Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Aeronautics Directorate”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP) and UAS Integration in the NAS Project

Program Goal: Conduct research at an integrated system-level on promising concepts and technologies and explore, assess, or demonstrate the benefits in a relevant environment.Criteria for selection of projects for Integrated Systems Research: a) Technology has attained enough maturity in the foundational research program that they merit more in-depth evaluation at an integrated system level in a relevant environment. b) Technologies which systems analysis indicates have the most potential for contributing to the simultaneous attainment of goals. c) Technologies identified through stakeholder input as having potential for simultaneous attainment of goals. d) Research not being done by other government agencies and appropriate for NASA to conduct. e) Budget augmentation. Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project Explore and assess new vehicle concepts and enabling technologies through system-level experimentation to simultaneously reduce fuel burn, noise, and emissions Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project Contribute capabilities that reduce technical barriers related to the safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS Innovative Concepts for Green Aviation (ICGA) Project Spur innovation by offering research opportunities to the broader aeronautics community through peer-reviewed proposals, with a focus on making aviation more eco-friendly. Establish incentive prizes similar to the Centennial Challenges and sponsor innovation demonstrations of selected technologies that show promise of reducing aviation s impact on the environment

Wolfe, Jean↗
NASA NTRS2006

Numerical Propulsion System Simulation

The NASA Glenn Research Center, in partnership with the aerospace industry, other government agencies, and academia, is leading the effort to develop an advanced multidisciplinary analysis environment for aerospace propulsion systems called the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS). NPSS is a framework for performing analysis of complex systems. The initial development of NPSS focused on the analysis and design of airbreathing aircraft engines, but the resulting NPSS framework may be applied to any system, for example: aerospace, rockets, hypersonics, power and propulsion, fuel cells, ground based power, and even human system modeling. NPSS provides increased flexibility for the user, which reduces the total development time and cost. It is currently being extended to support the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Fundamental Aeronautics Program and the Advanced Virtual Engine Test Cell (AVETeC). NPSS focuses on the integration of multiple disciplines such as aerodynamics, structure, and heat transfer with numerical zooming on component codes. Zooming is the coupling of analyses at various levels of detail. NPSS development includes capabilities to facilitate collaborative engineering. The NPSS will provide improved tools to develop custom components and to use capability for zooming to higher fidelity codes, coupling to multidiscipline codes, transmitting secure data, and distributing simulations across different platforms. These powerful capabilities extend NPSS from a zero-dimensional simulation tool to a multi-fidelity, multidiscipline system-level simulation tool for the full development life cycle.

Naiman, Cynthia↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

New Technologies From NASA's FireSense Technology Program

NASA Wildland Fire Initiative - NASA’s Wildland Fire Initiative, is a NASA-wide effort focused on delivering NASA’s unique science and technological capabilities to operational agencies, striving towards measurable improvements in US wildland fire management. - The initiative involves the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD), the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), including the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program. - NASA works with interagency partners such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the National Interagency Fire Center, and commercial partners.

FireSense↗
NASA NTRS2019

Structural Analysis of Test Flight Vehicles for Application of Multifunctional Energy Storage System

Under the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) Convergent Aeronautical Solutions (CAS) project, NASA Glenn Research Center has been leading Multifunctional Structures for High Energy Lightweight Load-bearing Storage (M-SHELLS) research efforts. The technology of integrating load-carrying structures with electrical energy storage capacity has the potential to reduce the overall weight of future electric aircraft. The proposed project goals were to develop M-SHELLS in the form of honeycomb coupons and subcomponents, integrate them into the structure, and conduct low-risk flight-tests onboard a remotely piloted small aircraft. Experimental M-SHELLS energy-storing coupons were fabricated and tested in the laboratory for their electrical and mechanical properties. In this report, finite element model development and structural analyses of two small test aircraft candidates are presented. The finite element analysis of the initial two-spar wing is described for strain, deflection, and weight estimation. After a test aircraft Tempest was acquired, a load-deflection test of the wing was conducted. A finite element model of the Tempest was then developed based on the test aircraft dimensions and construction detail. The component weight analyses from the finite element model and test measurements were correlated. Structural analysis results with multifunctional energy storage panels in the fuselage of the test vehicle are presented. Although the flight test was cancelled because of programmatic reasons and time constraints, the structural analysis results indicate that the mid-fuselage floor composite panel could provide structural integrity with minimal weight penalty while supplying electrical energy. To explore potential future applications of the multifunctional structure, analyses of the NASA X-57 Maxwell electric aircraft and a NASA N+3 Technology Conventional Configuration (N3CC) fuselage are presented. Secondary aluminum structures in the fuselage sub-floor and cargo area were partially replaced with reinforced five-layer composite panels with M-SHELLS honeycomb core. The N3CC fuselage weight reduction associated with each design without risking structural integrity are described. The structural analysis and weight estimation with the application of composite M-SHELLS panels to the N3CC fuselage indicate a 3.2% reduction in the fuselage structural weight, prior to accounting for the additional weight of core material required to complete the energy storage functionality.

Mukhopadhyay, Vivek↗
NASA NTRS2019

Structural Analysis of Test Flight Vehicles with Multifunctional Energy Storage

Under the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) Convergent Aeronautical Solutions (CAS) project, NASA Glenn Research Center has been leading Multifunctional Structures for High Energy Lightweight Load-bearing Storage (M-SHELLS) research efforts. The technology of integrating load-carrying structures with electrical energy storage capacity has the potential to reduce the overall weight of future electric aircraft. The proposed project goals were to develop M-SHELLS in the form of honeycomb coupons and subcomponents, integrate them into the structure, and conduct low-risk flight tests onboard a remotely piloted small aircraft. Experimental M-SHELLS energy-storing coupons were fabricated and tested in the laboratory for their electrical and mechanical properties. In this paper, finite element model development and structural analyses of two small test aircraft candidates are presented. The finite element analysis of the initial two-spar wing is described for strain, deflection, and weight estimation. After a test aircraft Tempest was acquired, a load- deflection test of the wing was conducted. A finite element model of the Tempest was then developed based on the test aircraft dimensions and construction detail. The component weight analysis from the finite element model and test measurements were correlated. Structural analysis results with multifunctional energy storage panels in the fuselage of the test vehicle are presented. Although the flight test was cancelled because of programmatic reasons and time constraints, the structural analysis results indicate that the mid-fuselage floor composite panel could provide structural integrity with minimal weight penalty while supplying electrical energy. To explore potential future applications of the multifunctional structure, analyses of the NASA X-57 Maxwell electric aircraft and a NASA N+3 Technology Conventional Configuration (N3CC) fuselage are presented. Secondary aluminum structure in the fuselage sub-floor and cargo area were partially replaced with reinforced five-layer composite panels with M-SHELLS honeycomb core. The N3CC fuselage weight reduction associated with each design without risking structural integrity are described. The structural analysis and weight estimation with the application of composite M-SHELLS panels to the N3CC fuselage indicate a 3.2% reduction in the fuselage structural weight, prior to accounting for the additional weight of core material required to complete the energy storage functionality.

Mukhopadhyay, Vivek↗
NASA NTRS2020

The Role of NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) in Advancing NASA's Earth Science Missions (Past, Present, and Future)

The NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) was established in 2003 to provide an independent technical resource for the resolution of challenging technical problems (through the use of studies, analysis, tests, etc.). Since its inception, NESC has completed nearly 1000 technical assessments for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate (HEOMD), Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), and Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). Of the SMD related assessments, several were for the resolution of technical problems, analysis, or studies related to NASA’s Earth science missions in various phases of the project from design to operation. Some of the recent examples of NESC technical support for NASA (or NOAA) Earth science missions have been for: Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP), Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS), Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat-II), Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), and the soon to be launched collaboration mission with India, NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR). In this paper, we outline some of the technical challenges faced by these Earth science missions and describe how NESC contributed to their resolution. The case studies cover a wide range of disciplines involving space lidars, radars, electronics, attitude control systems, as well as Micrometeoroid Orbital Debris (MMOD) risk assessment impact to NASA missions. The efforts include strategies for risk mitigation, technical resolution of challenging problems, and failure root cause investigations combined with lessons learned reports to advance discipline knowledge, enhance NASA capabilities, and avoid future problems.

NASA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Role of NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) in Advancing NASA’s Astrophysics Missions (Past, Present, and Future)

The NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) was established in 2003 (after the Columbia accident) to provide an independent technical resource for the resolution of challenging technical problems (through the use of studies, analysis, tests, etc.) for NASA programs and projects. Since its inception, NESC has completed nearly 1000 technical assessments for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operation Mission Directorate (HEOMD), Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), and Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). Of the SMD related assessments, several were for the resolution of technical problems, analysis, or studies related to NASA’s astrophysics missions in various phases of the project from design to operation. Some of the recent examples of NESC technical support for NASA astrophysics missions have been for: Hubble Space Telescope (HST), Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO), Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, Kepler Space Telescope, Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). In this paper, we outline some of the technical challenges faced by these astrophysics missions and describe how NESC contributed to their resolution. The case studies cover a wide range of disciplines involving space telescopes, detectors, lasers, and attitude control systems. These efforts include innovative solutions for extending the life of the missions, technical resolution of challenging problems, strategies for risk mitigation, and failure investigations combined with lessons learned reports to advance discipline knowledge, enhance NASA capabilities, and avoid future problems.

NASA↗
NASA NTRS2009

Application of Reduced Order Transonic Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient Matrix for Design Optimization

Supporting the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate guidelines, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] Dryden Flight Research Center is developing a multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization [MDAO] tool. This tool will leverage existing tools and practices, and allow the easy integration and adoption of new state-of-the-art software. Today s modern aircraft designs in transonic speed are a challenging task due to the computation time required for the unsteady aeroelastic analysis using a Computational Fluid Dynamics [CFD] code. Design approaches in this speed regime are mainly based on the manual trial and error. Because of the time required for unsteady CFD computations in time-domain, this will considerably slow down the whole design process. These analyses are usually performed repeatedly to optimize the final design. As a result, there is considerable motivation to be able to perform aeroelastic calculations more quickly and inexpensively. This paper will describe the development of unsteady transonic aeroelastic design methodology for design optimization using reduced modeling method and unsteady aerodynamic approximation. The method requires the unsteady transonic aerodynamics be represented in the frequency or Laplace domain. Dynamically linear assumption is used for creating Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient [AIC] matrices in transonic speed regime. Unsteady CFD computations are needed for the important columns of an AIC matrix which corresponded to the primary modes for the flutter. Order reduction techniques, such as Guyan reduction and improved reduction system, are used to reduce the size of problem transonic flutter can be found by the classic methods, such as Rational function approximation, p-k, p, root-locus etc. Such a methodology could be incorporated into MDAO tool for design optimization at a reasonable computational cost. The proposed technique is verified using the Aerostructures Test Wing 2 actually designed, built, and tested at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. The results from the full order model and the approximate reduced order model are analyzed and compared.

Pak, Chan-gi↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Flight Research Overview of WSPR, a Pilot Project for Sonic Boom Community Response

In support of NASAs ongoing effort to bring supersonic commercial travel to the public, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and NASA Langley Research Center, in cooperation with other industry organizations, conducted a flight research experiment to identify the methods, tools, and best practices for a large-scale quiet (or low) sonic boom community human response test. The name of the effort was Waveforms and Sonic boom Perception and Response. Such tests will go towards building a dataset that governing agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and International Civil Aviation Organization will use to establish regulations for acceptable sound levels of overland sonic booms. Until WSPR, there had never been an effort that studied the response of people in their own homes and performing daily activities to non-traditional, low sonic booms.WSPR was a NASA collaborative effort with several industry partners, in response to a NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Research Opportunities in Aeronautics. The primary contractor was Wyle. Other partners included Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Pennsylvania State University, Tetra Tech, and Fidell Associates, Inc.A major objective of the effort included exposing a community with the sonic boom magnitudes and occurrences expected in high-air traffic regions with a network of supersonic commercial aircraft in place. Low-level sonic booms designed to simulate those produced by the next generation of commercial supersonic aircraft were generated over a small residential community. The sonic boom footprint was recorded with an autonomous wireless microphone array that spanned the entire community. Human response data was collected using multiple survey methods. The research focused on essential elements of community response testing including subject recruitment, survey methods, instrumentation systems, flight planning and operations, and data analysis methods.This paper focuses on NASAs role in the efforts logistics and operations including human response subject recruitment, the operational processes involved in implementing the surveys throughout the community, instrumentation systems, logistics, flight planning, and flight operations. Findings discussed in this paper include critical lessons learned in all of those areas. The paper also discusses flight operations results. Analysis of the accuracy and repeatability of planning and executing the unique aircraft maneuver used to generate low sonic booms concluded that the sonic booms had overpressures within 0.15 pounds-per-square-feet of the planned values for 76 of t he attempts. Similarly, 90 of the attempts to generate low sonic booms within the community were successful.

sonic booms↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Flight Research Overview of WSPR, a Pilot Project for Sonic Boom Community Response

In support of the ongoing effort by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to bring supersonic commercial travel to the public, the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center and the NASA Langley Research Center, in cooperation with other industry organizations, conducted a flight research experiment to identify the methods, tools, and best practices for a large-scale quiet (or low) sonic boom community human response test. The name of the effort was Waveforms and Sonic boom Perception and Response (WSPR). Such tests will be applied to building a dataset that governing agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the International Civil Aviation Organization will use to establish regulations for acceptable sound levels of overland sonic booms. The WSPR test was the first such effort that studied responses to non-traditional low sonic booms while the subject persons were in their own homes and performing daily activities.The WSPR test was a NASA collaborative effort with several industry partners, in response to a NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Research Opportunities in Aeronautics. The primary contractor was Wyle (El Segundo, California). Other partners included Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Savannah, Georgia); Pennsylvania State University (University Park, Pennsylvania); Tetra Tech, Inc. (Pasadena, California); and Fidell Associates, Inc. (Woodland Hills, California).A major objective of the effort included exposing a community to the sonic boom magnitudes and occurrences that would be expected to occur in high-air traffic regions having a network of supersonic commercial aircraft in place. Low-level sonic booms designed to simulate those produced by the next generation of commercial supersonic aircraft were generated over a small residential community. The sonic boom footprint was recorded with an autonomous wireless microphone array that spanned the entire community. Human response data were collected using multiple survey methods. The research focused on essential elements of community response testing including subject recruitment, survey methods, instrumentation systems, flight planning and operations, and data analysis methods.This paper focuses on the NASA role in the logistics and operations of the effort, including human response subject recruitment, the operational processes involved in implementing the surveys throughout the community, instrumentation systems, logistics, flight planning, and flight operations. Findings discussed in this paper include critical lessons learned in all of the above-mentioned areas, as well as flight operations results. Analysis of the accuracy and repeatability of planning and executing the unique aircraft maneuver used to generate low sonic booms concluded that the sonic booms had overpressures within 0.15 lbft2 of the planned values for 76 percent of the attempts. Similarly, 90 percent of the attempts to generate low sonic booms within the community were successful.

community response↗
NASA NTRS2017

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project KDP-C Review

The topics discussed are the UAS-NAS project life-cycle and ARMD thrust flow down, as well as the UAS environments and how we operate in those environments. NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards, CA, is leading a project designed to help integrate unmanned air vehicles into the world around us. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System project, or UAS in the NAS, will contribute capabilities designed to reduce technical barriers related to safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS. The project falls under the Integrated Systems Research Program office managed at NASA Headquarters by the agency's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. NASA's four aeronautics research centers - Armstrong, Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, and Glenn Research Center - are part of the technology development project. With the use and diversity of unmanned aircraft growing rapidly, new uses for these vehicles are constantly being considered. Unmanned aircraft promise new ways of increasing efficiency, reducing costs, enhancing safety and saving lives 460265main_ED10-0132-16_full.jpg Unmanned aircraft systems such as NASA's Global Hawks (above) and Predator B named Ikhana (below), along with numerous other unmanned aircraft systems large and small, are the prime focus of the UAS in the NAS effort to integrate them into the national airspace. Credits: NASA Photos 710580main_ED07-0243-37_full.jpg The UAS in the NAS project envisions performance-based routine access to all segments of the national airspace for all unmanned aircraft system classes, once all safety-related and technical barriers are overcome. The project will provide critical data to such key stakeholders and customers as the Federal Aviation Administration and RTCA Special Committee 203 (formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) by conducting integrated, relevant system-level tests to adequately address safety and operational challenges of national airspace access by unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS. In the process, the project will work with other key stakeholders to define necessary deliverables and products to help enable such access. Within the project, NASA is focusing on five sub-projects. These five focus areas include assurance of safe separation of unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft when flying in the national airspace; safety-critical command and control systems and radio frequencies to enable safe operation of UAS; human factors issues for ground control stations; airworthiness certification standards for UAS avionics and integrated tests and evaluation designed to determine the viability of emerging UAS technology. Five Focus Areas of the UAS Integration in the NAS Project Separation Assurance Provide an assessment of how planned Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) separation assurance systems, with different functional allocations, perform for UAS in mixed operations with manned aircraft Assess the applicability to UAS and the performance of NASA NextGen separation assurance systems in flight tests with realistic latencies and uncertain trajectories Assess functional allocations ranging from today's ground-based, controller-provided aircraft separation to fully autonomous airborne self-separation Communications Develop data and rationale to obtain appropriate frequency spectrum allocations to enable safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Develop and validate candidate secure safety-critical command and control system/subsystem test equipment for UAS that complies with UAS international/national frequency regulations, standards and recommended practices and minimum operational and aviation system performance standards for UAS Perform analysis to support recommendations for integration of safety-critical command and control systems and air traffic control communications to ensure safe and efficient operation of UAS in the NAS Human Systems Integration Develop a research test bed and database to provide data and proof of concept for GCS - ground control station - operations in the NAS Coordinate with standards organizations to develop human-factors guidelines for GCS operation in the NAS Certification Define a UAS classification scheme and approach to determining Federal Aviation Regulation airworthiness requirements applicable to all UAS digital avionics Provide hazard and risk-related data to support development of type design criteria and best development practices Integrated Tests and Evaluation Integrate and test mature concepts from technical elements to demonstrate and test viability Evaluate the performance of technology development in a relevant environment (full-mission, human-in-the-loop simulations and flight tests)

outreach↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA Activity Update for the 2013 Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (UVSI) Yearbook

This year s report offers a high level perspective on some of the UAS related activities in which NASA is involved, both internal and external to the agency. Internally, NASA issued UAS operational policy on certification of NASA UAS and aircrew. A team of NASA UAS experts and operators analyzed all current procedures and best practices to design the policy. An update to the agencies Aircraft Operations Management Manual incorporated a new chapter to address UAS planning, preflight operations, flight operations, flight crew requirements, airworthiness and flight safety reviews. NASA UAS are classified into three categories based on weight and airspeed. Aircrews, including observers, are classified by how they interface with the UAS, and the policy defines qualifications, training, and currency. The NASA flight readiness approval process identifies risks and mitigations in order to reduce the likelihood and/or consequence of the risk to an acceptable level. The UAS operations process incorporates all aspects of airworthiness, flight standards and range safety exactly the same processes used for NASA manned aircraft operations. NASA has two internal organizations that routinely operate UAS. The Science Mission Directorate utilizes UAS as part of its Airborne Science Program and is the most frequent operator of NASA UAS in both national and international airspace. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate conducts UAS flight operations in addition to conducting research important to the UAS community. This past year the Science Mission Directorate supported the Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentimental (HS3) Mission with two NASA Global Hawk platforms. HS3 is a five-year mission specifically targeted to investigate the processes that underlie hurricane formation. During the 2012 portion of this mission the Global Hawk overflew hurricanes Leslie and Nadine in the Atlantic Ocean completing 6 flights and accumulating more than 148 flight hours. Another multi-year mission was initiated last year when the Sensor Integrated Environmental Remote Research Aircraft (SIERRA) UAS began surveying faults in California s Surprise Valley. A team of scientists and engineers from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), NASA Ames Research Center, Central Washington University, and Carnegie Mellon University will measure magnetic fields using ground surveys and the SIERRA to map the geophysics below the surface of Surprise Valley. The data collected will be used to generate 3D maps of the geophysical data of the area. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate continues its collaboration with Boeing to conduct UAS flight operations of the X-48C, a modified version of the X-48B originally built by Cranfield Aerospace, United Kingdom. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate utilizes vehicles of this size for a wide variety of research studies. Most of these operations are conducted within restricted airspace. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate also sponsors the UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project, which is working in close cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to address critical challenges associated with routine UAS operations in civil airspace. The project is focused on separation assurance and collision avoidance systems and algorithms, command and control for non-military operations including spectrum allocation requirements, human system interaction issues, and safety and certification topics.

Bauer, Jeffrey E.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Manned Versus Unmanned Risk and Complexity Considerations for Future Midsized X-Planes

The objective of this work was to identify and estimate complexity and risks associated with the development and testing of new low-cost medium-scale X-plane aircraft primarily focused on air transport operations. Piloting modes that were evaluated for this task were manned, remotely piloted, and unmanned flight research programs. This analysis was conducted early in the data collection period for X-plane concept vehicles before preliminary designs were complete. Over 50 different aircraft and system topics were used to evaluate the three piloting control modes. Expert group evaluations from a diverse set of pilots, engineers, and other experts at Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate centers within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration provided qualitative reasoning on the many issues surrounding the decisions regarding piloting modes. The group evaluations were numerically rated to evaluate each topic quantitatively and were used to provide independent criteria for vehicle complexity and risk. An Edwards Air Force Base instruction document was identified that emerged as a source of the effects found in our qualitative and quantitative data. The study showed that a manned aircraft was the best choice to align with test activities for transport aircraft flight research from a low-complexity and low-risk perspective. The study concluded that a manned aircraft option would minimize the risk and complexity to improve flight-test efficiency and bound the cost of the flight-test portion of the program. Several key findings and discriminators between the three modes are discussed in detail.

x-planes↗
NASA NTRS2017

Manned Versus Unmanned Risk and Complexity Considerations for Future Midsized X-Planes

The objective of this work was to identify and estimate complexity and risks associated with the development and testing of new low-cost medium-scale X-plane aircraft primarily focused on air transport operations. Piloting modes that were evaluated for this task were manned, remotely piloted, and unmanned flight research programs. This analysis was conducted early in the data collection period for X-plane concept vehicles before preliminary designs were complete. Over 50 different aircraft and system topics were used to evaluate the three piloting control modes. Expert group evaluations from a diverse set of pilots, engineers, and other experts at Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate centers within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration provided qualitative reasoning on the many issues surrounding the decisions regarding piloting modes. The group evaluations were numerically rated to evaluate each topic quantitatively and were used to provide independent criteria for vehicle complexity and risk. An Edwards Air Force Base instruction document was identified that emerged as a source of the effects found in our qualitative and quantitative data. The study showed that a manned aircraft was the best choice to align with test activities for transport aircraft flight research from a low-complexity and low-risk perspective. The study concluded that a manned aircraft option would minimize the risk and complexity to improve flight-test efficiency and bound the cost of the flight-test portion of the program. Several key findings and discriminators between the three modes are discussed in detail.

quanitive analysis↗