nation's economy. Preserving our leadership role is
something we can all agree on. I look forward to working with
my colleagues in this Committee, with the Senate, and with the
Administration to ensure the future of our aviation economy is
just as bright as the past.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Babin. It's a
pleasure to work with you on this Committee, and we're very
happy to have such a distinguished panel. And--give us just one
moment. Excuse me. OK. Looks like we're waiting on a few people
to arrive. If there are Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Madame Chair, for holding this hearing on NASA's
aeronautics mission and the activities of the Aeronautics
Research Mission Directorate.
As most of us in this room know, Aeronautics is the first
``A'' in NASA. NASA's very origins grew out of the National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), which was
established nearly 105 years ago to advise the nation during
World War I and to advance U.S. aviation in light of Europe's
rapid advancements. NACA's foundational research, experiments,
flight tests and simulations not only established the U.S.
aviation industry, it made possible the nation's early work in
aeronautics and spaceflight.
Today, over 100 years later, the importance of aeronautics
to the nation has only grown. As Chairwoman Horn noted in her
opening statement, the economic value of both existing
commercial air transportation and emerging markets is
significant, as are the innovative technologies and new
operations on the horizon. This innovation is happening around
my own District in Dallas, which will be one of the cities in
which urban air mobility is to be tested.
Yet there are many challenges in realizing opportunities
such as urban air mobility. Noise, public acceptance, safety,
and the integration of new, and eventually autonomous, systems
into the national airspace are just a few. Research is needed
to address these challenges, reduce risks, and enable the
industry to lead in these emerging areas of civil aviation.
Our investments in NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate have already returned handily in the infusion of
NASA Aeronautics research into commercial and military
aircraft, and in demonstrating tools for more efficient air
traffic management that are being transitioned to the FAA for
operational use, for example.
While the economic impact of civil and commercial aviation
is truly impressive, we can't take for granted the fact that
other nations are becoming increasingly capable. The global
market is competitive. Our ability to sustain our leadership
and realize future opportunities in civil and commercial
aviation require R&D investments and people.
As Chairwoman Horn noted, in Fiscal Year 1994, the
Administration's request for aeronautics research would be the
equivalent of $1.76 billion in 2019-year dollars, after
accounting for inflation. That's 2-1/2 times more than the
Fiscal Year 2020 budget request for NASA's research aeronautics
activities. And while the comparison may not be exact in the
programmatic content included, the contrast is nonetheless very
concerning. If we under-invest in research that supports one of
the only industries in the nation that has a positive trade
balance, provides for high-paying, skilled jobs, and has an
economic impact for the U.S. economy of more than a trillion
dollars, we risk losing the very tax base and national revenue
that will help us support NASA and the broader R&D activities
in our Federal government.
I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee, the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, NASA, industry, and academia in considering the
investments needed to ensure that NASA's aeronautics research,
facilities, and workforce are positioned to enable the
transformation in aviation that we are discussing today.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. And now I would like to take a moment to
introduce our witnesses today.
Our first witness is Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate
Administrator of NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate, where he has the responsibility for the strategic
direction and management of NASA's aeronautics research
portfolio. Dr. Shin also co-chairs the National Science and
Technology Council's Aeronautics, Science, and Technology
Subcommittee. Dr. Shin has served on many--in many positions in
NASA, including as Chief of Aeronautics Projects Office at
NASA's Glenn Research Center. Dr. Shin received a bachelor's
degree from Yonsei University in South Korea, and a master's
degree from California State University, Long Beach, and a
doctorate in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. Welcome, Dr. Shin.
Our second witness is Dr. Alan Epstein. Dr. Epstein is the
R.C. Maclaurin Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Emeritus, and is the former Director of Gas Turbine Laboratory
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Previously
Dr. Epstein was the Vice President of Technology and
Environment at Pratt and Whitney, an aerospace manufacturing
company. Dr. Epstein is the Chair of the National Academies of
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, and is a member of the
NASA Advisory Council. Dr. Epstein is a member of the U.S.
National Academy of Engineering, and past Chair of its
aerospace section. Dr. Epstein received his bachelor's,
master's, and doctorate degrees from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Welcome, Dr. Epstein.
Our third witness today is Dr. Ilan Kroo, the Thomas V.
Jones Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Director
of the Aircraft, Aerodynamics, and Design Group at Stanford
University. Previously Dr. Kroo served as the founding CEO of
Zee.Aero, now Kittyhawk, and E-VTOL--did I do that right? I
didn't do it quite right. You can correct me later--
Manufacturing Company. Dr. Kroo is currently a member of the
National Academies of Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board,
and is on the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Aircraft Design Technical Committee. Dr. Kroo is
a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, and
received his bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees from
Stanford University. Welcome, Dr. Kroo.
Our fourth and final witness is Dr. Mark Lewis. Dr. Lewis
is the Director of the IDA Science and Technology Policy
Institute. Dr. Lewis also served as the Willis Young, Junior
Professor and Chair of the Department of Aerospace Engineering
at the University of Maryland. Previously Dr. Lewis was
President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, and served as an advisor in the Air Force. Dr.
Lewis is a member of the National Academies of Aeronautics and
Space Engineering Board. He received his bachelor's, master's,
and doctorate degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Welcome, Dr. Lewis. You'd think that MIT might know
a thing or two about aerospace, aeronautics, based on this.
As our witnesses, you should know that you each have 5
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. And when you've
completed your spoken testimony, we'll begin with questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. And we
will start today with Dr. Shin. Dr. Shin, you're recognized for
5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JAIWON SHIN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA
Dr. Shin. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Babin, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I really appreciate to have this
opportunity to discuss FY 2020 budget request for NASA
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. I would like to thank
you for your continued support of the groundbreaking work good
women and men in NASA Aeronautics are performing. Aviation is
fundamental to the future of U.S. economy. NASA's cutting-edge
aeronautics research is delivering new concepts and
technologies, boosting U.S. global leadership, and creating
high-quality jobs. Growing consumer demand, combined with
innovative technologies and disruptive thinking, is
transforming aviation in ways we could hardly imagine just a
few years ago.
Since 1973, commercial supersonic flight has been banned
over land in the U.S. and around the world due to concerns of
sonic boom. Over the past 10 years or so, NASA has developed
technologies that will greatly reduce sonic boom noise. With
support from the Congress, NASA is now building a quiet
supersonic experimental aircraft, X-59 Quest, with a commitment
for first flight by Fiscal Year 2022. Once built, NASA will
measure public response to the sonic boom noise, and deliver
the data to the FAA and the International Civil Aviation
Organization to enable new rules allowing commercial supersonic
flight over land, which will spark U.S. aviation industry's
innovation and investment to take the global leadership
position in developing future commercial supersonic airplanes.
Subsonic aircraft will still carry the majority of
passengers in the foreseeable future, but demands for reduced
fuel burns, noise, and emissions are growing rapidly. NASA is
collaborating with U.S. industry to develop innovative
technologies, such as efficient wing designs, electric
propulsion, and transformative materials and structures. Hybrid
electric, or all electric propulsion, is being explored by
aviation industry to bring dramatic reductions in fuel burns
and emissions for future aircraft. NASA has been--NASA has
begun a multi-year effort to enable one megawatt power electric
propulsion system, which defines a critical technological
milestone for electrification of aircraft, stirring notable
international competition. Realizing an aviation grade one
megawatt propulsion system has never been accomplished. NASA
has built a world-leading ground test facility called NASA
Electric Aircraft Test Facility, or NEAT, and we are already
conducting a test of a high power electric propulsion system
with our industry partner.
The change to the aviation system also requires changing
the way air traffic is managed. NASA has been developing
innovative technologies to enable highly efficient air traffic
management systems, while maintaining safety by collaborating
with the FAA, airlines, and airport operators. Once such
example is a new integrated surface management capability NASA
is developing which will enable aircraft to move from the gate
to take off without stops--any stops and waits. Our
collaboration with FAA and operators at Charlotte International
Airport has already saved 1.6 million pounds of fuel, and
reduced emissions equivalent to over 57,700 trees in just the
first 15 months of trials. FAA plans to deploy this technology
to 27 of the Nations' biggest airports beginning in 2021.
Increased use of autonomous systems is opening up
completely new markets, such as commercial drone industry.
NASA's research into UAS (unmanned aircraft systems)--
communication and air traffic management has served as a
critical enabler of the industry that did not exist only a few
years ago. For example, under NASA's leadership, the most
complex demonstration of the UAS traffic management, or UTM
system in downtown Reno, Nevada, is scheduled to end the 10-day
flight test tomorrow with great success. NASA has conducted
four major capability demonstrations, including this one, in
the last 4 years, which provided to be critically important
steps toward enabling safe, efficient commercial flights of
small UAS in dense urban environments. Just as a brand new
drone industry is blossoming, another exciting industry called
urban air mobility, or UAM, is emerging. Without NASA's only
work in small UAS, a vision to open the skies over our
communities, to move people and cargo safely, would not have
been even conceivable. NASA is closely working with new
industry--this new industry to rapidly develop key
capabilities, such as reducing noise, and ensuring safety of
our vehicles.
The global aviation system of mid-21st century is emerging
today. NASA Aeronautics strengthen the foundation of U.S.
global leadership by working with traditional and emerging
market players to bring exciting future for aviation. Thank you
for this opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Shin. Dr. Epstein?
TESTIMONY OF DR. ALAN H. EPSTEIN,
R.C. MACLAURIN PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF
AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, MIT, AND
CHAIR, AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD,
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING,
AND MEDICINE
Dr. Epstein. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Babin, Members of
the Subcommittee, I am please to address NASA's role in
aviation. I believe that we are living in the most exciting era
for aviation in the last 50 years. Opportunities include ultra-
quiet flight, true air taxi service, and low boom supersonic
travel. Challenges include environmental concerns, rising
foreign competition, and, of course, safety. Adding to the
excitement are new entrants backed by venture capital, many of
whom are outside the U.S.
Government should care because the U.S. owns 49 percent of
the world's $800 billion-a-year aerospace business. Other
countries understand the importance of this market, and are
making concerted attacks. First Europe with Airbus, and now
China. To no small degree, NASA Aeronautics holds stewardship
of this Nation's aeronautical future. Let me point out that
shortly after the turn of the century the Aeronautics budget
was cut by more than half in terms of operational funds. So,
for the past 2 decades, Aeronautics has made due with
relatively modest resources.
I would now like to touch a few areas in which NASA can
have significant impact. For example, the X-59 airplane will
validate the concept that airplane shape can dramatically
reduce sonic boom. This aircraft will then generate data from
cooperating communities on peoples' tolerance for low intensity
booms. This will provide a foundation to the FAA to re-examine
its ban on over-land supersonic flight, and help them work with
the international community to set certification standards for
supersonic aircraft.
A second is urban air mobility. Air taxis have been a dream
since the 19th century. Such vehicles are now technically
feasible. Public acceptance requires very low noise, and close
to accident-free operation, areas of NASA's strength. More
challenging is the need to safely integrate large numbers of
these new vehicles into our crowded airways. NASA has an
important technology role to play here as well.
Now I'd like to touch on a topic for which I'm passionate,
airplane noise. As we all know, community noise is a major
irritant. People simply don't want airport noise. Progress in
noise reduction has now reached the point where I believe we
can envision aircraft so quiet that they would not be noticed
in an urban environment. Virtually silent airliners would bring
enormous relief to communities, and stimulate an expansion of
air travel. With aggressive NASA action, I believe that such
ultra-quiet airliner technology could be ready by the end of
the next decade.
Last, I would like to address climate change's threat to
aviation. Some have misidentified aviation as a major factor in
global warming, and so even attack the idea of flying. For
example, the Bishop of London declared vacation flying a sin,
and flight shaming is growing in Scandinavia. In fact, modern
airplanes produce less CO2 per passenger mile than
do cars and trains in this country. Nevertheless, the threat is
real. In response, industry leaders pledge to halve aviation
CO2 by 2050. Such progress requires reducing the
energy needed for flight, and the fossil carbon of that energy.
More than 98 percent of aviation CO2 comes from
large aircraft flying distances more than 500 miles, so
significant reduction requires focusing on airliners, not
general aviation or small regional aircraft.
Also, we now understand that aviation can't follow the auto
industry in moving toward battery-powered vehicles. There's no
battery technology on the horizon suitable for large electric
airliners. Even if a breakthrough enabled battery power, it
would make things worse rather than better, because modern
engines produce less CO2 per unit of power than does
the Nation's power grid, and will likely do so for the next
several decades. NASA's work on energy reduction should focus
on efficient aircraft and engines.
In summary, this is an extraordinarily exciting time for
aviation. Civil aeronautics is a major economic strength of the
United States, and a strong NASA Aeronautics is needed to
maintain that strength. The leadership and support that NASA
provides is important at all levels. Supporting students in
basic university research, stimulating new concepts, and
exploring technology at larger scales, as with X planes. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Epstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Epstein. Dr. Kroo?
TESTIMONY OF DR. ILAN KROO,
PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS,
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Dr. Kroo. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Babin, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My
remarks will deal with NASA's continuing contributions to
aeronautics research and development. They represent my
personal views, not those of any organization, although they
were informed by many years of working with startup companies,
government agencies, and university students. All of these
groups, and indeed the general public, are aware of the many
technology advances that promise to transform aviation not just
in the distant future, but in the next decade, and perhaps in
the next few years.
So, when I was asked to talk today I looked on my desk, and
found that there were all these magazines that discussed just
that. And, in fact, headlines from multiple national and
international magazines dated this month, and, as the Chair has
pointed out, even some dated this week, talk exactly about
those things, and they talk--they tout the technologies, and
imminent advantage--advances in aeronautics that may result
from new technology development. These technologies include
many in NASA's research profile. Autonomy, as Dr. Shin
mentioned, and includes machine learning, improved flight
sensors and actuators. New control theory allows increasingly
capable and reliable autonomous systems for aircraft, and it
will reduce the cost of commercial air transport, enable on
demand aerial delivery of various goods, and increase the
safety of both piloted and unpiloted aircraft. Another
technology that's talked about in these magazines is new fuels,
and efficient high-power electric systems. These will make
possible a new generation of environmentally sustainable
propulsion, and more efficient aircraft.
So these technology elements are being combined with
advanced methods for aero and structural modeling and design to
create entirely new types of vehicles from, as you've heard,
small subsonic aircraft, with dramatically reduced noise and
emissions, to atmospheric satellites that fly without pilots at
altitudes above passenger aircraft. This is why an
unprecedented number of students are enrolling in aerospace
courses and clubs. Why computer science, despite the fact that
Stanford, unlike MIT, is a liberal arts school, and they study
philosophy, and economics, and things like that, but--the
biggest department that graduates the most students is computer
science. Still, many of our students are interns at companies
that did not exist just a few years ago, and are studying a
wide range of these things that will be of use to them in the
future. It is certainly one of the most interesting periods in
the development of civil aviation.
But many students, and most aviation-related startups, and
even many aeronautical researchers, have little idea of what
NASA is doing in these technology areas, which is interesting.
Articles in the popular press deal with flying cars, and
electric airplanes, on demand delivery, and new companies
working on supersonic prototypes. But in many of these
articles, NASA goes unmentioned. So we have some of these
magazines talking about 10 different technologies that are
currently under development. Some of them tout how we're going
to be delivering blood to Rwanda to help citizens there, and
there are these compelling images of small aircraft without
pilots delivering things where they are needed. But those small
airplanes don't have NASA logos on them. Why is that? It's--it
is the case also that many of these companies have to deliver
convincing demonstrations to some of the--their investors
before NASA has a chance to do the research that's required to
make them go to the next level.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kroo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Kroo. We look forward to
hearing more from you when we begin the questions----
Dr. Kroo. Very good.
Chairwoman Horn [continuing]. So thank you very much. Dr.
Lewis?
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK LEWIS,
DIRECTOR, IDA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
INSTITUTE, AND PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Dr. Lewis. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Babin, distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. I'm going to focus my remarks on NASA's role in
hypersonics research, a field that holds the potential--what I
think are truly transformative accomplishments in aeronautics.
As I'm sure you all know, hypersonics is a broad area of
inquiry. It generally refers to flight in excess of about 5
times the speed of sound, that's Mach 5. An aircraft traveling
at Mach 5 is traveling about a mile per second, so that means
that an airplane flying from Dulles Airport to London, Heathrow
at hypersonic speeds could get there in less than an hour, so
talk about transformative.
We've actually been flying hypersonic vehicles of one sort
or another since the late 1940s. This is not a new field, but
there are still many fundamental problems left to be solved.
One of them is propulsion. Conventional jet engines won't work
at hypersonic speeds, and that means you have to use either
rockets, or what we call advanced air breathing engines, such
as scram jets. Also, at high speeds, friction with the air
makes the surface temperatures really hot. That means you
stress the limits of materials, and so it calls for advances in
high temperature materials. Control of a hypersonic vehicle is
also an issue, as is the overall design of a hypersonic
configuration that's fully integrated with its engines and
airframe, and NASA has significant expertise in each of these
areas.
So historically NASA Aeronautics and its precursor, the
NACA, that Ranking Member Babin referenced, have made notable
contributions to the evolution of hypersonic flight, including
our basic understanding of the physics of re-entering
spacecraft, traveling, in some cases, at 40 times the speed of
sound. That work continues today. NASA engineers study the
problems associated with decelerating large spacecraft in the
thin atmosphere of Mars. They've developed new high-temperature
materials, including the material that's going to shield the
SpaceX Dragon capsule. That's material that was invented by a
team at the NASA Ames Research Center.
That scramjet engine that I mentioned a moment ago was
invented by NACA researchers working what is now the NASA Glenn
Research Center. They did that work in the late 1950s, and 46
years later engineers at NASA Langley, working with NASA
Dryden, now Armstrong, flew the first operational scramjets on
the X-43 experimental vehicle, once at nearly Mach 7, 7 times
the speed of sound, and again at Mach 10. NASA also did key
computational experimental work in support of the Air Force's
own unmanned X-51 flights that flew between 2010, 2013. NASA
even provided the chase planes that monitored the X-51 craft,
gathered essential flight data.
NASA propulsion engineers and materials experts are playing
key roles in several programs, including DARPA (Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency) activities, the U.S./
Australia high fire flight program. And I'll point out when
engineers at the U.S. Air Force's Hyper Velocity Tunnel Number
Nine, that's the Nation's premiere high-speed wind tunnel,
needed a new way to measure model temperatures, they turned to
their colleagues at NASA Langley to do that. NASA has developed
many of the standard hypersonic aerodynamics models that we
use. The agency also operates test facilities, including the
Langley 8-foot-high temperature tunnel that has gathered data
on nearly every significant air breathing hypersonic engine,
including those that powered X-43, X-51, and the upcoming DARPA
Hawk designs. Tunnel--the 8-foot tunnel is an irreplaceable
national asset, and not just the tunnel itself, but the NASA
test engineers and technicians who operate it.
Research into hypersonic flight may someday lead to ultra-
fast commercial aircraft, may lead to new ways to reach Earth
orbit with airplane-like launch vehicles, and these are wholly
appropriate, I would argue, for NASA Aeronautics research. But
the proverbial elephant in the room is that the likely--is the
likely military use of hypersonics, including ultra-fast,
nearly unstoppable missiles and reconnaissance craft. In 2016,
I chaired a National Academies study that reported that both
Russia and China were advancing quickly in the field, and
moving to operational deployment. We are in a race, and I
believe that NASA must help our national address this threat. I
further believe that role is completely consistent with NASA's
mission, as codified under the Space Act. NASA has the
capabilities and hypersonics that no other Federal agency can
employ.
Now, NASA's hypersonics investments began to languish,
starting in 2012, when a roughly $60 million portfolio was
allowed to drop to less than $10 million within about 2 years.
More recently, NASA's hypersonics funding levels have been on
the rise, just as our national programs are hitting limits of
capacity and workforce, though they're still at only about half
their levels in pre-2012. NASA's re-investment has included
much needed maintenance on the Langley 8-foot tunnel, without
which some of our national programs would come to a screeching
halt. That's a promising start, but for our Nation to lead the
world in hypersonics, I argue we must create a challenging
future vision.
The future success of hypersonics ultimately hinges on our
ability to integrate computational and experimental
capabilities. NASA is the ideal agency to lead such an effort.
World-class research requires world-class researchers. We must
have access to affordable, flexible, world-class modeling and
test capabilities, and to do this we need to sustain and expand
NASA's hypersonic test infrastructure, including the possible
re-commissioning of the hypersonic test facility at NASA's Ohio
Plumbrook campus. And, of course, we cannot relinquish our
investments in fundamental research, both inside NASA and in
the university community that NASA sponsors. With the promise
of flying higher and faster, hypersonics is a great way to
attract the best and the brightest to careers in aerospace.
In conclusion, I'm convinced that NASA Aeronautics has a
critical role to play in pursuing hypersonics research that
will transform our civil commercial, and national security
activities, and inspire the next generation. In its mission to
transform aviation, I know of no worthier investment in the
NASA Aeronautics portfolio. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis, and we'll
observe any future back and forth between the Stanford and the
MIT crowd out there. We'll keep an eye on you. At this point
we'll begin our first round of questions, and the Chair
recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
Doctors Epstein, Kroo, and Lewis, this Committee will be
working to reauthorize NASA this year, and I've got a number of
questions. Just briefly, what are your top three priorities for
aeronautics for NASA authorization, and why? We can just go
down the----
Dr. Epstein. OK. Well, my personal passion is for anti-
noise. More accurately, NASA research to dramatically reduce
the noise impact on our communities. I think that same sort of
research also helps make much more efficient airplanes. So high
on the priority would be a--enough funding to start an X
airplane for subsonic commercial travel, with enormously
reduced noise, and much reduced CO2.
The second would be everything associated with UAM, which
is an enormous potential market, a transformer of society, and
I think we're at the most risk internationally of--we don't
have a lead yet. We'll see if we end up with one. Thank you.
Dr. Kroo. So I believe that many of these new companies, as
well as the old companies, very much need help from NASA, and
one has to figure out how it is that NASA can work with the
many new players, the many new participants, in this field who
are going to make some of these things happen, and I think that
that is not clear yet how that will be done, but it's important
to make sure it happens.
Dr. Lewis. Well, of course I'm going to say hypersonics.
Chairwoman Horn. I would never have guessed.
Dr. Lewis. That's shocking. And not just facilities, but
also workforce and fundamental research. Number two, I would
say the X plane program, and the X-59 is a particularly
exciting example. We need to fly things, we need to get
experience in flight, and we need to be pushing the flight
envelope. And then three, I'd say fundamental research, and I
would take my hat off to the NASA Aeronautics Research mission
director. I think they've led the way at NASA in fundamental
research in support of universities and students, and feeding
into our workforce.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. And, as I noted in my opening
statement, the CTOs--the Chief Technology Officers--of those
seven companies came together at the air show to talk about how
the aeronautics industry can work to reduce emissions and--in a
sustainable way for aviation, which is important for us to
address both. And the joint statement, which I submitted for
the record has a three-prong strategy. One, improving aircraft
and engine design and technology to improve fuel efficiency and
reduce CO2 emissions; two, supporting sustainable
alternate aviation fuels; and three, developing a new aircraft
propulsion technology to enable a third generation of aviation.
Dr. Epstein, given your experience in this industry, how
important is a clear strategy for the industry's ability to
plan for future technology and workforce needs? I think you
touched on it a moment ago, but if you want to expand?
Dr. Epstein. The industry reminds me of the comment by
Benjamin Franklin, we hang together, or we hang separately, and
the attack around the world on aviation affects all of us. In
terms of climate change impacts on CO2, the
sustainable alternative jet fuel is enormously important, and
how that affects the agricultural economy in this country I
think is equally important. And so, for example, ethanol is a
big factor in much of the country. The auto industry doesn't
want it. Aviation would embrace it. So getting not just the
purview of this Committee on Science and Technology, but Energy
and Agriculture as well to focus on a lot of this is, I think
economically important.
Chairwoman Horn. And for the rest of the panel, I would
love to hear which of the three prongs of this strategy you
think NASA can get the most bang for the buck, as it were, to
move forward for investment on the NASA side.
Dr. Kroo. Well, I must say I agree with many of these
comments, and they will get a lot of mileage out of these
investments. I do think that, in the near term, things such as
alternative fuels, and increased efficiency, are much more
important than the longer-term advances, and many of these
longer-term concepts require very new ideas in both fuels and
propulsion systems.
Chairwoman Horn. Dr. Lewis?
Dr. Lewis. And I would agree as well. I argue that an
aerospace system is fundamentally an energy conversion system.
As aerospace engineers, we do everything we can to get every
last bit of energy out of our available fuel--out of our
available energy supply. So aerospace has a lot of lessons to
propagate to other parts of engineering disciplines on how to
be energy efficient, how to use fuels effectively, how do to
alternate fuels, how to do alternate energy sources, and I
think NASA has a very important role to play in that.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Shin, would you care to
comment briefly?
Dr. Shin. Yes. I think, as the other witnesses summarized,
and--in terms of priorities in near-term, and mid-term, and
longer-term contributions, we--I want to say that NASA has been
working on all those areas, improving the fuel efficiency and
reducing emission from the engine research. And also we have
done a major flight test of the alternative fuels with,
actually, international partners from Germany, and Canada, and
Japan. So--and then we're also working on lighter, stronger
structures, so reducing the weight of aircraft will require
less fuel burns. So, all those things need to be coming
together. And, as other witnesses say, that it's not one magic
bullet, or it's not one big gun that we can use to reduce these
fuel burns.
And, in fact, if I may add, in fact, I was at Paris Air
Show last week, and I actually met with these industry CTOs.
After the news conference they had, they meet regularly, and I
was invited to join that meeting, so we did amply talk about
this, and they were very appreciative of what NASA has been
doing.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Shin. I've exceeded my
time. Dr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. No problem. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Lewis--
let's see, where was that article. OK, yes. A recent New York
Times article, which I would like to ask to be put into the
record, if you don't mind, if there's no objection----
Chairwoman Horn. No objection.
Mr. Babin [continuing]. Highlighted the current state of
hypersonic research in the world, and it laid out the threat
posed by hypersonic weapons being developed by China and
Russia. General John Hyten, Commander of the U.S. Strategic
Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March
2018, ``We don't have any defense that could deny the
employment of such a weapon against us.'' Your testimony lays
out how NASA's infrastructure and expertise enable our Nation's
overall hypersonic program. Is greater coordination between
NASA and other government agencies necessary to ensure American
leadership and national security?
Dr. Lewis. Thank you, Congressman. Well, first, I would say
that NASA is doing a very fine job of coordinating with
Department of Defense (DOD), and they've become a critical
player in some of the work that's underway. I will give you an
example. In my testimony I mentioned the 8-foot tunnel at NASA
Langley.
Mr. Babin. Right.
Dr. Lewis. That's one of only two locations in the United
States where you can do a full-scale hypersonic engine test.
Right now the other location is not available, it's down for
maintenance. So NASA is absolutely critical for much of the
work that we're doing. But I think it goes beyond that. If
you--I mentioned some of the contributions of NASA engineers,
everything from material science, to controls, to understanding
of propulsion technologies. NASA has been, and continues to be,
critical players in each of those aspects, and supporting the
national efforts, including Air Force--efforts with the Air
Force, efforts with DARPA, and even some fundamental research
efforts that were funded by the Department of Defense. So yes,
I think they're absolutely critical.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you, Dr. Lewis. The next question is
for Dr. Shin and Dr. Lewis. NASA conducts aeronautics research
on urban air mobility, and is developing the X-57 Maxwell, an
electric aircraft that will demonstrate technologies to reduce
fuel, noise, and emissions. I presume there are market demands
for such technologies from either commercial aviation, general
aviation, or both. From the dawn of aviation we've seen that
top down, centrally planned research and development approaches
are often eclipsed by free market responses to technological
challenges. In face of other nations significantly subsidizing
their aeronautics and aviation sectors, how should NASA
approach this challenge of supporting free market principles,
while also maintaining long-term aeronautics leadership? Dr.
Shin, if you would first?
Dr. Shin. Yes. Thanks for the question. In terms of urban
air mobility, just like your emphasis on the free market
economy that our Nation holds, we believe in that, so we are
not--as an example, NASA, as a government entity, we are not
investing to duplicate vehicle designs in this new industry
because there are, last time I checked, over 150 entities
working on these various design concepts, and billions of
dollars are being invested from private sectors. So what we are
working on is how do we enable these private investment to
become the real, viable, and scalable market by working on
system-level issues, community-wide issues, such as noise
reduction and safety--ensuring safety, and how do we actually
expedite, and cost-effective certification can be allowed for
these vehicle designers. So, working with FAA, I think we have
found a really nice government role, again, closely working
with industry, but that's the way we believe how we enable this
exciting future.
Mr. Babin. OK. All right. Thank you. And, Dr. Lewis?
Dr. Lewis. So I would argue that NASA's primary role is
investing in areas that industry won't, or doesn't have the
wherewithal, or that it's too far term. And I--again I would
congratulate the NASA portfolio, because I think they've done a
fine job of identifying key investments, key areas. If you look
at some of the work that NASA's done, for example, on our
advanced configurations for commercial airliners, they've done
things that, frankly, I can't see an industry partner doing
right now because it's really too speculative. In propulsion,
the work that NASA has done looking at very advanced
propulsion, again, wholly appropriate, because I don't see it
as something that the industry necessarily would have the
resources or the wherewithal to invest until NASA has proven
the concept, and then handed it off to industry. I think we've
got many examples of technologies that NASA has helped develop,
and, once they developed it, were able to hand off to industry
very successfully.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much. And I've got more
questions, but I'm out of time, so I'll yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Babin. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Olson for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome to our four
expert witnesses. I'll open with an observation. Much has been
said about Stanford and Harvard. Those are great, great schools
to be sure, but, as a graduate of Rice University in Houston,
Texas, we call those schools the Rice of the West Coast and the
Rice of the East Coast, and that's just the way it is.
My first question for you, Dr. Shin and Dr. Lewis, as a
former Naval aviator, I have a great interest in the low boom
flight demonstration projects. As was mentioned by I think Dr.
Epstein, we have not allowed supersonic flights over America
since 1973. My district is home to Ellington Joint Reserve
Base. As you all may know, last year NASA test pilots flew
modified F-18s out of Ellington to do some series of tests of
low noise level sonic booms. It was called QSF-18. If possible,
can you all update me on this project, especially if these test
flights can help with supersonic travel in the future? Dr.
Shin?
Dr. Shin. Yes. I want to say up front, many things to that
community, and also we tested that low boom through the
customized maneuver because we don't have a low boom supersonic
airplane as yet. We're building it, in collaboration with
Lockheed Martin. But in the city of Galveston, we actually flew
that F-18 that you mentioned, and--with tremendous support from
Ellington and Johnson Space Center. And the community response
has been actually very positive, that they actually liked
being--participating in that flight test, measuring the
community response.
So the best measure of success, in my view, is the city of
Galveston asked us, NASA people, to please come back when you
actually have X-59 completed, and do this again in our
community, because this is exciting. And this is exciting
because we are trying to help flying public, general flying
public, not the rich people only, but flying public to enjoy
the supersonic flight, commercial supersonic----
Mr. Olson. I'll pass those comments on to Mr. Weber,
because Galveston is in his district. As you mentioned, too,
they were so excited because, for the first time ever, the
Johnson Space Center participated in operations in the Earth's
atmosphere, not in the vacuum of space. Dr. Lewis?
Dr. Lewis. So I share, I think, a frustration that you
alluded to, that we are not flying at supersonic speeds today.
It's been over 15 years since we had commercial supersonic
travel in the U.S. And, of course, you know, in the 1960s the
U.S. had its own plan to build a supersonic transport, NASA had
a subsequent program in the 1990s, and yet we're still flying
at about the same speed we flew in the 1950s, so I would love
to see supersonic travel.
Last month I and some of my colleagues were--had the
privilege of visiting NASA Armstrong, and to climb on--look at
the work that's being done on the X-59, and I have to tell you,
it's absolutely phenomenal progress. It's a program that's
basically getting NASA back into the flight test business. We
got to fly the simulator, I got to crash the simulator, and
it's--I think it's going to be an important milestone not in
helping us re-introduce supersonic flight, but also getting
NASA back into the flight test rhythm that is so critical to
our industry.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. Final question for Dr. Shin. In your
testimony you mentioned that there'll be excessive growth in
aviation in the future, and a shortage of pilots to fly these
future aircraft. As you probably know, Ellington Field has been
selected as a commercial spaceport. It's been approved. Their
plan is for space tourism, basically following the same profile
that Alan Shepherd followed on the first Mercury launch. Take
off horizontally, go vertical, go into space for maybe 10, 15
minutes and come back and land. They're going to need pilots.
Our current aviation needs pilots. So how can NASA help
recruit, develop, and train our future pilots, especially ones
that are going into space?
Dr. Shin. Yes. Whether we stay in the air or go into space,
as you mentioned, the pilot shortage could become a real issue,
so we've been working with our industry to bring more autonomy
in the cockpit. I'm not suggesting that we are going to reduce
the number of pilots in the cockpit, but by introducing safe,
and efficient, and cost-effective autonomous systems, on top of
what we already have, could probably reduce the workload of the
pilots, and pilots' roles could be changing in the future. So
some of these measures need to be introduced with care, of
course, but some of these measures need to be researched for
the longer term. It's not a--solution, or it's not something
that we're going to just do it in a hurry. So that's what--we
are working with industry.
Mr. Olson. I yield back. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Posey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
Committee, and thank the witnesses, very impressive, for
attending today and sharing your knowledge with us. In keeping
with today's subject, NASA's aeronautics mission, enabling the
transformation of aviation, it was interesting to hear Dr.
Lewis say he thinks NASA's mission is essentially doing those
things that private industry cannot do, which I pretty much
think is the role of government, you do for the people what the
people cannot do individually, you do collectively for them.
And, Dr. Shin, I heard your reference to working with FAA,
and having some good experiences, but it brings to mind some
very bad experiences that I've seen with FAA, a terrible waste
of resources. You may recall--you're all old enough to recall
when the United States basically controlled 100 percent of the
world's commercial launch market for satellites, commercial
satellites, and, through overregulation of Federal bureaucrats,
we parlayed that into about 15 percent, almost completely
choked the golden goose, and created the competition that we
have today for the commercial launches in other countries.
You mentioned space support vehicles earlier. We have a
contractor in my district, Space Support Vehicle. They've done
years and years' worth of parabolic missions for NASA. It's so
much easier to put an experimental of an F-104 with a pilot
that's flown a zillion hours, and test the gravitational effect
of the payload than it is to launch a dispensable rocket, or
whatever. And, you know, that's one little company. They
decided, you know, we'd like to take people up too for this,
there's an interest in doing that, so they applied to license
to the FAA. And the FAA said, well, you know, you're not a jet
to go from Washington, D.C. to Orlando 50 times a day, and
you're not Virgin Galactic, that we licensed before they ever
put the first vehicle in the air, so we're not going to give
you a license. I mean, they could get this license in any other
country in the world, be delighted to have that business, but
the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the FAA couldn't
get off center.
So during the last session then Majority Leader McCarthy,
with the support of a lot of co-sponsors passed legislation and
said, you will be creating a licensing category for the space
support vehicles, whereupon they have kind of refused to do
that. And I'm wondering if you have other areas where you have
observed this same kind of counterproductive behavior. I'd like
to hear about it. Anyone.
Dr. Shin. I'm sorry that you have had a lot of those
examples, but from where I sit, I think, in the aviation side,
FAA leadership, and our management and technical people, have
really stepped up in trying to be proactive in opening up
these--a lot of exciting markets that----
Mr. Posey. OK, so you haven't experienced the downside.
Anybody else experienced the downside, or am I supposed to take
this personal? I'll take it personal, and work on their budget
accordingly.
Dr. Shin and Dr. Lewis, other agencies fund hypersonics at
much higher levels than we do, however, NASA has unique
facilities and expertise in that field, you know? Is there an
opportunity for NASA to conduct work on a reimbursable basis
for other agencies?
Dr. Shin. I think that is entirely possible. And, as Dr.
Lewis mentioned in his testimony, we have been cultivating a
really robust, and very symbiotic mutually beneficial
relationship with DOD in particular. But I think we can
certainly increase the partnerships with other government
agencies, and--because we have that core capability--technical
capability both in workforce and in the facility as well.
Mr. Posey. OK, Dr. Lewis?
Dr. Lewis. So, as I mentioned, NASA's budget in hypersonics
is a tiny fraction, frankly, of what the DOD is spending. But
what they bring to the table is incredibly impressive. They've
got depth of knowledge, they've got expertise. They understand
aspects of the fundamentals that no other part of the
government, which I'm aware, has. And I can cite success story
after success story where NASA worked with the DOD in the
hypersonic realm.
One I'll give you right off the top of my head was when the
Air Force was doing the X-51 program. So, we tested the engine
for X-51 in the NASA facility. Then we had NASA engineers
working on the X-51 program. We had NASA engineers in the
control room the day of the first flight of X-51. I'm here to
tell you if we didn't have those--that support, I don't think
the program would have been as successful. It's absolutely
critical.
Mr. Posey. That's awesome. Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses.
Let's see. I've been musing about this low sonic boom
technique, and I was wondering if any of you were willing to
try to take a stab at telling a physicist how--you know, what
are the actual breakthroughs that make it different than my
memories as a toddler, listening to the sonic booms from the
military jets operating out of Truax Air Field? What is new in
the physics or in the design space makes this feasible?
Dr. Shin. I'll give a stab at it, and--sure the witnesses
are far more qualified to answer that.
Certainly, we cannot change the physics or alter the
physics, but what we were able to do is breaking the intensity
of the shocks. So, rather than having the one big bow shock
from the nose or the back end of the aircraft that shows the
typical N-shape shockwaves, we break into smaller shocks and
then they don't coalesce. They don't coalesce----
Mr. Foster. Right, you just phase them so they partially
cancel? Is that the basic plan?
Dr. Shin. That's one technology we developed.
Mr. Foster. Yes, sure, Dr. Kroo?
Dr. Kroo. I think that is absolutely right. We could do
some of that many years ago, and the additional technologies
and breakthroughs that have happened have to do with improving
computational capabilities for predicting these things before
having to take so long to build them.
Mr. Foster. And so, this will typically only work at one
velocity to get the cancellation between all the wakes?
Dr. Kroo. It actually works over a range of speeds, but
over a smaller range, you can cancel out more of it.
Dr. Epstein. I'll add something else. One is this was
actually a theory developed by NASA, so no, it isn't new
physics. It's understanding physics and exploiting your
understanding. And because much of the action is in the far
field, far away from the airplane, it's inadequate to test it
just in a wind tunnel. That's why--we will fly a vehicle like
this. Of course, it ends up as a strange looking long, skinny
vehicle, but that's what the physics demands. And I certainly
expect the X-59 to validate that.
Mr. Foster. All right, that's interesting.
Now, for a long time, I've wondered if there was some
analog of noise canceling earphones that could be applied to
the end of jet engines. I take it most of the takeoff noise is
just turbulence in the back end of the engines, if I understand
things correctly. What has ever been looked at, and is that
still a fertile field to plow?
Dr. Epstein. Airplane noise has been worked on for decades.
It used to be rock bands were as loud as airplanes, so don't go
to the rock concert. Rock concerts are still just as loud, but
the airplanes have gone from about 125 dB down to 85.
Mr. Foster. Um-hum.
Dr. Epstein. And on the newest airplanes, the exhaust jet
is not the major noise source, the fan is. And so, it doesn't
matter whether you turn the fan with an electric motor, it's
producing most of the noise. On the latest ones, on approach,
if you shut the engines down, you wouldn't hear it on the
ground because it's the airframe making most of the noise.
Mr. Foster. On approach, but that's not----
Dr. Epstein. Well----
Mr. Foster. The complaints come from takeoff. At least
around O'Hare, they come from takeoff.
Dr. Epstein. Well actually, I addressed the O'Hare noise
group. The complaints come from everywhere, I think.
But strictly speaking, the noise is the fan noise. People
have looked at active cancellation. You use some of it now. You
do acoustic cutoff in the ducts by design of the physical
acoustics. As we move to bigger fans, they're subsonic and it's
a whole new world. So, I think there can be enormous progress
in noise reduction. Because we've reached a cusp in our
understanding.
Mr. Foster. Yes. If I can go back to the low boom scenario.
What is the range of velocities that you're reasonably hopeful
that will work commercially? Are you still in the situation
where the fuel consumption per mile is very non-linear as you
keep increasing it? And so, what is the range of velocities
that you really eventually hope that will operate over, in a
commercially viable way?
Dr. Kroo. There is a range. Probably the commercial
viability is more related to the efficiency of these designs,
but certainly in the Mach 1.-something to 2.-small number,
these technologies can reduce the boom on the ground.
Mr. Foster. OK. Thank you, and it looks like my time is up
and I yield back the remainder.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Dr. Foster.
I'm going to ask another round of questions. I think the
Ranking Member will be back shortly. Since we had to move it
around, I think we've lost a number of our Subcommittee Members
today.
Dr. Shin, I want to go back to one of the points we started
with about workforce development, and the importance of
aviation and aeronautics to the Nation and our economy, and
what that means also for NASA.
In my opening statement, I raised the question of whether
or not we will have the workforce to realize the opportunities
that we're working toward. So, along those lines, the NASA
Advisory Council's Aeronautics Committee found that the next
generation of aviation workers will need a different set of
skills than the current generation, including artificial
intelligence, cybersecurity--the cutting-edge issues in
research that NASA is doing in order to handle the new
technology, such as urban air mobility, drones, clearly
hypersonics is another area that is important, and the nature
of autonomy.
So, how is NASA helping to prepare the workforce of this
rapidly approaching future in aviation systems?
Dr. Shin. Thank you. I think Madam Chair's observation and
points are spot on. The aviation--not only aviation, but the
entire 21st century industrial sector is changing because of
the digital transformation to even new technologies, and the
new ways of doing business.
So, aviation industry as a whole, I think, it is
experiencing and will experience--continue to experience
competition of the top talents with more IT or those
industries.
So, what NASA--what we believe is we have to provide
exciting missions. We are celebrating 50th anniversary of Moon
landing this year, and I am the product of Apollo 13--11 Moon
landing. So, we believe that providing that exciting missions
so that the younger generation can actually look up to what
they can do and what they can accomplish in aviation, be it
really the key.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Shin.
A short question. What, if any, additional hiring
authorities might NASA need to attract that workforce?
Dr. Shin. Our Human Capital Management office has been
working really hard to figure out whether we can get more
flexibility. So, I'm certainly not an expert in answering the
question, but I think our agency, Human Capital Management can
provide more details.
Chairwoman Horn. If you want to take that for the record
and come back to us, that's great.
So, another question, turning a little bit toward some of
the points that Dr. Lewis--that you made, especially around the
importance of NASA and government investment in those cutting-
edge technologies before they're ready to move onto the
commercial sector.
I noted in my opening statement the shift in budget, and
looking forward with the important research and development
that NASA needs to do in hypersonics, in urban air mobility, in
noise, and other things. We are looking toward a likely
decrease of funding for Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024.
So, my question for each one of you quickly is how would
such decreases of up to 12 percent affect the development of
innovative capabilities such as supersonics, hypersonics, urban
air mobility, and in aeronautics research, and then the follow
on transition to commercialization?
Dr. Kroo. In many of these areas, not developing these
technologies will mean many of the possible airplanes that
companies would develop are just not going to get developed.
This is really NASA's role, as Dr. Shin has mentioned, and
they're doing a very good job of it to decrease that rather
than increasing that at a time when so many new possibilities
are on the horizon is probably not the right thing to do.
Dr. Epstein. If I can add to that, it isn't that they may
not be developed. They won't be developed in the United States.
Actually, I could identify 300 people working on air mobility
or stating they've done that, and most of them are not U.S.-
based.
And so, it really is a point not of replacing an industry,
telling industry what it may do, but enabling industry to make
an investment that's reasonably prudent by providing a
technology base.
Dr. Lewis. And if I can build on that, I'll offer a
historical example. NASA flew their X-43 for the last time in
2004. There was a 6-year gap between the time NASA flew its
vehicle and the Air Force flew X-51, which is essentially a
logical follow on to X-43. That 6 years, I believe, was one of
the reasons that foreign competitors were able to gain an
advance in the hypersonics field.
We did the homework for them, and then they were able to
build on that investment and move forward at a pace that was
faster than ours.
Chairwoman Horn. Dr. Shin, would you care to add anything?
Dr. Shin. Yes, I think other witnesses have very graciously
offered the supporting comments. But I think what we have been
really improving is within the given budget, how most
effectively and efficiently we can use that precious funding
toward the most compelling and impactful technologies. Then I
think by working with industry and other government agencies in
very close relationship for the past 10 years or so, we have
really maximized return on investment.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Shin. I'm hearing from all
of you it's a matter of U.S. leadership in aeronautics and
aviation.
Dr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
This question is similar to the one that Mr. Olson had
asked a while ago, but there is a little twist on it.
Dr. Shin, NASA is developing a low boom demonstrator
mission, the X-59, to develop new technologies to lower the
noise associated with supersonic flight. NASA recently
conducted a series of quiet supersonic research flights off the
coast of Texas near Galveston to test ways to measure the
community's response to the unique acoustic experience.
And just a few weeks ago, the FAA announced that it is
developing regulations to enable the resurgence of supersonic
flight. How are these efforts coordinated?
Dr. Shin. We're very, very much coordinating our efforts
between FAA and NASA. As a matter of fact, I actually even met
with the acting administrator of FAA yesterday to just talk
about this.
So, there are two challenges at the moment. Very quickly,
one is certainly trying to influence regulatory agencies around
the world so that this ban on supersonic flight over land is
changed or lifted. So, that's what NASA X-59 will do. And then
there's another challenge that is landing and takeoff noise
from supersonic airplanes, should there be any commercial
supersonic airplanes.
So, that's what FAA is leading.
Mr. Babin. Yes.
Dr. Shin. So, we are collaborating with FAA to provide
technical support for them to come out with regulatory
standards.
Mr. Babin. I understand. Thank you.
You know, also this next one, Dr. Shin. NASA's recent
budget request proposes reorganizing the management of
aeronautics test facilities. This comes on the heels of a
similar reorganization several years ago. What was the
rationale for this restructuring?
Dr. Shin. The main rationale is these are national asset-
level wind tunnels, and certainly aeronautics--my mission
directorate has been the custodian and keeper of those major
wind tunnels for the agency and for the customers and
participants as well.
But other mission directorates also use these wind tunnels,
so it is truly agency-level activity and agency-level issues.
So, the agency has moved that to agency-level management, not
just from the Aeronautics research mission directorate.
So, that's all there is to it. There's no content
reduction. There's no budget reduction, anything.
Mr. Babin. I understand.
OK. That takes care of me. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Babin.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, one of the obviously enabling technologies for
electric airplanes is the energy density of batteries. I
represent Argonne National Lab, which is the central lab
organizing a national collaboration, with the goal of something
like 5 times higher energy density than current lithium ion.
And if you look at the feasibility in different areas, you
know, what sort of energy density improvement do you really
need to get, you know, commercial airliners versus, you know,
local delivery drones, you know, all the different--which, you
know, I guess these applications turn on one at a time as your
batteries get more capable. I was wondering what the milestones
there we should aim for are?
Dr. Epstein. Well, different answers for different
airplanes.
So, the drones are almost good enough now. So, a factor of
two in density would help a lot in a commercial sense,
especially--so, it's a cost issue as well as that.
Jet fuel burned in a modern engine is 100 times the energy
density of the batteries, so should the batteries get 10 times
better than the current batteries, the airliner could taxi out
to the end of the runway, and then would have to turn around
and go back to the terminal because you need a 45-minute
reserve before you take off in case you can't land immediately.
So, for airliners, it's a long, long way.
The urban air mobility vehicles, however, these are things
that only need ranges of 20, 50, 80 miles, they're factor of 5
improvement with the associated economics would be very useful,
and also that might allow you to optimize larger airplanes
better. But it doesn't let you--electric power----
Mr. Foster. You're not going to cross the Pacific----
Dr. Epstein. Not without----
Mr. Foster. A factor of 100 is what you said, or 50 at
least?
Dr. Epstein. Not without a very long extension cord.
Mr. Foster. You know, I have expressed the opinion in this
room many times that I think that NASA doesn't spend enough on
potentially transformative technologies to get things into low-
Earth orbit for cheap. You know, there are a large number of
concepts for this, you know, everything from space elevators to
electromagnetic launch to laser-assisted launch.
We were able to get to bump up the budget in just the last
couple weeks of the NASA Advanced Innovative Concept, NAIC, but
it's still tiny. We bumped it up from about 8 to roughly $15
million, if it survives the Senate. And so, some of these
concepts have little to do with aeronautics, and some of them
do. I was wondering what you think the most promising, you
know, to be explored areas there that might really have a shot
at dramatically lowering the cost of getting things into low
Earth orbit?
Dr. Epstein. Well, to steal Dr. Lewis' thunder, a combined
cycle hypersonic propulsion system would let--as the Nation
tried to do with the National Aerospace Plane in the 1980s, and
that was a bridge too far for our technology at the time. That
was national defense. That was probably the best chance of
regularizing things.
But in today's Wall Street Journal online, there's an
article which shows what's going on in space in terms of
activity. And one of its graphs shows that the cost of a pound
to orbit was $34,000 on the shuttle. On a Falcon X Heavy, it's
$640. So, the cost has come down considerably, and if the new
entrants are successful, I expect it to be much less expensive
as well.
Mr. Foster. Dr. Lewis?
Dr. Lewis. So, one of the challenges is that a modern
rocket engine is really an amazing piece of equipment. It
delivers efficiencies--energy efficiencies higher than almost
any other machine I can think of on the planet. And so, trying
to do better than a rocket engine is really quite a challenge.
Mr. Foster. You know, what disturbs me is when you look at
these missions to Mars, there's very little on them that would
not be completely understandable to Wernher Von Braun.
Dr. Lewis. Correct.
Mr. Foster. You know, you very rapidly went to the
asymptote for the performance of chemical rockets, and I really
think it's time to step back and put more effort into something
that has, you know, transformative potential.
Dr. Lewis. Yes, I would agree completely.
Mr. Foster. Things like laser-assisted launches, for
example, you know, where you're beaming some of the power.
And so, what is your view of the most promising things
there, if we have to place some bets on speculative
technologies?
Dr. Lewis. So, I actually do think, as Professor Epstein
mentioned, air breathing to orbit. And the reason is it's not
science fiction. We know how to build those engines, although
we haven't gotten them quite up to the Mach numbers yet. And
essentially, if you're air breathing to orbit, that means
you're swallowing oxygen as you go, it simply means you're not
carrying the oxygen in a tank onboard the vehicle. You don't
have the massive tank. And there's several approaches you might
try. One is the scramjet engines that I mentioned. The other,
what are called liquid air cycle engines where you have a
cryogenic fuel, very cold fuel. You condense air as you go,
collect it, separate out the oxygen, and then burn that in a
relatively conventional engine. I think that's quite promising
as well.
I can go through the list of all the other options----
Mr. Foster. If you could just, you know, contact my office
and if there's some reasonable number of pages to read on this,
because we have to throw deep, deeper than we've been throwing,
because you know, we don't want to have the ghost of Wernher
Von Braun meeting us another 25 years from now.
Dr. Lewis. I agree. If I may, you know, I think it was a
Robert Heinlein quote that low Earth orbit is halfway to
anywhere, and if we can get the cost down to low Earth orbit
and make it more regular, possibly through aeronautic
solutions, and I think it opens up tremendous things for space
exploration as well.
Mr. Foster. All right. He had the physics right in the
1950s, I guess.
And so anyway, I'm out of time here, and thank you to all
of the witnesses here, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Foster, and thank you to
all of our witnesses for being here today and for your
testimony and insight.
Before we officially close the hearing, I want to say how
much I appreciate the work that you're doing and your
willingness to be here today as we move toward a NASA
reauthorization, looking at the importance of the work that
NASA Aeronautics is doing.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for any additional questions
the Committee may ask of the witnesses. The witnesses are
excused and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Jaiwon Shin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Alan H. Epstein
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Mark Lewis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Kendra Horn
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Article submitted by Representative Brian Babin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]