National Aeronautical Facilities Program

Issues Related to Its Cost and Need Gao ID: LCD-75-329 March 23, 1976

In fiscal year 1977 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requested about $25 million to start acquisition of the National Transonic Facility, and the Department of the Air Force requested about $437 million for the Aeropropulsion System Test Facility. The Department of Defense (DOD) and NASA requested these facilities for the National Aeronautical Facilities program in order that U.S. manufacturers may develop superior civilian and military aircraft that will be competitive with foreign aircraft.

The design of the Aeropropulsion System Test Facility (ASTF) includes two altitude test cells, one principally for subsonic engines for transport and cargo aircraft, and the other mainly for supersonic engines for fighters, bombers, and potentially supersonic transports. The planned capability of this facility appears to be based on the assumption that large engines would be required for the next generation of aircraft for civilian and military use. A private study concluded that only two new types of engines would be developed within the next 20 years, and that the facility would be cost effective if used in the development of both new types of engines. The Air Force replied, however, that more than two new types of engines would be developed. The planned capability for the National Transonic Facility represents a compromise between the full-scale capability planned by the Air Force, and the lower capability planned by NASA. Since the planned capability for the facility represents a compromise and it cannot be later expanded, the usefulness of the facility is not clear.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.