(Steven Dunn, John Micol, John Korte, Joel Everhart, Pete Jacobs) November, 2013

1. AIAA Ground Testing Technical CommitteeAdditional Discussion for Process Methodology for the “Future of Ground Testing” Working Group (Steven Dunn, John Micol, John Korte, Joel Everhart, Pete Jacobs) November, 2013

2. ApproachLogistics, Complete • Prepare charter and gain approval from GTTC (complete) • Define chair and co-chair (Complete; Dunn is chair and Canacci is co-chair) • Create a web site on the AIAA GTTC home page (Dunn action) • Build the working group membership (start with attendees in San Diego) • Develop a project-type process plan that will map process to products • Define, specifically, how data will be acquired and analyzed • Develop support network for product reviews • Define how products will be released and expectations for how they will be used • Determine what, if any, follow-up or additional work will be needed after the product releases

3. ApproachLogistics, To Do • Build (add as indicated) the working group membership • Develop (update through SciTech team meeting) a project-type process plan that will map process to products • Define, specifically, end state goals for findings, process to get there, and how data will be acquired and analyzed • Define findings review process • Develop support network for product reviews • Define how products will be released and expectations for how they will be used • Determine what, if any, follow-up or additional work will be needed after the product releases

4. ApproachFrom NASA/LaRC Discussions • Premise: Define the journey to a future state where wind tunnels are not needed • Break down paths via roadmaps that will allow functional block (classes of problems) that can be addressed • Phased, rational (based on National needs) approach to investment, sustainment, and divestment • Develop Overall Plan • What information is needed • What data sets are needed to improve CFD codes • What instrumentation/test techniques are needed to get the data • What wind tunnels are needed to run the experiments • Who will be involved (other NASA Centers, other Gov’t groups, Industry, Academia, AIAA) • How to fund and manage this long-term effort • How will we get this information (via focused workshops?) • Get Input and Gain Advocacy – Do We Start at NASA Langley and Roll Out? • Run plan past RD Chief Engineers (Leavitt, Korte, Silcox, Winfree) • Run plan past RDO (Marlowe, Ambur, Kilgore) • Run plan past ARD (Wahls, Finelli) • Run plan past AIAA GTTC (other TC’s?) • Run plan past OD (Engelund, Detweiler, Roe) • Revise Plan Based on Input • Approach NASA Headquarters (ARMD, OCE, OCT) with preliminary plan • If NASA HQ Shows Interest, Gather Information Needed • Who, what, where, when from Strategic Plan • Cost and schedule • Sell Program to NASA HQ

5. Approach From NASA/LaRC Discussions • Identify Facility Owners, CFD developers, Instrumentation/Test Technique Developers, and Program People to participate in developing Draft Strategic Plan • Utilize local LaRC experts and AIAA TC members in these areas to identify who should be involved • Others? • Set up Focused Workshop(s) to Capture Information • Scope/organization of effort (e.g. by vehicle class, by speed range, by discipline…?) • What data sets are needed to improve CFD codes • What instrumentation/test techniques are needed to get the data • What wind tunnels are needed to run the experiments • Who will be involved (other NASA Centers, other Gov’t groups, Industry, Academia, AIAA) • Schedule for this effort • Estimated resources needed ($, workforce, etc) • How to fund and manage this long-term effort

6. Approach From NASA/LaRC Discussions • Set up other (coordinated) locations to work local support and build the larger effort • See if this could gain support from AEDC and AFRL • See if this could gain support from major industry companies • See if this could gain support from several key academic leaders • Incorporate representatives into the focused workshop(s) • Potential to build a coordinated industry (gov’t, commercial, academic) groundswell for support and action • Concern that meta-analysis could just turn into ‘yet another paper/briefing the stakeholders ignore’

7. Approach From NASA/LaRC Discussions

8. Approach From NASA/LaRC Discussions • Additional comments • Consider: “Grand Challenges in CFD” • Targeted assessment and papers across subsonic, transonic, supersonic, hypersonic • Really across missions for types of products • Check on CFD 10 challenges from Merski/Hollis – publically available in LaRC ViTAL document? • Use technical challenges from ViTal briefing • What are the issues/challenge to get these solved? • Do we organize by vehicles/missions, class of problem/need, fundamental physics • Break down computational modeling and simulation • External flow • Internal flow • Each paper addresses each or work in parallel or fluids problem with variable boundary conditions • What experimental capability is needed • UQ Goal of making this just the saucer MODSIM CFD FT GT

9. Approach From NASA/LaRC Discussions • Additional comments • Future  WT only needed to validate CFD • Facilities: • Sequence of facilities/capabilities to support CFD • Research/Development likely has a different set of facilities/capabilities • Based on cost, schedule, risk • Timeframe is 25-50 years • Based on CFD readiness (turbulence modeling), see Malik/Bushnell • CFD model base 25 years, CFD simulation base 50 years • Based on investment in CFD • Previous arguments have not worked. Why? • What would be different this time? • Nobody wants to pay for facilities! • AIAA Cover? Maybe Umbrella? • What is needed to nurture CFD to close WT? • How long – Malik/Bushnell (Note: still issues here; not just computing power) • Risk – CFD more accurate flight predictions • Schedule – CFD faster than testing • Cost (actual and total, not just visible) – CFD needs to be cheaper • Example: What would it take to close the NTF (and ETW)? • What are flow physics problems we need to be doing? Need the research work to find out.