Last Breath
As NASA prepares to shut down a historic wind tunnel in Virginia, some hope for a stay of execution.
- By Michael Klesius
- AirSpaceMag.com, September 10, 2009
A supersonic transport is shown in the tunnel on January 17, 1975, where it was tested for low-speed handling qualities.
NASA
Ken Hyde remembers his first trip a decade ago to the full-scale wind tunnel at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Hyde, famous for constructing a flying replica of the Wright brothers’ 1903 Flyer, was testing his model of the Wrights’ 1900 glider. He was enchanted by the huge tunnel, whose test area was 30 feet high and 60 feet wide. Two 4,000-horsepower fans pulled air past the test rig at up to 118 mph.
But Hyde was equally enchanted by the can-do spirit of a group of aeronautical engineering students from nearby Old Dominion University, who were testing two NASCAR stock vehicles side-by-side in the tunnel for a private client. Under a Space Act agreement with NASA, ODU’s aeronautical engineering department had been granted use of the tunnel since 1997.
“We’ve got so many sharp minds out there, but they need the tools,” says Hyde today, lamenting the coming demise of the wind tunnel, which has been in operation since 1931. Friday, September 4 saw its last day of testing, with Boeing studying how air flowed around a scale version of its X-48C blended wing body concept. Soon after, Boeing began dismantling the 400-pound model. By the end of the month, the ODU team will vacate the facility for good. NASA soon will bid out the demolition job to a contractor, and the building will start coming down most likely in January.
With the tunnel will die a legacy of testing biplanes, sailplanes, X-planes, submarines, lifting bodies, Mercury capsules, supersonic transports, racecars, tractor-trailers, and modern wind-turbines (for green power research). Orville Wright, Charles Lindbergh, and Howard Hughes were photographed inside the tunnel, which was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1985. But it has to go, says NASA, claiming that the tunnel has outlived its useful life.
Hyde’s angle is a bit different. “ [Langley] had about 40 highly paid engineers [assigned to the tunnel] with not enough work to do,” he says, which drove up the cost of using the facility. When ODU took it over, the operation became leaner, giving the tunnel a second life it otherwise may not have had. The engineering group from ODU went out and found clients who needed aero research, including Penske Racing, which alone brought in $250,000 a year for several years. The money covered the university’s costs of operating the tunnel, with some left over to fund other graduate aeronautical research. The hourly rate for customers ran $1,600 an hour. If that sounds steep, it’s a good deal cheaper than the country’s largest wind tunnel, now operated by the U.S. Air Force, at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California. A Canadian green power firm that wanted to test turbines in the Langley full-scale tunnel was given an estimate of $56,000 total. The estimate they got from the Ames tunnel was $200,000.
Hyde, whose appreciation of classic flying machines is obvious, likes the Langley tunnel for more than its history. He insists it’s still in good working order and in great demand, a point that’s hard to deny with Boeing testing its most futuristic blended wing design right up to the deadline.
“Computational fluid dynamics [CFD] software is fine for designing airplanes,” says Norm Crabill, who in 1949 joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which became NASA. He retired from NASA in 1986, and started Aero Space Consultants, a sole proprietorship not far from the research center. “I’ll bet you that Boeing has the best CFD program that you can find. But to really firm up what they’re doing, what do they do? They go to a wind tunnel.”
Several years ago Crabill used the full-scale tunnel to test the canard—the small horizontal wings—on the front of the Wright Flyer. He was able to obtain data on the stick force needed to keep the canard from stalling—information the Wrights never had.
“I believe we got valuable insights into the handling qualities from the tunnel, and you could not get that from CFD. That airplane [the Wright Flyer] is so flexible. It’s got a bunch of wires holding it together. CFD is great for a streamlined body that’s rigid, where you can represent the surface mathematically. You cannot do that with the Flyer. You have to put it in the tunnel and see what happens.”
If solving the riddles of the Wright Flyer isn’t high on NASA’s to-do list these days, Jim Cross remembers another project ODU carried out in the tunnel that potentially helped save airplanes and lives. In 1997, as the dean of the College of Engineering and Technology, he approached the director of Langley about bringing in engineering students for hands-on learning. Their first problem involved some of the Air Force’s F-15s, which were misbehaving during slow landing approaches at high angles of attack, suddenly experiencing a hard rudder input from the computer that left pilots very skittish. “The pilots called these ‘evil planes,’ ” says Cross. The ODU team, in conjunction with NASA, put the nose of an F-15 in the tunnel and found the problem. A plug, or nose cap, in the tip of the nose—“It looked just like a wood screw,” says Cross—was the culprit. If it wasn’t screwed in properly, or was damaged or misaligned, it caused an aerodynamic disturbance down one side of the airplane that compelled the flight computer to command the rudder input.
Useful as these studies may be—and profitable—the tunnel still has found itself at times literally underwater. “What finally caused a major disruption in our productivity was the hurricane,” says Cross, referring to Isabel in September 2003. “We had three feet of water in the wind tunnel. That shut us down for four months. The race teams were forced to find other tunnels. We never fully recovered.”
According to the current ODU team leader, Bob Ash, who took over from Cross about three years ago, the storm did $600,000 of damage. About $200,000 in federal emergency disaster relief came through NASA, while the rest was paid for by the Commonwealth of Virginia and insurance. Since Isabel, three nor’easters have flooded the tunnel less severely.
“Why are they closing the tunnel?” asks Ash. “The easy part is that it is so precariously situated near the water. Short of moving a 2.2 acre facility, they’ve got to take it down because of the rising water level in the Back River. Most people think [the rise] is due to global warming.” Ash cites a recent report from the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences that charts roughly a foot of increase in the water level at Sewell’s Point, about ten miles away, from 1928 to 2007. He’s resigned to the tunnel’s eventual closure, but like many, hopes for a little more time. “Our position has always been: We’re very proud to run this thing. We think it still has a few miles left in it. NASA notified us over a year ago, so we knew it was coming. But it continues to be my opinion that if NASA could let the tunnel die a natural death, then we could still do some unique and valuable testing here.”
Ultimately, the Air Force may be applying some quiet pressure, as the tunnel sits on land that belongs to them. “The Air Force thinks it’s ugly,” says Jack Ralston, president of Bihrle Applied Research, a local engineering firm that rents time in the tunnel. “If it weren’t on their property, it probably wouldn’t be a problem. Everything’s really spit-polished at Langley Air Force Base because it’s the headquarters of Air Combat Command.” He too realizes that the tunnel can’t live forever, but has written his congressman for a stay of execution. “Why stop the facility from operating before they [NASA] have the bid to show the government that they’ve got the demolition contractor in place? As long as it’s standing there, it might as well run.
“I think it’s been kind of an orphan,” he continues, “step-child, whatever you want to call it. NASA and the Air Force don’t want to deal with it.”
Kathy Barnstorff, a NASA spokeswoman, says that NASA’s part of the agreement with ODU was to maintain the exterior of the wind tunnel “only to a level of safety. Once NASA decommissioned the [tunnel] in 1995, NASA has done little to maintain thet vacility except as it applies to safety. That includes items such as fire suppression system upkeep and sandbags to curb flooding.” This she says, costs NASA about $4,500 a year. The agency also made a one-time investment on $36,000 to replace damaged windows with plexiglass. The building’s exterior, a mix of asbestos and concrete, is dilapidated.
Barnstorff points to a combination of factors that have, according to NASA, rendered the tunnel obsolete: the growth of computational fluid dynamics, less money in NASA’s aeronautics budget over the past decade, and industry consolidation that has left fewer airplane manufacturers in need of tunnel time. Barnstorff reasons that Boeing chose the tunnel for its X-48C only because they had tested its predecessor here in 2006. “We already had a database from the full-scale tunnel, so it was logical for them to send the X-48C here so we could compare apples to apples.”
Accurate cost estimates for the demolition won’t come in for a month or more, and will include destruction of three smaller decommissioned wind tunnels at the center. But estimates for all four tunnels in recent years, says Barnstorff, have run from five to eight million dollars. A bit more than half of that, she supposes, might cover the full-scale tunnel.
What will replace the building? “That’s up to the Air Force to decide,” she says. Rumors are that a parking lot lies in the immediate future.
As for Hyde, he’s getting the word out via a web page, and has hope that NASA won’t do something irreversible, such as remove a propeller blade from one of the fans as a gift to a museum. He knows it can’t live forever. He simply wishes NASA would let ODU operate the tunnel, occasionally fixing it “with a crescent wrench and a screw driver.
“If it finally reaches a point where it isn’t repairable,” he says, “when that day comes, I’ll help ’em load it on the truck.”
Comments (21)
i think ralston`s got it right -- that is , the Air Force considers that "dilapidated" old building a seedy distraction to the very pristine look of the rest of the neighborhood , so away with it ,regardless of its utility .
Moreover, NASA should be proud of the "privatization" aspect of the ODU operation of the tunnel at no real expense to NASA. NASA has privatized many aspects of its operations, gaining valuable services at reduced expense, as it has done here with ODU and the Full Scale Tunnel.
So let it run until the fans don`t turn anymore.
Posted by norm crabill on September 16,2009 | 08:26 AM
NASA claims that the LFST has outlived its useful life. This is not the case! In 1995, NASA shut down the LFST. In 1997, Dr. Jim Cross approached NASA to allow Old Dominion University to use the tunnel for hands-on experience for its aerospace engineering students. Dr. Cross and ODU put together a business plan that has been so successful that the LFST has basically paid for the Aerospace Engineering program at ODU. On average, the tunnel costs ODU approximately $400,000 a year to operate but the profit they earned from tests completed at the tunnel for commercial and governmental clients has been about $600,000 per year (except for years when amount was less due to storms like Hurricane Isabel.)
Water is a problem at the LFST but this could be easily solved. Remember, this tunnel was built on a flood plain, has been in existence for 78 years, and is still operational! In 1999, NASA solicited quotes for the demolition of the LFST and because of the asbestos panels on the outside of the facility the bids ranged from $25 million to $41 million. NASA asked for bids earlier this year and has not disclosed what those bid amounts were, but they rejected all of them. They are now soliciting new bids for the demolition. NASA is telling the public that the demolition costs for the LFST will only cost an estimated $4 million. There is no way the costs would be so low, even with newer EPA rules. The taxpayers are going to pay through the nose to destroy an irreplaceable and working testing laboratory. We would be far better off to invest in protecting the LFST and to allow the learning to continue at ODU!
Posted by Ken Hyde on September 17,2009 | 02:52 PM
Everyone is complaining about the lack of aerospace engineers in this country. The United States only educates about 75,000 engineers a year-compare this to China and India who educate somewhere between 750,000 to 1,000,000 engineers a year. Closing the LFST is now putting the ODU Aerospace Engineering Department at great risk for closure also. The forward-thinking professors at ODU are trying to do everything possible to help our nation find ways to meet its goal of energy independence with testing and research they have done at the tunnel. You would think that NASA would want to be in the forefront of this new era, instead they are insisting on the tunnel’s closure.
The Space Act Agreement that NASA entered into with ODU for the use of the LFST has proven to be one of NASA’s greatest achievements. The LFST building does need some repairs but it is not dilapidated; it still works and in this case, the asbestos might be advantageous as it will last forever. Keeping the LFST operational would only be a fraction of the cost to demolish it. The LFST’s demolition is bad for education, bad for Virginia, and most importantly, bad for this nation!
Posted by Ken Hyde on September 17,2009 | 02:53 PM
This nation's science resources have taken one hell of a pounding in the last few years... unfortunately with no sign of abatement, despite the claims of notable politicians who want to suggest otherwise.
This is just a bad deal to break down a perfectly workable facility.
Posted by Maxwell on September 20,2009 | 09:53 PM
Ken raises a good point about the impact this could have on ODU. We need engineering schools that offer the type of learning experience that can compete with other professions. While the wind tunnel may be a dinasaur to some, it still amazes any new visitor who walks in the hanger. Investing in our education system seems like a small price to pay for preserving a learning tool that has and will contnue to inspire the minds of thousands of students.
Posted by Brian Ellis on September 23,2009 | 02:10 PM
With our need for aerospace engineering students, it would be a tragedy to tear down a working facility, one that is also a National Historic Landmark. NASA and our Country should be involved in SAVING this Wind Tunnel, and helping Old Dominion University not only in it's education of aerospace engineering students, but in its work to help this Country meet it's goal of energy independence with testing and research it has done at the wind tunnel. It has also been proven to be needed by American industry. The Wind Tunnel must be saved.
Posted by Constance Clark on September 23,2009 | 03:35 PM
I have personally visited the LFST and see no good reason that it would have to be torn down. It is still viable both aerodynamically and financially and could never be replaced or duplicated. Just the historical value alone would justify saving this wonderful aviation asset. I would strongly urge NASA to save the Langley FST.
--Lynn M. Krogh, CEO
International Jet Aviation Services, Inc.
Posted by Lynn M. Krogh on September 23,2009 | 04:16 PM
What is it costing taxpyers to keep the tunnel open? Nothing.
What will it cost taxpayers to destroy it? Millions.
What will be gained if it is destroyed? A FUTURE parking lot (not even needed now).
What will be lost if it is destroyed? U.S. engineers, productivity and innovation.
What would you do?
(P.S., Could someone please ask Gen. Bolden that question, as well? I doubt that he's even aware of it, let alone that he signed-off on it.)
Posted by Roy on September 23,2009 | 06:36 PM
It would seem obvious that with the current and future financial burden being placed on the US Government by the current administration's programs and the "urgent" need of Health Care reform expenditures, that needlessly spending millions to demolish the LFST that is satisfying an educational and industry support role is counter intuitive and resource wasteful. Since ODU has proven that the LFST can in fact produce a profit (which typically is foreign to NASA) and at the same time offer valuable "Green Systems" design input, while avoiding the cost of demolition, the business decision should be mute, leave the tunnel until it breaks!
Since the foregoing points have been made repeatedly noteworthy by Ken Hyde and others and the NASA plan is still to proceed with demolition and needless cost, other motives must be at play. The prevailing motives for NASA must be more powerful than reducing unnecessary expenditures from an already tight budget.
Posted by Tom Walton, CEO Walton & Walton, Assoc. on September 24,2009 | 01:06 PM
Please, please don't destroy the LFST! The benefits of keeping it far outweigh the cost of destroying it!
Posted by Cecelia Stratford on September 26,2009 | 03:13 PM
Tearing down this wind tunnel is a waste for our country. It facilitates science education and is useful for industry in many different ways. I believe there are no other wind tunnels in the country that would enable auto manufacturers to conduct tests for fuel efficient models. Why tear down a facility that is financially self sufficient and useful to so many?
As a grand niece of Orville Wright, who was instrumental in seeing this wind tunnel built in the first place, it pains me to see it demolished for no good reason. He believed that one should save all that is useful. Please. Rethink this decision to tear it down.
Marianne Miller Hudec
Posted by Marianne Miller Hudec on September 27,2009 | 06:11 PM
Tearing down a fully functional historic wind tunnel for a parking lot in the middle of nowhere doesn't make any sense. There are many historic buildings on Langley that have been preserved for their nostalgia and the LFST is no different.I have been stationed on Langley for 5 years and it would be a shame to see this building go.
Posted by John Molinelli on September 30,2009 | 01:55 PM
I have tested in the LFST, and it's an amazing facility. This tunnel could easily take on a whole new mission as a facility for research in green technologies such as road vehicle drag reduction, wind turbines, etc. There are a whole host of research areas that could benefit from access to such a large scale tunnel.
NASA is clueless about stuff like that. After all, they have closed down other tunnel facilities that were still in demand, with full schedules! Asking NASA to do the right thing is a waste of time.
What someone really needs to do is sell this as a "green technology research center" to congressmen and the state of VA. Imagine what a phenomenal resource this could become for the state. They'd be falling all over themselves. It might be the only facility in the country capable of testing full scale, or near full scale, wind turbines.
BTW, the flooding problem could be alleviated by moving certain parts of the tunnel operations (including office spaces) to higher ground, and making some effort to install a sea wall or other type of barrier. Right now, they have not made any effort to minimize the problem, other than sandbags.
Posted by Craig on October 5,2009 | 03:10 PM
All vehicles, planes, cars, trucks, trains, etc. could use a full scale tunnel to tweak their design for fuel efficiency.
Sounds like ODU has been doing a great job keeping the tunnel in use.
But the exterior has been let go.
The amount of money to demolish it is crazy.
Doesn't sound like it has been given a unbiased fair shake.
At least mothball it for a few years, and put it back in operation whenever their is demand, which can also pay for bringing the exterior back up to snuff.
In other words, delay the closing/demolition for a while and track the usage to see if it can sustain itself.
Posted by Roger Cartier on October 13,2009 | 07:50 PM
Short-sighted individuals in charge of a long term project need to step back and see the big picture. A valuable resource like the LFST should continue to enjoy new life AND sustain itself as an educational tool for ODU engineering students. Make money with an existing structure, use the funds to fix it's problems and help our future engineers discover new technologies. OR destroy it, spend millions and have nothing to show for it. It's recycling at it's best and makes eminent sense. The problem is getting this message to the right people with the foresight to do it.
Posted by Kathy Minner on October 14,2009 | 10:55 AM
As I reflect on NASA's “closing party” for the famous 30X60 foot tunnel, and the fact that Old Dominion University was neither invited nor mentioned in the facility history, I mourn the loss of a useful facility and the educational opportunities it recently represented. The tunnel has always been one of the most productive facilities on the field, recently augmenting its 70+ year resume with more wind turbine, solar panel and other energy related testing, right up to its last gasp with NASA’s X-48 final test. The students of ODU’s wind tunnel testing curricula will no longer be awed as they first walk into this facility's overwhelming test area, embarking on a path to support the industry that accounts for one of the largest components of our export of goods. The loss of this wind tunnel and the destruction of its future potential are in contrast of the recent news of Europe and France redoubling their spending and research efforts as part of their Advisory Council for Aerospace Research in Europe (ACARE). This effort, to insure that European aerospace concerns will further their lead in the development of the next generation of energy efficient transportation and other aerospace goals, only further highlights the US’s myopic view on the diminishment of the aerospace technical and industrial base.
Closing an old tunnel that was “decrepit and leaky”, but still operating as a productive test and teaching facility, may not mean much in the grand scheme of things. But what it means to me as a citizen sadly watching the reward of arrogant people that generate no product or trade, and the gradual decline in support and respect of those of this country that do, the juxtapose of today’s news is disheartening. I worry for my children's future.
Posted by Jack Ralston on October 15,2009 | 12:29 PM
Let me reiterate that it is a National Historic Landmark!
Has any one considered making it a museum!? EDITORS' REPLY: See the Dec. 2009/Jan. 2010 issue, Soundings section. The National Historic Landmark designation has been removed.
Posted by Daniel Cook on October 23,2009 | 11:20 AM
I'm personally delighted that they're closing the tunnel. It's hard for Australia to compete with the resources that the USA has at its disposal. By disadvantaging your best and brightest and removing your educational resources to tidy up an air force base you're instantly making us more competitive. When the sharks are chasing you, you don't have to swim faster than the shark, just faster than the guy next to you!
Posted by Jason Rogers on January 18,2010 | 04:27 PM
I have decided through years of observation that it doesn't take a very smart person to fly airplanes. The Air Force is almost on the wrong side of any issue. How do they even survive?
Posted by Jake Harrison on December 15,2010 | 11:32 AM
You might want to post the link to our cultural resources website that documents the tunnel: http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/643
Posted by Mary Gainer on July 7,2011 | 07:52 AM