Corporate Management of Facilities

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)

Blair Gloss
(Blair.B.Gloss@nasa.gov)
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 NASAs 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 NASAs current and/or long-term mission
Approach: Overview
Implement the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP)
Begin with a subset of NASAs 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 FY06 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