Author: MMellody

Volume 7 Issue 2

October 2014

Welcome to the latest installment of the ASEB News! This newsletter will update you on ASEB events and activities, as well as policy items of interest to the aerospace community.

Inside this issue

Human Spaceflight Report	1
From the Chair	2
Autonomy Report	3
Calendar	3
Space Technology Roundtable	4
Yvonne Brill Lecture	4
Aeronautics Roundtable	5
Committee Updates	6
3D Printing in Space	7

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board News

New ASEB Report Released on the Future of Human Spaceflight

The ASEB, n collaboration with the Space Studies Board and the Committee on National Statistics, issued a major report on human spaceflight, Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration, in early June. A highly diverse committee—with a large majority of the membership from outside the aerospace field—determined that human spaceflight should remain a major national priority. The committee concluded that this priority can be justified only by a combination of the pragmatic and aspirational rationales, including the human impulse to explore and search for new knowledge in places we have never been. Mars was affirmed as the “horizon goal” toward which all human spaceflight efforts are directed. However, getting to Mars will require a very different way of doing business than the nation has been practicing in recent decades.
As its highest priority recommendation, the committee recommends what it calls a “pathways approach” to human space exploration: a highly disciplined set of objectives from which the nation would not deviate over time. A pathway’s chosen destination would generate technical and engineering requirements, which as much as possible would feed forward toward the next destination and eventually to the horizon goal. The committee does not recommend any specific pathway, but notes that any pathway the nation chooses would require funding that increases by more than the rate of inflation for an extended period.
The committee concluded that work should begin soon on the most difficult and mission-critical technical challenges that will be common to any pathway to a human mission to the Mars surface. These are entry, descent, and landing for Mars, in-space propulsion and power, and assuring radiation safety for the crew.
The committee calls for the U.S. to expand its partnerships with other spacefaring nations, including an openness to working with China. Such partnerships should include much greater cost-sharing than international partners have provided for the International Space Station. The public, Congress, and the Administration should recognize that regardless of the pathway chosen, the risks of human space exploration, including the risks to human life, are high, and setbacks are inevitable.
The committee recognizes that many of the report’s recommendations may be seen by many as “unrealistic” due to long-standing budgetary, programmatic, political, and other challenges. Absent changes along the lines recommended by the committee, however, the goal of reaching Mars on any meaningful time frame is itself unrealistic.

The report Pathways to Exploration can be purchased, or downloaded as a PDF document for free, from <http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18801>.

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board News

Page #

Board Members
Lester Lyles, Chair (NAE), Chair The Lyles Group
Patricia Grace Smith, Vice Chair Patti Grace Smith Consulting, LLC
Arnold Aldrich Aerospace Consultant
Ella Atkins The University of Michigan
Steve Battel Battel Engineering
Brian Cantwell (NAE) Stanford University
Elizabeth Cantwell Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Eileen Collins Space Presentations, LLC
Ravi B. Deo EMBR
Vijay Dhir (NAE) UCLA
Earl Dowell (NAE) Duke University
Alan Epstein (NAE) Pratt & Whitney
Karen Feigh Georgia Tech
Peretz Friedmann University of Michigan
John Hansman MIT
Mark Lewis IDA
John Olson Sierra Nevada Corporation
Helen Reed Texas A&M University
Eli Reshotko (NAE) Case Western Reserve Univ.
Agam Sinha ANS Aviation International, LLC
John Stenbit (NAE) Consultant
Alan Title (NAS/NAE) Lockheed Martin
David Van Wie Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab

From the Chair
Raymond S. Colladay

The upcoming fall 2014 meeting of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board promises to be a stimulating event. Our aeronautics agenda will feature Dr. Jaiwon Shin, NASA’s Aeronautics Mission Director and will focus on NASA’s response to recent NRC reports, such as the report Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation: Toward a New Era of Flight, that affect NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Defense. Dr. Shin will also lead a discussion about challenges ahead for the aeronautics community and how the ASEB can help.
I am also excited to hear an update on the NASA/ARMD Strategic Implementation Plan. This plan will provide us with ARMD’s view of aeronautics research needs for the next 20 years and beyond. This discussion will be a perfect segue to our meeting’s focus sessions on the certification of new technologies for the National Airspace System and simulation at aeronautics test facilities. What makes each of these discussions more relevant is that recent budget marks from Congress seem positive and offer a chance to make some of the new capability options a realistic possibility.
The space agenda at our ASEB meeting is equally exciting. NASA’s recent decision selecting Boeing and SpaceX to be providers for the new U.S.-developed “human spaceflight system” will definitely be a discussion topic, as will the results of the recent Space Technology Industry, Government, and University Roundtable. As most of you know, the ASEB-sponsored Roundtables for ARMD have been very helpful to NASA’s aeronautics community leadership. The recent Space Technology Industry Government University Roundtable is the first ASEB activity supported by the Space Technology Mission Directorate. (STMD) We hope to continue this type of support and advice for the STMD leadership. Our focus discussion for the Space agenda will address Reusable Booster Systems – their feasibility, opportunities, and approaches. While it is not an agenda topic, I also look forward to discussing ideas on how the ASEB can help inform any upcoming decisions and actions relevant to a U.S. replacement for the RD-180 engine.
Finally, I am excited with the recent release of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) 2014 Strategic Plan. This updated Strategic Plan provides guidance and goals for the various mission directorates of AFRL, to ensure ‘revolutionary, relevant, and responsive’ technologies for the Air Force in air, space, and cyberspace. Similarly, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology recently announced the latest initiatives to encourage industry innovation in research and development. The national security mission of the Air Force is obviously different from the civil space and civil aeronautics missions of NASA. Nevertheless, the science and technology and research and development needs of the agencies are often the same. I hope the respective leaderships of both agencies actively seek to leverage the precious resources (i.e., people and budgets) of each to help achieve their missions.
Lester L. Lyles Chair, ASEB thelylesgroup@earthlink.net

Panel on Sustaining Human Space Exploration at the September 16, 2014 Atlantic Council forum on “The Final Frontier: Renewing America’s Space Program”
From l-r: Jeff Bingham (SSB member), Valerie Olson, Scott Pace, Hannah Kerner, Asif Siddiqi (Human Spaceflight Cmte member), Mary Lynne Dittmar (Human Spaceflight Cmte member), and Jeff Foust
[PHOTO courtesy of Michael Moloney, ASEB staff.]

Volume 7 Issue 2

Page #

New ASEB Report on Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation

In early June, the ASEB released the report Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation: Toward a New Era of Flight. The report asserts that civil aviation in the United States and elsewhere in the world is on the threshold of profound changes in the way it operates because of the rapid evolution of increasingly autonomous (IA) systems. IA systems encompass a wide array of system capabilities that range from the abilities of current automatic systems, such as autopilots and unmanned aircraft, and progress toward highly sophisticated systems to advance the capabilities of crewed aircraft, unmanned air systems (UAS), and air traffic management systems. The development and application of IA systems for civil aviation are proceeding at an accelerating pace, driven by the expectation that such systems will return significant benefits in terms of safety, reliability, efficiency, affordability, and previously unattainable mission capabilities. However, many substantial barriers, including technical issues, certification and regulation changes, and legal and social concerns, must be surpassed before widespread use of advanced IA systems in civil aviation is possible. This report suggests major elements of a national research agenda to address these barriers and address the key research challenge: “How can we assure that advanced IA systems—especially those systems that rely on adaptive/nondeterministic software—will enhance rather than diminish the safety and reliability of the national airspace system?”
The most urgent and important elements of the recommended research agenda would (1) develop methodologies to characterize and bound the behavior of adaptive/nondeterministic systems over their complete life cycle; (2) develop the system architectures and technologies that would enable increasingly sophisticated IA systems and unmanned aircraft to operate for extended periods of time without real-time human cognizance and control; (3) develop standards and processes for the verification, validation, and certification of IA systems and determine their implications for design; and (4) develop the theoretical basis and methodologies for using modeling and simulation to accelerate the development and maturation of advanced IA systems and aircraft.

The report Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation: Toward a New Era of Flight can be purchased, or downloaded as a PDF document for free, from <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18815>.

ASEB Calendar—Fall 2014

October 15-16, 2014	ASEB Fall Meeting. Irvine, CA.
November 19-21, 2014	Committee to Review the Federal Aviation Administration Research Plan on Certification of New Technologies into the National Airspace System, Washington, DC.
February 11, 2015	Space Technology Industry Goverenment University Roundtable, Washington, DC.
April 21-22, 2015	ASEB Spring Meeting, Washington, DC

For updates to the ASEB calendar, please see http://www.national-academies.org/aseb.

ASEB Staff
Michael H. Moloney Director
Alan Angleman Senior Program Officer
Carmela Chamberlain* Administrative Coordinator
Dwayne Day Senior Program Officer
Maureen Mellody* Program Officer
Celeste Naylor* Information Management Associate
Tanja Pilzak* Manager, Program Operations
Andrea Rebholz Program Associate
Meg Knemeyer* Financial Officer
Sandra Wilson* Senior Financial Assistant
*Staff of other NRC Boards who are shared with ASEB

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board News

Page #

STIGUR Members
Ray Johnson, Chair, Lockheed Martin
Robert Braun, Georgia Tech
Claude Canizares, MIT
Carissa Christensen, Tauri Group Room
Raymond Colladay, Consultant
Douglas Cooke, Cooke Concepts and Solutions
Werner Dahm, Arizona State University
Antonio Elias, Orbital Sciences Corporation
Alec Gallimore, University of Michigan
Michael Gazarik, NASA
Michael Gold, Bigelow Aerospace
Michael Griffin, Schafer Corporation
John Hines, Consultant
William Krenz , The Aerospace Corporation
Mark Lewis, IDA
Sandra Magnus, AIAA
Gregg Martin, The Boeing Company
Roger Myers, Aerojet Rocketdyne
Russell Partch, USAF
Marcia Smith, Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC
John C. Sommerer, JHUAPL (retired)
Alfred Tadros , Space Systems/Loral
Laurence R. Young, MIT

ASEB Space Technology Industry-Government-University Roundtable

The ASEB recently established the Space Technology Industry-Government-University Roundtable (STIGUR), which is modeled on the ongoing and very successful Aeronautics Research and Technology Roundtable. The formation of the Space Technology Roundtable was requested by Michael Gazarik, the NASA associate administrator, Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), and it is chaired by Ray Johnson, senior vice president and chief technology officer of Lockheed Martin. The Roundtable will meet twice yearly, with the first two meetings scheduled for September 11, 2014, and February 11, 2015. At the first meeting, Dr. Gazarik engaged the members of the Roundtable in a discussion of STMD goals, investment approach, and specific research projects at various levels of technology readiness that STMD is supporting to achieve its goals. He also reviewed the state of STMD collaborations with researchers and users in outside organizations and options for improving those collaborations, while emphasizing the importance of partnering with users in flight demonstrations of new technologies. David Miller, NASA chief technologist, led a similar discussion regarding the activities of the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT), also addressing interactions between OCT and STMD. The members of the Roundtable then engaged in an extended discussion guided by four questions posed by Michael Gazarik:
How can STMD improve the alignment of its Space Technology Program with the nation’s aerospace industry needs?
How can STMD improve the awareness and infusion of its low technology readiness level results?
What is the best way to ensure relevance and sustainability of NASA’s Space Technology Program over multiple Administrations?
What experiences have members of the Roundtable had with successful infusion of technology?

Yvonne C. Brill Lecture Series Began September 30, 2014

Dr. Adam Seltzner, JPL Fellow, gave the inaugural Yvonne C. Brill Lecture, “Engineering the Mars Entry Descent and Landing (EDL) System” on Tuesday, September 30. Dr. Seltzner led the Mars Science Laboratory’s Curiosity Rover EDL team and led development of the novel Sky Crane delivery system during the “7 Minutes of Terror” that successfully landed the Rover on Mars in 2012.
The Yvonne C. Brill Lectureship in Aerospace Engineering has been established in the memory of Yvonne C. Brill, pioneering rocket scientist, AIAA Honorary Fellow, and NAE member.

Dr. Adam Seltzner. [PHOTO from NAE website]

Volume 7 Issue 2

Page #

ASEB Aeronautics Research and Technology Roundtable

The Aeronautics Research and Technology Roundtable (ARTR) activity was renewed during 2014, with John Tracy re-appointed as chair. The Roundtable held a meeting on September 26 at the Keck Center where the members heard about the status of NASA’s aeronautics program and offered their views on issues that NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate is facing.
The goal of the roundtable is to convene senior-most representatives from industry, universities and NASA to define and explore critical issues related to NASA’s aeronautics research agenda that are of shared interest; to frame systems-level research issues; and to explore options for public-private partnerships that could support rapid, high-confidence knowledge transfer. This forum will be designed to facilitate candid dialogue among participants, to foster greater partnership among the NASA-related aeronautics community, and, where appropriate, carry awareness of consequences to the wider public.

ARTR chair John Tracy, right, and member Jaiwon Shin, left, listen to the discussion at the September 28 meeting. [PHOTO courtesy of Dwayne Day, ASEB staff.]

The ARTR meets on September 28. [PHOTO courtesy of Dwayne Day, ASEB staff.]

ARTR Members
John Tracy, Chair , The Boeing Company
Michael Bragg , University of Washington
Daniel Elwell , Airlines for America
Alan Epstein, NAE, Pratt & Whitney
Michael Hirschberg, American Helicopter Society International
Bruce J. Holmes, NextGen AeroSciences, LLC
Margaret Jenny , RTCA, Inc.
Dale Klapmeier, Cirrus Aircraft
Nicholas Lappos, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Lourdes Maurice, Federal Aviation Administration
M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University
Steven Pennington, U.S. Air Force
Eli Reshotko, NAE, Case Western Reserve, Emeritus
Thomas Romesser , NAE, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
Jaiwon Shin , NASA
Patti Grace Smith , Patti Grace Smith Consulting, LLC
Ian Waitz, NAE, MIT
Robert Walters, Virginia Tech
David Yoel , American Aerospace Advisors, Inc.

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board News

Page #

Committee Updates

Committee to Review the Federal Aviation Administration Research Plan on Certification of New Technologies into the National Airspace System. On February 14, 2012, the President signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), [1] Section 905 of the Act, entitled “Research on Design for Certification,” instructed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to “conduct research on methods and procedures to improve both confidence in and the timeliness of certification of new technologies for their introduction into the national airspace system.” The Act also instructed the FAA to develop a research plan that contains objectives, proposed tasks, milestones, and a 5-year budgetary profile, and to arrange an independent review of this plan by the National Research Council.
The ASEB has established a committee to “conduct an assessment of the Federal Aviation Administration’s plan for research on methods and procedures to improve both confidence in and the timeliness of certification of new technologies for their introduction into the National Airspace System (NAS).”
The research focus areas in the FAA plan include:
Systems Engineering
Requirements Development
Human Factors
Software Development
Verification, Validation & Testing
Software Design Assurance
Training
Operational Evaluation
The committee will:
Provide an analysis of the FAA’s proposed research, as described in the research plan, focused on how implementing the plan may improve both timeliness and confidence of certifying new technologies into the NAS as requested in the FAA reauthorization section 905.
Identify for each focus area any specific actions that may have been successful in similar activities within and external to the FAA;
Provide an assessment of planned research outputs in meeting the wording in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act “to conduct research on methods and procedures to improve both confidence in and timeliness of certification of new technologies for their introduction into the national airspace system”;
Comment on general readability and clarity of presentation of the research plan; and
Provide comments on or recommendations on other issues determined by the committee.
The committee intends to hold its first meeting in Washington, DC, November 19-21, 2014, followed by at least two additional meetings probably in Irvine and a location to be determined. The plan is to produce a report to deliver to the FAA, Congress (which mandated the research plan and the study), and the Executive Branch by late spring 2015.
The Committee to Review Proposals for the Ohio Third Frontier Program. The Ohio Third Frontier Program’s Innovation Platform Program (IPP) 2014, which seeks to fund the transition of innovative technologies developed in Ohio university and research institutions into the commercial market was held again starting in the summer. The NRC established a committee to review the proposals submitted to the IPP, which range from new medical devices and technologies to shale wastewater treatment and nano materials development. The committee held meetings in July and September. The latter meeting included interviews of all the proposal teams and development of the committee’s written report, which recommends proposals for funding. The report was submitted to the Ohio Development Services Agency in early October and the state will make funding decisions using the recommendations.
The Standing Committee on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space. The Committee on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space (CBPSS), a new standing committee of the SSB and the ASEB, held its first meeting on Oct. 7-8, 2014 in Washington, DC. Dr. Elizabeth Cantwell (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and Dr. Robert Ferl (University of Florida) are serving as committee co-chairs. The overarching purpose of the new committee is to support scientific progress in space research in the biological, medical, and physical sciences and assist the federal government in integrating and planning programs in these fields. CBPSS is expected to provide an independent, authoritative forum for identifying and discussing issues in space life and physical sciences between the research community, the federal government, and the interested public. CBPSS will also monitor the progress in implementation of the recommendations of the decadal survey, Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era. The committee heard NASA program briefings at its October meeting and discussed with NASA near-term issues of special importance to the relevant programs.

Volume 7 Issue 2

Page #

ASEB Releases Report on 3D Printing in Space

The committee’s report “3D Printing in Space,” was delivered to NASA and Air Force Space Command in July and printed in September. Following delivery, the committee chair Robert Latiff and committee members briefed NASA’s Associate Administrator for the Space Technology Mission Directorate Michael Gazarik and later Space Command Chief Scientist Merri Sanchez.
The report states that additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, could contribute positively to space missions, for example by enabling in-orbit manufacture of replacement parts and reducing launch logistical requirements, but the specific benefits and potential scope of the technology’s use remain undetermined. The committee noted that there are substantial gaps between the vision for additive manufacturing in space and the limitations of the technology.
“Many of the claims made in the popular press about this technology have been exaggerated.” said Robert Latiff, chair of the committee that wrote the report, president of Latiff Associates, and a former Air Force Major General. “For in-space use, the technology may provide new capabilities, but it will serve as one more tool in the toolbox, not a magic solution to tough space operations and manufacturing problems. However, right now NASA and the Air Force have a tremendous resource in the form of the International Space Station,” Latiff added. “Perfecting this technology in space will require human interaction, and the Space Station already provides the infrastructure and the skilled personnel who can enable that to happen.”
Additive manufacturing is the process of joining materials -- usually layer upon layer -- to make objects from 3D model data. The addition of material one layer at a time significantly reduces the amount of waste created during production. Additive manufacturing offers unique economic incentives for space operations by cutting raw material costs, reducing payload sizes, and eliminating the need to frequently launch spare or replacement parts into orbit. The committee also concluded that one of its biggest benefits could be enabling the manufacture in space of things that could not otherwise be produced on the ground, such as large, fragile structures.
Although additive manufacturing is a fairly mature technology for components that can be manufactured on the ground, its application in space is not feasible today, except for very limited and experimental purposes. In September NASA launched an experimental 3D printer to the ISS where it will be used to produce small plastic components that will later be tested on the ground. The company that built this experimental machine has plans to launch a refined version to the space station and sell components on an as-needed basis. The next major steps for the in-space demonstration of this technology include the development of additive manufacturing machines that can use metals, but that will be a significant design challenge.
The committee found that multiple limitations preclude fully automated additive manufacturing in space from becoming a near-term reality. The vacuum of space, zero gravity, and intense thermal fluctuations all pose extreme and harsh environmental obstacles. These factors are important not only in terms of completing the manufacturing process but also in how they can alter the integrity of the final product.
The committee also concluded that a number of impacts and obstacles need to be considered in the cost-benefit equation for additive manufacturing. The largest disadvantages stem from the high costs of equipment operation, maintenance, and infrastructure platforms such as a reliable power source that does not detract from spacecraft operations. Automation presents another unknown cost, because while it is currently often cheaper and more efficient to have human labor complete basic tasks involving additive manufacturing, such as moving parts from one machine to the next, human labor in space is very expensive. At a minimum, further investments in human telepresence and robotics will be required, the report says.
The committee warned, however, that actual production costs should not be the sole criterion for evaluating the benefits of in-space additive manufacturing, but consideration should be given to the value of creating structures and functionalities not feasible without the technology. For instance, additive manufacturing might enable the construction of large structures in space, structures too big or fragile to be launched on top of a rocket.
In-space manufacturing is likely to have a more significant impact on human space missions than for robotic spaceflight, the report concluded. However, additive manufacturing could greatly benefit from well thought out technology roadmaps, standards of quality and performance, common terminology, and other professional engineering standards.
Because NASA is currently the leader in development of space-based additive manufacturing technology and also operates a valuable research platform, the International Space Station, the committee recommended that the agency sponsor a space-based 3D printing workshop to bring together experts in the field, and take other actions to improve communication inside and outside of the agency. NASA should also develop an agency-wide roadmap for developing the technology. Because perfecting and exploiting additive manufacturing technology will require input from multiple disciplines, strong communication is vital. Due to time constraints, NASA should also quickly identify any experiments that it can develop and test aboard the International Space Station during its remaining 10 years of service.
The committee stated that in-space additive manufacturing is an area where cooperation between civil agencies and the military can and should occur. The Air Force should establish a roadmap with short- and longer-term goals for evaluating the possible advantages of additive manufacturing in space. The Air Force and NASA should also consider additional investments in the education and training of both materials scientists with specific expertise in additive manufacturing and spacecraft designers and engineers with deep knowledge of the use and development of 3D printing systems. Finally, the Air Force should make every effort to cooperate with NASA on in-space additive manufacturing technology development including, but not limited to, conducting research on the International Space Station, jointly sharing the costs of research, and sharing data.

The report Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation: Toward a New Era of Flight can be purchased, or downloaded as a PDF document for free, from <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18871>.

3D Printing in Space Committee Members
Robert H. Latiff, Chair, R. Latiff Associates
Peter M. Banks, NAE, Red Planet Capital Partners
Andrew S. Bicos, The Boeing Company
Elizabeth R. Cantwell, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Ravi B. Deo, EMBR
John W. Hines, Independent Consultant
Bhavya Lal, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute
Sandra H. Magnus, AIAA
Thomas Maultsby, Rubicon, LLC
Michael T. McGrath, University of Colorado, Boulder
Lyle H. Schwartz, NAE, University of South Florida
Ivan E. Sutherland,NAS/NAE, Portland State University
Ryan Wicker, The University of Texas at El Paso
Paul K. Wright,NAE, University of California, Berkeley

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board News

Page #

Past NRC Reports Related to 3D Printing Include:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18345
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13274
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18697

3D Printing in Space, continued

The 3D printing committee is briefied at its final meeting. [PHOTO courtesy of Dwayne Day, ASEB staff.]

Volume 7 Issue 2

Page #

About the ASEB...

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

The National Academies
Keck Center
500 Fifth St. NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-334-3477 (phone)
202-334-3701 (fax)
http://www.national-academies.org/aseb
aseb@nas.edu

The Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board News is published biannually. If you would like to receive an electronic or print copy, please let us know at aseb@nas.edu or 202-334-3477.

The ASEB’s sister Board, the Space Studies Board (SSB), also publishes a newsletter; visit http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/ssb_052298 to subscribe or to view past SSB newsletters. The ASEB’s division, the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS), also publishes a newsletter; visit http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/DEPS_059299 to subscribe.

The Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) was established in 1967 "to focus talents and energies of the engineering community on significant aerospace policies and programs." In undertaking its responsibility, the ASEB oversees ad hoc committees that recommend priorities and procedures for achieving aerospace engineering objectives and offers a way to bring engineering and other related expertise to bear on aerospace issues of national importance.
The majority of ASEB studies originate with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), particularly the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate and the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. Some of these studies are requested by Congress in related legislation. ASEB also conducts proposal reviews for the State of Ohio’s Third Millennium Program through the Ohio Department of Development and identifies experts to assist the Government Accountability Office in conducting its studies. The ASEB also has performed technical and policy studies for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Air Force Space Command, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and others.

(Continued on page #)

(Continued on page #)

(Continued from page #)

(Continued on page #)

(Continued on page #)

(Continued on page #)

(Continued on page #)

(Continued on page #)

(Continued from page #)

(Continued from page #)

(Continued from page #)

(Continued from page #)

(Continued on page #)

(Continued from page #)