Use of Systems Analysis to Assess Progress toward

Use of Systems Analysis to Assess Progress toward Goals and Technology Impacts Bill Gilbert NASA Langley Research Center November 15, 1999

Outline • Aerospace Systems, Concepts, and Analysis Competency • Programs/Technology Contribution to Goals • Aviation System Analysis Capability

Atmospheric Sciences Competency Helps Assess Aviation’s Impact on Environment Emission Measurements Assessment Modeling Radiative effects of Contrails

The Three Pillars for Success (Aero-Space Technology Enterprise)

Three Pillars Aero-Space Goals SAFETY Reduce the aircraft accident rate by a factor of five within 10 years, and by a factor of 10 within 20 years. GENERAL AVIATION Invigorate the general aviation industry, delivering 10, 000 aircraft annually within 10 years, and 20, 000 aircraft annually within 20 years. NOISE Reduce the perceived noise levels of future aircraft by a factor of two from today’s subsonic aircraft within 10 years, and by a factor of four within 20 years. SUPERSONIC TRAVEL Reduce the travel time to the Far East and Europe by 50 percent within 20 years, and do so at today’s subsonicticket prices. EMISSIONS COST OF AIR TRAVEL CAPACITY Reduce emissions of future aircraft by a factor of three within 10 years, and by a factor of five within 20 years. Reduce the cost of air travel by 25% within 10 years, and by 50% within 20 years. While maintaining safety, triple the aviation system throughput, in all weather conditions, within 10 years. DESIGN & TEST SPACE ACCESS IN-SPACE TRANS. Provide next generation design tools and experimental aircraft to increase design confidence, and cut the development cycle time for aircraft in half. Reduce the payload cost to low-Earth orbit by an order of magnitude, from $10, 000 to $1, 000 per pound, within 10 years, and by an additional order of magnitude within 25 Reduce the cost of interorbital transfer by an order of magnitude within 15 years, and reduce travel time for planetary missions by a factor of two within 15 years, and by an order of magnitude years. within 25 years.

Mapping Programs and Technology Results into Goals • Progress Towards the Aero-Space Enterprise Goals is Achieved by the Combined Contributions of -- Base Technology Research -- Focused Program Technology Development • Contributions of Focused Programs and Base Technologies are Crosscutting Among the Goals • Progress Towards the Goals May Be Achieved with Crosscutting Technologies and Not Solely by Dedicated Program Elements • System Analysis -- Correlates Technologies with Goals -- Analyzes Contribution of Correlated Technologies Towards Goals

Enterprise Intercenter Systems Analysis Team Glenn Ames Langley Dryden Marshall Kennedy

Assessment of OAT Programs Technical Evaluation & Integration Team • Data Solicitation • Technology Oversight/Projections • Technology Roll-up Vehicle/Fleet Team Airport/Airspace Team Program Objectives Weight MTBF • Reference Airports/ATM Concepts • Enroute/Terminal Area Network • Capacity/Throughput/Delays • Noise Footprint/Community Impact • Airport Operations/Airline Costs • Airport/ATM Safety Model SFC L/D All Weather Operations Labor Hours Reference Vehicles Reference Fleets Reference Operations/Airports Design Time General Aviation Commercial Supersonic Cost Capacity Noise Emissions Safety Reference Air Traffic Mgmt System Spaceports/Operations Team • Reference Spaceport Concepts • Servicing & Operations Models • Launch/Flight Safety Model In-Space Trans. Aero Design Time Space Access • Reference Vehicles • Subsonic transports • CTR/commuter/rotorcraft • HSCT • GA • Single Stage to Orbit • Two Stage to Orbit • Manufacturing & Market Economics • Aircraft Emissions & Noise Outcome Goals Teams • Oversee Subteam(s) • POC for Each Goal Impact • Assure Generation of Output from Other Teams • Consistent Goal Accounting and Data Format

BASELINE AIRCRAFT Civil Tilt Rotor Payload 40 pax Design Range 600 nm Econ Range 200 nm General Aviation Prop Payload 4 pax Design Range 800 nm General Aviation Jet Payload 4 pax Design Range 800 nm Regional Turboprop Payload 40 pax Design Range 1000 nm Econ Range 200 nm Regional Jet Payload 50 pax Design Range 800 nm Econ Range 400 nm Short-Range Twin Payload 100 pax Design Range 1500 nm Econ Range 500 nm Intracontinental Payload 150 pax Design Range 3000 nm Econ Range 1000 nm Long-Range Quad Payload 600 pax Design Range 7500 nm Econ Range 3500 nm Medium-Range Twin Payload 225 pax Design Range 6000 nm Econ Range 2000 nm Long-Range Twin Payload 300 pax Design Range 7500 nm Econ Range 3000 nm High Speed Civil Payload 300 pax Design Range 5000 nm Econ Range 3500 nm

Notional Concept of a Safety Data Analysis Framework Technologies/Interventions Time Slice (2007, 2022) Option #1 • • • • Fleet projection • Accident projection Option #N Accident Rates (Metrics) Additional Metrics: Fatal Accident Rates Number of Fatalities Number of Injuries

Aviation Safety Goal Analysis • 34 Technology Datasheets considered in Safety Goal Analysis ------ 20 from Aviation Safety Program Office 2 from Airframe Systems 6 from Propulsion Systems 1 from Advanced Subsonic Technologies 5 from Aviation Operations Systems • Approximately 47 Different Causal Factor Impacts • Technology impacts to different aircraft classes analyzed separately (Transports, Commuters, GA, Rotorcraft)

Aviation Safety Goal Analysis - Transport Aircraft (Part 121) Goal F Reduce the aircraft accident rate by a factor of 5 within 10 years, and by a factor of 10 within 25 years. Metrics � Accident Rate (Fatal & Non-Fatal Combined) � Fatal Accident Rate � Number of Fatalities � Number of Injuries Approach � U. S. only, 1990 to 1996, fatal & non-fatal accident NTSB data used to determine percentage of accidents/fatalities/injuries avoided due to technology implementation � U. S. fleet projections based on FAA and DOT forecasts � 100% overlap in accident coverage allowed due to multiple technologies impacting individual accidents; consistent with Av. SP philosophy of increased reliability through redundant technology impacts

Aviation Safety Goal Analysis - Commuter Aircraft (Part 135, sch. and non-sch. ) Goal F Reduce the aircraft accident rate by a factor of 5 within 10 years, and by a factor of 10 within 25 years. Metrics � Accident Rate (Fatal & Non-Fatal Combined) � Fatal Accident Rate � Number of Fatalities � Number of Injuries Approach � U. S. only, 1990 to 1996, fatal & non-fatal accident NTSB data used to determine percentage of accidents/fatalities/injuries avoided due to technology implementation � U. S. fleet projections based on FAA and DOT forecasts � 100% overlap in accident coverage allowed due to multiple technologies impacting individual accidents; consistent with Av. SP philosophy of increased reliability through redundant technology impacts

% Toward the Goal Summary of NASA Programs Projected Progress Toward the Goals (end of FY 98) 10 Year Projections 100 75 50 GA NOx non-GA CO 2 25 0 Safety Emissions (w/out Av. SP) Noise Capacity Affordability. Travel Time 20 Year Projections 100 Time 75 50 GA NOx CO 2 25 0 General Development Aviation Cycle non-GA Safety Emissions (w/out Av. SP) Noise Capacity Affordability General Development Aviation Cycle Travel Time Surcharge

http: //www. asac. lmi. org Assess advanced aviation technology impacts on the integrated aviation system • Technical Progress and Value • Technology Cost Effectiveness • Technology Investment Portfolio

ASAC Ties The Integrated Aviation System Together Air Carrier Investment Airline Cost/Benefit & Ops Air Carrier Network Cost Air Cargo Cost/Demand Flight Segment Cost DOT Databases Airline Operators Aircraft Synthesis (ACSYNT) Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) Reference Aircraft Configurations Airspace System Integrated Aviation System Environment Integrated Noise Impact Functional Analysis Airport Capacity Airport Delay Approximate Network Delay AATT Decision Support Tools Airport Databases Safety System Safety Tolerance Analysis 3

ASAC Data Flow Airport Capacity & Demand Efficient Routes, Fleet Air Carrier Cost Functions Route Structure Constraints Air Traffic Management & Regulation • ATC • Safety • Environment Characteristics Aircraft & System Technologies Costs Aviation Industry Demand ATM Demand FAA Air Traffic Management

Users of ASAC are Increasing Each Year User Organizations • 6 U. S. Government (e. g. , NATO, Defense, U. S. Int’l Trade Commission, FAA) • 4 Operations (AA, NWA, UAL, USAirways) • 29 Manufacturing/Engineering (e. g. , BAC, TRW, P&W, LM, ARINC, Cessna Textron, Draper) • 13 Academia (e. g. , Johns Hopkins APL, Princeton, Ga. Tech, Berkeley, MIT, Geo Mason) • 6 International (e. g. , Air. Services Australia, Eurocontrol) 11

ASAC Customers & Applications American Airlines Free Flight: Preserving Airline Opportunity, ‘ 97 United Airlines B-727 Navigation Upgrade, ‘ 97 Pratt & Whitney PW 8000 Product Launch Decision Support, ‘ 97 - ‘ 98 Boeing CNS Study Group, ‘ 98 - ‘ 99 Transportation Research Board Economic Impacts of Air Traffic Congestion, ‘ 98 CNS/ATM Focused Team (CAFT) TAP/AATT Study Results, ‘ 98 NASA • Dallas-Ft. Worth CTAS Operations Safety Assessment, ‘ 98 • Noise Impact Assessment for Environmental Program Planning, ‘ 99 • TAP/AATT Technology Assessments, ‘ 98 - ‘ 99

Summary • The OAT ten technology goals were chosen to address aero-space industry technology needs • Validity of our technology assessments depends on fidelity of our aviation system models – We need your continued support in keeping the models relevant • As our customers and partners, we encourage you to interact with us and provide feedback on technology focus and analysis methods – Tour – Breakout sessions