Corporate Management of Facilities Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) Blair Gloss May 3, 2005

Corporate Management of Facilities ARAC Recommendation: Code R needs to take action in the area of facilities management. The enterprise should seriously consider how to structure its procedures and policies in a way that improves productivity and lowers costs through standardization and other measures ARMD Response: We concur with the ARAC recommendation. The present corporate management approach is derived from studies previously reported on to the ARAC including the RAND Study and the Strategic Aerospace Capabilities Team Study.

1.RAND Study - NASA needs to develop an aeronautics test technology vision (we feel this should be driven by, and part of, an overall national aeronautics policy) and that NASA should provide shared financial support to its test facilities. Recommended that 29 of 31 facilities assessed are the minimum set required for strategic national needs. 2.Strategic Aerospace Capabilities Team (Lead: Rich Antcliff) - proposed a “hybrid management model” which included a multi-enterprise governing board to provide strategic management, an enterprise-wide service pool to provide rate stabilization, and a disruptive capability program to provide 21st century facilities. 3.“Corporate Management” - also known as the Aeronautics Test Program, described herein, which makes use of data produced in the RAND/SACT studies. Purpose is to provide strategic management of aeronautics ground test capabilities. Corporate Management of Facilities Previous Studies/Present Approach

Goals Of Corporate Management Of Facilities Increase the probability of having the right facilities in place at the right time for NASA’s mission - over the long-term Operate those facilities in the most effective and efficient manner possible Ensure intelligent divestment of facilities that are not required as part of NASA’s current and/or long-term mission

Approach: Overview Implement the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) Begin with a subset of NASA’s major research and test facilities; i.e., those facilities included in the NASA/DoD National Aeronautical Test Alliance –Test new structures, processes and impact before considering expansion to other facility areas –NATA facilities: Share many technical and operational similarities Are viewed as integrated suite by external constituencies Are most visible and under greatest pressure Have greatest downside associated with wrong decisions

NATA Facilities GLENN RESEARCH CENTER Icing Research Tunnel 10x10 Supersonic Unitary Wind Tunnel 8x6 Transonic Wind Tunnel 9x15 Low Speed Wind Tunnel Propulsion Systems Lab 3 and 4 ECRL-2B Aero-Acoustic Propulsion Laboratory Hypersonic Test Facility* LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER National Transonic Facility 0.3-meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel 8-foot High Temperature Tunnel 20-inch Mach 6 CF4 Tunnel 31-inch Mach 10 Tunnel 15-inch Mach 6 Tunnel LANGLEY (Continued) 20-inch Mach 6 Hypersonic Tunnel 20-inch Supersonic Wind Tunnel 22-inch Mach 20 Hypersonic Tunnel 14x22 Subsonic Wind Tunnel Transonic Dynamics Tunnel 4-foot Supersonic Unitary Wind Tunnel 16-foot Transonic Tunnel 20-foot Vertical Spin Tunnel Low Turbulence Pressure Tunnel Jet Exit Test Facility* AMES RESEARCH CENTER 11-foot Transonic Unitary Wind Tunnel 9x7 Supersonic Wind Tunnel National Full-Scale Aerodynamic Complex 12-foot Subsonic Pressure Wind Tunnel *Not included in original NATA MOA; proposed for inclusion

Initial Program Activities Develop budget guidance for FY’06 and 07 Categorize all wind tunnels –Develop an investment strategy for each category –Initiate a discussion on national test resources Other program investment areas –Facility maintenance –Facility upgrades and test technology –Facility related research

Facility Categorization Category I Facilities for which substantial ARMD program usage is forecast and/or facilities for which ARMD is proposing to assume a national stewardship role. Provide funding to make the pricing of these facilities competitive and stable; address non-routine maintenance work; implement new test capabilities when resources are available. Facilities –Ames Unitary (11 Ft. transonic and 9x7 supersonic tunnels) –Glenn Icing Tunnel –Glenn 9x15 –Langley NTF

Facility Categorization Category II Facilities that NASA (other than ARMD), DoD and industry require now or may require in the future Provide funding to insure that the test capabilities in these facilities remain available through FY07 by having enough resources to place the facilities on standby if needed. Facilities –Langley TDT –Langley Hypersonic Complex –Langley 21 Ft Vertical Spin Tunnel –Langley 14x22 –Langley 8 Ft. HTT –The Glenn Propulsion Systems Lab. (PSL) 3 & 4 –Glenn Unitary, 10x10 Ft Supersonic

Facility Categorization Category III Facilities that are currently not required but are viewed as part of a robust ground test capability Provide minimal resources for non-operating facilities against future possible requirements Facilities –Glenn Hypersonic Test Facility (HTF) –Ames 12 Ft Subsonic Pressure Tunnel

Facility Categorization Category IV Facilities that are not utilized and/or not viewed as components of needed future ground test capability No resources from the ATP provided. One of the following actions is expected: –Closed –Mothballed –Operate safely under full cost recovery policy and consistent with overall ARMD facility strategy Facilities –Langley 16 Ft. Transonic Tunnel - Closed –Ames National Full-Scale Aerodynamic Complex (NFAC) - Transferring to the Air Force –Ames 7x10 (2 tunnels) –Langley 22” Mach 20 - Closed –Langley Low Turbulence Pressure Tunnel (LTPT) –Langley Unitary

Facility Categorization Category V These facilities are laboratories and should not be included in ATP No resources from the ATP provided Laboratories –Glenn Aero-Acoustic Propulsion Laboratory (AAPL) –Langley 0.3 Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel –Langley Jet Exit Facility –Langley 20 inch Supersonic Wind Tunnel

ATP Activities Implement office Assess and propose cost and pricing structure Develop a facilities investment and divestment plan Develop overall marketing strategy Develop consistent operations policy/architecture –Model design criteria –Tunnel controls –Data acquisition/reduction/storage –etc. Propose university research activity Initiate discussion with facility customers

Closing Comments Starting to discuss NASA corporate management of facilities with DoD –AFMC/DO –Air Force Research Laboratory –Army Research Laboratory –NAVAIR –Defense Test Resource Management Office - OSD Request input from ARAC –How is it best to communicate ATP activities with the industry? Points of contact in ARAC organizations Thru an advisory committee similar to ARAC Other –Thoughts on which facilities should be maintained and how to manage facilities that are national assets