[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2011
BUDGET REQUEST AND ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-837 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
February 25, 2010
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 20
Written Statement............................................ 21
Statement by Representative Pete Olson, Acting Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 23
Written Statement............................................ 24
Prepared Statement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 25
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 27
Prepared Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 28
Witnesses:
Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 30
Biography.................................................... 46
Discussion....................................................... 47
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration........................................... 84
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Additional Responses from Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................. 118
NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST AND ISSUES
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
NASA's Fiscal Year 2011
Budget Request and Issues
thursday, february 25, 2010
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose:
On Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., the Committee on
Science and Technology will hold a hearing on the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Request
and Issues.
Witness:
Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Overview
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which was
established in 1958, is the nation's primary civil space and
aeronautics R&D agency. The estimated Civil Service Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) workforce level for FY 11 is 18,354. NASA has ten
field Centers, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), a
federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). NASA conducts
research and development activities in a wide range of disciplines
including aeronautics, astrophysics, heliophysics, planetary science,
Earth science and applications, human space flight, microgravity
research, and technology development. NASA also operates a fleet of
three Space Shuttles and is completing assembly of and operating/
utilizing the International Space Station (ISS). NASA has also had a
program underway to develop a new crew exploration vehicle and crew
launch vehicle system to enable U.S. access to the ISS after the
retirement of the Shuttle and to enable crewed missions beyond low
Earth orbit, including working towards the goal of returning Americans
to the Moon by 2020. NASA also maintains a space communications network
that supports both NASA missions and other user requirements. As of
fiscal year 2008, the most recent date for which complete data are
available, about 83 percent of NASA's budget was for contracted work.
In addition, a number of NASA's scientific and human space flight
activities involve collaboration with international participants.
The rollout of the President's FY 11 request for NASA included
limited information, and the detailed budget justification document was
not available to Congress until this past weekend. This hearing is
intended to examine the key policy changes proposed in the budget
request as well as issues raised by those changes. The Committee's
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics plans to hold additional hearings
to examine the Administration's request in more detail.
NASA Budgetary Information
NASA's proposed budget for FY 11 is $19 billion, an increase of 1.5
percent over the enacted FY 10 appropriation of $18.7 billion for NASA.
Funding for NASA is projected to increase by an average of 2.5 percent
per year from FY 12 through FY 15. Attachment 1 summarizes the FY 11
budget request and its five-year funding plan. Attachment 2 provides an
overview on the extent to which the FY 11 budget proposal responds to
the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 [P.L. 110-422]. It should be noted
that in FY 09, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [P.L. 111-5]
included $1 billion for NASA's Earth science, aeronautics, and
exploration programs, cross-agency support, and Inspector General.
Recovery Act funds are to be expended by September 30, 2010.
The structure of the accounts presented in the FY 11 budget request
remains largely the same as in the FY 10 budget request with the
exception of two changes. Pursuant to language in the Statement of
Managers of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, the proposed
NASA budget combines and organizes funding for repair or modification
of NASA facilities, construction of new facilities, and managing of
environmental clean-up from individual Directorates into a new account-
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration. In addition,
the President's request for NASA adds a new advanced space technology
initiative in an account with aeronautics research that is entitled,
``Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology.''
NASA and the Administration's Overall FY 2011 Budget Request
In the context of the overall Federal budget, NASA's average annual
percentage of total budget authority from FY 1976-FY 2009 [which
excludes the Apollo era], is 0.79 percent and the average annual
percentage of total discretionary budget authority over the same time
period is 2.05 percent. The percentage share of the budget devoted to
NASA has declined from this average over the past ten years, and the FY
11 request for NASA would decrease NASA's share of total budgetary
authority to 0.51 percent and its percentage of the total discretionary
budget authority down to 1.50 percent. If one applies the 2.05 percent
historical average to the total Federal discretionary budget authority
of $1.26 trillion in the Administration's FY 11 budget request, the
result would be a NASA funding level in FY 11 of approximately $25.9
billion.
Key Changes and Initiatives from FY 10 Budget Proposal
Human Spaceflight
In its FY 10 Budget request, the Administration maintained the
Congressionally-authorized policy of returning Americans to the Moon:
``The Agency will create a new chapter of this legacy as it works
to return Americans to the Moon by 2020 as part of a robust human and
robotic space exploration program.''
The FY 11 request for NASA no longer maintains a return to the Moon
as the next step in human spaceflight and exploration.
With regards to a post-Shuttle human launch system and commercial
services for cargo and crew delivery to the International Space
Station, the FY 10 budget request for NASA stated that ``Funds freed
from the Shuttle's retirement will enable the Agency to support
development of systems to deliver people and cargo to the International
Space Station and the Moon. As part of this effort, NASA will stimulate
private-sector development and demonstration of vehicles that may
support the Agency's human crew and cargo space flight requirements.''
In contrast, the FY 11 request for NASA ``funds NASA to contract with
industry to provide astronaut transportation to the International Space
Station as soon as possible, reducing the risk of relying solely on
foreign crew transports for years to come.''
The FY 11 request for NASA proposes the following for NASA's human
spaceflight activities:
Cancels the Constellation Program and provides a
total of $2.5 billion for FY 11 and FY 12 for close-out costs
and contract termination;
Initiates three new technology development lines
within the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate focusing on:
Flagship Technology Demonstrations that have a
stated goal of reducing costs and increasing
capabilities for future exploration ($652 million in FY
11),
Heavy-lift and propulsion research and development
($559 million in FY 11), and
Robotic precursor missions described as being
developed to identify potential locations for
exploration and demonstrate technologies to increase
safety ($125 million in FY 11);
Invests $6 billion on the development of commercial
human spaceflight over five years;
Increases the Space Shuttle Program budget by $600
million in FY 11 to fund the safe completion of the Space
Shuttle manifest into the first quarter of FY 11, if needed;
and
Provides an additional $429 million in FY 11 for
``21st Century Space Launch Complex.''
The FY 10 budget proposal stated that ``NASA will fly the Space
Shuttle to complete the International Space Station . . .'' In
addition, it said that ``NASA will continue to assemble and utilize the
International Space Station, the permanently crewed facility orbiting
Earth that enables the Agency to develop, test, and validate critical
space exploration technologies and processes.'' No mention was made of
extending ISS operations. In its FY 11 request for NASA, the
Administration proposes extending ISS operations and increasing
utilization: ``The President's Budget provides funds to extend
operations of the Space Station past its previously planned retirement
date of 2016. . . . NASA will maximize return on this investment by
deploying new research and test technologies in space and by making
Space Station research capabilities available to educators and new
researchers.''
Specifically, the FY 11 request for NASA's International Space
Station Program includes:
An increase of $463 million over the FY 10 enacted
budget (and $231.6 million over the amount requested for the
ISS in the President's FY 10 budget proposal) and an increase
of $2 billion from FY 11-FY 14 as compared to the FY 10 budget
request to be used for supporting the ISS National Laboratory
and increasing Station capabilities, according to NASA's FY 11
budget overview materials.
The FY 11 budget will cover the transportation costs
to and from the ISS to support ISS research conducted by
National Laboratory users. The previous plan was to require
National Laboratory users to pay for their own transportation
costs.
Science
The FY 11 request for NASA's Science Mission Directorate continues
to make Earth science and climate change research a priority, following
the emphasis placed on these areas in the Administration's FY 10 budget
proposal. Key changes for NASA's Science programs include:
A proposed increase of $300 million in FY 11 for
Earth observations and climate satellites and research, largely
for the reflight of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), a
scientific mission slated to monitor global carbon sources and
sinks that was lost in a February 2009 launch failure;
Requests funds to restart, in a cost-sharing
arrangement with the Department of Energy (DOE), the production
of plutonium-238 to support future exploration missions; and
Initiates a high-priority solar probe mission.
Aeronautics
Proposes increases of $73 million for FY 11 for
aeronautics, which includes funding for NASA's Environmentally
Responsible Aviation project.
Education
Requests $20 million in FY 11 for new STEM education
pilot projects.
Space Technology
Requests $572 million in FY 11 to initiate a new
agency-wide program to develop and test advanced space
technologies.
PROGRAM AREAS
Human Space Flight
With its release of the FY 10 budget request for NASA, the
Administration announced the establishment of an independent review of
NASA's human space flight activities. In addition, the FY 10 budget
request proposed a total cut of over $3 billion from NASA's Exploration
Systems budget over five years, relative to the FY 2009 budget plan.
The Administration indicated that an updated request would be
forthcoming pending the outcome of the review. The Review of Human
Spaceflight Plans Committee, chaired by retired Lockheed Martin
executive Norman Augustine, delivered its final report in October 2009.
The overarching conclusion of the review was that ``the U.S. human
spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory.'' The
committee maintained that ``Meaningful exploration beyond low-Earth
orbit is not viable under the FY 2010 budget guideline'' and that
``Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less-constrained
budget, increasing annual expenditures by approximately $3 billion in
real purchasing power above the FY 2010 guidance.'' For FY 11, the
President's request includes $4.3 billion for Exploration Systems, a
reduction of $1.8 billion from the budget plan for Exploration in FY 11
that was included in the FY 10 budget request runout. The
Administration's proposed plans for future human spaceflight activities
were included as part of its FY 11 budget request for NASA. The FY 11
budget request includes limited details on the plans.
Constellation
As part of its request for Exploration, the Administration proposes
to cancel the Constellation Program, which consists of the Ares I crew
launch vehicle and Orion crew exploration vehicle, the Ares V heavy-
lift launch vehicle, associated ground systems, and lunar systems.
Constellation was the architecture established to deliver Americans to
the ISS and later to the Moon and other destinations in the solar
system following the retirement of the Space Shuttle. As of January
2010, NASA reported that it has spent a total of about $9 billion on
Constellation. In the Statement of Managers accompanying the FY 10
Consolidated Appropriations Act, ``The conferees note that the
Constellation program is the program for which funds have been
authorized and appropriated over the last four years, and upon which
the pending budget request is based. Accordingly, it is premature for
the conferees to advocate or initiate significant changes to the
current program absent a bona fide proposal from the Administration and
subsequent assessment, consideration and enactment by Congress.'' The
Statement of Managers also states that ``Funds are not provided herein
to initiate any new program, project or activity, not otherwise
contemplated within the budget request and approved by Congress,
consistent with section 505 of this Act, unless otherwise approved by
the Congress in a subsequent appropriations Act. Funds are also not
provided herein to cancel, terminate or significantly modify contracts
related to the spacecraft architecture of the current program, unless
such changes or modifications have been considered in subsequent
appropriations Acts.'' Similar language was included in the Act itself.
The President's FY 11 request for NASA includes a total of $2.5
billion for FY 11-FY 12 in ``close-out costs'' for Constellation and
any additional costs for Shuttle transition.
In its place, the President's request focuses on supporting the
development of commercial capabilities to deliver crew to the ISS and
on developing innovative, advanced technologies, among other proposed
activities.
Some of the issues and questions raised by the proposal include the
following:
In discussing the potential to use commercial
services to transport crew to low-Earth orbit, the Augustine
Committee report stated that ``there are simply too many risks
at the present time not to have a viable fallback option for
risk mitigation.'' However, in proposing a major investment in
the development of commercial crew capability, the FY 11
request does not include a fallback option. What is the
rationale for the decision not to include a government-led crew
transport system development program as a ``fallback option''?
The FY 11 budget request does not propose a concrete
plan or mission for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit or
development of a heavy-lift launcher to enable such
exploration. Therefore, in proposing commercial crew services
for low-Earth orbit, the Administration in essence relinquishes
U.S. government capability to send humans into space after the
Shuttle is retired for the foreseeable future. What would be
the implications of relinquishing the U.S. government
capability to launch humans into low-Earth for the maintenance
of specialized technical skills, facilities, industrial base
capabilities, national security, global competitiveness, and
geopolitical standing? To what extent were these issues
considered in formulating the proposal to pursue commercial
crew services?
With the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the
cancellation of all of the Constellation contracts occurring at
the same time under the Administration's proposal, and the
inevitable gap that will occur in the awarding of any new
contracts for alternative activities due to the time required
for such contracts to be developed, competed, and negotiated,
what will the impact be on the aerospace workforce that had
been working on Shuttle and Constellation? How many workers
will be affected, and to what extent was disruption to the
workforce considered in the formulation of the Administration's
human space flight plans?
What is the plan for the disposition of facilities
constructed to support and develop the Constellation Program?
What implications does the proposed cancellation of
Constellation have for other Federal agencies, such as the
Department of Defense's (DOD) space industrial base? To what
extent were the Administration's plans for NASA's human space
flight program vetted with other agencies such as DOD before a
decision was made?
Commercial Crew and Cargo
The request includes a total of $812 million in FY 11 and a total
of about $6 billion for FY 11-FY 15 for commercial space flight as part
of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate funding. The total
includes a request of $500 million in FY 11 for fostering the
development of commercial companies to deliver crew to the ISS and
proposes $312 million in FY 11 for ``additional incentives'' for NASA's
existing Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program,
which is supporting commercial development of vehicles to deliver cargo
to the ISS. According to NASA, no decisions have been made on whether
NASA would use a Space Act Agreement or other mechanism to implement a
commercial crew program. In addition, according to NASA officials, no
decisions have been made on the cost-sharing, if any, that commercial
companies would be required to contribute to a commercial crew
development program; the level of safety requirements they would be
expected to meet; or the level of non-government market the commercial
business plans would be expected to support. NASA also is unable to
provide at this time a timetable for when NASA would have a
demonstrated capability from potential commercial providers that would
allow the agency to actually procure commercial crew services to low-
Earth orbit.
To provide the full scope of NASA's current and proposed support
for commercial spaceflight activities, NASA's Space Operations Mission
Directorate awarded Commercial Resupply Service (CRS) contracts in
December 2008 valued at a total of about $3.5 billion to provide
commercial cargo services to the International Space Station. The
awards were made to Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital
Sciences Corporation in advance of any demonstrated capability by the
companies to actually deliver cargo to the ISS. In addition, NASA plans
to support a Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) project to
``competitively secure flight services for experimental payloads
supporting NASA's objectives in science, technology and education''
according to NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimates book. At present,
no commercial reusable suborbital launch vehicle services are in
existence. NASA plans to support commercial spaceflight as part of its
Facilitated Access to the Space Environment for Technology Development
and Training (FAST) project, which ``provides opportunities for
emerging technologies to be tested in the space environment thereby
increasing their maturity and the potential for their use in NASA
programs and in commercial applications'' according to NASA's Fiscal
Year 2011 Budget Estimates book. ``The FAST project promotes the growth
of emerging commercial space services by employing competitively
selected private reduced gravity flight services.''
Some of the issues and questions raised by the commercial crew and
cargo proposals include the following:
How was the estimate of $6 billion for development of
commercial crew derived?
What is the basis for cost savings assumed to be
accrued from commercial crew services?
What contingencies are in place should a commercial
crew provider's business fail and shut down?
On what basis does NASA estimate that commercial crew
services will be available by 2016?
What is the basis for proposing a $312 million
``incentive'' for the COTS program, given that the companies
involved already have the incentive of a total of $3.5 billion
for the follow-on contract? How will the proposed funding be
used?
Who assumes the liability for astronauts or
researchers transported on commercial crew vehicles?
In the absence of an alternative government system,
what recourse will the government have if commercial crew
vehicles are unable to attain the safety standard set by NASA?
In the absence of an alternative government system,
how will the pricing of the commercial crew transport services
be set and enforced?
How many jobs is NASA assuming will be created by the
proposal to seek commercial crew services to support the ISS?
What is the basis of those assumptions?
Advanced Technology Development
The FY 11 budget request initiates three technology and R&D
programs in the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.
Exploration Technology and Demonstrations Program
The President's request proposes $652 million in FY 11 and a
total of $7.8 billion to fund an ``Exploration Technology and
Demonstrations'' program. The program will support Flagship
Technology Demonstrations, projects at the level of $400
million to $1 billion over less than five years to demonstrate
technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage,
inflatable modules, and closed-loop life support systems, among
other activities. The proposed program will also support an
Enabling Technology Development Program to consist of smaller
and shorter duration projects at the level of $100 million or
less. Those projects are expected to be competitively selected
and will demonstrate key technologies such as in-situ resource
utilization and advanced in-space propulsion. NASA has
indicated that it is developing a plan for the program. There
are no details on how the projects would be prioritized or
selected and what NASA would expect as ``deliverables'' for
these projects. In addition, it is not clear at what point NASA
would expect to have the capabilities in hand, based on the
technology development programs, to make a determination on a
target, mission, plan and architecture for a human exploration
mission beyond low-Earth orbit.
Heavy-Lift and Propulsion Technology
The proposed FY 11 budget for NASA's Exploration programs
includes $559 million in FY 11 and $3.1 billion for the FY 11-
FY 15 period to support space launch propulsion technology
research and development. NASA indicates that it intends to
develop a new RD-180 class hydrocarbon rocket engine with funds
from this account, but it has not yet articulated the
requirement for such an engine. The projects may involve intra-
governmental, commercial, academic and international
partnerships.
Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions
The budget proposal requests $125 million in FY 11 and $3
billion over FY 11-FY 15 to develop and deploy robotic
precursor missions to locations such as the Moon, Mars and its
moons, Lagrange points and nearby asteroids. It is unclear how
the missions, e.g., to Lagrange points, would differ from
previous robotic spacecraft missions, or what the urgency of
those missions would be in the absence of a timetable for human
missions to those locations. According to NASA budget
materials, the program will support missions costing $800
million or less.
Several issues and questions raised by the Exploration Technology
and Development program proposals include the following:
What was the basis for the budget numbers proposed
for these programs?
What are the goals and milestones for technology
development?
In the absence of an overarching vision and concrete
mission, how will these technologies be applied?
In the absence of an overarching vision and concrete
mission, what is the risk that technology development funds
will be used to support other objectives?
What are the requirements against which advanced
technology developments will be conducted and what are the
metrics to measure progress?
NASA budget materials indicate that part of the
purpose of these technology programs is to reduce the costs and
increase the capabilities of space activities. How does NASA
plan to establish metrics for the cost reductions to be accrued
and the enhanced capabilities to be achieved? What are the
criteria for success?
The former robotic precursor program was conceived
with lunar exploration in mind. How will the funding for the
program be prioritized given the wide range of potential
activities it will undertake?
There is scientific interest in all of the potential
targets the robotic precursor missions might explore. What is
the role of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) in this
activity? To what extent will this program leverage SMD's long-
term experience in robotics and the potential target areas
listed?
One proposed activity for the robotic precursor
program is to land a robot on the Moon that can be remotely
operated and that can transmit near real-time video from the
Moon. What would be the justification for such a project when
the Google Lunar X Prize, which is a private activity, has
nearly identical objectives?
As NASA seeks to broaden its technology development
programs and include participation, to some extent, from
international partners, what are the challenges? To what extent
will information security and International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR) pose issues for the programs and how will
NASA address those challenges?
Space Shuttle
The proposed FY 11 budget request includes approximately $989
million for the Space Shuttle Program, an increase of about $600
million over that requested in FY 10 for the FY 11 Shuttle Program. The
increases support the completion of the Shuttle manifest into the first
quarter of FY 11, if necessary. If the manifest is completed by the end
of FY 10, NASA indicates that it will work with the Administration and
Congress to prioritize use of the additional funds. Once the flights
are completed, NASA will augment its work on transition and retirement
of the Shuttle.
Under the Constellation Program, NASA was in the process of
leveraging workforce synergies between Shuttle and Constellation and
planned to transfer many Shuttle civil servants to Constellation. With
the proposed shift in NASA's direction, the Shuttle Program will
evaluate whether some of the Shuttle workforce could be tasked to new
initiatives, including technology demonstration programs.
Some issues and questions related to the Shuttle Program include
the following:
The 2009 Annual Report of the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel notes that ``Successful workforce transition
depends heavily on a decision being made about NASA's
direction.'' What steps is NASA taking to ensure the workforce
remains focused on safely flying out the Shuttle manifest at a
time when the proposed direction for NASA in the FY 11 request
largely eliminates a government follow-on to the Shuttle and
does not include funding for work on a heavy-lift launcher?
The Augustine Committee noted the importance of
maintaining critical workforce skills and capabilities such as
the design and manufacturing of solid propellant motors. To
what extent does NASA's proposed redirection affect those
critical skill areas and what, if any, plans does NASA have to
address this issue? To what extent is NASA identifying other
skills used in the Shuttle and Constellation programs that
should be preserved as critical national capabilities?
How much time can lapse before the U.S. cannot access
the critical skills needed to develop and operate a heavy-life
vehicle?
How will decisions be made on the disposition of
Shuttle orbiters to external institutions? What are the
criteria for those decisions?
International Space Station
As part of its FY 11 budget proposal for NASA, the Administration
supports the extension and utilization of the ISS: ``The President's
Budget provides funds to extend operations of the Space Station past
its previously planned retirement date of 2016 . . . NASA will maximize
return on this investment by deploying new research and test
technologies in space and by making Space Station research capabilities
available to educators and new researchers.'' To support the extension
and increased utilization of the ISS, the Administration requests
approximately $2.8 billion for the ISS in FY 11, an increase of about
$463 million over that enacted in FY 10 and an increase of about $230
million from that projected for FY 11 in the FY 10 budget submission.
The Augustine Committee, among other external advisory bodies, noted
the importance of extending ISS operations and utilization. In
addition, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 directed NASA to ``take
all necessary steps to ensure that International Space Station remains
a viable and productive facility . . . through at least 2020.''
According to NASA officials, the decision to extend ISS operations is
critical to the agency's ability to plan for utilizing the ISS National
Laboratory, decision making and planning with international partners,
and working to plan for future cargo transportation needs.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 designated the ISS a National
Laboratory for use by the private sector and other Federal entities.
According to NASA, up to 50 percent of ISS research capability may be
available to support non-NASA users. NASA has engaged in National
Laboratory partnerships with the National Institutes of Health and the
Department of Agriculture. NASA has also entered into Space Act
Agreements with private companies. Research that is ongoing or planned
as part of the National Laboratory includes vaccine development,
telemedicine, environmental testing among other research areas. Many of
the systems and research being demonstrated are intended to have
significant ground-based applications. The President's FY 11 request
includes funding to pay for the transportation costs required to
support National Laboratory user research on the ISS. This proposal
represents a departure from the FY 10 plan, which was to require ISS
National Lab users to cover their own transportation costs for
accessing the ISS.
Several issues and questions related to the future of the ISS
include the following:
What are the implications and contingencies for ISS
utilization should the availability of commercial cargo
transportation services be delayed considerably?
How will internal NASA users--Exploration, Science,
Space Operations--determine their own priorities?
The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 directed NASA to
``identify the organization to be responsible for managing
United States research on the International Space Station . .
.'' A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report,
``International Space Station: Significant Challenges May Limit
On-orbit Research'' also noted that other large research
institutions include a research management entity. What are
NASA's plans for a research management organization?
Who or what organization will determine the
priorities for National Laboratory research conducted on the
ISS as well as who gets access to available transportation
capacity?
The GAO also noted that ``NASA's staff members in ISS
fundamental science research areas have been decentralized or
reassigned, limiting its capability to provide user support.''
What are NASA's plans for rejuvenating interest in ISS
fundamental science research areas?
In comparing NASA ISS with other major research
laboratories and institutes, GAO found NASA's outreach to
potential users limited. What are NASA's plans to enhance user
outreach?
Other issues relate to NASA's reliance on commercial
cargo transportation service, e.g., to what extent do cargo
providers understand user requirements and are they planning to
meet them?
21st Century Space Launch Complex
The President's proposal for FY 11 includes $429 million in FY 11
and a total of about $2.1 billion from FY 11-FY 15 for a 21st Century
Space Launch Complex at Cape Canaveral [run by the USAF] and Cape
Kennedy. To date, NASA has provided only limited details on what might
be involved, the goals included in overview budget materials include
increasing the operational efficiency of the Center and reducing launch
costs for NASA and other launch site users, including commercial cargo
service providers.
What was the process used to identify infrastructure
at Cape Canaveral as a priority as opposed to another NASA
facility?
To the extent that funds are used to reduce launch
costs for commercial cargo service providers, will those
providers reduce their planned prices to carry government cargo
or otherwise share in the cost of the improvements?
What is the basis of the estimate of $429 million in
FY 11 and $2 billion total to support the modernization?
What is the basis of the requirement for the 21st
Century Launch Complex in the wake of the proposed cancellation
of the Ares launch vehicle programs?
To what extent, if at all, has this proposed
initiative been coordinated with DOD?
What assumptions is NASA making about the outcomes
from this project in terms of efficiency, throughput, cost
savings, etc.?
What are the priorities for spending the $429 million
within the FY 11 year?
What is the target completion date, and would there
be any potential disruption or risk to ongoing launch services
during the upgrade?
When will detailed plans be available for this
project?
Why is this project not included in NASA's facilities
and maintenance budget line and prioritized against other NASA
facilities needs?
Earth Science
The President's budget for FY 11 requests $1.8 billion for Earth
science research, applications, Earth observing missions, education and
outreach, and technology development, an increase of about $380 million
over the FY 10 enacted budget. The runout for FY 11-FY 14 proposed in
the budget represents an increase of about $1.8 billion as compared to
the FY 10 request's runout. According to the Budget of the U.S.
Government Fiscal Year 2011, the budget proposal for Earth science
``accelerates the development of new satellites the National Research
Council recommended as Earth Science priorities'' thereby continuing
support for Earth science missions provided in the FY 10 request. The
Administration's proposal also ``supports several research satellites
currently in development, a campaign to monitor changes in polar ice
sheets, and enhancements to climate models. In addition, the Budget
provides funds for NASA to develop and fly a replacement for the
Orbiting Carbon Observatory, a mission designed to identify global
carbon sources and sinks that was lost when its launch vehicle failed
in 2009.''
The FY 10 appropriation for NASA provided $15 million to continue
studies of the second pair of Earth Science decadal survey missions--
the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO)
and the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure, and Dynamics of the Ice
(DESDnyI) mission to be implemented. Of the 15 missions recommended for
implementation by NASA, two missions--the Soil Moisture Active-Passive
(SMAP) and the Ice Satellite II (ICESat)--have entered the formulation
phase, CLARREO and DESDnyI are in the concept study phase.
Other Earth Science Program Areas
The proposed FY 11 budget request includes increases through FY 14
for Earth Science technology to provide new and enhanced capabilities
and measurements, for example, while the Multi-Mission Operations line
remains essentially flat. Over the FY 11-FY 15 budget horizon, the
budget plan includes modest increases for NASA's Applied Sciences
program involving the development of decision support tools that apply
the research results of NASA's Earth science missions to support other
Federal agency and institutional missions in the areas of climate,
ecosystems, agriculture, water, disaster management and other areas
that benefit society. How or to what extent NASA will use the Applied
Sciences Program for decision support for stakeholders, especially in
the area of climate change, is a potential issue to explore in the
hearing.
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
In addition, the Administration's FY 11 budget proposes a major
restructuring of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) which was structured as an integrated tri-
agency program to meet civil and military requirements for
environmental data. The restructuring will involve dissolving the NASA-
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-DOD tri-agency
Integrated Program Office and relegating responsibilities for portions
of the program to NOAA/NASA and DOD. The three agencies will continue
to coordinate their roles in environmental satellite observations. NOAA
and NASA would have responsibility for the afternoon orbit of the
program in what is called the Joint Polar Satellite System. DOD would
have responsibility for the early morning orbit and existing European
and DOD assets would be expected to continue providing other coverage.
NOAA would exercise its ongoing relationship with NASA to procure
instruments and spacecraft bus elements. The NASA budget request for FY
11 does not include any budget impacts as a result of this
restructuring, however the changes are expected to have implications
for NASA as it assumes procurement responsibility for significant
elements of the former NPOESS program.
Key Issues for Earth Science include the following:
In FY 10 the Administration requested increases of
more than $1.2 billion over the FY 09-FY 13 period, including
Recovery Act funds, for ``accelerating'' Earth Science Decadal
Survey and foundational Earth science missions. Where are we
now and how much acceleration has been accomplished as a result
of these investments? How much ``acceleration'' is the United
States buying with the proposed FY 11 increases for decadal
survey missions?
To what extent are Decadal survey missions reflecting
the scope of science identified in the Decadal survey and to
what extent are measurements being included? Who has the
``say'' in determining the scope (which affects cost) of the
Decadal survey missions?
To what extent are the ``foundational missions''
making adequate progress toward meeting launch readiness dates?
What are the implications of funding the OCO reflight
for the plans for implementing Decadal survey missions? To what
extent are groups discussing and planning to demonstrate the
use of OCO data for verifying potential climate agreements that
may be negotiated in the future?
Does NASA plan to participate in NOAA's Climate
Services initiative and if so, how? To what extent, if at all,
will NASA's Applied Sciences program be involved?
What are the implications of the NPOESS restructuring
for NASA? Will NASA have sufficient acquisitions staff in place
to manage the significant contracts for instruments and
spacecraft buses that NASA will handle on behalf of NOAA?
Space Science
The President's FY 11 budget requests $3.2 billion (not including
Earth science) to fund NASA's space science programs, including
Heliophysics, which seeks to understand the Sun and how it affects the
Earth and the solar system; Planetary Science, which seeks to answer
questions about the origin and evolution of the solar system and the
prospects for life beyond Earth; and Astrophysics, which seeks answers
to questions about the origin, structure, evolution and future of the
universe and to search for Earth-like planets. The FY 11 budget request
for space science represents a decrease of about $44 million below the
amount requested for space science in FY 10, and a reduction of about
$171 million for FY 11-FY 14 from the projections in the FY 10 budget
proposal. Over the FY 11-FY 14 period, the Astrophysics budget is
increased by about $111 million, the Planetary Science program is
reduced by approximately $57 million, and the Heliophysics budget
decreases by about $225 million, as compared to the FY 10 budget
projection for FY 11-FY 14. The FY 11 proposal also requests funds to
move forward on the Solar Probe Plus mission, a high priority mission
recommended in the National Research Council's decadal survey on solar
and space physics.
During 2009, NASA's space science program launched Kepler, a
mission to search for Earth-sized planets near distant stars, the Wide-
field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), which will scan the sky in the
infrared spectrum and also detect asteroids, the Lunar Reconnaissance
Mission, which is mapping the lunar surface, the Lunar Observation and
Sensor Satellite (LCROSS) that impacted a crater and confirmed the
presence of water in the permanently shadowed crater. NASA also
completed the fifth human servicing mission of the Hubble observatory
since its launch in 1990.
The FY 11 budget proposal for NASA proposes to restart U.S.
production of plutonium-238, which is needed to support power sources
for deep space missions and other exploration activities. The U.S.
ceased production of the Pu-238 material decades ago and has lately
been purchasing the material from Russia. The availability of future
Russian supplies, however, is highly uncertain. NASA's budget
information does not include details on the roles and responsibilities
of NASA and DOE or how much is being requested for NASA to support
restarting Pu-238 production.
Key issues for space science include:
The availability and cost of launch vehicles are
major factors in planning, designing and budgeting for space
science missions. The cost of launch vehicles appears to be
rising, the major medium-class workhorse--the Delta II--is no
longer available for future missions, and excess ballistic
missiles whose engines are used for a family of launchers are
in limited supply. What are the implications of this situation
for NASA's science program? What is NASA doing to address this
situation?
To what extent will the FY 11 budget plan give NASA
flexibility to budget for new missions, especially those to be
recommended in the NRC's astronomy and astrophysics and
planetary science decadal surveys?
The 2008 NASA Authorization Act directed the
Administrator to ``establish an intra-Directorate long-term
technology development program for space and Earth science . .
. for the development of new technology.'' The FY 11 request
for NASA proposes new initiatives and major investments of
several billion dollars for advanced technology, however, none
of the new initiatives specifically responds to the
Congressional direction. What is the rationale for not
establishing an intra-Directorate technology program in SMD?
In recent years, some of NASA's science missions have
experienced considerable cost growth and schedule delays. To
what extent, if any, has SMD considered any new approaches in
types of spacecraft, instruments, or mission planning to help
address issues related to cost growth?
How, if at all, does SMD plan to participate in the
Space Technology program? What types of technology developments
would SMD see as candidates for the program? What does SMD
believe will be its contributions to the Agency's emphasis on
innovation?
What, if any, implications does the proposed
extension of the ISS have for SMD? What potential opportunities
for science does the ISS extension make possible?
What role, if any, does SMD envision playing in the
precursor robotic program?
What are the implications, if any, of the proposed
cancellation of Constellation on SMD?
What are the implications for SMD, if any, of the
President's proposal to rely on commercial crew and cargo
services to LEO?
How much will NASA spend on plutonium-238 restart and
what will it be used for? What are the roles, responsibilities,
and cost-sharing between NASA and DOE for restarting plutonium-
238? How sustainable is the funding over the out-years?
The FY 11 request includes increases to detect
asteroids that could pose hazards to Earth. How will those
increases be used and to what extent will this funding help
make progress on the congressional direction to detect, track,
catalogue, and characterize 90% of near-earth objects 140
meters in diameter or larger?
Aeronautics Research and Space Technology
For FY 11, NASA is requesting $1.51 billion for aeronautics and
space research and technology of which about $580 million is requested
for aeronautics and $572 million for a Space Technology budget line.
Aeronautics Research
NASA's aeronautics program has and continues to conduct fundamental
and systems-level research to enable technical capabilities and
economic benefits for the aviation industry and the nation. The goals
of the program are 1) to carry-out advanced, cutting-edge research that
will yield benefits for the aeronautics community and 2) to develop the
concepts and enabling technologies that involve systems-level
approaches.
The FY 11 proposal increases aeronautics by $73 million over the FY
10 enacted budget and by $300 million over the FY 11-FY 14 period as
compared to the FY 10 budget projections.
The additional budget for aeronautics will support new initiatives
that would augment NASA's contribution to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen). NextGen is a joint effort between the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, DOD, Department of
Homeland Security and Department of Commerce that will transform the
entire national air transportation system, gradually allowing aircraft
to safely fly more closely, reduce delays, and provide benefits for the
environment and the economy through reductions in carbon emissions,
fuel consumption, and noise. Specifically the FY 11 proposal includes:
An increase of $20 million to initiate a grants
program as part of NASA's environmentally responsible aviation
program,
An increase of $20 million to support work on
verifying and validating software-based systems, and
An increase of $30 million to support issues related
to incorporating unmanned aircraft systems in the national
airspace.
Issues for Aeronautics Research include:
Is NASA's research and development program able to
address important issues related to aviation's impact on the
environment, e.g., noise, emissions, and energy consumption,
under current funding levels?
How effectively is NASA's aeronautics research and
development program supporting the Nation's NextGen initiative?
How can NASA work more effectively with industry,
universities and colleges to carry out a meaningful aeronautics
research and development program?
Space Technology Program
The FY 11 request proposes a new Space Technology Program, which is
bookept under a programmatic line now called Aeronautics and Space
Research and Technology. The request includes $572 million in FY 11, an
amount that is projected to increase to over $1 billion in FY 12 and
remain at that level through FY 15. In addition, the Space Technology
Program aims to strengthen U.S. leadership in various research areas,
and foster the development of future-oriented, long-term capabilities.
The program will include the Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP),
which was formally located within the Cross-Agency Support program. The
Space Technology Program will expand partnerships with academia,
industry, other Federal agencies and international institutions.
The establishment of a Space Technology Program responds to recent
NRC reports, as well as the Augustine Committee report, that have
called for reinvigorating NASA's role in advanced technology. The
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing to examine the
results of NRC reviews and other issues regarding advanced technology
development at NASA. The FY 11 budget request for the Space Technology
Program does not include details on how NASA plans to implement the
program, including what the milestones, criteria for success, and
measures of progress will be.
Issues for Space Technology include:
What is the basis for the amount being requested for
this program?
To what extent does the absence of an overarching
mission such as returning humans to the Moon affect the
urgency, focus, and criteria for success for the space
technology program?
The FY 11 request provides several hundreds of
millions of dollars (excluding the Innovative Partnership
Program funding) in new money to be spent within the first year
of the program's life. How realistic is it to assume that a new
program in its first year of existence will be able to properly
set priorities and goals, establish solicitations, vet the
solicitations, and make selections in a manner that will
efficiently and effectively spend those dollars?
What plans and safeguards are needed to effectively
double the size of the program after the first year?
How are priorities for the projects to be
established?
Will all of the funding be competed and, if not, what
proportion will be spent at NASA Centers?
How is NASA defining ``game-changing innovations''?
NASA notes that the program seeks to increase the
capability and affordability of space activities. In this
regard, what is a reasonable contribution to expect from the
projects this program will fund?
To what extent has NASA considered whether cost-
sharing or financial contributions will be part of the
partnerships with commercial, other Federal agencies, or
external institutions that it will be pursuing to conduct
advanced technology development activities?
Space Communications
The President's FY 11 budget requests $485 million for Space
Communications and Navigation, about $54 million less than the amount
projected for FY 11 in the FY 10 request and $32 million less than the
enacted FY 10 budget. NASA has largely completed acquisitions to
replenish aging Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) spacecraft,
which are used to support communications and tracking for the
International Space Station (ISS), Space and Earth science missions, as
well as other Federal Government agencies. During the next year, NASA
will determine whether or not it will procure an additional two TDRS
spacecraft.
The FY 11 budget request includes plans for NASA's Space
Communications and Navigation program to begin procuring 34 meter
antennas as upgrades to the three 70 meter antennas that comprise the
Deep Space Network (DSN). The DSN supports continuous communications to
spacecraft in orbit. The DSN is 40 years old, many of its subsystems
are obsolete, and the GAO has raised concerns about its fragility and
continuing ability to service a mounting workload. The 34 meter
antennas will be linked as an array. The Program's goal is to complete
the 34 meter upgrades to the DSN by 2025. The existing DSN 70 meter
dish located in Goldstone, CA includes a radar capability that is
critical for characterizing near-Earth objects and accurately
determining their orbits. According to NASA officials, the requirements
for the new 34 meter antenna array include the radar capability.
Issues for Space Communications include:
In light of proposed changes to NASA's exploration
strategy which add robotic precursor missions, are NASA's long-
range plans for modernizing its space network adequate to
handle the higher workload?
What is NASA doing to alleviate the aging of the
infrastructure supporting the Deep Space Network?
Education
The President's budget requests $145.8 million in FY 11 to support
NASA's Education program. The request represents a reduction of about
$38 million from the FY 10 enacted budget. The most notable change in
the FY 11 request is the focus on using NASA's education programs to
encourage innovation, including innovative approaches in STEM teaching
and education through the use of NASA resources and content. As part of
this theme, the President proposes a budget of $20 million in FY 11 to
support the Summer of Innovation, a pilot project being launched in FY
10 to target at least 100,000 underperforming middle school students
and to reach 5,000 STEM educators over the summer vacation and during
other opportunities. The funds will be competed and managed through the
Space Grant consortia.
In FY 10, NASA plans to introduce as a pilot project the redesign
of the Explorer Schools project, which works with selected schools to
deliver NASA content to middle and high school students, to provide
professional development, and to increase student engagement and
proficiency in STEM areas. The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 directed
a review of the Explorer Schools project. The redesigned Explorer
Schools project will be ``open to all secondary schools and will
utilize current technologies in the delivery of opportunities and
experiences to meet the needs of today's learning and learners,''
according to NASA's Fiscal Year FY 2011 Budget Estimates book. The
President's FY 11 request proposes about $8 million each year for the
FY 11-FY 15 budget horizon.
In addition to the programs included in NASA's Office of Education,
the Science Mission Directorate, the Aeronautics Mission Directorate,
the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, and the Space Operations
Mission Directorate as well as the NASA Centers all fund educational
projects. The Office of Education coordinates education activities
across the NASA and its Centers.
Issues and questions related to the Education program include the
following:
What will NASA tell students and America's youth
about what it is doing and where it is going? How important is
their response?
What is the increase for the Summer of Innovation
actually supporting and is there sufficient lead-time for NASA
and institutions to effectively initiate the pilot project for
the Summer of 2010?
How will the results of the 2010 Summer of Innovation
pilot projects guide spending decisions for the $20 million
requested in FY 11?
What are the implications of the proposed
cancellation of the Constellation Program for NASA on its
education programs and the ability to inspire youth to pursue
STEM or space-related education and careers?
Some of NASA's educational programs, projects, and
student competitions directly reflect the goals of returning
humans to the Moon, developing a new crew launch and
exploration vehicle to get there, and potentially creating a
lunar infrastructure. Does NASA have any plans to alter those
projects to reflect the Agency's new direction?
Students' decisions on education, studies, and
potential careers, even in the pre-college years, may be shaped
by their perceptions of long-term, concrete programs that will
support them should they pursue a particular path. The
President's FY 11 plans for human spaceflight do not specify a
target, a timeline, or a particular program for human
exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Does this pose any risk of
losing America's best and brightest students to other technical
and scientific fields?
NASA has long used visits to Shuttle launches as a
means to inspire students and Americans in support of the
Nation's space program. What, if anything, will replace this
unique opportunity for outreach?
NASA Infrastructure: Construction and Environmental Compliance and
Restoration
NASA's institutional investments are intended to ensure that
facilities and field installations can meet the agency's mission
requirements in a safe, secure and environmentally sound manner.
According to NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 Estimates book, ``Construction
and Environmental Compliance and Restoration (CECR) provides for design
and execution of discrete and minor revitalization construction of
facilities projects, facility demolition projects, and environmental
compliance and restoration activities.
The Construction of Facilities (CoF) program ensures that the
facilities critical to achieving NASA's space and aeronautics programs
are the right size and type, and that they are safe, secure,
environmentally sound, and operated efficiently and effectively. It
also ensures that NASA installations conform to requirements and
initiatives for the protection of the environment and human health.
The purpose of NASA's Environmental Compliance and Restoration
(ECR) program is to clean up chemicals released to the environment from
past activities. Cleanups are prioritized by NASA to ensure that the
highest priority liabilities are addressed first in order to protect
human health and the environment and preserve natural resources for
future missions.''
NASA is requesting $397.3 million in FY 11 for Construction and
Environmental Compliance and Restoration. Of that amount, about $335
million is for construction of facilities which provides for the
construction, repair, rehabilitation, and modification of basic
infrastructure and institutional facilities. Replacement and renewal
projects replacing old, inefficient, and deteriorated buildings with
energy efficient buildings will reduce utility usage. The remaining
$62.1 million requested for FY 11 is for environmental compliance and
restoration which provides the personnel, services, and activities
necessary to complete the cleanup of hazardous materials and wastes
that have been released to the surface or groundwater at NASA
installations. These activities are mandated under a variety of Federal
and state environmental laws and regulations, as well as legally
enforceable orders and agreements.
NASA has recently undergone a comprehensive review of its
facilities and is developing plans to reduce and renew these critical
assets. It is worth noting that NASA's estimate of backlogged
facilities and maintenance requirements totals about $2 billion. So
while projected budget requests for construction and facilities rise
from FY 12 ($316.3 million) to FY 15 ($349.0 million), it is unlikely
that such projected levels will appreciably reduce the backlog in the
near future. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel's 2009 Annual report
identifies NASA's aging infrastructure as an important issue:
``Over 80 percent of NASA facilities are beyond their design life,
and annual maintenance is underfunded.] Facilities continue to degrade
and facilities failures are starting to impact missions and have safety
implications Agency-wide. Evidence for this can be seen in the
increasing number of small fires, key equipment losses through failures
in material handling and transportation facilities, and in the ``weak
signals'' that we observe in current safety reports. The infrastructure
used to launch complex vehicles into space must be reviewed and
maintained down to the smallest component to remain safe. In the past,
one of NASA's goals was `ten healthy Centers.' A considerable
investment in facility maintenance, repair, and replacement is needed
for this goal to be achieved. This may be unrealistic in the current
economic climate. Iffunding is not available, NASA should consider
consolidating its programs and efforts at fewer Centers so that its
activities may be safely continued at the remaining facilities. This
planning needs to be part of a conscious and deliberate facilities
strategy.''
In the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (P.L. 110-422, Section 1022),
the Congress had expressed concern over the need for adequate
maintenance and upgrading of NASA's facilities In that legislation, the
NASA Administrator was directed to determine and prioritize the
maintenance and upgrade backlog at each of NASA's Centers and
associated facilities and ``develop a strategy and budget plan to
reduce that maintenance and upgrade backlog by 50% over the next five
years.'' The Administrator is to deliver those reports to Congress
concurrent with the delivery of the FY 11 budget request; the Committee
has not yet received these reports.
Issues and questions related to Construction and Environmental
Compliance and Restoration include the following:
How long will it take NASA to reduce its maintenance
and upgrade backlog? Does NASA have any plans to do so?
Is the continued degradation of facilities impacting
agency missions and the safety of these missions?
Will NASA's proposed strategy for human exploration
have any effect on its future environmental compliance and
restoration responsibilities?
Other Issues
Economic Impact of NASA Activities
NASA's workforce and technology developments have a broad impact on
the economy and society. NASA's past programs have developed
technologies that are being used in the timing signals on an automatic
teller, for credit card verifications at the gas station, and for
providing tools that help navigate us through traffic. NASA's Spinoffs
2009 report identifies several NASA-developed technologies that are
spawning commercial products and services including:
A NASA device that was developed to study cell growth
in a simulated weightless environment that is used for medical
research on treatments for heart disease and diabetes among
other conditions;
Scheduling software designed for the Hubble Space
Telescope that is being used to help hospitals increase their
efficiency in allocating capacity for imaging procedures; and
Spacesuits with a sun-blocking fabric and cooling
systems that are being modified for clothing to protect people
with light sensitivities and people at the beach and who
encounter sun exposure.
These products and services represent examples of how NASA-
supported technologies and developments can be transitioned into
products and services that contribute to a growing commercial space
industry that is estimated at approximately $174 billion globally for
2008, according to The Space Report 2009.
In addition to stimulating commercial activity, NASA's challenging
missions also lead to technological developments that make U.S.
companies more competitive on a global basis and that enable companies
to earn more work. At a Committee on Science and Technology hearing on
the aerospace workforce and industrial base held in December 2009, one
witness testified that ``It is no accident that the USA aerospace prime
contractors and the hundreds of subcontractors have developed
leadership positions on the vast majority of the relevant technologies.
The NASA programs have clearly enabled USA companies to develop and
maintain these leadership positions.'' Some of the industrial base that
NASA supports also serves U.S. national security programs.
NASA's scientific and technical jobs, like those of the broader
aerospace industry, are highly skilled and well paid. NASA reports that
it supports 45,000 work year equivalent contractors at or near its NASA
centers. In addition, the Aerospace Industry Association, estimates
that NASA indirectly supports 151,000 contractors. NASA also attracts
the best and the brightest scientists and engineers. As one witness at
the December 2009 Committee hearing on the aerospace workforce and
industrial base who represented a NASA supplier company stated: ``NASA
programs are really, really hard problems . . . . What that does is
attract the very best and the very brightest engineers, and bright
engineers attract other bright engineers.''
Chairman Gordon. Come to order. We have got some interest
in this hearing from members off the committee, and as long as
space allows for it, I would like to include them on the dais.
I remind folks that non-committee members are only
recognized for questions after all committee members have been
recognized. So without objection, Mr. Posey, Mr. Bishop, and
Dr. Griffith would be allowed to participate if they so choose,
and we welcome them here. Mr. Posey is--or rather Mr. Bishop is
an alumnus of this committee, so we welcome you back.
We are also--if you are--we all know that Ralph Hall is in
a time machine anyway. He doesn't get any older, but if you
think he has reversed, he hasn't. He couldn't be here today,
and we are glad that Mr. Olson could take his place as the
Ranking Member on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. He is
certainly well qualified to handle these chores today.
So good morning and welcome Administrator Bolden. Today's
hearing marks the beginning of this committee's review of
NASA's fiscal year 2011 budget request, including the proposed
changes to the Nation's human spaceflight plans.
As you know NASA is an agency that occupies an important
place in the Nation's R&D infrastructure, as well a being a
source of inspiration and pride for all of our citizens. I know
that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to make sure
that we do all we can to ensure its future health and
productivity.
In that regard I am pleased that the President's fiscal
year 2011 NASA budget request has a number of positive
features. First, of course, is the fact that the budget request
will increase NASA's five-year funding by a total of $6 billion
over last year's out-year funding plan. It is less than many
supporters of NASA believe is justified or needed, but in a
fiscal environment in which many Federal agencies and programs
are facing a funding squeeze, it represents a vote of
confidence in NASA, and that should not be ignored.
There are other good things in the proposed NASA budget. It
recognizes the critical role of NASA's Earth Science Program
and Climate Research play in increasing our understanding of
climate change and other phenomena that impact our society. It
moves to restore some of the purchasing power that was lost by
NASA's Earth Science Program over the past decade.
Aeronautics is another area that gets a needed boost in the
fiscal year 2011 NASA budget request. It is hard to think of
another NASA program that has had more of an impact on our
economic competitiveness, national security, and quality of
life, and I am pleased that its importance is recognized in
this budget proposal.
In addition, the budget recognizes the importance in
investing in long-term technology development for both
aeronautics and space, a view long shared by this committee.
And finally, this budget also makes provisions for
extending the operation of the International Space Station
beyond 2015, as well as providing funds to allow for an orderly
completion of the Space Shuttle's flight manifest; two very
constructive steps.
All of these initiatives that I have described are ones
that I think could garner bipartisan support on this committee
and the House at large. They are certainly consistent with last
year's NASA Authorization Act.
However, there are other features of this request that
haven't gained much support. Namely, this budget proposal
represents a radical change from the approach to human
spaceflight and exploration that has been authorized and funded
by the successive Congresses over the past five years. This new
approach is not clearly traceable to either past legislation or
past policy directives. It has raised as many questions as it
has answered.
Administrator Bolden, as you know, many folks in your own
agency do not appear to have known what was in the budget
request until the very weekend before its release. In addition,
it has taken almost a month for Congress to get NASA's budget
justification documents, a state of affairs that is not and
should not be an acceptable way of doing business with regards
to such an important national endeavor.
This hearing is intended to help us understand the
rationale for such a substantial change in direction from the
approach of previous authorizations. In that regard,
Administrator Bolden, there are a number of questions that I
hope you will be able to address.
For example, a feature of this proposal and one that has
not garnered much support on the Hill is a plan to rely on as
yet to be developed commercial crew transportation systems with
no government back-up system. Leaving aside the issue of safety
for the moment, do you have concrete evidence that you can
provide us that shows that there will be sufficient, non-NASA
commercial crew transportation markets to keep these companies
viable, or is NASA going to be on the hook to do whatever it
takes to keep them in business since NASA will have no other
means of getting into orbit.
That is, will NASA's action make these companies too
important to fail despite the lack of any significant existing
markets for their proposed services; with all the implications
from the American taxpayer inherent in that phrase?
In addition, in this budget request you are requesting a 62
percent increase over what the government and the companies
have previously said would be needed to help the two would-be
commercial cargo transportation companies develop their
systems; systems that are arguably much less challenging than
the commercial crew transportation system that you would now
want to support. Given the large cost increase, how much
confidence should we have in the cost estimates for commercial
crew contained in this budget request?
I could go on to ask about other aspects of the human
spaceflight proposal, but I have already taken enough time,
enough of the committee's time. It is clear that the
administration's human spaceflight proposals have profound
implications for the workforce, for our position in the world,
and for the future of the space program, and we are going to
take a hard look at them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
Good morning, and welcome, Administrator Bolden. Today's hearing
marks the beginning of this Committee's review of NASA's Fiscal Year
2011 budget request, including the proposed changes to the nation's
human space flight plans. As you know, NASA is an agency that occupies
an important place in the nation's R&D infrastructure, as well as being
a source of inspiration and pride for all of our citizens. I know that
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to make sure that we do
all we can to ensure its future health and productivity. hi that
regard, I am pleased that the president's FY 2011 NASA budget request
has a number of positive features.
First, of course, is the fact that the budget request would
increase NASA's five-year funding by a total of $6 billion over last
year's outyear funding plan. It is less than many supporters of NASA
believe is justified or needed, but in a fiscal environment in which
many Federal agencies and programs are facing funding freezes, it
represents a vote of confidence in NASA that should not be ignored.
There are other good things in the proposed NASA budget. It
recognizes the critical role that NASA's Earth science program and
climate research play in increasing our understanding of climate change
and other phenomena that impact our society, and it moves to restore
some of the purchasing power that was lost by NASA's Earth science
program over the past decade.
Aeronautics is another area that gets a needed boost in the FY 2011
NASA budget request. It is hard to think of another NASA program that
has had more of an impact on our economic competitiveness, national
security, and quality of life, and I am pleased that its importance is
recognized in this budget proposal. In addition, the budget recognizes
the importance in investing in long-term technology development for
both aeronautics and space, a view long shared by this Committee.
Finally, this budget also makes provision for extending the
operations of the International Space Station beyond 2015, as well as
providing funds to allow for an orderly completion of the Space
Shuttle's flight manifest--two very constructive steps.
All of the initiatives that I have described are ones that I think
could garner bipartisan support on this Committee and in the House at
large--they are certainly consistent with last year's NASA
Authorization Act.
However, there are other features of this request that haven't
gained much support. Namely, this budget proposal represents a radical
change from the approach to human space flight and exploration that has
been authorized and funded by successive congresses over the past five
years. This new approach is not clearly traceable to either past
legislation or past policy directives, and it has raised as many
questions as it has answered. Administrator Bolden, as you know, many
folks in your own agency do not appear to have known what was in the
budget request until the very weekend before it was released.
In addition, it has taken almost a month for Congress to get the
NASA budget justification documents, a state of affairs that is not--
and should not be--an acceptable way of doing business with regard to
such an important national endeavor. This hearing is intended to help
us understand the rationale for such a substantial change in direction
from the approach of previous authorizations. In that regard,
Administrator Bolden, there are a number of questions that I hope you
will be able to address. For example, a feature of this proposal, and
one that has not generated much support on the Hill, is the plan to
rely on as-yet-to-be-developed commercial crew transport systems with
no government backup system.
Leaving aside issues of safety for the moment, do you have concrete
evidence that you can provide us that shows that there will be
sufficient non-NASA commercial crew transport markets to keep these
companies viable, or is NASA going to be on the hook to do whatever it
takes to keep them in business since NASA will have no other means of
getting into orbit? That is, will NASA's actions make these companies
``too important to fail'' despite the lack of any significant existing
markets for their proposed services-with all of the implications for
the American taxpayer inherent in that phrase?
In addition, in this budget request you are requesting a 62%
increase over what the government and the companies had previously said
would be needed to help the two would-be commercial cargo transport
companies develop their systems--systems that are arguably much less
challenging than the commercial crew transport systems you now want to
support. Given that large cost increase, how much confidence should we
have in the cost estimates for commercial crew contained in this budget
request? I could go on to ask about other aspects of the human space
flight proposals, but I've already taken up enough of the Committee's
time.
It is clear that the Administration's human space flight proposals
have profound implications for the workforce, for our position in the
world, and for the future of our space program, and we are going to
take a hard look at them. Administrator Bolden, you have a tough job.
And I know that you are doing your best to be an advocate for this
budget request and to present it in the best light that you can.
However, I must be frank. So far, this plan has not found a lot of
support here on the Hill. That could change, of course, but at present
I cannot be confident that the votes are there to enact this budget
proposal as is, and you shouldn't be either. So I'm going to ask you to
be flexible and open, as changes may be required to this plan if we are
to achieve a durable consensus here in Congress.
Again, I want to welcome you to today's hearing, and I now yield to
my good friend, Ranking Member Hall.
Mr. Gordon. Again, I want to welcome you to today's
hearing, and now I want to yield to another Texan, Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and first of
all I want to make a very public statement that I realize that
I am a poor substitute for the wit and wisdom of our Ranking
Member, Ralph Hall, but he couldn't be here today, and he asked
that I read his opening statement, and with your permission,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on the
important issues facing NASA, and thank you for holding today's
hearing on the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal. Thanks to your
leadership today is benefit--NASA is benefiting from the
guidance provided in the NASA Authorization Act of 2008.
I also want to welcome the NASA Administrator, General
Bolden, to his first appearance before our committee. We look
forward to hearing the details of the administration's
proposals.
NASA's fiscal year 2011 proposal is a radical departure
from the consensus that emerged after the Columbia accident. In
fact, the NASA debate after the accident helped clarify many of
the guiding principles and goals that were endorsed by both
Republicans and Democrats in subsequent NASA authorizations.
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board clearly warned us
about the inherent risk of human spaceflight program that does
not have vigorous and engaged national leadership. The CAIB
also stressed the importance of working towards established
goals, not flexible paths, and warned against unbounded
technology development programs that lacking clear requirements
in metrics are likely to fall prey to future budget reductions.
As a mission-driven organization, NASA performs best with
clear goals and destinations. I am deeply troubled about the
future viability of America's human spaceflight. On the eve of
completing the International Space Station and retiring the
Space Shuttle, I cannot understand how the administration can
propose such an ill-conceived decision to cancel the
Constellation Program without providing a compelling
alternative plan with measurable goals and adequate resources.
This budget proposal, relying as heavily as it does on the
unproven capabilities of a nascent commercial space industry,
contains very few details. At worst, I am afraid that its
reliance on the commercial, its reliance on commercial is
unfounded, and as a consequence it not only threatens our
leadership in space and our utilization of the International
Space Station, but it also risks the loss of much of our
aerospace industrial base and our highly-skilled workforce.
I am also bothered by the apparent diminishment of crew
safety in this request. Except for vague assurances that safety
will not be undermined, I see no detail explaining how NASA
plans to ensure that commercial systems will be equal to the
expectations that guided the development of the Constellation.
Until we in Congress have had a chance to examine the
details of NASA's proposal and develop the appropriate
legislation, I hope you will adhere to the intent of the
appropriators, which is to continue the Constellation
development in fiscal year 2010.
General Bolden, I appreciate the fact that you accept
responsibility for the poor way this budget was publicly rolled
out, and I want you to take a message back to those who played
an active role in its unveiling that such an exercise is
ultimately counterproductive. This committee has been the most
ardent supporter of NASA in the House, yet senior agency and
administration officials have managed to surprise, frustrate,
and anger those of us who have been your greatest advocates.
I thought it was particularly troubling that senior people
within the administration and on your staff engaged in a
campaign of telephone calls with reporters prior to the budget
rollout to explain embargoed program details instead of
providing briefings to this committee. This is not a media
campaign. NASA should be communicating with its policy and
oversight committees, and I encourage you to carry that message
back to the administration's suite and to the administration.
Mr. Chairman, I care deeply about NASA, and I want to
ensure the safety of the crews we send into space. I want to
ensure that we can maintain and utilize the International Space
Station. I want NASA to have clearly-defined goals because I
believe that that is the only way we will make any progress.
NASA is a mission-driven organization that produces its best
results with clearly-defined goals and the resources to achieve
them.
I believe NASA's priorities are misplaced. With the
retirement of the Space Shuttle and a plan to cancel the
Constellation Program, it is more important than ever that we
work together to provide NASA with the legislative guidance it
needs. I know you share many of my concerns.
I look forward to close--working close with you, and I hope
you will make room in our busy schedule to hold the necessary
hearings to ensure we give NASA the guidance it needs.
Yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Pete Olson
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on the important
issues facing NASA and I thank you for holding today's hearing on their
fiscal year 2011 budget proposal. Thanks to your leadership, NASA today
is benefiting from the guidance provided in the NASA Authorization Act
of 2008.
I also want to welcome the NASA Administrator, General Bolden to
his first appearance before our Committee. We look forward to hearing
the details of the Administration's proposals.
NASA's fiscal year 2011 proposal is a radical departure from the
consensus that emerged after the Columbia accident. In fact, the
national debate after the accident helped to clarify many of the
guiding principles and goals that were endorsed by both Republicans and
Democrats in the subsequent NASA Authorizations. The Columbia Accident
Investigation Board clearly warned us about the inherent risks of a
human space flight program that does not have vigorous and engaged
national leadership. The CAIB also stressed the importance of working
toward established goals, not flexible paths, and warned against
unbounded technology development programs that, lacking clear
requirements and metrics, are likely to fall prey to future budget
reductions. As a mission-driven organization NASA performs best with
clear goals--and destinations.
I am deeply troubled about the future viability of America's human
space flight program. On the eve of completing the International Space
Station and retiring the Space Shuttle, I cannot understand how the
Administration can propose such an ill-conceived decision to cancel the
Constellation program without providing a compelling alternative plan
with measurable goals and adequate resources. This budget proposal,
relying as heavily as it does on the unproven capabilities of a nascent
commercial space industry, contains very few details. At worst, I am
afraid that its reliance on commercial is unfounded, and as a
consequence, it not only threatens our leadership in space and our
utilization of the International Space Station, but it also risks the
loss of much of our aerospace industrial base and our highly-skilled
workforce.
I am also bothered by the apparent diminution of crew safety in
this request. Except for vague assurances that safety will not be
undermined, I see no detail explaining how NASA plans to ensure that
commercial systems will be equal to the expectations that guided the
development of Constellation.
Until we in the Congress have had a chance to examine the details
of NASA's proposal and develop the appropriate legislation, I hope you
will adhere to the intent of the Appropriators which is to continue
with the Constellation development in FY 2010.
General Bolden, I appreciate the fact that you accept
responsibility for the poor way this budget was publicly rolled out,
and I want you to take a message back to those who played an active
role in its unveiling that such an exercise is ultimately counter-
productive. This committee has been the most ardent supporter of NASA
in the House, and yet senior agency and Administration officials have
managed to surprise, frustrate and anger those of us who have been your
greatest advocates. I thought it particularly troubling that senior
people within the Administration and on your staff engaged in a
campaign of telephone calls with reporters prior to the budget rollout
to explain embargoed program details instead of providing briefings to
this Committee. This is not a media campaign. NASA should be
communicating with its policy and oversight committees. I encourage you
to carry that message back to the Administrator's suite and to the
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, I care deeply about NASA, and I want to ensure the
safety of the crews we send into space. I want to ensure we can
maintain and utilize the International Space Station. I want NASA to
have clearly defined goals because I believe that is the only way we
will make any progress. NASA is a mission-driven organization that
produces its best results with clearly defined goals and the resources
to achieve them. I believe NASA's priorities are misplaced. With the
retirement of the Space Shuttle and a plan to cancel the Constellation
program, it is more important than ever that we work together to
provide NASA with the legislative guidance it needs. I know you share
many of my concerns. I look forward to working closely with you and I
hope you will make room in our busy schedule to hold the necessary
hearings to ensure we give NASA the guidance it needs.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
If there are members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Good morning. I would like to join Chairman Gordon in welcoming
NASA Administrator Bolden to today's hearing. He is an inspiring
individual, and as an astronaut himself, I know that he cares greatly
for the space program and the future of human space flight.
Today's hearing is one of the most important we will hold this
year, as it bears directly on the future of our nation's space program.
It will inform us on many key issues facing NASA, and we will be
weighing many options in the subcommittee on space and aeronautics, on
which I serve as chair, as we write reauthorization legislation for
NASA.
There is no doubt that NASA and our space program help define
America in the eyes of the rest of the world. Not quite fifty years ago
President Kennedy announced that America would land a man on the moon
and return him safely to Earth. We committed the best and brightest of
a generation to this goal and through the combined efforts of the newly
formed National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the ever
innovative commercial aerospace industry, we accomplished that goal in
a short eight years. It is no exaggeration to say that we took the
world to the moon; the landing was watched by 500 million people
worldwide. Out of the initial competition that spurred the space race
came unprecedented international collaboration and was born an America
that was the unequivocal world leader in aeronautics. This is a legacy
we should never abandon.
Our space program has always been an engine of innovation for our
nation, and equally importantly, a source of inspiration. When the
Space Shuttle, the icon of the American space program, first flew in
the early 80s you would be hard pressed to find a child who did not
want to grow up to be an astronaut, and that meant staying in school,
working hard, and taking math and science classes seriously. The space
program has always inspired the youth of America to reach for the
stars. As Members of Congress, and as Americans, we must refuse to let
that dream fade.
Today we discuss the President's proposals for the future of NASA.
Chairman Gordon has highlighted a number of the proposals positive
features, and I wish to state my agreement with him. There is good news
for NASA in the president's budget request for NASA. The boost to
science funding is in agreement with this committee and the president's
repeatedly stated commitment to American investment in the sciences.
The new investment in aeronautics research is also welcome and probably
long overdue and will be critical to our future exploration.
However, there are also features of the FY 2011 budget request that
concern me greatly. As I stated in our subcommittee hearing earlier
this month, I have serious concerns about the impact of this budget
proposal on the future of American human space flight and exploration.
By canceling the program of record, we trade a program that we know
will work--even though it faced inevitable delays in part due to
insufficient funding--that we know will safely take our astronauts, our
American heroes, to space for a program that may work, but is in all
honesty poorly defined.
What is most striking about the budget is the lack of an overall
vision. We went to the moon with a vision of exploring our first
heavenly body; we flew the shuttle and International Space Station with
the vision of living continuously in space. What is our vision now?
What Congress and the American people deserve is a detailed plan: Where
are we going? How will we get there? And when will we go?
Today in your testimony you mentioned Mars as the ultimate
destination, with a slew of other potential targets along the way. But
how will we get out of low-earth orbit when we have no plans to build a
heavy life vehicle? If the intention is to pause our development of an
HLV for a few years while we develop new technologies, or to skip an
HLV for a plan of multiple launches with in-orbit refueling and
assembly, then I would like to see a plan and timetable for how and
when we would have these things operational and then how they would
take us to our destinations. If our plan is to go to the moon or
asteroids of Lagrange points before setting off for Mars--each of these
requiring significantly different systems--then I want to see a plan to
do that.
It is simply unfair to ask the American people to hand over
billions of dollars for something that isn't even detailed enough to
qualify for a loan from a loan shark.
With that said, I am encouraged by the COTS program. As you
mentioned in your testimony, we are hopefully close to seeing a test
flight of the SpaceX Falcon rocket. I hope that is successful and that
they quickly proceed to their goal of delivering cargo to ISS. Should
this program succeed it gives us great hope that commercial crew--which
is of course much more difficult and risks the lives of American
heroes--could succeed. I believe that this committee and the Congress
as a whole would be delighted to see this industry grow, and it would
free up NASA to focus solely on missions beyond low Earth orbit, as
envisioned in our previous NASA Authorization. Therefore, I am happy to
see the president commit to making this a reality. However, I have
strong reservations about pursuing this at the expense of the program
that would take us out of LEO. That simply doesn't make sense. Congress
intended to turn over LEO to commercial taxi services when they were
proven, but what's the point if NASA hasn't developed the capability of
flying at all?
There are also many unresolved questions regarding commercial crew
services. Who will handle things like mission control and capsule
retrieval? How will indemnity be handled? Will companies big and small
be able to compete for these contracts or will they be limited by the
size of their liability?
Additionally, I am concerned, as are most of my colleagues here,
that outright cancellation of the entire Constellation program would
put tens of thousands of engineers out of work and risk the vitality of
the manufacturing base. Perhaps when commercial crew services are
established there will be a robust industry that can absorb all these
workers, but at this time I just don't see where they will go. These
are exactly the types of good jobs we're trying to create. I think in
this case it's a lot easier to save a job than to create a new one. In
addition, these are exactly the type of jobs we need to keep here in
America to shore up our innovation economy and protect our
manufacturing base. I would hate to see American aeronautical engineers
emigrating to Europe, India, Russia, and China because that's where the
action is.
My concern when considering the space program is not one pet
project versus another; one aerospace company versus another; or one
administration's plan versus another's. My concern is the prudent use
of taxpayers' money, which cannot be accomplished by switching course
every few years. The unknown unexplored path will also seem more
exciting and more promising than the program of record, and in the
spirit of discovery we should explore it, but not at the cost of a sure
fire bet.
My concern is the stewardship of a skilled American workforce and
maintaining a manufacturing base that is second to none. Not just
saving but creating jobs in a sector that will create a demand for
scientists and engineers. I believe that the best and brightest young
minds in our nation are smart enough to understand supply and demand,
and so one understands why a sufficiently bright young student would
eschew the vagaries and uncertainty of the aerospace industry for a
more lucrative career in finance or law.
Finally, my concern is maintaining the American dream to reach for
the stars and honoring our legacy that America will continue to lead
the world into the heavens, exploring the great unknown.
The future of U.S. leadership in space is at stake, and we need to
make hard decisions. Luckily presidents and members Congress from both
sides of the aisle have long found common ground and common cause in
our nation's reach for the stars--a fact worth noting in the hyper
partisan era in which we find ourselves in today. For nearly two
generations, Republicans and Democrats alike have agreed that exploring
the universe is not only worthwhile, but necessary. That past should
guide us as we chart NASA's future. Today's hearing will help us get
the information we will need to make the informed decisions necessary.
We continue to be that city upon a hill, and the world at this very
moment watches us. Our space program is one of the crown jewels of our
nation, and we must proceed carefully to maintain it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing
on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Fiscal
Year 2011 (FY 11) budget request.
The President's budget calls for $19 billion in FY 11 for NASA,
which is a $270 million increase from FY 2010. I am pleased to see that
the FY 11 budget request continues to address the budget shortfalls
NASA saw during the previous administration. However, the budget is a
general departure from the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 passed by
Congress and signed into law and represents several important changes
in the mission and focus of NASA. Most importantly, the budget
terminates the Constellation program, in which the government has
invested $9 billion over the last four years. Constellation represented
NASA's sole program to bring humans to the International Space Station
and the Moon, and its termination raises significant questions about
the future mission and direction of human spaceflight in the U.S.
First, the end of Constellation will result in the loss of tens of
thousands of jobs at NASA and the companies with whom NASA has
contracted out work. With the budget's strong investment in commercial
human spaceflight over government-operated programs, there is a chance
these jobs could disappear all together. I would like to hear from
Administrator Bolden what plans are in place to assist in the
transition of this workforce.
Second, with the end of Constellation, a return to the moon by 2020
will no longer be NASA's central goal in human spaceflight and
exploration. In place of this definite mission, the FY 11 budget
invests in three broad technology development programs and does not
clearly indicate what NASA's next destination will be or provide a
clear outline of how NASA's mission will change with the end of the
Space Shuttle and the elimination of Constellation. I am interested in
hearing more about the destinations, timelines, and metrics that will
make up NASA's missions in view of these changes and how the vehicles
and technological improvements developed for the new research programs
will guide this new mission.
Third, investing in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) education programs is necessary to ensure the next
generation of our aerospace workforce is competitive. For this reason,
I am concerned about the $38 million reduction in funding for NASA's
STEM programs. While the decrease is concerning, I support the
President's proposals to improve NASA's outreach to young students
through the Summer of Innovation program and the Explorer Schools pilot
program, which will play an important role in inspiring young students
to pursue careers in STEM fields. However, with no clear mission or
destination, young students may not be inspired to pursue careers at
NASA or in aerospace. I would be interested to know how NASA plans to
continue attracting a strong workforce in view of decreased funding and
elimination of NASA's mission.
Finally, as the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am pleased
to see that NASA will increase its investment in aeronautics research
by $73 million. This investment will be particularly important for the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), and its important
work to modernize our national air transportation system. However, this
increased funding will not fully replace the $143 million decrease
NextGen saw FY 10. Continuing to increase NextGen funding will ensure
that NASA continues to contribute vital research on aviation safety and
environmental impacts of air travel. I would like to hear from
Administrator Bolden how this year's funding levels will impact NASA's
role in implementing NextGen.
I welcome Administrator Bolden, and I look forward to his
testimony. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Alan Grayson
Mr. Bolden, thank you for your leadership as the NASA
Administrator, since your swearing in on the symbolic date of July
17th, the same week as our nation's 40th anniversary of the celebrated
Apollo 11th lunar landing. As a member of the Florida delegation, the
House Science & Technology Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics, and an
outspoken advocate of space exploration, I look forward to working
closely with you as we face both the challenges and triumphs that will
lead the United States space program into the future.
There were many features of the President's NASA budget that I
support: an overall increase of $6 billion in NASA funding over the
next five years, the extension of the International Space Station
beyond 2015, an elevated focus in NASA's earth science and climate
research, and overall funding increases in the aeronautics program. I
applaud these aspects of the President's NASA budget, and appreciate
the Administration's commitment to science and the advancement of
technology.
However, that being said, I cannot hide my utter disappointment and
disapproval of the basic lack of vision reflected in this budget. Mr.
Bolden, with these proposed changes in U.S. space policy, and no clear
mission directorate for NASA's space exploration program, NASA's future
in space is headed for nowhere. At a time when our international
competitors are gaining, now is not the appropriate time for NASA to
shed its leadership role in space exploration. On May 7, 2009, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy announced the formation of the
``Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee'', also
known as the Augustine Committee. This Committee was formed with the
primary goal of ensuring that our great nation is on ``a vigorous and
sustainable path to achieving its boldest aspirations in space'', and
put together a number of options in which U.S. space exploration could
move forward. The Administration chose none of them. Instead it
declared a space policy based upon wishful thinking, and provided a
budget that will take a once storied and inspiring agency and will
outsource its services to an unproven private sector.
Mr. Bolden, the absence of a plan, is not a plan. The magic of the
marketplace will not save our space exploration program, and it will
certainly not provide the inspiration and pride that American's knew in
1969. As a Member of Congress, and a space enthusiast, I ask the
Administration to scrap this short sighted proposal, so that we may
work together in reestablishing ourselves as the worldwide leader in
space exploration.
At this time I would like to introduce our only witness
today, Mr. Charles Bolden, who is the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Welcome, Mr.
Bolden. As our witnesses or witness should know, any additional
statement other than your written statement or spoken statement
will be made a part of the record, and with that we will then
follow with questions from our members for--at five minutes.
So, Mr. Bolden, you are--you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss the
President's 2011 budget request for NASA. I am grateful for the
support and guidance of this committee, and I look forward to
working with you on enactment of the President's bold new
direction for our agency.
I want to say upfront that I understand the committee's
concerns that details such as our justification documents have
been slow to reach you. I apologize and ask your continued
patience as we finalize the details of this historic change in
NASA's direction.
Since the introduction of the budget, many have asked what
the destination is for human spaceflight beyond low-earth orbit
under the President's plan. NASA's exploration efforts will
focus not just on our moon but also on near-earth asteroids,
strategic deep space zones called Lagrange points, and the
planet Mars and its moons. For me the ultimate destination in
our solar system at present is Mars.
While I--we cannot provide a date certain for the first
human visit, with Mars as a key long-term destination we can
identify missing capabilities needed for such a mission and use
this to help define many of the goals for our emerging
technology development. The right investments in technology
will allow us to map out a realistic path to this destination
that continues to inspire generations of school children, just
as it inspired me years ago growing up in Columbia, South
Carolina, and watching Buck Rogers go to Mars with ease each
week from my seat in the balcony of the Carolina Theatre in
Columbia.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA is
$19 billion, including an increase of $276 million over the
enacted 2010 level. Longer term, I am pleased that the budget
commits an increased investment of $6 billion to--in NASA's
science, aeronautics, and enabling technologies over the next
five years compared with last year's plan.
All of us at NASA appreciate the President making NASA such
a high priority at a time when the budget realities dictate
reductions and freezes for other worthwhile programs. With the
President's new vision, the NASA budget will invest much more
heavily on technology R&D than recent NASA budgets. This will
foster new technological approaches, standards, and
capabilities that are critical to enable next generation
spaceflight, Earth sensing, and aeronautics capabilities.
These investments will produce additional opportunities for
U.S. industry and spur new businesses such as a recently-
announced partnership between NASA and General Motors to build
an advanced dexterous humanoid robot we call R2. I want to
share a few highlights about NASA's bold new path to become an
engine of innovation with an ambitious new space program that
includes and inspires people around the world.
Under this program the United States will pursue a more
sustainable and affordable approach to human space exploration
through the development of transformative technologies and
systems. We will encourage the development of commercial human
spaceflight vehicles to access low Earth orbit. We will develop
new technologies that will enable more efficient U.S. human
exploration into the solar system than is currently conceived.
As the Constellation Program is ended in an orderly manner,
I want to thank all of the NASA employees and contractors who
have worked so hard on that program. Their commitment has
brought great value to the agency and to our Nation, and they
will continue to play a pivotal role in NASA's future path.
Many of the things NASA has learned from the Constellation
Program will be critical as the agency moves forward. More
specifically, in fiscal year 2011, NASA will undertake a
flagship technology development and demonstration program with
our international partners, commercial and other government
entities, to demonstrate critical technologies such as in-orbit
propellant storage and transfer, inflatable modules, autonomous
automated rendezvous and docking, and closed-loop life support
systems.
Heavy-lift research and development that will investigate a
broad scope of R&D activities to support new space vehicle
propulsion technologies, robotic precursor missions to multiple
destinations in the solar system in support of future human
exploration, including missions to Mars, the moon, Mars and its
moons, Lagrange points, and nearby asteroids.
Significant investments for the development of commercial
crew and further cargo capabilities, extension of the lifetime
of the International Space Station to 2020, or beyond, in
concert with our international partners. Pursuit of cross-
cutting space technology capabilities led by the newly-
established office of the chief technologist to spawn game-
changing innovations to make space travel more affordable and
more sustainable.
Climate change and observations which will enable NASA to
substantially accelerate and expand its earth science
capabilities, including a replacement for the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory. Aeronautics R&D including critical areas of Next
Generation Air Transportation System or NextGen, green aviation
and safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems into national
airspace. Education initiatives, including the recently
announced Summer of Innovation pilot program, to inspire middle
school students.
Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for
inspiration throughout our history. Our work gives people an
opportunity to imagine what is barely possible, and we at NASA
get to turn those dreams into real achievements for all mankind
through the missions we execute.
This budget gives NASA a roadmap to even more historic
achievements as it spurs innovation, employs Americans in
exciting jobs, and engages people around the world.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support and that of
this committee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
you or other Members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's FY 2011 budget
request for NASA. NASA is grateful for the support and guidance
received from this Committee through the years and looks forward to
working with you on enactment of the President's bold new direction.
The President's FY 2011 budget request for NASA is $19.0 billion,
which represents an increase of $276.0 million above the amount
provided for the Agency in the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-117), and an increased investment of $6.0 billion in NASA
science, aeronautics, human spaceflight and enabling space technologies
over the next five-years compared with last year's budget plan.
Enclosure 1 displays the details of the President's FY 2011 budget
request for NASA.
Before I discuss the details of the NASA budget request, I would
like to talk in general about the President's new course for human
exploration of space. Our mission is to develop the required
technology, knowledge and infrastructure to sustainably extend human
presence throughout the solar system. NASA's exploration efforts will
focus not just on our moon, but also on near-earth asteroids, strategic
deep space zones called Lagrange points, and the planet Mars and its
moons. For me, the ultimate destination in our solar system at present
is Mars. While we cannot provide a date certain for the first human
visit, with Mars as a key long-term destination we can identify missing
capabilities needed for such a mission and use this to help define many
of the goals for our emerging technology development.
Let me pause here for a moment to emphasize that we need the new
capabilities and knowledge we are developing, not to perfect our
approach to spaceflight, but to enable even the most basic of missions.
For example, if you gave NASA unlimited resources today, we could not
take a human safely to Mars in the near future, because we have not
solved the interrelated problems of shielding humans from radiation in
space, providing consumables to last the distance, and constructing a
rocket to take all of those items into space.
Over the next several years, NASA will build technologies and
infrastructure to enable safe human exploration at a more sustainable
rate. If done properly, the United States and its partners will be able
to send human missions beyond low earth orbit more safely, more-cost-
effectively, and more capably than currently conceived.
First, we will extend the life of the International Space Station
(ISS), likely to 2020 or beyond. The unique laboratory environment of
the ISS will provide answers to key questions about human survivability
in space and provide the environment to test critical enabling
technologies to benefit life on Earth as well as enhance our ability to
venture to destinations such as Mars, the Moon, and asteroids.
We will also encourage and support private sector investment in
space. NASA has already invested in the private sector to transport
cargo to the ISS. Two companies are making great progress, and we hope
in the next few months to have the first demonstration of the Falcon 9
that will serve as the launch vehicle for the SpaceX system. The FY
2011 budget also includes a $6 billion, five-year investment in crew
transport to the ISS by a broad range of private companies. When
successful this will expand the utilization of not only the ISS but
also near Earth space to a greater segment of society.
Several years from now, when we have developed some of the critical
technologies we need to explore safely and effectively, when our
robotic precursor missions have scouted out the most interesting sites
for human exploration, when our international partners have worked with
us to develop new exploration architectures with shared costs and
benefits, then we will be ready to press the accelerator for human
missions into the solar system. Our goal will be then, as it is now, to
create a lasting human space-faring capability for our nation, and with
our international and commercial partners, for the World. Now let me
turn to describe the FY 2011 NASA budget request in detail.
Highlights of the FY 2011 Budget Request
The President has laid out a bold new path for NASA to become an
engine of innovation, with an ambitious new space program that includes
and inspires people around the world. Beginning in FY 2011, the United
States will pursue a more sustainable and affordable approach to human
space exploration through the development of transformative
technologies and systems. As the Constellation Program is ended in an
orderly manner, NASA will encourage the development of commercial human
spaceflight vehicles to safely access low-Earth orbit and will develop
new technologies that will lay the foundation for a more exciting,
efficient and robust U.S. human exploration of the solar system than we
are currently capable of, while further strengthening the skills of our
workforce and our Nation in challenging technology areas. NASA will
also invest increased resources in climate change research and
observations; aeronautics research and development (R&D), including
green aviation; space technology development of benefit across the
entire space sector; and education with an emphasis on Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) learning.
Here is a broad outline of the FY 2011 budget plan followed by more
details. In FY 2011, NASA will undertake:
Transformative technology development and
demonstrations to pursue new approaches to human spaceflight
exploration with more sustainable and advanced capabilities
that will allow Americans to explore the Moon, Mars and other
destinations. This effort will include a flagship demonstration
program, with international partners, commercial and other
government entities, to demonstrate critical technologies, such
as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable
modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-
loop life support systems, and other next-generation
capabilities. It will also include projects that are smaller
and shorter-duration, which will demonstrate a broad range of
key technologies, including in-situ resource utilization and
advanced in-space propulsion.
Heavy-lift propulsion research and development that
will investigate a broad scope of R&D activities to support
next-generation space launch propulsion technologies, with the
aim of reducing costs and shortening development timeframes for
future heavy-lift systems for human exploration.
Robotic precursor missions to multiple destinations
in the solar system in support of future human exploration,
including missions to the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange
points, and nearby asteroids.
Significant investments for the development of
commercial crew and further cargo capabilities, building on the
successful progress in the development of commercial cargo
capabilities to-date. NASA will allocate these funds through
competitive solicitations that support a range of higher- and
lower-programmatic risk systems and system components, such as
human-rating of existing launch vehicles and development of new
spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch vehicles.
Extension of the lifetime of the International Space
Station (ISS), likely to 2020 or beyond, in concert with our
international partners, with investments in expanded ISS
utilization through upgrades to both ground support and onboard
systems and use of the ISS as a National Laboratory.
Pursuit of cross-cutting Space Technology
capabilities, led by the newly established Office of the Chief
Technologist, which will fund advancements in next-generation
technologies, to help improve the Nation's leadership in key
research areas, enable far-term capabilities, and spawn game-
changing innovations that can unlock new possibilities and make
space activities more affordable and sustainable. A NASA focus
on innovation and technology will enable new approaches to our
current mission set and allow us to pursue entirely new
missions for the Nation.
Climate change research and observations, which will
enable NASA to substantially accelerate and expand its Earth
Science capabilities, including a replacement for the Orbiting
Carbon Observatory, development of new satellites recommended
by the National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey, and
development of smaller Venture class missions. This investment
will ensure the critically important continuity of certain key
climate measurements and enable new measurements to address
unknowns in the climate system, yielding expanded understanding
of our home planet and improved understanding of climate
change.
Aeronautics research and development, including
critical areas of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, environmentally responsible aviation, and safe
integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national
airspace.
Education initiatives, including the recently
announced Summer of Innovation pilot program involving NASA
scientist and curricula to inspire middle-school students and
their teachers with exciting experiences that spur those
students to continue in STEM careers.
I wish to emphasize that NASA intends to work closely with the
Congress, including this Committee, to make a smooth transition to the
new Exploration program, called for in the President's request, working
responsibly on behalf of the taxpayers. With my deepest gratitude, I
commend the hard work and dedication that thousands of NASA and
contractor workers have devoted to Constellation over the last several
years. Their commitment has brought great value to the Agency and to
our Nation, and they will continue to play a pivotal role in NASA's
future path. Many of the things NASA has learned from the Constellation
program will be critical as the Agency moves forward.
The following contains more detail on the summary points made
above, in the standard budget order for NASA's appropriation accounts.
Science
The President's FY 2011 request for NASA includes $5,005.6 million
for Science. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) continues to
expand humanity's understanding of our Earth, our Sun, the solar system
and the universe with 59 science missions in operation and 30 more in
various stages of development. The Science budget funds these missions
as well as the research of over 3,000 scientists and their students
across our Nation. The recommendations of the National Academies/
National Research Council (NRC) decadal surveys help to guide SMD in
setting its priorities for strategic science missions; and SMD selects
competed missions and research proposals based on open competition and
peer review.
The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,801.7 million
for Earth Science. This request increases investment in Earth Science
by $1.8 billion from FY 2011 to FY 2014 compared to the FY 2010 budget,
for a more aggressive response to the challenge of climate change. NASA
will rapidly develop an Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission for
launch early in 2013 and a GRACE Follow-On mission for launch in late
2015, respectively, to initiate and extend key global climate data
sets. This request accelerates several high-priority Decadal Survey
missions that will advance climate research and monitoring. The
increased funding accelerates launch of the Soil Moisture Active/
Passive (SMAP) mission by six months from its estimated date at the
recent Agency Key Decision Point (KDP)-B review, to November 2014.
ICESAT-2 is advanced by five months relative to the estimated date at
its recent Agency KDP-A review, to October 2015. The Climate Absolute
Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) mission and the
Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) mission
are each accelerated by two years, with both launching in late 2017.
Thus, the budget request allows all four Tier-1 Decadal Survey missions
to be launched between 2014 and 2017. In addition, NASA--working with
the U.S. Global Change Research Program--will be able to identify and
begin development for accelerated launch of selected Tier-2 Decadal
Survey missions focused on climate change. The budget supports critical
continuity of climate observations, including a Stratospheric Aerosol
and Gas Experiment III (SAGE III) instrument to be developed for
deployment on the ISS, while also supporting an accelerated pace of
smaller ``Venture class'' missions. Finally, increased resources for
Earth Science will allow NASA to expand key mission-enabling
activities, including carbon monitoring, technology development,
modeling, geodetic ground network observations, and applications
development including the highly successful SERVIR program.
At present, NASA Earth-observing satellites provide the bulk of the
global environmental observations used for climate change research in
the United States and abroad. This year, analyses of NASA satellite
measurements quantified the rates of ground water depletion since 2003
in California and in India's Indus River valley--rates that are
unsustainable for the future. NASA conducted the first ICEBridge
airborne campaigns in both Arctic and the Antarctic, to maintain the
critical ice measurements during the gap in time between the ICESAT-1
and -2 satellites.
In FY 2011, the Glory and Aquarius missions will launch; and FY
2011 should close with the launch of the NPOESS Preparatory Project.
The Landsat Data Continuity Mission will complete spacecraft
integration and test, the Operational Land Imager will be delivered,
and the Thermal Infrared Sensor will continue development. The Global
Precipitation Mission will complete its System Integration Review in
preparation for the beginning of assembly, integration and testing.
During FY 2011, the SMAP mission will transition from formulation to
development, and ICESAT-2 will begin design. Also in FY 2011,
instrument development and observations initiated under the first
Venture class solicitation for sustained airborne missions will reach
full funding, and the next Venture class solicitations will be
released-this time for space-based mission instrument, and complete
mission, developments. Engineering studies and focused, actively-
managed technology investments--instruments, components, and
information systems--continue for the suite of future missions
recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) Decadal Survey. In
FY 2011, the Earth Science Technology Program will make additional,
competitively-selected, instrument technology investments to meet
decadal survey measurement goals. Earth Science Research and Applied
Sciences Programs will continue to employ satellite observations to
advance the science of climate and environmental change, mitigation,
and adaptation. NASA will demonstrate the use of Uninhabited Aerial
Systems in field campaigns addressing atmospheric trace gas composition
and hurricane genesis, and NASA's modeling and data analysis efforts
will contribute to assessment activities of the Intergovernmental Panel
in Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,485.8 million
for Planetary Science. The current NASA planetary missions continue to
make new discoveries and return fascinating images, including a
previously unknown large and askew ring of Saturn and a near-complete
map of the surface of Mercury. Mars continues to intrigue with signs of
water ice just below the surface at mid-latitudes. The Mars rover
Spirit is now an in situ science prospector, while Opportunity
continues to roll toward the crater Endeavor. The Moon Mineralogy
Mapper instrument on India's Chandrayaan-1 mission detected small
amounts of water and hydroxyl molecules at unexpectedly low latitudes
on the lunar surface. NASA selected three new candidate mission
concepts for further study under the New Frontiers program, and will
select the winning concept in FY 2011 to proceed to development. NASA
will issue its next Discovery Announcement of Opportunity this year,
and will select mission concepts and fund concept studies in FY 2011.
NASA will also begin Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator
development in FY 2011 to be available as an option to improve the
performance of the radioisotope-fueled power sources for use in the
next Discovery mission. The Mars Science Laboratory will complete
development in FY 2011 for launch in fall 2011, beginning the most
comprehensive astrobiology mission to the Red Planet to date. The MAVEN
Mars aeronomy mission will continue development for launch in late
2013. NASA will establish a joint Mars Exploration Program with the
European Space Agency (ESA) with a trace gas orbiter mission, including
a European technology demonstration lander. In FY 2011, NASA plans to
select instruments for the mission via a joint Announcement of
Opportunity. To advance scientific exploration of the Moon, NASA will
launch the GRAIL mission in late 2011 and continue development of LADEE
for launch in 2013. Continuing its exploration of the outer planets,
NASA will launch the Juno mission to Jupiter in August 2011. NASA will
continue studies that support the possibility of a new major Outer
Planets Mission concept pending the outcome of the NRC decadal survey
now in progress, and will coordinate with ESA on a solicitation for
science instruments. The new NRC Decadal Survey in Planetary Science
should be complete in FY 2011. The FY 2011 budget request increases
NASA's investment in identification and cataloging of Near Earth
Objects and, with the Department of Energy, begins funding the
capability to restart Plutonium-238 production here in the United
States.
The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1.076.3 million
for Astrophysics. The golden age of Astrophysics from space continues,
with 14 observatories in operation. Astrophysics research, technology
investments, and missions aim to understand how the universe works, how
galaxies, stars and planets originated and developed over cosmic time,
and whether Earth-like planets--and possibly life--exist elsewhere in
the cosmos. The NASA Kepler telescope has discovered five exoplanets,
ranging in size from Neptune to larger than Jupiter, demonstrating that
the telescope is functioning as intended; additional discoveries are
anticipated in the coming months and years. NASA's newest space
observatory, WISE (Wide-Field Infrared Explorer), has captured its
first look at the starry sky and its sky survey in infrared light has
begun. Radio astronomers have uncovered 17 millisecond pulsars in our
galaxy by studying unknown high-energy sources detected by the Fermi
Gamma-ray Space Telescope.
The Hubble Space Telescope is operating at its peak performance
thanks to the very successful servicing mission last year by the STS-
125 crew. The Herschel and Planck missions, led by the European Space
Agency with NASA as a partner, launched in 2009 and are returning
remarkable scientific results. In FY 2011, NASA will complete most of
the development of the NuSTAR mission and prepare it for launch. NASA
will also begin developing the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism (GEMS)
mission recently selected in the Explorer small satellite program. The
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continues to make good progress in
development toward a 2014 launch. Flight hardware for the many JWST
subsystems is being designed, manufactured and tested, including the 18
segments of its 6.5-meter primary mirror; and the mission-level
Critical Design Review for JWST will occur this spring. The SOFIA
airborne observatory successfully conducted its first open-door flight
test in December 2009--a major milestone toward the beginning of early
science operations this year. The NRC is conducting a new Decadal
Survey in astronomy and astrophysics, which will set priorities among
future mission concepts across the full spectrum of Astrophysics,
including dark energy, gravity wave, and planet-finding missions; the
``Astro2010'' Decadal Survey is expected in September.
The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $641.9 million for
Heliophysics. The Heliophysics operating satellites provide not only a
steady stream of scientific data for the NASA research program, but
also supply a significant fraction of critical space weather data used
by other government agencies for support of commercial and defense
activities in space. These data are used for operating satellites,
optimization of power transmission networks, and supporting
communications, aviation and navigation systems. The NASA Aeronomy of
Ice in Mesosphere (AIM) satellite has provided the first comprehensive,
global-scale view of the complex life cycle of Earth's highest clouds,
Polar Mesospheric Clouds, finding clues to why they appear to be
occurring at lower latitudes than ever before. The STEREO B spacecraft
recently observed a sunspot behind the Sun's southeastern limb--before
it could be seen from Earth. In a few days, this sunspot produced five
Class M solar flares of the kind that disturb radio signals on Earth,
signaling the end of the Sun's extended quiet period of recent years.
The Solar Dynamic Observatory (SDO), launched on February 11, will
provide images of the Sun of unprecedented resolution, yielding new
understanding of the causes of solar variability and its impact on
Earth. In FY 2011, the Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission will
complete hardware manufacturing and begin integration and testing. The
Solar Orbiter Collaboration with the European Space Agency will
continue in formulation, and the Solar Probe Plus mission will undergo
an initial confirmation review at the end of FY 2011. The
Magnetospheric Multi-scale mission will continue development toward a
Critical Design Review. IRIS, a recently selected small Explorer
mission, will hold its Critical Design Review in FY 2011. The next
Explorer Announcement of Opportunity will be released in 2010, with
selection for Phase A studies in FY 2011. NASA is working with the NRC
to arrange for the next decadal survey in Heliophysics.
Aeronautics Research
The U.S. commercial aviation enterprise is vital to the Nation's
economic well-being, directly or indirectly providing nearly one
million Americans with jobs. In 2008 aerospace manufacturing provided
the Nation with a trade surplus of over $57 billion. In the United
States, more than 60 certified domestic carriers operate more than
28,000 flights daily, moving nearly one million travelers each day. We
expect these flights to be safe, affordable, and convenient. We expect
airlines to offer flights when and where we want to travel. In business
and in our personal lives, the aviation industry is a key enabler to
our way of life and the smooth functioning of our economy. However, the
air transport system is near maximum capacity given today's procedures
and equipment. Rising concerns about the environmental and noise
impacts of aviation further limit future growth.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics is $579.6 million, an
increase of $72.6 million, which will strongly support our existing
portfolio of research and development to directly address these most
critical needs of the Nation and enable timely development of the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Through a balanced
research and development portfolio, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate (ARMD) is exploring early-stage innovative ideas,
developing new technologies and operational procedures through
foundational research, and demonstrating the potential of promising new
vehicles, operations, and safety technology in relevant environments.
Our goals are to expand capacity, enable fuel-efficient flight
planning, reduce the overall environmental footprint of airplanes today
and, in the future, reduce delays on the ground and in the sky, and
improve the ability to operate in all weather conditions while
maintaining the current high safety standards we demand.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $228.5 million
for the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, which seeks to continually
improve technology that can be integrated into today's state-of-the-art
aircraft, while enabling game-changing new concepts such as Hybrid Wing
Body (HWB) airframes which promise reduced drag (thus improving fuel
bum) and open-rotor engines which offer the promise of 20 percent fuel
burn reduction compared to today's best jet engines. In partnership
with Boeing and the Air Force, NASA has completed over 75 flights of
the X48B sub-scale HWB aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center in the
last two years to explore handling and control issues. NASA is
partnering with General Electric and Boeing to evaluate performance and
integration of new open-rotor engine concepts in propulsion wind
tunnels at the Glenn Research Center. NASA is also addressing key
challenges to enable new rotorcraft and supersonic aircraft, and
conducting foundational research on flight at seven times the speed of
sound. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds have enabled NASA
to re-commission a full-scale airframe structural test facility and to
improve wind tunnels at the Langley, Ames, and Glenn Research Centers
that are needed to assess new concepts that hold the promise of
significant reductions in aircraft weight and fuel consumption. In
partnership with industry, NASA has just initiated the first new
government-funded effort on low NOx combustors in 15 years. In FY 2011,
NASA will invest $30.0 million to design, build, and demonstrate a new
generation of aircraft engine combustors that will lower the emission
of harmful nitrogen oxides by 50 percent compared with current
combustors while ensuring compatibility with current and future
alternative aviation fuels.
A key research goal is to develop synthetic and bio-derived
alternatives to the petroleum-derived fuel that all jet aircraft have
used for the last 60 years, but little is known about the emissions
characteristics of these alternative fuels. In 2009, NASA led a team of
eight partners from government agencies, industry, and academia in
measuring emissions from an aircraft parked on the ground operating on
various blends of synthetic and standard jet fuel. This team discovered
that synthetic fuel blends can reduce particulate emissions by as much
as 75 percent compared to conventional jet fuels, which would offer a
major improvement in local air quality around airports. Using results
from this and other research efforts, NASA has established a publicly-
available database of fuel and emissions properties for 19 different
fuels and will perform similar tests on biofuels as they become
available.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $82.2 million
for Airspace Systems. The focus of this program is to achieve
reductions in environmental impact not only through new aircraft,
engines, and fuels, but also through improved air traffic management
procedures. Using flight data from just the top 27 airports in the
country, NASA systems analysis results indicate that nearly 400 million
gallons of fuel could be saved each year if aircraft could climb to and
descend from their cruising altitude without interruption. Another 200
million gallons could be saved from improved routing during the cruise
phase of flight. Achievement of such operations requires that aircraft
spacing in the air and on-time arrival and departure from the regions
around our major airports be greatly improved. New satellite-based
navigation aids such as the ADS-B system that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is installing throughout the country can enable
these improvements, but safe and efficient operational procedures must
first be developed, validated, and certified for operational use. In
2009, NASA partnered with FAA, United Airlines, and Air Services
Australia to validate pilot and controller procedures for a new concept
originally developed by NASA that enables aircraft to safely conduct
climbs and descents outside radar coverage in close proximity to nearby
traffic. NASA also provided safety analyses needed for regulatory
approval. The procedures benefit both airlines and the traveling public
by providing long-haul oceanic flight with easier access to fuel-
efficient, turbulence-free altitudes. United Airlines is expected to
begin flying the oceanic in-trail procedures on revenue flights in May
2011.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $113.1 million
for the Integrated Systems Research Program. Begun in FY 2010, this
program evaluates and selects the most promising ``environmentally
friendly'' engine and airframe concepts emerging from our foundational
research programs for integration at the systems level. In FY 2011, the
program will test integrated systems in relevant environments to
demonstrate that the combined benefits of these new concepts are in
fact greater than the sum of their individual parts. Similarly, we are
integrating and evaluating new operational concepts through real-world
tests and virtual simulations. These efforts will facilitate the
transition of new capabilities to manufacturers, airlines and the FAA,
for the ultimate benefit of the flying public. In addition to strongly
supporting our ongoing research portfolio, the FY 2011 budget request
includes increased funding to expand our research in new priority areas
identified through close consultation with industry, academia and other
Federal agencies. In FY 2011, NASA will initiate a $30 million targeted
effort to address operational and safety issues related to the
integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace
System and augment research and technology development efforts by $20
million, including grants and cooperative agreements, to support NASA's
environmentally responsible aviation research.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $79.3 million
for the Aviation Safety Program. This program conducts research to
insure that aircraft and operational procedures maintain the high level
of safety which the American public has come to count on. Safety issues
span aircraft operations, air traffic procedures, and environmental
hazards and this program is supporting research and delivering results
in all three areas. American carriers operate 6,500 aircraft on more
than 28,000 flights daily. For most of the day the FAA is controlling
more than 4,000 aircraft in the sky at the same time. Further increases
in capacity will require increased levels of automation for command and
control functions and to analyze vast amounts of data, as well as
increased complexity of the overall system. It now costs more to prove
today's flight-critical systems are safe than it does to design and
build them. The Joint Planning and Development Office has identified
Verification and Validation (V&V) of aviation flight-critical hardware
and software systems as one of the major capability gaps in NextGen.
Therefore in FY 2011, NASA is initiating a new $20 million research
activity in V&V of aviation flight-critical systems to develop
methodologies and concepts to effectively test, validate and certify
software-based systems that will perform reliably, securely, and safely
as intended.
NASA will continue to tackle difficult issues that threaten the
safety of commercial flight, ranging from human/machine interaction to
external hazards such as weather and icing, as the aircraft industry
has come to rely on NASA expertise in predicting the effects of icing
on aircraft performance at low and intermediate altitudes. However,
over the last ten years a new form of icing problem has surfaced,
occurring primarily in equatorial regions at high cruise altitudes and
causing engine power loss or flameout. These conditions cannot be
duplicated in any existing ground test facility. To study this problem,
in 2009 NASA initiated an effort to modify the Propulsion Systems
Laboratory at the Glenn Research Center to enable research on ways to
mitigate the effects of high-altitude icing and development of new
engine certification procedures.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $76.4 million
for the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), which makes strategic
investments to ensure availability of national ground facilities and
flight assets to meet the testing needs of NASA and the Nation. The
program also invests in the development of new test instrumentation and
test technologies. One such example is ATP's collaboration with the
Aviation Safety Program to provide a new testing capability in the
NASA-Glenn PSL facility to address the threat of high-altitude ice
crystals to jet engine operability. The program recently demonstrated
for the first time the ability to generate ice crystals at the very
cold temperatures (-60 +F) encountered at commercial aircraft cruise
altitudes. The PSL high-altitude ice crystal capability will become
operational in FY 2011. The program also completed the development of a
new Strategic Plan to provide the vision and leadership required to
meet national goals; provide sustained support for workforce,
capability improvements, and test technology development; and provide
strategic planning, management, and coordination with NASA, government,
and industry stakeholders. This plan will provide informed guidance as
ATP develops a critical decision tool for building well-coordinated
national testing capabilities in collaboration with the Department of
Defense through the National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing
(NPAT).
Partnerships with industry, academia, and other Federal agencies
are critical to the success and relevance of NASA research. Through
close collaboration, NASA ensures that it works on the right challenges
and improving the transition of research results to users. NASA is
using NASA/FAA Research Transition Teams (RTTs) to conduct joint
research and field-trials to speed acceptance of new air traffic
management procedures. The Agency is also coordinating management and
operation of the Federal Government's large aeronautics ground test
infrastructure through the NPAT. Through NASA Research Announcements
(NRAs), NASA solicits new and innovative ideas from industry and
academia while providing support for Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Math departments. The Agency also funds undergraduate and graduate
scholarships, Innovation in Aeronautics Instruction grants to improve
teaching programs at the university level, and sponsor student design
competitions at undergraduate and graduate levels for both U.S. and
international entrants. By directly connecting students with NASA
researchers and our industrial partners we become a stronger research
organization while inspiring students to choose a career in the
aerospace industry.
Exploration
The FY 2011 budget request for Exploration is $4,263.4 million, an
increase of $483.6 million above the FY 2010 enacted level. Included in
this budget request is funding for three new, robust programs that will
expand the capabilities of future space explorers far beyond those we
have today. NASA will embark on these transformative initiatives by
partnering with the best in industry, academia and other government
agencies, as well as with our international partners. These partners
have been integral to much of NASA's previous success and are vital to
our bold new vision.
NASA will encourage active public participation in our new
exploration missions via a new participatory exploration initiative.
Additionally, the FY 2011 budget request builds upon NASA's commercial
cargo efforts by providing significant funding for the development of
commercial human spaceflight vehicles, freeing NASA to focus on the
forward-leaning work we need to accomplish for beyond-LEO missions. The
FY 2011 budget request is a 40 percent increase over last year's
investment in the Human Research Program, to help prepare for future
human spaceflight exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Lastly, the
Exploration FY 2011 budget request includes funding for the
Constellation Program close-out activities spread across FY 2011 and FY
2012.
In the near term, NASA is continuing Constellation work to ensure
an orderly closeout of the program in FY 2011 and to capture of all of
the knowledge learned through its key efforts. The Constellation
Program is focusing on completing its Preliminary Design Review (PDR),
which will conclude this year. NASA believes that completing the
Constellation PDR will support not only the close-out process for
Constellation, but also will ensure that historical data from
Constellation work is documented, preserved and made accessible to
future designers of other next-generation U.S. human spaceflight
systems.
The Exploration FY 2011 budget request includes three new robust
research and development programs that will enable a renewed and
reinvigorated effort for future crewed missions beyond low-Earth orbit:
Technology Development and Demonstration Program:
$652.4 million is requested in FY 2011, and a total of $7,800.0
million is included in the five year budget plan, to invent and
demonstrate large-scale technologies and capabilities that are
critical to future space exploration, including cryo-fluid
management and transfer technologies; rendezvous and docking
technologies; and closed-loop life support systems. These
technologies are essential to making future exploration
missions more capable, flexible, and affordable.
Heavy-Lift and Propulsion Research and Development
Program: $559.0 million is requested in FY 2011, and a total of
$3,100.0 million is included in the five-year budget plan, for
an aggressive, new heavy-lift and propulsion R&D program that
will focus on development of new engines, propellants,
materials and combustion processes that would increase our
heavy-lift and other space propulsion capabilities and
significantly lower operations costs--with the clear goal of
taking us farther and faster into space consistent with safety
and mission success.
Robotic Exploration Precursor Program: $125.0 million
is requested in FY 2011, and $3,000.0 million is included in
the five-year budget plan, for robotic missions that will pave
the way for later human exploration of the Moon, Mars and
nearby asteroids. Like the highly successful Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing
Satellite missions that captured our attention last fall,
future exploration precursor missions will scout locations and
demonstrate technologies to locate the most interesting places
to explore with humans and validate potential approaches to get
them there safely and sustainably.
Cross-agency teams for each of these three areas are working to
develop plans that delineate key areas for research and development,
specify milestones for progress and set launch dates for relevant
missions. They will report to the Administrator over the coming months,
and the results of their efforts will be shared with the Congress when
they are complete.
The Exploration FY 2011 budget request for Commercial Spaceflight
is $812.0 million, which includes $500.0 million to spur the
development of U.S. commercial human spaceflight vehicles, and a total
of $6 billion in the five-year budget plan. This investment funds NASA
to contract with industry to provide astronaut transportation to the
International Space Station as soon as possible, reducing the risk of
relying solely on foreign crew transports, and frees up NASA resources
to focus on the difficult challenges in technology development,
scientific discovery, and exploration. We also believe it will help to
make space travel more accessible and more affordable. An enhanced U.S.
commercial space industry will create new high-tech jobs, leverage
private sector capabilities and energy in this area, and spawn other
businesses and commercial opportunities, which will spur growth in our
Nation's economy. And, a new generation of Americans will be inspired
by these commercial ventures and the opportunities they will provide
for additional visits to space. NASA plans to allocate this FY 2011
funding via competitive solicitations that support a range of
activities such as human-rating existing launch vehicles and developing
new crew spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch vehicles. NASA
will ensure that all commercial systems meet stringent human-rating and
safety requirements before we allow any NASA crew member (including
NASA contractors and NASA-sponsored International partners) to travel
aboard a commercial vehicle on a NASA mission. Safety is, and always
will be, NASA's first core value.
In addition to the $500 million identified for crew transportation
development efforts, the budget also includes $312.0 million in FY 2011
for incentivizing NASA's current commercial cargo program. These
funds--by adding or accelerating the achievement of already-planned
milestones, and adding capabilities or tests--aim to expedite the pace
of development of cargo flights to the ISS and improve program
robustness.
Today, NASA is using $50.0 million from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 to help drive the beginnings of a commercial
crew transportation industry. Through an open competition, in early
February, NASA awarded Space Act Agreements to five companies who
proposed ideas and concepts intended to make commercial crew services a
reality. While there are many vibrant companies out there that we hope
to partner with in the future, these five companies, along with our two
currently funded Commercial Orbital Transportation Services partners
(Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences Corporation) are
at the forefront of a grand new era in space exploration.
The Exploration FY 2011 budget request includes $215.0 million for
the Human Research Program, an increase of more than 40 percent over
the FY 2010 enacted level, and an investment of $1,075 million over the
five-year budget plan. The Human Research Program is a critical element
of the NASA human spaceflight program in that it develops and validates
technologies that serve to reduce medical risks associated for crew
members.
The Exploration FY 2011 budget request includes $1,900.0 million
for Constellation Closeout requirements, and a total of $2,500.0
million over the FY 2011-2012 timeframe. These funds will be used for
related facility and close-out costs, potentially including increased
costs for Shuttle transition and retirement due to Constellation
cancellation. The Agency has established senior planning teams to
outline options for Constellation close out expeditiously and
thoughtfully and to assess workforce, procurement and other issues,
which will report to the Administrator over the coming months, to
ensure that people and facilities are best utilized to meet the needs
of NASA's new missions. NASA will work closely with the Congress as
these activities progress.
NASA recognizes that this change will personally affect thousands
of NASA civil servants and contractors who have worked countless hours,
often under difficult circumstances, to make the Constellation Program
successful. I commend the investment that these dedicated Americans
have made and will continue to make in our Nation's human spaceflight
program. Civil servants who support Constellation should feel secure
that NASA has exciting and meaningful work for them to accomplish after
Constellation, and our contractor colleagues should know that NASA is
working expeditiously to identify new opportunities for them to partner
with the Agency on the new Exploration portfolio.
Space Technology
Through the new Space Technology Program, led by the recently
established Office of the Chief Technologist, NASA will increase its
support for research in advanced space systems concepts and game-
changing technologies, enabling new approaches to our current mission
set and allowing the pursuit of entirely new missions. Using a wide
array of management, funding, and partnership mechanisms, this program
will engage the brightest minds in private industry, across the NASA
Centers, and throughout academia. This new program builds upon the
success of NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program and directly responds
to input from multiple NRC reports, as well as the Augustine Committee.
The Space Technology program will meet NASA's needs for new
technologies to support future NASA missions in science and
exploration, as well as the needs of other government agencies and the
Nation's space industry in a manner similar to the way NACA aided the
early aeronautics industry. Many positive outcomes are likely from a
long-term NASA advanced space systems concepts and technology
development program, including a more vital and productive space future
than our country has today, a means to focus NASA intellectual capital
on significant national challenges and needs, a spark to renew the
nation's technology-based economy, an international symbol of our
country's scientific and technological leadership, and a motivation for
many of the country's best young minds to enter into educational
programs and careers in engineering and science.
The FY 2011 budget request for Space Technology is $572.2 million,
and $4,925.9 million is included in the five-year budget plan. With
this initiative, NASA will expand its Technology and Innovation
portfolio to include: open competitions to stimulate highly innovative,
early-stage space system concepts and ideas; development of
technologies that can provide game-changing innovations to address NASA
and national needs; and development and infusion of cross-cutting
capabilities into missions that address needs from multiple NASA
Mission Directorates, other government agencies, and commercial
activities in space, while fostering and stimulating a research and
development culture at NASA Centers. Beginning in FY 2011, activities
associated with the Innovative Partnerships Program are transferred to
Space Technology.
The need for advanced capabilities is increasing as NASA envisions
missions of increasing complexity to explore and understand the Earth,
our solar system, and the universe. Technology and innovation are
critical to successfully accomplishing these missions in an affordable
manner. The Space Technology program will enhance NASA's efforts to
nurture new technologies and novel ideas that can revolutionize our
aerospace industrial base, as well as to address national and global
challenges and enable whole new capabilities in science and exploration
that will be of benefit to the Nation. Key focus areas include
communications, sensors, robotics, materials, and propulsion. The Space
Technology program will use open competitions such as NASA Research
Announcements and Announcements of Opportunity, targeted competitions
such as those for small business (SBIR), universities (STTR), and
engage early career scientists and engineers. NASA will also continue
to use challenges and prizes to stimulate innovative new approaches to
technology development and will encourage partnerships with both
established and emerging commercial space industries. Through the three
major elements of this program--Early-Stage Innovation, Game-Changing
Innovation, and Crosscutting Capabilities--a broad suite of management,
funding and partnership mechanisms are employed to stimulate innovation
across NASA, industry and academia.
The Early-Stage Innovation program element sponsors a wide range of
advanced space system concept and initial technology development
efforts across academia, industry and the NASA Centers. This program
element includes: (a) the Space Technology Research Grant program
(analogous to the Fundamental Aeronautics program within NASA's
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate) that focuses on foundational
research in advanced space systems and space technology, (b) re-
establishment of a NIAC-like Program to engage innovators within and
external to the Agency in accordance with the recommendations of the
NRC's Fostering Visions of the Future report, (c) enhancement of the
Innovative Partnership Programs Seed Fund into a Center Innovations
Fund to stimulate aerospace creativity and innovation at the NASA field
Centers, (d) NASA's SBIR/STTR program to engage small businesses, and
(e) the Centennial Challenges Prize Program to address key technology
needs with new sources of innovation outside the traditional aerospace
community. Competitive selection is a major tenet of all the activities
within this low technology readiness level (TRL) program element.
The Game Changing Innovation program element focuses on maturing
advanced technologies that may lead to entirely new approaches for the
Agency's future space missions and solutions to significant national
needs. Responsive to the NRC report, America's Future in Space.
Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, this program
element demonstrates the feasibility of early-stage ideas that have the
potential to revolutionize future space missions. Fixed-duration awards
are made to PI-led teams comprised of government, academia and industry
partners. These awards are evaluated annually for progress against
baseline milestones with the objective of maturing technologies through
ground-based testing and laboratory experimentation. NASA intends to
draw from DARPA's experience to create and implement collaborative
game-changing space technology initiatives. New technologies considered
may include advanced lightweight structures and materials, advanced
propulsion, power generation, energy storage and high bandwidth
communications. With a focus on such potentially revolutionary
technologies, success is not expected with each investment; however, on
the whole, and over time, dramatic advances in space technology
enabling entirely new NASA missions and potential solutions to a wide
variety of our society's grand technological challenges are
anticipated.
A Crosscutting Capabilities program element matures a small number
of technologies that are of benefit to multiple customers to flight
readiness status. Technical risk, technology maturity, mission risk,
customer interest, and proposed cost are discriminators planned for use
in the selection process. For infusion purposes, proposing teams are
required to have a sponsor willing to cost share a minimum of 25
percent of the planned development effort. With objectives analogous to
the former New Millennium program, NASA will pursue flight
demonstrations not only as standalone missions, but also as missions of
opportunity on planned NASA missions as well as international and
commercial space platforms. The Commercial Reuseable Suborbital
Research Program (which provides suborbital flight opportunities for
technology demonstrations, scientific research and education), the
Facilitated Access to the Space environment for Technology (FAST)
project (which focuses on testing technologies on parabolic aircraft
flights that can simulate microgravity and reduced gravity
environments) and the Edison Small Satellite Demonstration Missions
project (which develops and operates small satellite missions in
partnership with academia). are also included in this program element.
NASA has had past success in the development of game-changing
technologies and the transfer of its products and intellectual capital
to industry. As an example, consider the Mars Pathfinder mission of the
early 1990s. In addition to accomplishing its science and technology
objectives, Mars Pathfinder established surface mobility and ground
truth as important exploration principles, created a groundswell of
interest and a foundational experience for a new generation of Mars
scientists and engineers, re-engaged the public with Mars as a
destination worthy of exploration, led to the creation of NASA's Mars
program and establishment of a Mars program budget line, and led to a
wide spectrum of small missions to Mars, the asteroids, comets and
other bodies in our solar system. For NASA's robotic exploration
program, Mars Pathfinder was clearly a game-changer. In a more recent
example, consider NASA's recent improvements to thermal protection
system (TPS) materials through an Advanced Capabilities development
project. Over three years, a NASA-industry team raised the TRL of 8
different TPS materials from 5 different commercial vendors, eventually
selecting the best as the system for the Orion heat shield. In addition
to providing a heat shield material and design for Orion on time and on
budget, this Advanced Capabilities development project re-invigorated a
niche space industry that was in danger of collapse, re-established a
NASA competency able to respond to future TPS needs. For example, the
team identified a potentially catastrophic problem with the planned MSL
heat shield and remedied the problem by providing a viable alternate
heat shield material and design within stringent schedule constraints.
The mature heat shield material and designs have been successfully
transferred to the commercial space industry, including the TPS
solution for the SpaceX Dragon capsule. Beginning in FY 2011, the new
NASA Space Technology program aims to strengthen and broaden these
successful innovation examples across a wide range of NASA enterprises
and significant national needs.
Space Operations
The FY 2011 budget request includes $4,887.8 million for Space
Operations, funding the Space Shuttle program, the International Space
Station Program, and the Space and Flight Support program.
The FY 2011 budget request for the Space Shuttle program is $989.1
million. In 2009, the Space Shuttle flew five times, delivering to the
ISS its final set of solar arrays and the equipment needed to support a
six-person permanent crew; servicing the Hubble Space Telescope;
completing the assembly of the three-module Japanese Kibo science
laboratory; outfitting the Station with two external payload and
logistics carriers, the Materials Science Research Rack-1, the Fluid
Integrated Rack, the Minus Eighty-Degree Laboratory Freezer, a
treadmill, and air revitalization equipment; and, delivering key
supplies.
In 2010, the Shuttle is slated to fly out its remaining four
missions, including the recently completed STS-130 mission. In April,
Shuttle Discovery will carry up critical supplies for the ISS using a
Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) and the Lightweight Multi-Purpose
Experiment Support Structure Carrier (LMC). Atlantis will launch in May
with the Russian Mini-Research Module-1, as well as the Integrated
Cargo Carrier-Vertical Light Deployment (ICC-VLD). This summer,
Endeavour will carry the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and attach
it to the Station's truss structure. The AMS is a particle physics
experiment, which will use the unique environment of space to advance
knowledge of the universe and contribute to understanding the
universe's origin. AMS is presently undergoing critical thermal and
electrical testing at the European test facilities in the Netherlands.
If these tests are successful, AMS will ship to KSC in May for the July
launch. The final Shuttle mission, STS-133, is targeted for September
of this year. Discovery will carry supplies to ISS, as well as an MPLM
that will be installed on ISS as a permanent module, expanding the
Station's storage volume. This flight will mark the completion of ISS
assembly.
For almost 30 years, the Space Shuttle has carried U.S. and
international astronauts into orbit; played a key role in the
construction, outfitting, and resupply of the ISS; serviced the Hubble
Space Telescope five times; served as an Earth-orbiting laboratory
through the Spacelab and SpaceHab missions; and deployed a diverse
array of payloads, including science probes and research experiments
(such as the Magellan mission to Venus and Earth-orbiting tether
experiments), communications satellites; and even student projects.
NASA recognizes the role the Space Shuttle vehicles and personnel have
played in the history of space activity, and looks forward to
transitioning key workforce, technology, facilities, and operational
experience to a new generation of human spaceflight exploration
activities.
FY 2011 will be the first full year of major Space Shuttle Program
(SSP) transition and retirement (T&R) activities. T&R is focused on the
retirement of the SSP and the efficient transition of assets to other
uses once they are no longer needed for safe mission execution. These
activities include identifying, processing, and safing hazardous
materials, and the transfer or disposal of SSP assets, including the
preparation of Orbiters and other flight hardware for public display.
T&R also covers severance and retention costs associated with managing
the drawdown of the SSP workforce.
A key element of America's future in space is the International
Space Station. The FY 2011 budget request for the International Space
Station Program is $2,779.9 million. As of May 2009, the ISS has been
able to support a six-person permanent crew, and during the STS-127
mission last July, the Station hosted 13 astronauts representing the
five space agencies in the ISS partnership, including those of the
United States, Russia, Japan, Europe and Canada. The three major
science labs aboard ISS were completed in 2009 with the delivery of the
Exposed Facility of the Japanese Kibo module. In addition, the first
flight of Japan's H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) was successfully carried
out last fall, adding a new cargo-carrying spacecraft to the fleet.
This year will mark the completion of assembly of the ISS--the
largest crewed spacecraft ever assembled, measuring 243 by 356 feet,
with a habitable volume of over 30,000 cubic feet and a mass of 846,000
pounds, and powered by arrays which generate over 700,000 kilowatt-
hours per year. The ISS represents a unique research capability aboard
which the United States and its partner nations can conduct a wide
variety of research in biology, chemistry, physics and engineering
fields which will help us better understand how to keep astronauts
healthy and productive on long-duration space missions. Funding for ISS
research is also reflected in the Exploration budget request and in the
Space Technology budget request.
The FY 2011 budget request includes a dramatic increase in the
Nation's investment in the research and capabilities of the ISS. With
this investment, NASA will be able to fully utilize the ISS and
increase those capabilities through upgrades to both ground support and
onboard systems. Importantly, this Budget extends operations of the
ISS, likely to 2020 or beyond. This budget makes a strong commitment to
continued and expanded operation of the ISS. The United States as
leader in space made this first step and will now work with the other
ISS international partners to continue International operation of the
ISS. ISS can inspire and provide a unique research platform for people
worldwide.
ISS research is anticipated to have terrestrial applications in
areas such as biotechnology, bioengineering, medicine and therapeutic
treatment. The FY 2011 budget request for ISS reflects increased
funding to support the ISS as a National Laboratory in which this
latter type of research can be conducted. NASA has two MOUs with other
U.S. government agencies, and five agreements with non-government
organizations to conduct research aboard the ISS. NASA intends to
continue to expand the community of National Laboratory users of the
ISS. This budget request supports both an increase in research and
funding for cargo transportation services to deliver experiments to the
Station.
ISS can also play a key role in the demonstrations and engineering
research associated with exploration. Propellant storage and transfer,
life support systems, and inflatable technology can all benefit by
using the unique research capabilities of ISS.
In addition to supporting a variety of research and development
efforts, the ISS will serve as an incubator for the growth of the low-
Earth orbit space economy. NASA is counting on its Commercial Resupply
Services (CRS) suppliers to carry cargo to maintain the Station. The
first CRS cargo flights will begin as early as 2011. It is hoped that
these capabilities, initially developed to serve Station, may find
other customers as well, and encourage the development of further space
capabilities and applications. The suppliers involved will gain
valuable experience in the development and operation of vehicles that
can: 1) fly to the ISS orbit; 2) operate in close proximity to the ISS
and other docked vehicles; 3) dock to ISS; and, 4) remain docked for
extended periods of time.
As a tool for expanding knowledge of the world around us; advancing
technology; serving as an impetus for the development of the commercial
space sector; demonstrating the feasibility of a complex, long-term,
international effort; and, perhaps most importantly, inspiring the next
generation to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, the ISS is without equal.
The FY 2011 budget request for Space and Flight Support (SFS) is
$1,119.0 million. The budget request provided for critical
infrastructure indispensable to the Nation's access and use of space,
including Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN), the Launch
Services Program (LSP), Rocket Propulsion Testing (RPT), and Human
Space Flight Operations (HSFO). The SFS budget also includes a new and
significant investment in the 21st Century Space Launch Complex,
intended to increase operational efficiency and reduce launch costs by
modernizing the Florida launch capabilities for a variety of NASA
missions, which will also benefit non-NASA users.
In FY 2011, the SCaN Program will begin efforts to improve the
robustness of the Deep Space Network (DSN) by initializing the
replacement of the aging 70m antenna capability with the procurement of
a 34m antenna. The NASA DSN is an international network of antennas
that supports interplanetary spacecraft missions and radio and radar
astronomy observations for the exploration of the solar system and the
universe. The DSN also supports selected Earth-orbiting missions. In
the third quarter, a System Requirements Review (SRR) of the Space
Network Ground Segment Sustainment (SGSS) Project will be conducted,
and the Program will have begun integration and testing of the Tracking
and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) K&L. In the area of technology, the
Communication Navigation and Networking Reconfigurable Testbed
(CoNNeCT) will be installed on ISS. This test bed will become NASA's
orbiting SCaN laboratory on the ISS and will validate new flexible
technology to enable greater spacecraft productivity. NASA will also
have its first optical communication system ready for integration into
the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft.
In addition, the Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) protocols will
complete their development at the end of FY 2011 and should be ready
for operations throughout the solar system. The SCaN operational
networks will continue to provide an unprecedented level of
communications and tracking services to over 75 spacecraft and launch
vehicles during FY 2011.
The LSP has six planned NASA launches in FY 2011 including Glory,
Aquarius, Juno, Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR), NPOESS
Preparatory Project (NPP) and the Gravity Recovery and Interior
Laboratory (GRAIL) mission. In addition to processing, mission
analysis, spacecraft integration and launch services, LSP will continue
to provide support for the development and certification of emerging
launch services.
The RPT Program will continue to provide test facility management,
and provide maintenance, sustaining engineering, operations, and
facility modernization projects necessary to keep the test-related
facilities in the appropriate state of operational readiness. These
facilities will support many of the tests planned under ESMD's
propulsion research program.
HSFO includes Crew Health and Safety (CHS) and Space Flight Crew
Operations (SFCO). SFCO will continue to provide trained crew for the
manifested Space Shuttle requirements, four ISS long-duration crew
rotation missions. CHS will identify and deliver necessary core medical
capabilities for astronauts. In addition, CHS will gather astronaut
medical data critical for determining medical risk as a result of space
flight and how best to mitigate that risk.
The 21st Century Launch Complex initiative will primarily benefit
NASA's current and future operations at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC),
but will also help to improve KSC launch operations for future and
current non-NASA users of the range, with the goal of transforming KSC
into a modern facility. This new initiative focuses on upgrades to the
Florida launch range, expanding capabilities to support commercial
launch providers, such as commercial cargo flights and future
commercial crew flights in support of ISS, and expendable launch
vehicles in support of the Science mission directorate payloads and
robotic precursor missions. Additional areas under consideration
include modernization activities to support safer and more efficient
launch operations; enhancing payload processing capabilities through
capacity increases, improvement, and modernization, in addition to
potentially relocating the KSC perimeter where appropriate and
feasible, to enable certain existing private sector facilities to lie
outside the security perimeter, thus making it far more convenient to
use those facilities; environmental remediation to reduce the impact on
the surrounding areas; and supporting the modernization of the launch
range capabilities. We will fully coordinate this activity with all
users of the range.
Education
The FY 2011 budget request for Education is $145.8 million. This
budget request furthers NASA's commitment to inspiring the next
generation of explorers in the STEM disciplines. In FY 2011, NASA will
continue to strongly support the Administration's STEM priorities and
will continue to capitalize on the excitement of NASA's mission to
stimulate innovative solutions, approaches, and tools that inspire
student and educator interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines. This
strategy will increase the distribution and impact of NASA progressive
opportunities for elementary and secondary teachers, university
faculty, students of all ages, and the public.
In FY 2011, NASA will support the Administration's STEM education
teaching and learning improvement efforts, including Race to the Top
and Educate to Innovate, while continuing efforts to incorporate NASA
content into the STEM education initiatives of other Federal agencies.
This summer, NASA will launch Summer of Innovation, an intensive STEM
teaching and learning program targeted at the middle school level that
includes follow-on activities during the school year. NASA content and
products will be incorporated into evidence-based summer learning
programs across participating states with the goal of improving student
academic performance and motivating them to pursue further education
and successful careers. The FY 2011 request includes funding for Summer
of Innovation over a three-year period.
NASA will also continue to partner with academic institutions,
professional education associations, industry, and other Government
agencies to provide K-12 teachers and university faculty with the
experiences that capitalize on the excitement of NASA discoveries to
spark their student's interest and involvement. Examples of such
experiences are the NASA student launch initiatives and other hands-on
payload development and engineering opportunities. The FY 2011 budget
request also places increased emphasis on Education and cyber-learning
opportunities and expands teacher pre-service, professional development
and training programs. Additionally, NASA seeks to prepare high school
students for undergraduate STEM study through experiences that blend
NASA research and engineering experiences with classroom study and
mentoring. Another Agency education goal is to broaden community
college participation in NASA research and STEM workforce development.
In FY 2011, the Agency aims to increase both the use of NASA
resources and the availability of opportunities to a diverse audience
of educators and students, including women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities. An example is the Innovations in Global Climate
Change Education project that will be implemented within the Minority
University Research and Education Program. The project will seek
innovative approaches to providing opportunities for students and
teachers to conduct research using NASA data sets to inspire
achievement and improve teaching and learning in the area of global
climate change.
Cross-Agency Support
NASA Cross-Agency Support provides critical mission support
activities that are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective
operation and administration of the Agency. These important functions
align and sustain institutional and program capabilities to support
NASA missions by leveraging resources to meet mission needs,
establishing Agency-wide capabilities, and providing institutional
checks and balances. Cross-Agency Support includes two themes: Center
Management and Operations and Agency Management and Operations. The FY
2011 budget request includes $3,310.2 million for Cross-Agency Support.
NASA's FY 2011 budget request includes $2,269.9 million for Center
Management and Operations, which funds the critical ongoing management,
operations, and maintenance of nine NASA Centers and major component
facilities. NASA Centers continue to provide high-quality support and
the technical talent for the execution of programs and projects.
NASA's FY 2011 budget request includes $1,040.3 million for Agency
Management and Operations, which funds the critical management and
oversight of Agency missions, programs and functions, and performance
of NASA-wide activities, including five programs: Agency Management,
Safety and Mission Success, Agency Information Technology Services, and
Strategic Capabilities Assets Program. Beginning in FY 2011, activities
associated with the Innovative Partnerships Program are transferred to
the Space Technology program. The FY 2011 budget request provides:
$428.1 million for Agency Management, which supports
executive-based, Agency-level functional and administrative
management requirements. Agency Management provides for the
operational costs of Headquarters as an installation;
institutional and management requirements for multiple Agency
functions; assessment and evaluation of NASA program and
mission performance; strategic planning; and independent
technical assessments of Agency programs.
$201.6 million for Safety and Mission Success
activities required to continue strengthening the workforce,
training, and strengthening the fundamental and robust checks
and balances applied on the execution of NASA's mission, and to
improve the likelihood for safety and mission success for
NASA's programs, projects, and operations. The engineering,
safety and mission assurance, health and medical independent
oversight, and technical authority components are essential to
NASA's success and were established or modified in direct
response to many of the key Challenger and Columbia accident
board recommendations for reducing the likelihood for future
accidents. Included under Safety and Mission Success is the
Software Independent Verification and Validation program.
$177.8 million for Agency Information Technology
Services, which encompasses cross-cutting services and
initiatives in IT management, applications, and infrastructure
necessary to enable the NASA Mission and improve security,
integration and efficiency of Agency operations. NASA plans
significant emphasis on continued implementation of five major
Agency-wide procurements to achieve the following: (1)
consolidation of IT networks leading to improved network
management, (2) consolidation of desktop/laptop computer
services and mobile devices to improve end-user services, (3)
data center consolidation to provide more cost-effective
services, (4) Agency public web site management to improve
access to NASA data and information by the public, and (5)
Agency business systems development and maintenance to provide
more efficient and effective business systems. NASA will also
continue to improve security incident detection, response, and
management through the Security Operations Center.
$29.8 million for the Strategic Capabilities Assets
Program (SCAP). This program funds the costs required to
sustain key Agency test capabilities and assets, such as an
array of flight simulators, thermal vacuum chambers, and arc
jets, to ensure mission success. SCAP ensures that assets and
capabilities deemed vital to NASA's current and future success
are sustained in order to serve Agency and national needs. All
assets and capabilities identified for sustainment either have
validated mission requirements or have been identified as
potentially required for future missions.
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration
NASA Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration
provides for the design and execution of all facilities construction
projects, including discrete and minor revitalization projects,
demolition for closed facilities, and environmental compliance and
restoration. The FY 2011 budget request includes $397.4 million for
Construction and Environmental Restoration, made up of:
$335.3 million for the Construction of Facilities
(CoF) Program, which funds capital repairs and improvements to
ensure that facilities critical to achieving NASA's space and
aeronautics program are safe, secure, environmentally sound,
and operate efficiently. The Agency continues to place emphasis
on achieving a sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure
by replacing old, inefficient, deteriorated building with new,
efficient, high performance buildings that will meet NASA's
mission needs while reducing future operating costs.
$62.1 million for Environmental Compliance and
Restoration (ECR) Program, which supports the ongoing cleanup
of current or former sites where NASA operations have
contributed to environmental problems. The ECR Program
prioritizes these efforts to ensure that human health and the
environment are protected for future missions. This program
also supports strategic investments in environmental methods
and practices aimed at reducing NASA's environmental footprint
and lowering the risks of future cleanups.
Conclusion
Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for inspiration
throughout our history--our work gives people an opportunity to imagine
what is barely possible, and we at NASA get to turn those dreams into
real achievements for all humankind. This budget gives NASA a roadmap
to even more historic achievements as it spurs innovation, employs
Americans in fulfilling jobs, and engages people around the world as we
enter an exciting new era in space. NASA looks forward to working with
the Committee on implementation of the FY 2011 budget request.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support and that of this
Committee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the
other Members of the Committee may have.
Biography for Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
Nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S.
Senate, retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles Frank Bolden, Jr., began
his duties as the twelfth Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration on July 17, 2009. As Administrator, he leads the
NASA team and manages its resources to advance the agency's missions
and goals.
Bolden's confirmation marks the beginning of his second stint with
the nation's space agency. His 34-year career with the Marine Corps
included 14 years as a member of NASA's Astronaut Office. After joining
the office in 1980, he traveled to orbit four times aboard the space
shuttle between 1986 and 1994, commanding two of the missions. His
flights included deployment of the Hubble Space Telescope and the first
joint U.S.-Russian shuttle mission, which featured a cosmonaut as a
member of his crew. Prior to Bolden's nomination for the NASA
Administrator's job, he was employed as the Chief Executive Officer of
JACKandPANTHER LLC, a small business enterprise providing leadership,
military and aerospace consulting, and motivational speaking.
A resident of Houston, Bolden was born Aug. 19, 1946, in Columbia,
S.C. He graduated from C. A. Johnson High School in 1964 and received
an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. Bolden earned a bachelor of
science degree in electrical science in 1968 and was commissioned as a
second lieutenant in the Marine Corps. After completing flight training
in 1970, he became a naval aviator. Bolden flew more than 100 combat
missions in North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, while
stationed in Namphong, Thailand, from 1972-1973.
After returning to the U.S., Bolden served in a variety of
positions in the Marine Corps in California and earned a master of
science degree in systems management from the University of Southern
California in 1977. Following graduation, he was assigned to the Naval
Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, Md., and completed his training in
1979. While working at the Naval Air Test Center's Systems Engineering
and Strike Aircraft Test Directorates, he tested a variety of ground
attack aircraft until his selection as an astronaut candidate in 1980.
Bolden's NASA astronaut career included technical assignments as
the Astronaut Office Safety Officer; Technical Assistant to the
director of Flight Crew Operations; Special Assistant to the Director
of the Johnson Space Center; Chief of the Safety Division at Johnson
(overseeing safety efforts for the return to flight after the 1986
Challenger accident); lead astronaut for vehicle test and checkout at
the Kennedy Space Center; and Assistant Deputy Administrator at NASA
Headquarters. After his final space shuttle flight in 1994, he left the
agency to return to active duty the operating forces in the Marine
Corps as the Deputy Commandant of Midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Bolden was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General of the 1st
Marine Expeditionary Force in the Pacific in 1997. During the first
half of 1998, he served as Commanding General of the 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force Forward in support of Operation Desert Thunder in
Kuwait. Bolden was promoted to his final rank of major general in July
1998 and named Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Japan. He later
served as the Commanding General of the 3rd Marine Aircraft
Wing at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego, Calif., from
2000 until 2002, before retiring from the Marine Corps in 2003.
Bolden's many military decorations include the Defense Superior Service
Medal and the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was inducted into the U.S.
Astronaut Hall of Fame in May 2006.
Bolden is married to the former Alexis (Jackie) Walker of Columbia,
S.C. The couple has two children: Anthony Che, a lieutenant colonel in
the Marine Corps who is married to the former Penelope McDougal of
Sydney, Australia, and Kelly Michelle, a medical doctor now serving a
fellowship in plastic surgery.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, sir. At this point we will
begin our first round of questions, and the Chairman recognizes
himself for five minutes.
You have laid out an exciting agenda for NASA. Certainly
there were many other areas that NASA encourages outside of the
human exploration, and I am glad that you have really a bold
agenda there.
But the questions that have been raised most often have
been about the exploration program, so let me go back to my
original opening statement when I asked or sort of pointed out
as we are going through a too-big-to-fail trauma right now for
the taxpayers and the economy, my concern is that we could get
into a too important to fail.
So if we--if the companies that are going to provide the
commercial crew transportation don't have other markets, then
are we going to wind up having to support them. So can you give
me some type of concrete evidence that there will be other
markets for their services?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, the evidence that I have used has
been the studies that have come from the industry themselves,
from the commercial market. You know, unfortunately, it is
not--we at NASA have not done any market surveys nor have, you
know, have I offered to do that or asked to do it, so I am
depending upon surveys and information that has come from the
industry themselves.
Chairman Gordon. Well, and I don't say that they are bad
folks, but this is a little bit like the fox looking after the
hen house, isn't it? I mean, if you are getting information
from them that justifies themselves, I would encourage you to--
I think certainly NASA needs to look into this. I think it
would make it a much more comfortable situation for many of us
if we thought that they weren't going to be wards of the state
or of NASA.
And so let me just say that is not a satisfactory answer
and I would hope that you could get us some more information.
And in that regard in the request, your budget request, you
asked for a 62 percent increase on what the government had,
what the companies had previously said would be necessary.
Where did this increase come from?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, when we priced what we were going
to ask for in the budget for the commercial, the COTS Program
and other commercial endeavors, we looked at past cost for
programs, we looked at what industry estimates for programs,
and we asked several of the companies what they thought it
would cost for a program of this nature, and that is where the
cost estimates come from.
Chairman Gordon. Well, didn't just recently within the last
year or two the companies said they could do this for less,
which is the result of the 62 percent increase?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, let me go--I will get an answer for you
for the record for that, because there have been some companies
who have come in within the last few months that said they
could do it quicker. I am not aware of any that have said they
could do it for less. So I will get you an answer for the
record for the that.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Page 20, line 409, of the transcript (see Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Gordon. Where this is going is part of the reason
that--the justification from moving from Constellation to a
different approach is expense, and so if we--if it is not going
to be less expensive, then there has to be a better explanation
I think why this move.
And so finally, Administrator Bolden, there appears to be
some confusion among individuals at your agency as to whether
money from the Constellation Program needs to be set aside this
fiscal year to avoid violating the Anti-Deficiency Act. So to
make certain that we are all on the same page, I wonder if you
would agree that the following is the current situation.
In 2010, Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriation Act
explicitly instructed NASA, and I quote, that ``none of these
funds provided herein shall be available for the termination or
elimination of any program, project, or activity of the
architecture of the Constellation Program nor shall such funds
be available to create or initiate a new program, project, or
activity unless such program termination, elimination,
creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriation
acts.'' Is that a fair, I mean, is that your understanding?
Mr. Bolden. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, and in
fact, that is in, I think, a letter that I sent recently to 27
members of the House who questioned what we were doing with the
Constellation Program. As I told them, we were not--we were in
compliance with the direction of the 2010 Appropriations Act
and that I have directed no cancellations or terminations and
that we intended to comply with the law.
Chairman Gordon. Well, so then could you explain the
letters that NASA is sending to the Constellation contractors?
I have one example here in which NASA is asking for estimates
of the termination liability costs for this quarter as well as
the next three quarters. This seems to indicate that NASA is
contemplating cancellation, canceling Constellation contracts
in the very near term.
In fact, this letter which was sent out on February the
22nd, asks for a response by March the 5th, next Friday.
Mr. Bolden. And, sir, and that was covered in the letter
that I did send in responding to the Members of Congress. What
I tried to explain was that I think it is fiscally responsible
on my part and expedient that I try to get estimates from the
companies as to what they feel their termination costs would be
if, in fact, the President's direction that we cancel the
Constellation Program in 2011 were to take effect. It was--it
is a planning figure for us, and it is not direction to do
anything. I asked them to make sure that we can see their
numbers for what it would be to fund termination.
Chairman Gordon. But wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask
for the termination costs in 2011 rather than cancellation
costs at this quarter?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, let me go back and check, double
check for the record, but I think I was asking for what would
be the termination cost if the President's direction were
carried out that we cancel the program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Page 22, line 465, of the transcript (see Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Gordon. Well, again, the letter that we have
indicates that it is--they start with this quarter. ``Please
provide your estimate termination liability for the subject
contract as a part of this in each of the 3 quarters as of
April the 1st, 2010, July the 1st, 2010, October the 1st, 2010,
January the 1st, 2011.''
And this went over the signature of Terrell Cochran.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Chairman Gordon. I think I don't want to abuse my time, and
so, Mr. Olson, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Administrator Bolden, for your appearance here today
before this Committee. Always good to have someone from the
home turf here in this hearing room.
Mr. Master, I have got--or Mr. Administrator, I have got a
couple concerns and questions I would like to ask you. One of
them is sort of the process with which this decision was made,
because if you read some media reports and hear some things in
the community, it seemed to be made by a very small cabal for
lack of a better term, of people here in Washington, DC. I know
for a fact that no one at the Johnson Space Center was
consulted about the decision to terminate the Constellation.
And I particularly want to make sure that you were involved in
that decision, so I ask you, I mean, this is the largest cut in
the President's budget. Did you hear directly from the
President on this?
And, again, this is important to me. I have got to go back
home and explain to my constituents who--and many of them in
their case, unfortunately, are losing their jobs, I've got to
explain this to them. And I can't just say this was an OMB call
or it was pre-decisional with no details.
So, please, could you enlighten me a little bit about the
process and the people who were involved in making this
decision?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I think you are aware that I
cannot discuss the pre-decisional discussions that we had, but
I can tell you that the President's decision with this as with
everything are iterative in the process, and I was a member of
those who advised the President in the formulation of his
budget.
So I am the one that represented NASA in providing
information and counsel to the President in arriving at this
budget, and once that decision was made, it became my budget.
So it is my budget.
Mr. Olson. Yes, sir. Again, it is very important to me that
you were included in that, because you are the head of NASA,
and again, as I told you, representing the Johnson Space
Center, you have lived there, you live there still, you know,
the Grayswell. I am not going to get in trouble with my
colleagues here, but the manned spaceflight, and you know, we
have got--nobody there had any idea what happened. They picked
up and read the paper like I did on February 1, Monday morning,
and----
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I can assure you, you know, once
again, as I said, it was an iterative process. Every time I
requested a meeting with anybody else involved, I got it. I met
with the President personally, so this is my budget, and it
results from the consultation that I contributed to the
President's decision.
Mr. Olson. Appreciate that. Further question for you, sir.
I would like to refer you to the report of the Aerospace
Safety Advisory Panel, their report from 2009, and let me read
a quote from the report. It states, ``to abandon the Ares I as
a baseline vehicle for alternative without demonstrated
capability nor proven superiority or even the equivalent is
unwise and probably not cost effective.''
As you know----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. I----
Mr. Olson. --your name is on this report.
Mr. Bolden. My name is in that because I used to be a
member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Mr. Olson. You betcha, but given this new budget I want to
ask you now do you disavow all of this, part of this, or none
of it?
Mr. Bolden. I don't disavow any of it. I support, and I
respect the opinions offered by the Aerospace Safety Advisory
Panel. I consider them valuable counsel. I consult with Vice
Admiral Dyer frequently because I know that we will sometimes
have differences of opinion, but he is a much wiser person that
I because he is older than I am.
But I do not take issue with anything that they presented.
It is just that in the process of decision making sometimes we
agree to disagree.
Mr. Olson. Appreciate that, sir, and just to follow up
again on one of the Chairman's comments. What is the backup if
the commercial companies fail to deliver or go bankrupt or
somehow can't perform? How do we protect the taxpayer dollars
from those situations?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, the backup is actually--puts us in
a better situation than we would have been with Constellation.
If we had gone through with the Constellation Program, we would
have one system. We would have one vehicle for going into low
earth orbit, and that was going to be Ares I. We would have had
one vehicle to go beyond low Earth orbit. That would have been
Ares V.
As it is right now I have two companies that are bidding on
or competing for--to handle access to low Earth orbit. I am
hopeful that both of them will successful. We are also
intending to go out and reopen the competition to see if we can
add even more companies into the mix. So conceivably there
could be multiple companies that we recognize as having met the
safety criteria for what we want to do, and then we are much
better off than we would have been with a NASA design and built
system in a single Ares I.
Mr. Olson. Thank you for your comment, Mr. Administrator. I
am sorry to cut you off. Got a little bit of time here, and I
want to ask one more question or make sure you are aware of a
situation I am hearing about back home.
There was a statement made by a very senior political
appointee in the NASA front office, Mr. Alan Ladwig. It has
been reported on Twitter, and here is what he said. ``For those
who fuss over President Obama's budget for NASA, I have two
words; bite me.''
Bite me. I mean, that is one hell of a message to send to
thousands of loyal NASA employees and contractors who have
given their life to human spaceflight, and you know, according
to our committee staff here, I mean, this outrageous statement
was made while he was in a speech, while he was overseas for an
audience in Strasburg, France.
And I think I know the answer, but I just want to make
sure. Is this NASA's budget message to the American people and
to our international partners? Bite me?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I was not aware of any statement
of that nature, and I think you know that I would never
tolerate that, and I would--rather than make any comment about
it without, you know, finding out its validity, I would just
say that is unacceptable.
Mr. Olson. I appreciate those comments. We will get you the
information you need.
Mr. Bolden. Oh, I will get the information.
Mr. Olson. That is the Marine Corps general I love. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
Mr. Costello is recognized.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Administrator
Bolden, thank you for being here today, and I thank the
Chairman for calling this hearing.
Administrator Bolden, I have major concerns as well about
the administration's plan to terminate the Constellation
Program. As you know, we have invested over $9 billion over the
last four years in this program. My concerns are many, and they
involve costs of this action, not only in terms of cost in
terms of money but also what the action will do to weaken our
science and engineering workforce here in the United States.
The loss of jobs and how it will affect our economy, the
loss of--my concerns about safety as to how it will affect the
safety of our--those who participate in the program, and also
the impact on national security.
As you know, the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and
China have all been--their space programs have all been
government-funded programs. If, in fact, the private sector
could create a successful space program, I think they would
have done so by now, either here in the United States or
elsewhere. So these are a few of my concerns.
I happen to agree with Senator Bill Nelson. I don't think
that we can do this on the cheap, and in fact, I think we could
point to many programs in the Department of Defense, Department
of Homeland Security, and other agencies of the Federal
Government where we have outsourced functions that used to be
the function of the Federal Government, and it, in fact, has
cost the taxpayers more when we look at the cost overruns and
some of the other issues that we have dealt with, both in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other contractors that have been hired to
perform government functions.
So I want you to take that back to the administration. They
are going to hear that not only from me, they are going to hear
it from, I think, the appropriators and others. So I have major
concerns with going down this path.
I do have a couple of questions on my other hat as chairman
of the Aviation Subcommittee of Transportation concerning two
issues; one NextGen, and the other issue is just held a hearing
yesterday on icing. As you know, we had a number--one
commercial tragedy concerning icing about 13 years ago and a
number in general aviation issues. So my concern is that we
have seen over the past few years a decline in funding since
fiscal year 2005. I wonder if--will aircraft icing on the side
of R&D, which, of course, involves NASA, be a priority for NASA
in fiscal year 2011?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I can assure you that when you
look at icing and other issues that have not been funded
before, the Glenn Research Center is the home of the largest
icing simulation facility that we have. We--one of the things
that we are also going to increase spending on is research into
rotary wing issues. Rotary wing also has a problem with icing
but even more importantly, we are beginning to look at issues
of noise pollution, so we are looking for quieter rotor blades
so that the increase in the aeronautics budget will enable us
to do much more than we have been doing in the past.
You mentioned NextGen. We are actually increasing the
spending that we are putting forward on NextGen because we
really believe in it. We think it is critical for the Nation.
One of the biggest champions of NextGen right now is the
Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, in
an Executive Committee meeting on NextGen that I attended with
her, she was the number one spokesperson saying that if we
didn't bring this program online very soon, that she was going
to be in trouble, because it--NextGen is going to enable us to
get people from the curbside safely in the air to their
destinations, back to their baggage and back home, and it is
critical that we do that. So we are increasing the amount of
money that we are going to spend on the Next Generation Air
Transportation System.
Mr. Costello. We heard testimony yesterday concerning the
icing hearing that enough research, some research has been done
but maybe not enough coming from NASA, so I would just ask you
to make it a priority. We need to do rulemaking and to move
forward so that we can make certain that pilots who are not
only on the ground but in the air, that they have adequate
information concerning icing, training, and know what to do
when they get into icing conditions, not only when they leave
the ground but in the air.
Also on--my final question is about NextGen. Do you believe
that you have adequate funds to move forward with the Next
Generation Air Traffic Control System in this fiscal year
budget proposal?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, there are never enough funds to do
what I want to do with NextGen. You know, some of it is if you
gave me all the money in the world, I couldn't get you there
any quicker because of technological issues that we face. Some
of the problems with NextGen don't have anything to do with
funding at all on the part of NASA. They have to do with
getting buy-in from the business and the general aviation
community because they are a huge portion of the airspace
users, and pricing of the equipment needed for the heart and
soul of the NextGen system is something that we see resistance
from the business and general aviation communities because they
contend that the commercial guys don't have to worry about it.
They just raise the price of the ticket. I am not sure that
that is true, but that is their contention.
So I am confident that we have sufficient funds for this
year and the out years to help us bring into play those systems
that are necessary for NextGen. We will have to continue
working, though, with the various segments of the user
communities to see that we get them to buy the equipment that
will be necessary to make this system effective.
Mr. Costello. Finally, let me make the point that the Joint
Planning and Development Organization, that is JPDO as you know
it, NASA is very involved with them. I would encourage you to
continue to make certain that you cooperate closely because the
only way this is going to get done is through a cooperative
effort with all of the Federal agencies involved. Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. I guarantee you we will do that. Even when I--
before coming to this job when I served on an advisory council
for the NASA, for the FAA Administrator, then I observed that
NASA was a very strong member of the NextGen team, and since I
have arrived as the Administrator, I have put extra emphasis on
it. So I think you can be guaranteed that we are going to
continue to push as hard as we can for the delivery of this
system.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Sure. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
identify myself with the remarks of my colleague concerning air
traffic control and icing type of research. I think that quite
often that job that NASA has has not got the focus, and people
don't get the PR or the publicity that human spaceflight gets,
but those are vitally important to the safety and security of
our--of the American people. And that is your job, and General,
welcome aboard.
It is pleasant to hear that you do accept criticism, and I
appreciate the fact that you have----
Mr. Bolden. I am married.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There you go.
Mr. Bolden. And I have been for 42 years.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, some people have had--some people
get up here, and they get a little bit----
Mr. Bolden. To the same wife by the way.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Good for you. God bless you. But some
people don't acknowledge criticism or they just feel
uncomfortable. You met that head-on where you have been
criticized that your people briefed journalists before they
briefed Members of Congress who are on the committee of
jurisdiction. I am glad to hear that you have taken that
seriously and will make sure that doesn't happen again.
Some of the--let me just note that NASA can't do
everything, and if we are going to do these things like we just
mentioned, air traffic control and research into icing to help
protect people, we can't have programs that have $9 billion
that are behind schedule, way behind schedule, and over budget
and just ignore it and let it go on until you end up with a $50
billion program that is behind schedule and over budget and may
not be able to reach its goals. Sometimes you have to make
decisions.
I will just have to say that I appreciate the fact that
this administration and that you as leader in this area have
decided to make some decisions. That fits with a Marine general
I might add. You were in the Marines?
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. I am a Marine.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You know, my dad was a lieutenant colonel
in the Marines, and he would just roll over in his grave if he
didn't think that I was calling you general and sir and the
rest of it, but congratulations, General, for making decisions.
In the Marines they say, the worst decision is no decision.
Mr. Bolden. No decision. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I think that you should proceed in the
rest of your responsibilities with that in mind.
Let me just note that some of the criticism that I hear of
the decision that has been made here in Constellation that the
primary consideration behind that criticism seems to be not
safety and not necessarily human spaceflight, because we are
not talking about human spaceflight but being accomplished in a
different way. But instead in maintaining NASA's workforce.
Now, NASA, maintaining NASA's workforce, just to maintain
the workforce is an expensive proposition, and if maintaining a
workforce that is not meeting its responsibility, it is not on
time, not doing things on schedule, not getting this thing to a
place where we are going to accomplish specific missions, then
that workforce is holding America back. And I can see whether
it was the Space Shuttle Program or many other programs that I
have been witnessing here in the last 20 years that maintaining
the NASA workforce becomes a goal in and of itself. We have got
to break ourselves from that type of thinking, or we are not
going to be the leading power in space, and we should be.
I happen to believe that some of the criticism I have heard
just totally disregards the fact that we have got private
sector companies that have invested a lot of money in space and
been very successful, and we now, I mean, we have the Atlas
Program, we have the Delta Systems. I mean, these are very,
very efficient and effective space transportation systems.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it your plan, your
proposal, to instead of going to this Constellation, which as
you say would put all our eggs in one basket, isn't that to
expand upon private sector and diversified sources to meet our
obligations in low Earth orbit and delivering supplies and
people to the Space Station?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, that would be our hope, and you
have pointed out something that we probably have not done a
very good job of getting to the public and to Members of the
Congress. Commercial--the way I define commercial, it is the
aerospace industry.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
Mr. Bolden. Some people define commercial as
entrepreneurial, and they think that that is the only people
that we are talking about here.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We are talking about----
Mr. Bolden. But when we started out----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
Mr. Bolden. --with--and it started before my
administration. Actually, Administrator Griffin was the one
that began the COTS Program. When they started out, the only
bidders happened to be entrepreneurial firms or smaller firms,
and it, again, it is because the larger firms chose not to bid.
We are going to, you know, open another round of bidding, and
it is my hope that we will have some of the more experience
aerospace companies who will decide that they, too, want to bid
on----
Mr. Rohrabacher. General, my time is about up. Let me just
say that we need to encourage large companies, Boeing,
Lockheed, Northrop, and the rest of these companies, we need to
encourage them to be more entrepreneurial, and we need them--
and that, I believe that is part of your plan, and but we also
need to encourage those entrepreneurs who may become big
companies in the future, and we want to wish them success, but
I don't believe that the criticism that is saying that the
decision being made has put us at risk of not having a human
spaceflight capacity for the United States of America, I don't
believe that is justified. I don't believe that it places the
type of faith in big companies like Boeing and Lockheed, who
have developed many technologies in the aerospace. In the
history of aerospace they have done tremendous work, and we
should be concerned about that rather than focused on
maintaining the NASA workforce and read that NASA bureaucracy.
So thank you very much, and looking forward to working with
you, General.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Wu is recognized.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Bolden, for your service to our Nation as a
Marine, as an astronaut, and now as Administrator of NASA,
where I believe that you continue to be a good, loyal soldier
and doing your job as best you know how.
Let me express my concern about the possible downside
effects of this administration's decision. We are optimists by
nature and especially those technologists who work in space. So
the administration has on its side the rhetoric of the market
and private sector and competition. The administration will at
least initially have the benefit of technologists who look
optimistically to the future.
I think it is incumbent upon those of us who at least for
some time have seen the political sector work to be concerned
about the potential downside analysis of what happens after a
few years if this administration's proposal is accepted by this
Congress.
We have a Constellation Program, which is not working out
in an ideal way, but it is a public program, funded in the ways
that every human spaceflight program thus far has been funded,
because achieving Earth orbit is fundamentally different from
a--the ballistic ventures that private companies have been able
to do, at least at the very beginning.
The problem is that right now we are terminating or
proposing to terminate Ares I because it is over cost. Now, we
can discuss the flawed technology all that we want, but it is
what we are committed to, and now we are going to put our--all
our eggs in the private sector basket, and there are basically
three contractors right now; it is Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and
Space X. And they have the Atlas, the Delta IV, and a proposed
Falcon IX.
It looks good right now to privatize, but this is the easy
part. This is just the privatizational step. In 3, 4, five
years, maybe 5 or six years when we really hit the hard part of
getting those launch vehicles human rated, I suspect that we
might have some of the same cost problems that public launch
vehicles have had and that Ares I has, and if we do, it seems
to me that the way Washington, DC, and the public decision-
making process works is that we will then terminate the
commercial spaceflight program because of exorbitant costs
given to us by the private sector, just as the public sector
has run into cost problems.
This is--the cost problems are to be anticipated. If you
can cite a single satellite program that has come in on budget,
I would be very interested to hear about that. So space--the
costs go up because it is hard, and NASA's job is to do the
hard things. I think one of the fundamental flaws of Ares was
the decision to do something that was off the shelf because
NASA should be in the business of making new technology and
pushing our economy and pushing our--and pushing the envelope.
Computer science wouldn't be where it is without NASA's
push for better ways to do things in the 1960s. I think that
material science made a lot of progress because of the 1970s
and the Space Shuttle, and our experience in putting astronauts
in space for a longer period of time has paid great benefits.
These are benefits to the American people, these are benefits
to the human race.
If my sort of downside analysis works out, what is at
stake? What is fundamentally at stake is whether future
generations of astronauts speak English or speak Chinese, and I
am an advocate that at least English be the lead language in
human spaceflight. I was against privatization in the Bush
Administration, I am against privatization in the Obama
Administration.
I think that you all are running a huge risk, and I don't
want to see human spaceflight, at least by Americans and the
17-nation consortium, which is counting on us, to be tubed and
to have human spaceflight go to the Chinese or to the Indians.
And Mr. Chairman, let me just take one moment to express my
concern. I got a call from a Canadian reporter. I call a call
from a Canadian reporter about this topic, and I thought,
golly, I mean, I expected a call from a Florida reporter. I
don't expect calls from Oregon reporters because, you know, our
connection with space are the astronauts that I bring for space
camp announcements, scholarship announcements every spring.
But the Canadian made it really clear that if we don't fly,
Canadians don't fly, and this is true of a number of other
nations. They are depending on us, the American public is
depending on us. We have failed on the mission of pushing
technology with the current Ares I, but that is something we
can fix, and if we privatize this, we are still going to need a
labor force, and if you think that we are going to be able to
afford three separate contractors for human spaceflight, I
would like to see your business plan. I would like to--my
apologies. Not yours. I would like to see the administration's
business plan, because, you know, there is the business of
lifting satellites up, but I don't think there is a workable
business plan for lifting humans up into low Earth orbit, at
least, you know, from my business--it just doesn't look like it
pencils out, and that is why we subside with tax dollars, and
we can either do it directly to NASA, or we can give the money
to Boeing, the Lockheed-Martin, or to Space X.
And I just want to note that to date they haven't launched
a human being. We talk about airlines in space. Well, if--when
we encouraged airlines after World War II, that was the right
time. If we had encouraged airlines in 1910, before World War
I, it would have been significantly premature, and I would
encourage the Administration and your agency to consider
whether this is premature, whether this is wise, and whether
this dooms us to a future where there are no Americans in space
or at least that the dominant language in space is not English.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Wu, and the unopposed Mr.
McCaul is recognized.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will allow you
to answer--I am going to echo my colleagues, Mr. Wu and Mr.
Olson.
Like Mr. Olson in my district I have many NASA employees
and contractors at the Johnson Space Center. You know, since
the inception of NASA, the mission has always been human
spaceflight. You know, President Kennedy talked about landing a
man on the moon, bring him safely back to the Earth. President
Johnson carried that vision on. The goal was met, and I am
concerned about the mission changing.
I am concerned about the human spaceflight mission being
completely cut out of this budget, the Constellation Program
going away, and an increase in funding towards something that I
don't consider to be a core mission of NASA, and that is
climate change and weather observation.
It seems to me we are getting away from the core mission of
NASA. We are getting away from the national security aspects
that NASA has always played that we know was vitally important
to our space race against the Soviets back in the '60s. I think
as Mr. Wu mentioned, the language, I hope it does continue to
be English, but I think the Chinese and Russians could overtake
us.
I don't--you know, commercial space developers I don't
believe are at the point where they can take over this program.
We have already spent--we have invested $9 billion in the
Constellation Program. It will take another $2.5 billion to
terminate. That is $11.5 billion invested in the Constellation
Program, and now we are just pulling the rug out from
underneath that program. I think we are sending a message in
terms of the mission that is not a positive one, and that is
human spaceflight is not the priority anymore but rather
climate change and weather observation.
I know you spend a lot of time at the Johnson Space Center,
and I really respect your service and thank you for your
service as Administrator, but I find it hard to believe that
you actually agreed with the President's decision here. Now, I
know you have to carry out his orders. You are in the chain of
command, but I question whether you do agree with this, having
the experience that you have had at the Johnson Space Center.
So if you would just care to comment to me on--and I know
you won't be able to answer, maybe you can, whether you really
do agree with this decision.
Mr. Bolden. I can answer.
Mr. McCaul. And how possibly commercial space developers
can pick up the slack, particularly after we have invested so
much money in the Constellation Program.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I do agree with the decision. I
think it is possible, and in fact, I will try not to take too
much time, but I will take some of us back to the 1980s when I
first came into the astronaut office. We had not long flown the
STS I, II, and III. We had gotten into the Space Shuttle
Program, and it became apparent to us that if we continued, if
NASA continued to try to operate the Shuttle, that is all we
were going to do.
And we actually started looking for commercial entities
that would be willing to come in and take over operations of
the Shuttle, much the same as we are trying to do today with
the new commercial program. And there were companies like
United Airlines, Lockheed, Boeing, American Airlines that all
were going to bid on the operations contract for the Space
Shuttle, to offload that.
We even participated in providing training manuals to them
for crews and the like, and then something happened called
Challenger, and in 1986, January of 1986, when we lost the
Challenger, all efforts at outsourcing, if you will, because
that is what it would have been at the time, outsourcing the
operation of the Shuttle went away.
The Air Force was going to take over the responsibility for
conducting classified missions, which NASA, some of you will
remember, NASA flew all of the human classified missions up
until 1986. January of 1986, January 28, 1986, the world
changed. President Reagan decided that it was not smart to put
satellites on the Space Shuttle, you know. They did not feel it
was worth the risk to put an astronaut and a satellite in the
same vehicle, and we stopped deploying satellites.
So the world changed on January 28, 1986, and things that
we are trying to do today we were trying to do then, and I
think they would have been successful had it not been for the
Challenger accident, and I don't make light of anything, but I
tell people all the time, the trauma of the loss of Challenger
to this Nation and the world, we are still suffering.
Mr. McCaul. And General, with all due respect, I've got 15
seconds. I want to throw this last question out to you, and
that is I think NASA, the program has been one of the best
investments of Federal dollars that we have had, the model
success, the return on investment. What are we to tell our
constituents? What are we to tell the people at the Johnson
Space Center in Houston, Texas, Clear Lake, the people that you
know so well. Mr. Olson and myself, when we go back home, what
impact is this going to have on them?
Mr. Bolden. The Johnson Space Center as well as the other
NASA centers, we are going to do everything in our power to
ensure that the programs that develop from this budget that
are--that we are able to develop from this budget, from the
increased money that we are going to have, are going to enable
them to continue to do the type of work that they do. They are
going to--there is always going to be need for engineering
effort. There is always going to be a need for development, and
we are, you know, I wish I could give you definitive programs
that we are going to have now, but we are two weeks, three
weeks after the rollout of the budget, and we have not gotten
those types of answers.
But I promise you that within months, because I have asked
for studies to be brought to me to help us determine which
programs we are going to do. Within months we will be able to
put some meat on the bones, if you will, because I realize
there is a lack of detail, and that is disturbing to everybody.
It is disquieting and discomforting to me, but we are going to
get some answers for you. We will have some programs defined.
Mr. McCaul. Well, I think you are going to find there is
going to be a lot of opposition in Congress to the cut of the
Constellation Program. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can work
together in the Congress on this issue. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. You are absolutely right, Mr. McCaul, and
we want to continue to talk through this in, you know, in a
fair and reasonable way and better understand what, you know,
will this new program work, you know, why do you make the
changes. There is more discussion that needs to occur.
And to continue that discussion, the Chair of our
Subcommittee on Space and Aviation, Ms. Giffords, is
recognized.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
General Bolden.
There are many members here that don't have as much time
with you, so I am going to try to keep my statement as pretty
brief as possible and just wrap up with a question at the end.
On the positive side, there was a lot about the President's
budget that we can be excited about. Unfortunately, our country
has under-funded science, under-funded the investment into
research that we all know is really important to those of us
that sit on this Committee. And I think it was interesting to
see in the President's budget proposal that there was a variety
of funding streams that we are frankly really excited about.
As you have heard from my colleagues and you will continue
to hear, there is serious, serious concerns about the
President's decision to decimate our American human spaceflight
program. By canceling the program of record, we trade a program
that we know will work, although it has experienced delays and
part of those delays, unfortunately, came from drastic under-
funding, but it is a program that has been deemed as the safest
program to take our astronauts back to lower Earth orbit and
then back to the moon, Mars, or wherever we choose to explore.
My concern when considering the space program and the
future is not one pet project over another, one state over
another, one facility over another, one plan, one aerospace
company over another. It is truly how do we best and most
prudently use the taxpayers' dollars to achieve this great
desire that we have sea, lands and Members of Congress as well
have to explore. We want to get outside of lower Earth orbit.
We want to really challenge the way that we understand science
and space, and we want to move forward.
You are going to have a lot of questions that our
subcommittee, Mr. Olson and I and members of our subcommittee,
are going to be grappling with as we move forward with writing
the authorization plan. Some of the things you are going to
hear about, of course, is the workforce, and Mr. Rohrabacher is
no longer here, but if you look at the tens of thousands of
direct jobs that are going to be impacted with the sun setting
of Shuttle and with the planned termination of Constellation.
But, in fact, hundreds of thousands of highly-skilled jobs
through subcontractors and indirect industries will be impacted
if these decisions move forward as well. And we are going to be
working to flush out those numbers so that every Member of
Congress understands the impact to their employers and to their
constituents.
We are also going to delve further into what is going to be
happening with the production of the solid rocket motors. I
mean, the decline in this industry when looking at our
acquisition of strategic missiles, is something of great
concern, and I serve on that House Armed Services Committee,
and as I understand, Secretary Gates was not consulted and was
not aware of the plan to terminate Constellation, which has a
direct impact on our Nation's security.
We are also going to be delving into international
competitiveness. A few months ago we had a hearing with a
variety of experts. We heard from Mr. Houser of Space
Foundation, who had recently returned from visiting--and I
quote him here, he says, ``In this past September a delegation
led by the Space Foundation visited China and toured a number
of previously-secret space facilities. It was a stunning
experience. Not only are China's facilities newer than ours,
they are state of art and in some ways downright luxurious
compared to ours.''
So as China continues to invest heavily, as the Russians
continue to be steadfast in their commitment, and as we see
other countries show an interest, I am very concerned and other
members as well on what is going to happen with U.S. dominance
in an area that we think is so important.
So my question to you knowing that these other questions
are out there and we will continue to gather the information as
we write our authorization bill, we were pretty surprised here
at the United States Congress about this decision to terminate
a program that the American people and Members of the Congress
have invested tremendously in, not just for the last couple of
years and the last 10, 11, $12 billion in Constellation, but
for 50 years, in fact, so can you please talk, General Bolden,
about who was consulted, how you went about this decision, who
did you reach out to, who did you bring in to make a radical
decision like this to terminate our United States human
spaceflight program?
Mr. Bolden. Madam Congresswoman, I can explain that I
brought in all of my senior leaders from the time that I began
the Administrator we had strategic planning meetings dealing
with the fact that I was going to have to make a recommendation
to the President. So we met for months to formulate a position
that I took. I consulted with the President, and as far as what
the discussion was, again, I have to go back to the fact that
it is all pre-decisional, and I am not at liberty to share
that.
But I played an integral part in the decision that the
President made, and once that decision was made, then the
budget became mine. So this is my program, it is my budget, and
I, you know, I can't say that too many times. I wish I could
blame it on somebody else if somebody needs to take the blame,
but I played an integral part in the process that arrived at
the President's decision on where we are going. And I do agree
with it.
Ms. Giffords. Well, Mr. Chairman, General Bolden, certainly
we understand as NASA Administrator that this is your plan. I
am trying to make sure that everyone understands that, at least
speaking for myself, that I very much wanted to see NASA
successful, and I want to see the President successful, but
that means the United States of America to be successful. And
proposing a decimation of the most exciting project or program
that the United States does without consulting with Members,
without talking to the defense industry, without really
building a coalition to make such a radical shift, is hard to
stomach, and it is just something that, you know, we are going
to have to work through because there is deep, deep concern
among the subcommittee members, Democrats and Republicans. I
mean, this is a very strong bipartisan concern that we have
with what was proposed by the President, and we want to work
with you, we want to work with the President, but some of
these, you know, what you are proposing in a four-page draft
memo is just, it is too great of a shift to really not have
those details when presented to us in the Congress.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are going to be working to get that
information, and I thank you for the time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Chair Giffords.
Before we proceed, let me just make a quick announcement to
our friends that are visiting on the committee now. Our rules
require that--we always try to alternate back and forth, but
since there are more on the majority side here, they need to go
through first, and then we will be happy to let you participate
in any way you would like.
And so Ms. Fudge is recognized.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Bolden. It is nice to see you again.
Mr. Bolden, just in my opinion the lack of a clear mission
with goals and milestones fails to not only inspire the current
NASA workforce but also fails to inspire the future generation
of scientists and astronauts, something that is so critical at
this point in American history, while we are talking about the
need for more students to be excited about careers in STEM
fields. Having no light at the end of the tunnel be it on Mars
or the moon, we will not serve our country well at this time.
Just last week I was at JFK High School in my district
where I was talking to a young ROTC student. I asked him what
he wanted to be, and he said, an astronaut. I had no clue what
to say to him at that point. I wanted to say to him, find
something else to do because the chances of becoming an
astronaut or a rocket scientist are approaching zero because
NASA is canceling its human spaceflight plan.
I am confident that NASA Glenn can play a significant role
in the technology development programs you have described and
look forward to learning about Glenn's part in the new
programs. But clearly these are important priorities that
support that mission of NASA, but the idea of technology
development alone without a corresponding flight plan may not
be sustainable.
We have seen this before in NASA's recent history. In 2003,
Project Prometheus was a technology development program to
create nuclear power and propulsion technologies. Then NASA
administration Sean O'Keefe--Administrator Mr. O'Keefe stated
that the objective of the program was to hone technologies that
would allow the agency to fly any number of destinations that
are possible, which sounds quite similar to what we are hearing
today. After two years and $464 million, Project Prometheus was
canceled due to a shifting of agency priorities at a top-line
budget number that squeezed out many other programs.
Technology development programs are always vulnerable when
not tied to a specific flight program. How can we be sure that
these technology development initiatives will not meet the same
fate, especially with no independent assessment of the end cost
of supporting commercial crew transport development?
If these cost estimates rise, how can we know these
technology development programs will not be sacrificed as they
have in the past?
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, let me just quote something from
the Augustine Committee report, the concluding observations,
and for those of you who have it or have seen it, it is on page
111, and I found it interesting because Norm Augustine and I
talked about this extensively during the course of the program.
He said, ``Planning a human spaceflight program should start
with agreement about the goals to be accomplished by the
program, that is agreement about its raison d'etre. Not about
which objective in space to visit. Too often in the past
planning the human spaceflight program has begun with where
rather than why.''
Norm and I talked extensively about it because as I did in
the strategic planning sessions with my leadership, I said, you
know, if we don't know why we are doing this, we may as well
quit. My question to them was why do we even--why do humans
need to go to space? We do need a destination. That destination
ultimately is Mars. But we need to know why we are going there.
We are going there because the human species is incredibly
inquisitive. We think that there is potential for life on Mars
or at least potential for people to be able to live there at
some time, much more than any other planet in our solar system.
So that is the why that we came up with, but in direct
answer to your question, you know, I was glad you did not tell
the student not to think about being an astronaut. I would have
told--and I assume it was a middle school student? High school?
Ms. Fudge. High school.
Mr. Bolden. I would have told him forget it for awhile. I
always do, and I would have told him, go back and study and
make sure you graduate from high school, go to college, and
then get an undergraduate technical degree as Congresswoman
Edwards will probably tell you I always tell them.
So I am glad you did not tell him not----
Ms. Fudge. But I want, I really want you to get to we have
done something like this in the past. Because the cost became
exorbitant, we just shifted and said we are not going to do
anymore. How can you guarantee me that is not going to happen
now?
Mr. Bolden. I can't guarantee you, but I can tell you that
I am confident that the program that we are laying out based on
the budget that we have will support and sustain our ability to
get not only to low Earth orbit, to continue to get to low
Earth orbit, but to go beyond low Earth orbit with a program
once we develop a heavy-lift launch vehicle, that will get us
to Mars, get us to the moon, get us to asteroids. It is
critical that we do all these things.
While Mars is the ultimate goal, asteroids are pretty
important, too, because they threaten the planet, and unless I
know what they are made of, whether they are dirt or whether
they are iron, I don't know what to advise the President on how
to protect the plant from them. So I can see one day when the
astronauts go to asteroids, because we don't understand them a
lot. We were all awakened when Hubble gave us an image of the
planet Jupiter late last year with this big black hole in it, a
hole that was the size of several diameters of Earth. That was
a wake-up call.
So there are a lot of reasons that we need to send humans
to space that are different from what they were September of
last year. We learn something new every day about why we need
to be exploring space, and the program that we have now,
particularly because we have sufficient funding research and
development makes it different from when we were trying to do
Prometheus. We were probably down to zero in the money that
NASA sent to colleges and universities around the country for
technical research and development. I think you will agree with
that. You know, Wilberforce or any other college in your area
probably got nothing from NASA for research and development.
This budget allows us to start putting money back on
college campuses so that kids will be excited about wanting to
go study with a professor who is working on a project, a
research project for NASA. That wouldn't happen last year. So
things are different, and that is why I am confident that this
is going to work.
Ms. Fudge. But, again, you can't tell me that in another
year or two or three we may just change and shift gears again.
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, I can't tell you, you know, in
our system of government there are good things about our system
of government, and there is one horrible thing about our system
of government, and that is it changes every four years and with
it ideas change.
And so I can't guarantee that President Obama, if he is
reelected, or the new President if he is not reelected, will
have the same vision that the President presently has. I can
tell you that as long as President Obama is sitting where he is
and I am sitting where I am, we are focused on increasing the
research and development that is done in industry and academia.
We are focused on getting kids to the point where they become
proficient in STEM courses so that we don't lose the battle of
intellect to the Chinese or the Russians or the Indians or
anyone else.
We have a very--we have a shared vision, and I, you know,
people tell me I don't know what the President wants to do. I
do know what the President wants to do. I have sat with him. I
know how much STEM education, how important it is to him and
how much inspiring kids is to him, and we did not frivolously
arrive at this budget.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Bolden, and Ms. Edwards is
recognized.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Administrator Bolden, for your
testimony today and for being here.
I want to say, I mean, I, like many of my colleagues, have
just been floored by this proposal, and I think part of the
reason is jumping off the point where you ended, about
inspiration. I think one of the things that inspires young
people to get engaged in science, to be interested in space is
the inspiration that has actually been created really through
the human spaceflight program. And so it is--I am struggling
trying to figure out how in this budget we derive that
inspiration for the future.
But I want to go to some specific details. One is, you
know, I could be really concerned, not as concerned about this
budget because truth be told, Goddard Spaceflight Center, which
is in my--in the county in which I live and a lot of the folks
who work at Goddard are my constituents, and you know what? We
win big in this budget, but the fact of the matter is that this
is really about a vision for our space program, and our space
program is a three-leg stool. It is the Earth sciences in which
we engage, it is the research and development and technology
development, but it is also human exploration, and I feel that
this budget, with this budget we lose one of those legs of that
stool.
And so I want to ask you actually about the commercial
sector, and I will just quote for a minute from Anatoly
Perminov of the head of the Russian Space Agency, and he said,
``We have an agreement until 2012 that Russia will be
responsible for this about carrying astronauts from other
countries into low Earth orbit, but after that, excuse me, but
the prices should be absolutely different then.''
What is it about in terms of the administration and your
confidence in the commercial sector that enables you to believe
that after 2012, we will have a robust commercial sector that
is really able to deliver on its promises? Because if you look
at the--what has been expended to date, I want to know what
hardware has been delivered from the $618 million that has gone
out. What services have been provided? What does NASA own?
Where are the intellectual property rights, and what has
actually been tested and worked to give us that kind of
confidence that after 2012, we won't just be floating more and
more money into this, having lost 9 and then 3 billion, $12
billion out of where we have been?
I just--I really don't get it, and I would say lastly that
just in terms of risk, the commercial sector is never going to
absorb the kind of risk that it really takes to get these
vehicles off the ground, and at the end of the day the taxpayer
will always have to absorb that risk, and if that is true, then
why not really take it on by continuing to have NASA fully
engaged in human spaceflight? Because when it is all said and
done, it is going to be on us anyway.
And I want to correct for the record Mr. Rohrabacher
because the reality is that the job loss that we are talking
about in this workforce is a private sector workforce. It is a
technical, skilled, scientific, scientifically capable
workforce that is a private sector workforce. This isn't just
about retaining government jobs.
Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, I think you asked me a question,
and I am going to try to remember it and answer it for you.
However, I want to thank you for the comment in response to
Congressman Rohrabacher's because I didn't--he didn't ask me a
question, so I didn't get a chance to comment on it. It is more
than just jobs. We are talking about people who have incredible
qualifications and capabilities, and so I share everyone's
concern about the workforce, about retaining the workforce. I
have had conversations with some of you. You know, it is my
intent that this budget will allow us to try to find ways to
cross train our people, to help bring them into the 21st
century workforce where, you know, a person who is--who can
turn a wrench or hammer a nail or whatever else it is, there
are very few jobs like that in the space industry anymore, and
we have got to transition the workforce.
We were going to see a bucket in terms of job losses at the
termination of the Shuttle Program. We knew that. What has kind
of thrown us a curveball is that a number of those people, not
all of them, were going to have gone to the Constellation
Program. We are working feverishly now and will be working over
the coming months to come up with follow-on programs that are
going to replace the Constellation Program to ensure that we
can get humans beyond low Earth orbit, to ensure that we
maintain the ability to get humans into low Earth orbit by
American-manufactured rockets. And we are going to do that.
Ms. Edwards. But, Mr. Bolden, what gives you the confidence
in this program given that they are already behind schedule,
they are already under budget, and they haven't delivered
anything yet?
Mr. Bolden. I have not--I mean, you have information I
don't have, Congresswoman. I, you know, we have milestones for
Orbital and for Space X to meet, and to date I have not been
informed that anyone has missed a milestone. We are--as far as
I know, Space X, because I visited their launch complex 40
facility and looked at their rocket and talked to their
engineers two weeks ago when I was down for the STS-130 launch,
and they were very optimistic that they were going to launch
here in a month or so. Their first flight.
Now, they don't launch for us until 2011. They are--we will
be their third flight, so they have milestones that they have
to meet, and until they fail to meet a milestone, I can't say
that they are behind. You know, we pay them based on their
meeting milestones, and so far we have not failed to pay them
because they have not failed to meet a milestone.
Orbital is a very proven company when it comes to putting
things in space. Putting people in space is a new deal for
them. Boeing, Lockheed, USA, ATK, these are all well-
established companies, and they have an opportunity to bid in
the next round for commercial, you know, for an opportunity to
be a part of the commercial space program. And what makes me
confident that it is going to work is because these are
experienced people who are dedicated to what they do, to human
spaceflight.
As I told the employees at Marshall, they are being unfair
when they criticize companies like Space X and Orbital and
others because some of the people who are doing the jobs now
were their former coworkers. You know, we are not talking about
hobby shops. We are talking about very professional engineers
in these commercial companies.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. You know, that they can do what we ask them to
do.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Grayson is recognized.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. What is our next destination for
America in space?
Mr. Bolden. The next destination for America in space, and
I am not being trite when I answer this, is the International
Space Station. We have got to get there four more times this
year. The big, the long-term destination after we successfully
close out the Space Shuttle Program, the ultimate destination
is Mars, and there are intermediate points that we are going to
have to get to before we are capable of going to Mars.
If you gave me all the money in the Federal budget today, I
could not get a human to Mars. I could not morally put a human
in a spacecraft and launch them on an 8-month mission to Mars
because I do not understand the radiation requirements----
Mr. Grayson. All right. So what is our next destination in
space?
Mr. Bolden. The next ultimate destination is Mars.
Mr. Grayson. No. The next one.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, the next destination as I said
before is the International Space Station, and we got to do
that four more times.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Let us not be trite then. What is
the one after that?
Mr. Bolden. It is Mars.
Mr. Grayson. So there is nothing in-between as far as you
are concerned?
Mr. Bolden. But there are intermediate stops----
Mr. Grayson. What are they?
Mr. Bolden. --on the way there.
Mr. Grayson. What is the next one?
Mr. Bolden. The moon is a destination, Lagrange points are
destinations.
Mr. Grayson. Which one is next?
Mr. Bolden. You mean where do we go immediately next? Is
that the question?
Mr. Grayson. That is what next means.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I--we are in the process of
developing a program. I will have to be able to give you the
details, and I will come back and make it for the record in the
coming months.
Mr. Grayson. So why are we even talking about how to get to
the next destination. We don't even know what that is.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, we do know what it is. We know
what----
Mr. Grayson. What is it?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I, you know, we can go back and
forth forever.
Mr. Grayson. We seem to have to here. I am looking for an
answer.
Mr. Bolden. Okay. The next destination in the Constellation
Program was the moon.
Mr. Grayson. What about now since you are trying to
eliminate that?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, the program of record and the
program to which we are working right now because you have told
me that I have to continue to work the Constellation Program,
you know, we are talking about the 2011 budget, but if you ask
me right now, the next destination is the moon.
Mr. Grayson. Okay. Good. Now, the Augustine report came up
with four options and several sub-options or alternatives
within the options. Which one did the administration adopt?
Mr. Bolden. The administration adopted the recommendations
of the Augustine report which is the flexible path.
Mr. Grayson. Which option?
Mr. Bolden. The flexible path.
Mr. Grayson. The flexible path?
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grayson. Okay. So you think that----
Mr. Bolden. That was the recommendation of the Augustine
Committee.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Now, you can correct me if I am
wrong, but I did read the report, and it seemed to me that the
flexible path involved continuing the Constellation Program. Is
that a fair statement?
Mr. Bolden. The Constellation, you know, the Augustine
Committee did not recommend cancellation of the Constellation
Program.
Mr. Grayson. So then I am right.
Mr. Bolden. You are right that they did not recommend
cancellation of the Constellation Program?
Mr. Grayson. The flexible path included continuation of the
Constellation Program.
Mr. Bolden. The flexible path did not necessarily include--
I think you are cherry picking from the report. The report
said----
Mr. Grayson. I just want to know why you had all these
people come together, the people who knew the most about the
space program, and then you ignored their recommendation to
continue the Constellation Program. That is what I am asking.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, they did not recommend
continuation of the Constellation Program. What they said----
Mr. Grayson. The flexible path did.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, what the report said was that they
find no technical challenges in the Constellation Program that
cannot be met the way that NASA has always met them, however,
to do so will cost a significant amount more than anyone will
reasonably be able to place in a budget.
Mr. Grayson. Right. Regarding the budget, it seems to be
your plan to put people in space through commercial programs.
Is that correct?
Mr. Bolden. I intend to put people into low Earth orbit
through commercial programs.
Mr. Grayson. How often has that happened so far?
Mr. Bolden. We do it today.
Mr. Grayson. Explain to me. Go ahead.
Mr. Bolden. Well, today I go out and I pay USA to operate
the Space Shuttle out of the Kennedy Space Center. The vast
majority of my workforce right now as Congresswoman Edwards
mentioned, 89 percent of the workforce in the Shuttle Program
today are contractors.
Mr. Grayson. So you consider the Space Shuttle Program to
be a commercial program?
Mr. Bolden. I consider the Space Shuttle Program to be
evidence that commercial entities can successfully operate----
Mr. Grayson. Would you just please answer the question. My
time is limited.
Mr. Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Grayson. Okay. So what is wrong with continuing at
that?
Mr. Bolden. We would not--I do not think it would be wise
to continue the Space Shuttle Program beyond the four
additional flights that we are on track to fly right now. I
think that would not be prudent.
Mr. Grayson. But if one is commercial and the other is
commercial, what is the advantage of switching?
Mr. Bolden. The advantage is that we relieve ourselves of
the responsibility and the cost for operating and maintaining
infrastructure as we do today with the Space Shuttle Program.
Mr. Grayson. Isn't it true that commercial entities have
never put a man in orbit?
Mr. Bolden. Commercial entities have put every human in
orbit that we, the United States has flown. If--and you can
take that up with North American Rockwell or Boeing or the
United Space Alliance.
Mr. Grayson. Honestly, I will tell you, my time is up now,
so I am going to tell you this briefly. I think that what you
are doing is taking a shot in the dark. You have no way of
knowing if any commercial entity will ever be able to put a man
in orbit, no matter how much money you throw at them. What you
are doing is you are taking NASA's man space program and making
it a faith-based initiative.
I yield the rest of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Ms. Kosmas, thank you for your patience
and you are recognized.
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you very much. Thank you, General Bolden.
I want to first of all thank you for your service to our
country, both in the military and as an astronaut for us. I
want to hearken on a comment that was made yesterday by Dr.
Holdren where to quote him, he wants to ensure that what we do
continues America's leadership in space and science and assume
that you would agree that that is a goal worthy of our
attention.
Mr. Bolden. It is my intent. That is not a goal. That is--I
am determined.
Ms. Kosmas. Okay. That is good to hear. That is good to
hear. I want to suggest to you also that inspiring generations
is part of the goal, I think, for the future, and I was glad to
hear you say that from the balcony of the movie theatre in
Columbia, South Carolina, to the commander's seat on a Shuttle
launch into outer space, you had been inspired by the space
program and have made--led a very inspirational life for all of
us, and I am sure would like other to do it.
There are a number of things that I am extremely concerned
about, many of which have already been covered by my
colleagues. If I have to identify them in short order, I would
say the job loss in my community, as you know, is devastating
based on the impending finality of the Shuttle Program, if
that, in fact, is reality, and the lack of specificity in the
budget for what we will be doing next and what skills or
knowledge will be required.
In the short term we will be losing a highly-skilled and
competitive workforce from my community, one which is already
suffering from 12 percent unemployment. We will lose, I
believe, the opportunity that was given to you to be inspired
by space because we don't have the specificity of the program.
I think we are at risk of losing our leadership internationally
as has been not only alluded to but expressed with great detail
by others here today.
I think you referred to losing the battle of the intellect
to other nations, and I think that is something that is very
serious, a concern to us without having the inspiration that
will provide for the next generation, for the 21st century
jobs, the economy, the national security, all of which is
contained in inspiring our next generation to move forward in
fields related to obviously the STEM programs, and nothing does
it better than manned space exploration.
There is no greater inspiration to those folks sitting
around in a room developing something without any idea where it
is going to go is not what I would call visionary or
inspirational. We have had this discussion previously.
I am also concerned about our actual lack of access to the
International Space Station. I am pleased that we have extended
its life for five years, but the fact that we have no vehicle
to get us there past the four Shuttle launches planned is of
great concern to me, and so in outlining those things that are
of specific concern to me, I want to ask you another couple
of--or a couple of questions.
I think we all agree we want to maintain our access to the
Space Station. There is no way we can actually maximize the
additional five years unless we can get there. We have--as
others have said, we have no proof that there is a commercial
opportunity to get there.
I have asked before about the possibility of extending the
Shuttle. I don't want to beat a dead horse, and I am not
looking backward, but if we have extended the life of the Space
Station and the Shuttle is the only vehicle that we have
currently that is able to take us there for service, for
support, for access of a wonderful resource that we have, can
you tell me what it would cost us or can you respond to me
about why it is that we have eliminated that as a possibility
going forward?
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, there are a couple of reasons,
and I will be happy to answer in detail for the record because
I don't want to give you--I am going to give you some numbers
that are not precise. It costs us in the neighborhood of $2
billion a year to operate the Shuttle. That is a cost that
would come out of other programs if we decided to extend it.
There is the issue of potentially having to recertify the
vehicle, reopen---- \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Page 72, line 1703, of the transcript (see Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Kosmas. I think that is done on sort of a recurring
basis, and so those are things that we probably could discuss.
Again, I will look forward to your response on that.
Again, the lack of specificity has been hit on so many
times that I am not going to go there, but I think it is very
essential that you provide us greater detail of what the
research and development and so forth is going to be for--I
know in the budget there is also--and we are pleased with this,
$2 billion for upgrading the infrastructure. How do we go about
being efficient and effective in upgrading infrastructure when
we have no idea what the architecture we will be planning for
is going to be?
And that is a question that is, like I said, that is a
thank you for the money, but how are we going to use it
effectively if we do not know what the architecture----
Mr. Bolden. We have actually been involved in discussions
with the Air Force, particularly a 45th space wing for a number
of years, about range upgrades that they want to do, and we now
have funds that will allow us to do things on our side that
will enhance their ability to do the range upgrades.
Ms. Kosmas. Okay. Well, I would look forward to having more
detail with you about not just what has happening at the 45th
but also at Kennedy Space Center----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kosmas. --and how we manage to maximize that for the
people of my district, who are looking to lose their jobs and
add to an already dire situation. So we--I would look forward
to hearing more from you in that regard.
I just am also concerned about the cancellation of
contracts as has been discussed by others and hope to hear more
from you on that. I think there are many of us who feel that
Congress should have the opportunity to respond as a body to
the budget proposed by the President and that cancellation of
contracts at this stage of the game before Congress has engaged
in what our alternative proposals might be is premature and
puts my workforce, my highly-skilled and professional, valuable
workforce at even greater risk as they were depending upon some
of these contracts moving forward during the transition period.
Mr. Bolden. And Congressman, I think hopefully I was clear
when I sent my letter back that we have not directed any
contract cancellations, nor is it my intent to do that. I
intend to be in full compliance with the law in the form of the
2010----
Ms. Kosmas. But even cancellations----
Mr. Bolden. --appropriations.
Ms. Kosmas. --to the future of 2011, has the impact of
making decisions without Congress having weighed in on your
plan.
Mr. Bolden. And our intention is to, as I told the Chairman
before we came in, our intention is to be in full and complete
deliberation with you in the coming weeks and months about
where we go. Congress will be--you will be an important part of
the deliberation.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. And, Ms. Kosmas, I think part of your
discussion points out to whatever happens needs to be
determined soon with some certainty. There will be probably
more jobs not lost than will be lost, but if you don't know
where you stand in all that, it is very difficult. And so we
have got to bring some certainty to this, both for the
expertise and the human aspect of it, as well as to get the
best program before us.
My neighbor from Tennessee is recognized, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thanks
for holding this budget hearing today. I know that the process
sure is that we would basically in this Committee authorize
certain expenditures as we go through this budget process, and
that is the reason a lot of us are here today and perhaps many
have some questions to ask.
I will relate to you some experiences, and Bart will
probably chastise me for doing this, we often have in rural
areas growing up, wherever it may be, and my situation in rural
Tennessee. I look at this budget and realize there is $19
billion, that is about a 1.5 percent increase, but you will be
making a cut to a complete program of Constellation.
I know that in the mid '50s Sputnik kind of startled us. In
the early '60s John Kennedy made a statement that we will send
a man to the moon and return them within this decade, and on
July the 20th, 1969, the world also saw space change, because
we landed a man on the moon, and I sat at Camp Boxville in Bart
Gordon's district near Gallatin, with about 25 Boy Scouts of
which I was a Scout Master. We watched that happen. It was
unbelievable, and so the world changed then, too, when it came
to space, but we have made some pretty strong commitments to
make that happen.
I know that 1986, as I sat at my house and watched with my
teacher wife the Challenger blow up, yes, there is no question
that also changed the way we look at space and the dangers of
it, but are we again looking at a change that will be as
devastating to us as the 1986 accident was, or are we making a
decision that will make us another July the 20th, 1969? I don't
know which place I fall there.
And here is why. When I would go to Tennessee Tech to get a
degree where I became a soil scientist, I would often hitchhike
from Cookwood to Pall Mall. There were times people would be
going all the way to that area, and I could get a good, safe
ride there. I want to be certain that we will continue to have
space vehicles and a safe space vehicle that will allow us to
get to Mars. I don't want us sitting on a star in the
Constellation, hitchhiking with China or Russia to arrive at
that destination.
Because my fear is if we don't head in the right direction,
that we will not have a vessel or spaceflight, and we will have
to fly with someone else, and this country cannot afford that,
nor should we put ourselves in that position.
I also realized that one day driving up the mountain where
I live, as I reached a higher elevation, I assumed the road was
still wet. It was black ice, and I crashed. Are we headed on
the collision course as we cancel Constellation and look at
private entrepreneurs, and there is no--when we talk about
private entrepreneurs, let us make something perfectly clear to
everyone in this room.
Outside a situation in Oakridge, Tennessee, where 12,000
people work and 400 work for the Federal Government, the rest
work for private entrepreneurs funded by the Federal Government
or the taxpayers. We are still going to be funding at a level,
maybe with less direction, from my perspective.
So here is the question. Ten years from now in your
perspective as you went through this process, ten years from
now what percent would you say of completing our objectives
could we have with the Constellation Program or with the new
process that you are taking? Which one has us more certainty,
and what percentage can we expect of success with Constellation
compared to the steps that you are taking in this new budget?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, if I go with the report of the
Augustine Committee, ten years from now we would definitely not
be on our way to the moon because that report said that we were
sufficiently behind both in terms of progress on completion of
the vehicles and everything. So we would not be where I think
we may be on the path that we are set in--that is supported by
the 2011 budget. It is my hope that by 2015, 2016, we will have
an American capability at work getting humans back to low Earth
orbit, to the International Space Station, perhaps more than
just one as we would have had with Ares I. And it is my hope
that the technology development that we do in terms of
propulsion will have us physically building on a heavy-lift
launch vehicle such that some time between 2020 and 2030, we
will be on our way to destinations beyond low Earth orbit.
That is, you know, those are wishy-washy answers in terms
of the, you know, leaving low Earth orbit, but that is--it is
too early to tell you a definitive date for when we are going
to do that.
Mr. Davis. You are saying with the Constellation Program we
probably would not be able to be there for a much longer
extended period?
Mr. Bolden. If I remember----
Mr. Davis. What are your plans now?
Mr. Bolden. --the program of record, you know, it did not
have the International Space Station after 2015, because the
cost of extending the International Space Station would push
Constellation, Ares I, and Ares V even farther out. The program
of record did not have landers, so we would not have--we would
have a vehicle to go to the moon, but we would have no way to
get humans to the surface. We would have, you know, we just--we
would not get there in the time that you think we would under
the existing program.
And that is not--please understand that is not an
indictment on the people or the technology in the Constellation
Program. The Augustine Committee points out very well. They
found nothing technically wrong with Constellation any
different from any other development program in space, and they
felt that NASA, given time and money, could take care of any
challenges that they had. And the workforce is absolutely
incredible. It is just that we found ourselves so far behind
because of insufficient funding over the last 8 or ten years
that ask the government to ask you as a Congress to approve a
President's budget that would add $7 billion a year to try to
catch up the Constellation Program, that was irresponsible in
my estimation.
And so that is one of the reasons for my recommendation to
the President that we take the course we are on now.
Mr. Davis. All of us are visionaries. We can predict the
future, but we cannot see the future, and so as we engage in
this debate further, I have a concern about canceling this
program, and so, therefore, until we have more discussion I
will be one advocate of continuing the program that we have.
You must convince me that the vision I am not seeing that you
have, that the program you are proposing is better than what we
have with Constellation.
Mr. Bolden. Sir, I respect that, and that is exactly what I
have to do. I promised the Chairman that, you know, we are not
prepared at this time, and I apologized at the very outset of
the hearing because we do not have the type of detailed program
outline that one would normally expect when we were making a
change like this, but we are working on it.
Mr. Davis. And that is what concerns me and I think many
Members of this Committee.
Chairman Gordon. Ms. Dahlkemper is recognized.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
General Bolden, thank you for joining us today.
There has certainly been a lot of concerns echoes from one
member after the other after the other, but I would like to go
back to a little bit of what Representative Fudge was talking
about in terms of education, STEM education, inspiring
students, and maybe you can elaborate a little bit on a few
points here.
You know, as we look at our youth, we have always used
space exploration, Shuttle launches, to inspire our youth to
encourage them to go into these fields. What is NASA telling,
going to tell our youth about what you are doing, what is going
on? How can you inspire them at this point?
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, we are actually--this summer we
are going to try a program called Summer of Innovation, where
we are going to connect youth with NASA centers, with NASA
engineers around the country. We are going to let them do
hands-on type of operations that may connect them with the
International Space Station. In the 2011, budget we have money
that is set aside to do interactive exploration where
schoolchildren can actually participate with experiments and
the like that are on board the International Space Station.
Dr. Sally Ride has a program now, and I forget the name of
it. I think it is Space Cam, but it allows children today
sitting in their classroom to take control of a camera that is
on the International Space Station, and they point it wherever
they want to point it, and they do projects. And those kinds of
programs are going to continue, and we are confident that we
can continue them now because the President has put an
additional $20 million a year over the next five years into my
budget. We have put additional money in so that we can pull
forward a number of the Earth science programs that were in the
Earth science survey, so we are accelerating almost all of
those tier one programs by a year and some by as many as two
years. Those are things that are going--that we are going to
use to inspire youth.
Ms. Dahlkemper. There is a pilot program this summer.
Right?
Mr. Bolden. That is the--I am told not to call it a pilot,
but it is a pilot program.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. Yeah.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Are you--is there a sufficient lead time
for NASA to be up and going for summer of 2010, on this
program?
Mr. Bolden. Oh, yes, ma'am. We have been planning this
since last fall, and we have had fits and starts I will admit,
but we plan to have it operational in five states that will be
selected competitively across the country.
Ms. Dahlkemper. How is that working?
Mr. Bolden. So far so good.
Ms. Dahlkemper. I mean----
Mr. Bolden. We have----
Ms. Dahlkemper. --how is that going to be determined, the
five states?
Mr. Bolden. Oh. It is a competitive selection.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Uh-huh.
Mr. Bolden. We had a pre-solicitation conference a week
ago, and we had 125 participants in the call, and we already
have I think 27 notices of intent to apply to compete for the
program, so that is pretty good.
Ms. Dahlkemper. And what happens this year, how will that
be used to determine what you do with the 20 million for the
fiscal year 2011?
Mr. Bolden. The $20 million that is in the budget is for
increases in education programs that if I am able to do what I
want to do, we want to modify, we want to radically change, if
you will, the way that we do education in NASA where we are now
going to be able to provide impact in coordination with the
Secretary of Education, who taught me that you shouldn't do
anything unless you can provide impact metrics, the data that
says you have changed a child's life or you have really had an
affect on them. And we are transforming the way we do business
in NASA where we were advised that we are a program and project
organization. We know how to do programs and projects, and we
were advised that we should do education the same way.
And so the Summer of Innovation has a project lead or a
project manager, and she is now developing a project plan with
a budget, which is unlike programs that we have done in the
past in NASA. We have definitive metrics that we will require
people to meet, so we are looking to see whether or not we
making middle school teachers more effective in their ability
to reach students in the STEM subjects, and we will be looking
at this over a three-year period of time.
Ms. Dahlkemper. And do you see any downsides to the fact
that the cancellation of the Constellation Program and the
Shuttle?
Mr. Bolden. You mean with----
Ms. Dahlkemper. In terms of inspiring.
Mr. Bolden. No, ma'am, I don't because, you know,
Constellation would have had no--it would have not had any
connection with the Summer of Innovation at all because the
earliest that we would have seen Ares I fly, given the current
plan that I asked about the other day, would have been 2015,
2016, so we will know whether the Summer of Innovation works or
not. We would have known it two years prior to the earliest
possible flight of any element of Constellation.
So Constellation had no impact or will have no impact on
the Summer of Innovation or any of the other education programs
we have on the books.
Ms. Dahlkemper. In terms of inspiring, you know----
Mr. Bolden. The Summer of Innovation is dependent on what
we call NASA content.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. That is the International Space Station, it is
in existence today. It is not a dream.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. And we are extending it an additional five
years, so we have 10 more years to utilize that as an asset to
support enhanced STEM education. We are going to try to put
children aboard the International Space Station, what is the
right word? Through the Internet.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Virtually?
Mr. Bolden. Virtually. That is--I apologize for losing my
mind.
Ms. Dahlkemper. That is okay.
Mr. Bolden. But we are going to try to put them virtually
aboard the International Space Station. We can do that for five
more years than we were going to be able to do it before
because the President has funded the extension of the
International Space Station or is willing to fund it if the
Congress concurs. So----
Ms. Dahlkemper. Well, I look forward to seeing the progress
of this, and my time is up. So I yield back.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Wilson will be our final full
Committee questioner, and then we move to our guests.
Mr. Wilson is recognized.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here, Administrator Bolden.
NASA's economic impact to Ohio exceeds $1.2 billion and
acts as a catalyst for over 1,200 aerospace-related companies
in our state. This complies--these companies that employ more
than 100,000 Ohioans are directly related to NASA Glenn. These
are good-paying jobs that I would like to see protected
regardless of the direction of human space exploration.
What specific roles do you foresee NASA Glenn playing in
the NASA's future?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, NASA Glenn has a bright future. If
I look at things that are going on or are going to be going on
with the 2011 budget, the increase in the aero budget, much of
that will involve Glenn, primarily because they are a research
center. As I told one of the--one of our fellow Members of the
Committee earlier, we are going to increase the amount of
research that we do with rotor wing research. We are going to
pick up the pace on icing research. So there are a number of
things that Glenn will play a key role.
Mr. Wilson. Good. Thank you. Second question. NASA Glenn
has a prominent role in the Constellation Program, including
the components of Ares V and Lunar Lander. Therefore, are there
very real fears that if the Constellation Program is canceled,
that NASA Glenn could be negatively impacted?
Mr. Bolden. I don't, you know, I would encourage you to ask
the former Glenn Center director, Woodrow Whitlow, but I think
he would tell you that he has no fears that Glenn will falter
from lack of the Constellation Program. Prior to my
predecessor's desire to make sure that every center in NASA had
a piece of the exploration pie so that everybody would have
people working effectively, Glenn did not do the type of
``exploration research'' that they have been asked to do with
Constellation Program. But they will still be doing exploration
work, and most importantly, we will allow them to go back to
being focused on aeronautics research as they have done before.
One of their greatest contributions today is the engine to
cells on--the engine nozzles on the Boeing 747-800 that has
been broadcast recently where--because they use the Chevron
System on the engine nozzles, Boeing is realizing an increase
in fuel efficiency, a decrease in noise pollution, and a
decrease in air pollution. That is a product of Glenn research
that was sitting on the shelf that somebody went back and found
and Boeing picked it up.
So Glenn does ion engine research for, you know, in-space
propulsion. They have a bright future.
Mr. Wilson. Good. One last question. The Space Power
Facility at Plum Brook, it is a unique facility with the
ability to simulate in-space conditions. However, in the fiscal
year 2011 budget request it eliminates the Constellation
effort, including the Orion Crew Vehicle, which was planned to
be the first utilization of these new capabilities. The budget
has no specific information about the future of Space Power
Facility.
Can you give me some insight about this facility and how it
would be used by NASA?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, that facility was sized for Orion and
other vehicles in the Constellation Program, and when I look at
commercial vehicles that are coming down the road or
potentially coming down the road, they are all smaller than
what we have. So the facility at Glenn we are hoping will--we
will be able to attract DOD as well as commercial users to that
facility. It--I don't see it being impacted that much by the
cancellation of the Constellation Program.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I
appreciate your answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Bishop, you
have been here the whole time. We appreciate you coming, and
you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been most
interesting. I appreciate you welcoming me back to this
Committee, and I realize I am here temporarily since my
nameplate is put together with Scotch tape. Thank you very
much.
General, everyone who has been here so far has thanked you
for coming. I want to thank you, too, but to be very honest,
very bold, if you and Ms. Garver had actually made better
decisions, we wouldn't be here talking about this, and both of
us would be much happier in that situation.
There are some specific questions I would like to ask. I
will try and be as brief as I can with any of them.
It was brought out by Ms. Giffords, but you didn't really
speak specifically to this particular issue, that with the
Minute Man Ground Base Missile decisions that were made last
year, as well as canceling of Constellation, has left the
industrial base in shambles, and we obviously know that
Secretary Gates was not consulted with this, Secretary Donnelly
was not, ASCM--AFMC was not as well, and if obviously you
talked about acquisitions, you obviously didn't listen to what
they said.
So, sir, did you consult with the Department of Defense on
this, on the impact to the industrial base before you made this
catastrophic announcement?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, let me be very careful about how I
answer your question. I did not have detailed discussions with
anyone----
Mr. Bishop. Did anyone in your office then have discussions
with them?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman----
Mr. Bishop. I need you to be brief. I am sorry.
Mr. Bolden. --I have had informal conversations with senior
persons in DOD from the time that I came into office because I
wanted to reach out across agencies and the government. So I
have talked with members of DOD. I have talked to them about,
while not talking specifically about the impact of cancellation
of the Constellation Program, I asked for information on the
impact of--to the industrial base, particularly with reference
to solid rockets.
Mr. Bishop. Good. With whom did you speak?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, I--if you ask General Cartwright if I have
spoken to him, he will tell you yes. I have spoken to him, but
those were not formal meetings, and they were not formal
deliberations.
Mr. Bishop. Anyone else with whom you had consultations?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, those are--I can go through--I will
provide you the information for the record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Page 90, line 2150, of the transcript (see Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop. For the record. Good.
Mr. Bolden. I will get it to you.
Mr. Bishop. Your comptroller wouldn't do that, so I would
appreciate if you would do that right now.
The Department of--are you aware the Department of
Defense's report to Congress on the Solid Rocket at Motor
Industrial Base that was addressed last year?
Mr. Bolden. I am not aware of that report. I am aware of a
report that Dr. Holdren prepared. I read it.
Mr. Bishop. Not that one. Go back to the original one from
acquisitions. I appreciate if you look especially on page 47
where it says if there is delay and Constellation has a
significant, negative impact on the defense side of this
equation, canceling it has to be a very significant negative
impact.
Mr. Bolden. I will go back and look at that.
Mr. Bishop. Are you currently--because we talked to
Secretary Donnelly yesterday. Are you currently having
discussions with Secretary Donnelly on this issue?
Mr. Bolden. I am not--since you put it--me directly, I am
not having discussions with anyone right now. There are
discussions on the Space Policy Review that is underway and
persons in my organization are participating in those meetings.
Mr. Bishop. Since he said he would have to get back to me
on something of record, would you be willing to talk to him
about that?
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I would appreciate that.
Ms. Edwards asked you specifically about the Russians and
the costs that would come to this particular program. When the
contract currently with the Russians is up and they have the
monopoly on spaceflight which will take place for quite some
time, do you have any anticipation or could you give me any
kind of guess of what they will charge us to provide that
services for us? Is there any--do you have any clue of what
that will be?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, we are in negotiations with the Russians
right now, and so I would prefer not to--in fact, I won't
discuss costs or any progress on that.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have an estimate then on cancellation
costs? Your budget puts it at around $2.5 billion.
Mr. Bolden. We are evaluating right now what the potential
costs, cancellation costs are, and----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. --we can get that to you for the record,
sir.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Page 92, line 2198, of the transcript (see Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. That is
consistent with, I think it was Mr. McCaul that you said that
to. You really don't have a handle on what that cancellation
cost would be, which I hate to admit this, to me is somewhat of
a backwards approach. It would be nice for a Congressman or
somebody who is making a policy decision, if we knew what the
costs would be before you actually make that decision and jump
to the next particular level.
I have only got about 40 seconds with you, and I apologize
for that. There are some other questions. There is a Space News
article that came out which seemed to contradict the letter
that you sent to us. I hope for the record some time you will
clarify whether the Space News was wrong in its implications,
or whether you are actually closing down programs of record or
whether your letter was wrong to us.
But I have to say just one last thing. When you said you
are building a bold, new path for the future and you are coming
up with was it, programs, Summers of Inspiration for kids to
encourage them, in all due respect, when you have a President
and you who said you want to encourage kids to become involved
in science, math, and engineering or STEM programs, I have to
really admit to you that the Summers of Inspiration is not
going to fool a kid in college or in high school or junior high
right now who looks at 20 to 30,000 private sector jobs who are
involved in science, math, and engineering, being given a pink
slip and the kind of chaos that goes to their particular life
is not going to encourage anyone else to become involved in
this area or any other area.
This is a negative impact. It is a negative message. There
is certainly no inspiration with this. This is not a program
for a bold, new path. It is more like managing America's
decline, and I am very much disappointed in the approach that
NASA is taking on this particular effort, and I apologize right
now. I wish I could give you more time.
I only got--I have already gone over 33 seconds and
counting, and I apologize for that, Mr. Chairman, as well. I
tried to get it in five minutes.
Chairman Gordon. Okay.
Mr. Bishop. But I am sorry that we have to meet here.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. Griffith, welcome back, and you are
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Griffith. General, I appreciate seeing you again, and I
know the bipartisanship in this room is heartwarming to you.
That is a joke. If you got it.
Mr. Bolden. I laughed. No one else did.
Mr. Griffith. Teasing. I do think, though, that you being
here, and I must say that--and I certainly disagree that this--
if we were in the business community, this has all the earmarks
of a hostile takeover, and unfortunately, your kind face and
your experience and the deep, deep respect that we have for you
and what you have done for America makes it very difficult for
us not to come to you with a smile and a good heart.
We are deeply concerned, though, that whether it be Space
X, a company that is reasonably new on the scene, or whether it
be a Boeing or Northrop Grumman or whoever, we realize that
difficulty when you pit two private or three private companies
in a bidding war for an endeavor that has all to do, so much to
do with our national defense.
We are witnessing a delay right now in our refueling
tankers with Boeing and other companies, and suppose we run
into that same difficulty, and we recognize that China is on
its way to the high ground, and we find ourselves in a bidding
war or a bidding conflict, or we find ourselves in the legal
system that is now slowing down whether these companies can, in
fact, fulfill their mission or even resolve the bidding process
in years past.
We believe, and I think many of the Committee members
believe, that this is a national security issue, and a national
security issue that you privatize without control puts us in
danger as a country, because it is the high ground.
We are concerned that should a CEO change at Boeing or a
CEO change at Space X or a Columbia accident occurs in one of
these private companies, they will not be able to survive it.
Only the U.S.A. can survive that with the will of the American
people. We believe deeply in NASA. It is our heart, and it our
soul. If we begin to divide our heart and soul with labels that
say Space X or Boeing, and we have a failure, where will the
American people be as far as their willingness to support
manned spaceflight.
We are greatly concerned about this. The thing that is of
great concern to us is one of the things that makes me believe
that this is an unfriendly takeover is something that you said
that we will be happy to involve you in the deliberations as we
move forward. But actually the decision to cancel Constellation
was done without those deliberations. So we are all very, very
suspicious.
And so you can--I am a great--it is of great concern to me,
of course, because I represent Marshall Spaceflight, but it not
about jobs. The heart and soul of America is NASA. If we do
anything, anything to detract from that we are going to lose,
and we really can't afford to lose. We are five percent of the
world's population, 95 percent of the would lives somewhere
else. We are number one in manned spaceflight, and if we
interrupt this culture of manned spaceflight, if we interrupt
these people who are handing down their wisdom from generations
of generations of manned spaceflight engineers, we are making a
huge mistake.
And to privatize this with a Space X or a Boeing or a
Northrop, getting involved in the legal ramifications of a
request for a proposal that may take two years or a bidding
process that may be interrupted by the judicial system. We
really need to think about this some more. We need to really,
really go over it because America is a difficult place to do
business.
And I appreciate you. I truly do, but I disagree completely
with the decision, and it is not about budget. If the
conversation could take place between you and the President and
you said, Mr. President, we need $3 billion a year for the next
five years to make sure Constellation is on target and on time,
and there is $800 billion over here in this stimulus, could you
move 3 billion a year over into our space program so that we
can be number one, and we won't have to watch the Chinese land
on the moon from our living rooms? Mr. President, couldn't we
do that? Wouldn't that be a good idea? And I will bet you with
your persuasiveness the answer would be yes, good idea,
General.
Anyway, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Bolden. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Chairman Gordon. And Mr. Posey, you are going to close us
out today.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Following up on Congressman Parker's comments, I know it
seems like a big reach but it would take about one percent of
the stimulus fund to fly the Shuttle for another 5 years.
I had another meeting earlier so I missed your testimony
apparently when you refused to disclose who made the decision
to cancel Constellation. I don't want to beat that horse
anymore other than to say I am deeply disappointed in the
alleged, most transparent Administration in the history of this
country not to be able to get a direct answer on that, and a
lot of people are, I think everyone shares that same question.
When the President was campaigning in my county, he
promised that he would close the gap between Shuttle and
Constellation, and number two, he would keep America first in
space. He didn't close the gap. He made the gap eternal, and
low Earth orbit sure as not--hell is not keeping us first in
space. You know it, I know it, he knows you and I both know it,
but it doesn't seem to change anything. The rest of the world
knows it, too.
We have a focus on commercial in the future, and I love
commercial spaceflight. I have spent about 20 years trying to
help make commercial more profitable. I think there is a huge
opportunity for there. If we would have done that earlier,
there wouldn't even be a French Ariane today, but the reality
is there is no profit in commercial rockets for human
exploration unless we pay them, and we should be taking the
lead in doing that anyway.
I read your statement today, and it has a plethora of
subjects that you said you were going to focus on, and we have
heard more about also focusing on education, and I am just sad
to see that the focus of NASA is not what this Nation has
always presumed it to be, and that is first and foremost human
space exploration.
I am chagrined to hear the allegations that the
Constellation Program is over budget when you know, I know, and
they know we both know it is under-funded. Russians have
already increased the cost of ferrying the astronauts of ours
and the other nations we are pledged to ferry back and forth
from 30 million to 51 million per, and I just wonder if you
would dare to guess what that may be ultimately when we no
longer have an alterative like the Shuttle to do that.
We have not received a NASA workforce transition report
since last summer despite the 2008 legislation that requires
it. Apparently somehow it got sidetracked by Augustine. Given
the importance allegedly placed on workforce, you know, you
have to wonder why we are looking at laying off thousands of
high-skilled workers, and the question is when we could expect
to get our next report.
Is safety really a legitimate objection to continue with
the Shuttle? The questions that beg for an answer is why we
aren't going to continue launching the ones we have, and aren't
they, in fact, designed, engineered, and built for 100
missions, and I think Endeavor has less 30 right now.
Augustine report also referred that as--to that as one of
the most reliable, as the most reliable, I think talked about
over 98 percent reliability.
You know, thousands and thousands of space workers are
going to be put in the unemployment lines across this country,
and I know a lot of the people in my district are wondering
exactly how many reductions NASA is going to make at
headquarters. They are expecting a commensurate amount of
reductions as we lay off thousands of people around the
country, and I wonder if you would comment on that.
And if there is not time to address all these, and it is
obvious there won't be, I wonder if you would be kind enough to
respond to me in writing to these questions at your earliest
convenience.
Unfortunately, history will show that unlike the landing of
Apollo when there was a giant step for mankind, we are going
backwards now. This is a giant step from greatness to
meritocracy. Anything but extraordinary I think in the future,
and I think it just a sad day for America.
And the final question I have is what would it take to get
you to consider further renewing your interest in
Constellation?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I will get you answers for the
record for the questions you asked about manpower, particularly
that at headquarters.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Page 100, line 2402, of the transcript (see Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of interest in Constellation, there are aspects of
the Constellation Program that I want to capture, and I want to
keep, and some of the studies that I have asked to be done
right now are helping us to determine what technologies, what
projects that we have in the Constellation Program that we
cannot do without, and it will serve as a nucleus for emerging
programs.
If I give you an example, two examples, from the
Constellation Programs of things that we have already found to
be needed and will--and are going to be applied. The thermal
protection system studies that were done for Constellation
determined that there is a thermal protection system that the
folk from Space X could use, and they have chosen to use that
on their vehicle.
So we have gained an incredible amount of knowledge, a
wealth of knowledge from the Constellation Program that I think
will be--will carry on to the programs that we develop in the
wake of the cancellation of Constellation if that is the final
decision.
When we look at escape systems, something that the Shuttle
does not have, at the Langley Research Center we did a test on
something called MLAS, Max Launch Abort System, which was
highly successful. That is a system that we have recommended
that the folk at Space X take a look at because they want to
use a pusher-type system also, and so rather than have them go
out and reinvent the wheel, we have suggested that they look at
that product of the Constellation Program.
So there are a number of aspects of the Constellation
Program that I would hope we would be able to capture and to
use in future programs.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. Yesterday we had Dr. Holdren
here, and before the meeting started, the hearing started, Mr.
Hall asked me does he bruise easily, and I will report back to
him that you do not bruise easily, and we thank you,
Administrator Bolden, for being here.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
statements from members and for answers to any of the follow-up
questions the committee may ask the witness, and the witness is
excused. The hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Many attempts have been made to leverage and/or establish
commercial space markets with limited or no success (i.e. commercial
Atlas/Delta, Space Imaging, Astrolink, TDRSS, Landsat, Comet,
RocketPlane Kistler, Rotary Rocket, Beal, X-33/VentureStar, and many
more). Considering the current economic environment and the limited
availability of private capital, what specific indicators do you have
that you confidence that a successful business case will exist for
commercial crew services over the next three to five years?
A1. NASA has not done an analysis about the business case for future
commercial crew providers. Such an analysis would be part of a review
of any proposals submitted for future work. However, there are general
indicators that such a market exists. For example:
From an historical perspective, Russia and the U.S.
have been providing human space transportation services to
astronauts from other countries since 1978. Since that time,
Russia and the U.S. have transported nearly 100 astronauts
representing 30 nations. In addition, eight people have flown
to space in the past decade as spaceflight participants.
Another strong indicator came from NASA's CCDEV
solicitation. In Answer to NASA's CCDEV solicitation for
commercial crew spaceflight concepts, the Agency received 36
proposals--an indicator that there is robust interest from U.S.
industry in developing human spaceflight capabilities.
Helping to support an enhanced U.S. commercial space
industry will create new high-tech jobs, leverage private
sector capabilities, spawn other businesses and commercial
opportunities, and spur growth in our Nation's economy.
Most importantly, the Administration's proposal to
extend and fully utilize the International Space Station
provides a reliable, sustainable market for commercial human
space transportation services likely too 2020 or beyond.
Studies in the public domain suggesting that commercial providers
can be successful include:
Collins, P. and Isozaki, K. ``Recent Progress in
Japanese Space Tourism Research'' IAC Italy, October 1997.
O'Neil, Bekey, Mankins, Rogers, Stallmer ``General
Public Space Travel and Tourism'' NASA-MSFC, March 1998.
Aerospace Commission ``Final Report of the Commission
on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry,''
November 2002.
Space Tourism Market Study, Futron Corporation, 2002.
Webber, D. and Reifert, J. ``Filling in Some Gaps'',
Executive Summary of the Adventurers' Survey of Public Space
Travel, September 2006.
Commercial Spaceflight Federation ``Commercial
Spaceflight in Low Earth Orbit is the Key to Affordable and
Sustainable Exploration Beyond'', Input to the Review of U.S.
Human Space Flight Plans Committee, June 29, 2009.
Final Report of the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight
Plans Committee, 2009.
Q2. In December of 2009, the Committee held a hearing on the U.S.
aerospace workforce and industrial base in which retired Lockheed
Martin executive, Mr. Tom Young, testified that ``Without a challenging
and meaningful space program, this national capability [spaceflight
workforce] will atrophy. It can only be maintained by inspiring use. It
has a limited shelf life.'' In the absence of a continuing government
flight program to sustain this ``national treasure'' of a spaceflight
workforce that Mr. Young describes, how do you plan to ensure that
NASA's corporate knowledge and skill in conducting human spaceflight
operations will not have exceeded its ``shelf life'' when the
government does make a decision on a specific program to send humans
beyond low-Earth orbit?
A2. NASA agrees that to maintain our leadership in space, we need
challenges that inspire the Nation. The question before NASA is how to
provide these challenges in the post-Shuttle era.
At the highest level, the President and his staff, as well as the
NASA senior leadership team, closely reviewed the Augustine Committee
report, and we came to the same conclusion as the Committee: The human
spaceflight program and the Constellation Program were on an
unsustainable trajectory. To continue on the previous path we had to
decide to either continue the International Space Station (ISS),
support a program to get humans beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), or to
make even deeper cuts to the other parts of NASA's budget. Further, we
would have insufficient funding to advance the state-of-the-art in any
of the technology areas that we need to enable us to do new things in
space, such as lowering the cost of access to space and developing
closed-loop life support, advanced propulsion technology, and radiation
protection.
The President recognized that what was truly needed for beyond LEO
exploration was game-changing technologies; making the fundamental
investments that will provide the foundation for the next half-century
of American leadership in space exploration. Therefore, the FY 2011
budget request would ensure continuous American presence in space on
the ISS throughout this entire decade, re-establish a robust and
competitive American launch industry, launch more robotic probes into
our solar systems as precursors for human activity, invest in a new
heavy lift research and development program, and build a real
technological foundation for sustainable, beyond-LEO exploration, with
more capable expeditions in lunar space, and unprecedented human
missions to near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, and, ultimately,
Mars.
The redirection to a flexible path strategy provides inspirational
challenges, maintains the budget top-line and leverages government
investment through partnership with the commercial sector. Maintaining
and increasing national knowledge and skill in conducting human
spaceflight operations is a cornerstone of the President's proposed
space exploration strategy.
Under the new Commercial Crew Transportation program, existing
aerospace industry knowledge (including NASA's expertise) will now be
shared with the commercial sector, as well as other NASA programs. To
some degree, this is already occurring within the Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services (COTS) program as NASA engineers sit side-by-
side with our partners and evaluate their performance. New insights and
innovations are sure to emerge as NASA experts interact with industry
partners.
The International Space Station (ISS) is fully outfitted and
operational to support six-person Expedition crews and the conduct of
research and technology development. The FY 2011 President's Budget
provides additional funding to extend the lifetime of the ISS beyond
2015 and to increase ISS functionality and utilization. The goal is to
fully utilize ISS' capabilities to conduct scientific research, improve
our capabilities for operating in space and demonstrate new
technologies developed through ISS or other NASA programs. These
efforts will help to ensure the retention of human spaceflight
operations skills and experience.
Lastly, NASA has many science missions in the operations phase that
can provide valuable training grounds for mission and flight
operations. The FY 2011 budget proposal, for example, includes two new
programs--a Flagship Demonstration Program and an Enabling Technology
Development Program--that would invent and demonstrate large-scale
technologies and capabilities that are critical to future space
exploration, including cryo-fluid management and transfer; automated
rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems; in-situ
utilization and advanced in-space propulsion. Once developed, these
technologies will address critical requirements needed to send crews to
a variety of exciting destinations beyond LEO. The flagship projects
will be funded at $400 million to $1 billion over a period of up to
five years, including launch costs, while shorter-duration enabling
projects will be funded at $120 million or less and will focus on near-
term development and demonstration of prototype systems to feed
flagship and robotic precursor missions. Such projects could include
laboratory experiments, Earth-based field tests and in-space technology
demonstrations. By allowing for flight demonstrations, some at a
flagship scale, this Technology Development and Demonstration effort
resolves the achievement gap between lab demonstration and flight
testing that might otherwise prevent NASA from implementing the
capabilities that are critical for sustainable human exploration beyond
Earth in a timely manner.
It should be noted that the same need for inspirational challenges
and limited shelf life affects the nation's technology research and
development workforce. Many independent reviews have found these
efforts to be woefully under-supported, especially in the last five
years as the national space industry's efforts have been tightly
focused on the development of a particular set of hardware for human
spaceflight. The FY 2011 budget proposal for NASA rebalances the
nations support and utilization of the human spaceflight operations
workforce and the space technology research workforce.
Q3. The Administration's budget request for FY 2011 proposes
significant changes to NASA's human spaceflight program that would end
the U.S. government's capability to access low-Earth orbit after the
retirement of the Space Shuttle. In the absence of any government
system to serve as a backup, does the proposal signal an Administration
decision to pay whatever is required to keep the would-be commercial
providers financially viable for as long as the government needs to get
its astronauts into space? If not, what recourse will you have once the
government's development program is cancelled?
A3. The FY 2011 budget request builds upon NASA's commercial cargo
efforts by providing significant funding for the development of
commercial human spaceflight vehicles, freeing NASA to focus on the
forward-leaning work we need to accomplish for beyond-low-Earth orbit
missions.
NASA is preparing a strategy to support the development of
commercial crew transportation services so that the Agency is prepared
to proceed if Congress provides funding in FY 2011. Therefore, it is
too early to say, specifically, what NASA's procurement strategy will
be or how much the Agency will pay for these services, once developed.
In general, however, NASA's plan is to award FY 2011 development
funding for multiple proposals, thus increasing the likelihood for
developing a commercial crew vehicle from multiple partners. Then after
the commercial crew services procurement is released, NASA expects that
more than one partner will be selected to supply those services, thus
providing redundancy of capabilities and competition. NASA has a
transportation demand of six ISS crewmembers per year. Additionally,
NASA has currently purchased seats on the Russian Soyuz through 2014
and has legislative authority to purchase seats through mid-2016,
should we need to procure additional services.
With regard to commercial cargo services, NASA agrees that timely
commercial cargo capability is critical for effective ISS operations.
Without commercial cargo capability, the crew size and research
operations planned for ISS would need to be reduced. Therefore, NASA
will pre-position spares on board the ISS with the final logistics
flights to provide some margin for delay in commercial cargo services.
Additionally, NASA plans to rely on the transportation capabilities of
Russia, the European Space Agency (ESA) and Japan to transport cargo to
ISS. Russia's Progress vehicle has been providing cargo services to ISS
through a contract with NASA. The ESA Automated Transfer Vehicle had a
successful initial flight to the Space Station in 2008. The Japanese
HII Transfer Vehicle had a successful first flight in 2009. ESA's and
Japan's services are provided through barter agreements. It should be
noted that NASA does not plan to continue to procure Progress cargo
resupply services after 2011, opting instead to rely on U.S. commercial
cargo delivery capabilities provided through NASA CRS contracts.
Q4. In your testimony, you stated that ``Under this program the United
States will pursue a more sustainable and affordable approach to human
space exploration through the development of transformative
technologies and systems.'' What is the basis for claiming that the
proposed approach will be more ``sustainable and affordable'' when
plans, a specific architecture for human exploration, and new
technologies required to enable them have not been developed or
demonstrated?
A4. The FY 2011 budget request is good for NASA because should the
necessary funding be provided by Congress, it will set Agency on a
sustainable path that is tightly linked to our Nation's interests. One
measure of this is that it increases the Agency's top-line, in a time
when many agency budgets have been flat or taken a cut. Even more, it
reconnects NASA to the nation's priorities--creating new high-tech
jobs, driving technological innovation, and advancing space and climate
science research. It puts the Agency back on track to being the big-
picture innovator that carries the Nation forward on a tide of
technological development that creates our future growth. We should
make no mistake that these are the drivers for NASA's proposed budget
increase of $6 billion dollars over the next five years.
At the highest level, the President and his staff, as well as NASA
senior leadership, closely reviewed the Augustine Committee report, and
came to the same conclusion as the Committee: The Constellation program
was on an unsustainable trajectory. They determined that, given the
current budget environment, Constellation's funding needs would have
required terminating support of the International Space Station (ISS)
in 2016 and we would not have had sufficient resources to significantly
advance the state-of-the-art in the technology areas that would be
needed to enable lowering the cost of heavy-lift access to space, and
developing closed-loop life support; advanced propulsion technology;
and radiation protection and other technologies on a faster schedule.
The President determined that what was truly needed for beyond LEO
exploration was game-changing technologies; making the fundamental
investments that will provide the foundation for the next half-century
of American leadership in space exploration. At the same time, under
the new plan, NASA would ensure continuous American presence in space
on the ISS throughout this entire decade, re-establish a robust and
competitive American launch industry, start a major heavy lift
technology program years earlier, and build a technological foundation
for sustainable exploration beyond-low Earth orbit.
The President's FY 2011 budget request outlines an innovative
course for human space exploration, but does not change our goal--
extending human presence throughout our solar system. NASA's
exploration efforts will focus not just on our Moon, but also on near-
Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, and ultimately Mars. The President
has voiced his commitment to sending humans to orbit Mars by the mid-
2030s with a landing on Mars to follow. While we cannot provide a date
certain for the first human visit, with Mars as a key long-term
destination we can identify missing capabilities needed for such a
mission and use this to help define many of the goals for our emerging
technology development. The research and technology investments
included in this budget describe the many near-term steps NASA will be
taking to cultivate the new knowledge and breakthrough capabilities
required for humans to venture beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) to stay.
NASA's will lead the Nation on this new course of discovery and
innovation, providing the technologies, capabilities and infrastructure
required for sustainable, affordable human presence in space. Many of
these capabilities have been recommended consistently for at least 24
years in national level reports of committees and commissions
addressing future human space exploration. NASA's investment in gaining
critical knowledge about future destinations for human exploration, as
well as transformational technology development and demonstration will
serve as the foundation of NASA's ongoing space exploration effort,
broadening opportunities for crewed missions to explore destinations in
our solar system that we have not been to before. We have not sent
people beyond low-Earth orbit in 38 years, and this budget gives us the
great opportunity to focus on scouting and learning more about
destinations to further explore our solar system and to develop the
game-changing technologies that will take us there. It is important
that we pursue these objectives to continue leading the world in human
space exploration.
Pursuant to the President's proposed new course, NASA has initiated
planning activities to be able to effectively and efficiently implement
these new activities in a timely manner upon Congressional enactment of
the FY 2011 budget. In April, NASA outlined for the Committee the
Agency's planned major program assignments across the Agency's Centers
for new or extended activities proposed as part of the President's FY
2011 budget request. These planned assignments build on the deep
knowledge and expertise that NASA has built up over five decades,
recognize the wealth of experience, commitment, and expertise resident
at the NASA Centers, and expand upon the strengths at each Center.
Additionally, following the release of the FY 2011 budget request, NASA
established study teams to ensure we understand the steps (and the
implications of those steps) that would need to be taken for an orderly
transition of the Constellation Program and to plan for the
implementation of the new initiatives in the Exploration program. The
work undertaken by these teams is a necessary part of that planning.
NASA is taking prudent steps to plan for the new initiatives
included in the FY 2011 budget request, including Requests for
Information (RFI), workshops, and preliminary studies. NASA is eager to
seek external input from industry, academia, and other partners, and
plans to accomplish this via a series of RFIs and industry workshops
conducted this spring and into the summer. Doing so will ensure that
NASA receives important feedback from our space partners before it
begins to finalize its implementation plans for the proposed technology
demonstrations and human spaceflight systems development activities
that will be supported by the FY 2011 budget, once approved by
Congress. During CY 2010, NASA plans to issue a series of program
formulation documents seeking input from the broader space community.
Finally, NASA also has established the Human Exploration Framework
Team (HEFT) to serve as a cross-Agency planning activity. The team is
being led by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and
staffed with technical leaders from across NASA Centers. The team is
focused on developing and reviewing the integrated set of requirements
and technologies required for future human spaceflight missions to many
destinations, including Mars. As part of its broad integration charter,
HEFT will develop implementation recommendations on the performance and
pacing requirements for the technologies needed for future human
exploration missions using ``design reference missions,'' or DRMs.
These DRMs will be the basis for validating capabilities and missions
for five, 10-, and 15-year horizons, with milestones including crewed
missions beyond the Moon into deep space by 2025, sending astronauts to
an asteroid, and eventually landing on Mars. NASA expects to have
initial products from the HEFT team this summer.
Q5. In its report, the Columbia Accident Investigation Safety Board
commented on the human spaceflight culture at NASA:
``As the Board investigated the Columbia accident, it expected
to find a vigorous safety organization, process, and culture at NASA,
bearing little resemblance to what the Rogers Commission identified as
the ineffective ``silent safety'' system in which budget cuts resulted
in a lack of resources, personnel, independence, and authority. NASA's
initial briefings to the Board on its safety programs espoused a risk-
averse philosophy that empowered any employee to stop an operation at
the mere glimmer of a problem. Unfortunately, NASA's views of its
safety culture in those briefings did not reflect reality. Shuttle
Program safety personnel failed to adequately assess anomalies and
frequently accepted critical risks without qualitative or quantitative
support, even when the tools to provide more comprehensive assessments
were available.
Similarly, the Board expected to find NASA's Safety and Mission
Assurance organization deeply engaged at every level of Shuttle
management: the Flight Readiness Review, the Mission Management Team,
the Debris Assessment Team, the Mission Evaluation Room, and so forth.
This was not the case. In briefing after briefing, interview after
interview, NASA remained in denial: in the agency's eyes, ``there were
no safety-of-flight issues,'' and no safety compromises in the long
history of debris strikes on the Thermal Protection System. The silence
of Program-level safety processes undermined oversight; when they did
not speak up, safety personnel could not fulfill their stated mission
to provide ``checks and balances.'' A pattern of acceptance prevailed
throughout the organization that tolerated foam problems without
sufficient engineering justification for doing so.'' CAIB, Volume 1,
pages 177-178
NASA has worked to change its culture and to ensure that decisions
regarding Shuttle launches involve openness, opportunities for all
levels of Shuttle employees to identify technical concerns and risks
and to challenge decisions, and to have a forum in which NASA's human
spaceflight personnel can be heard. An independent technical authority
is now in place. In addition, NASA has in place a process for safety
and mission assurance, a NASA Engineering and Safety Center, NASA
Safety Center, and an Independent Verification and Validation Facility.
How can Congress ensure that an equivalent or greater degree of
institutional support is in place to foster a culture of safety and
openness of technical debate and to provide technical analysis that may
be needed to help reach decisions about the readiness to launch
American astronauts into space on commercial crew transportation
vehicles?
A5. Since issuance of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report,
NASA has embedded the elements of technical authority and an open
culture within all of its processes. Senior leadership routinely
espouses these ideals, and they are documented within the highest level
of NASA policy and establish the basis from which technical authority
(including not only the safety and mission assurance discipline, but
also the engineering and health and medical disciplines) and the
openness of technical debate are codified and encouraged, respectively,
for all Agency activities. The key elements of NASA technical authority
and openness to debate include checks and balances between the
programmatic chain of command and the technical authorities related to
risk-related decisions (and in the case of human activity checks and
balances, include the involvement of the risk takers in the risk
decision making). Opportunities for dissent and appropriate mechanisms
to exercise and facilitate such dissent are also documented in NASA
policy and apply to all activities in which the Agency participates or
that the Agency performs. These concepts and requirements are
documented in various levels of Agency documentation, but are
highlighted in keystone policy documents of the Agency (NASA Policy
Directive [NPD] 1000.0, the Governance and Strategic Management
Handbook; NPD 8700.1, NASA Policy for Safety and Mission Success; and,
NPD 7120.4, NASA Engineering and Program/Project Management Policy).
The NASA management commitment to the concepts of technical
authority and openness of technical debate, along with the documented
policies and requirements related to these concepts, establishes the
framework that permits effective implementation of the concepts. The
framework is important, but the key to implementation is having the
technical wherewithal and knowledge base to exercise authority and
provide an independent voice in the technical debates. Elements of the
safety and mission assurance, health and medical, and engineering
communities funded via the Center Management and Operations budget
establish the core of the independent technical authority within the
Agency. Additionally, NASA recognized the need to establish independent
sources of specialized, technically competent and qualified personnel
to augment the technical authority, so the NASA Safety and Engineering
Center, the NASA Safety Center, and the NASA Independent Verification
and Validation facility were established and funded via the Agency
Management and Operations budget.
This infrastructure and culture will continue to apply to NASA
endeavors, including commercial crew transportation vehicles for NASA
astronauts. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will continue to
monitor application of our technical authority and checks and balances.
The ASAP has been continuously evaluating NASA's implementation of the
recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, focusing
on the checks and balances the Agency has instituted to arrive at
informed decisions. The ASAP reports provide an independent assessment
and should provide early indications if the NASA safety culture and
technical authority begin to erode. Additionally, NASA collects safety-
related information though a variety of means, including internal
surveys, external surveys, and when a mishap investigation board takes
witness statements. Protecting this type of information from public
disclosure will encourage open and honest communication about risks and
potential mishaps. Further, it will assist in ensuring safety of the
public and a safer workplace for employees, allowing managers to make
more informed decisions about the risks associated with NASA's
activities. NASA previously sought legislative authority to protect
this safety-related information from public disclosure, and we
recommend that Congress consider this as an element that will help
maintain the open reporting of safety issues.
Q6. What will the $5M requested for participatory exploration be used
for and what are the objectives to be achieved? Which institution (NASA
or external) will manage the program and what is the budget for the
Participatory Exploration Office mentioned in the budget justification?
A6. Participatory Exploration is the active involvement of individuals
in the experience of, as contributors to, and collaborators in, NASA's
research, science and discovery activities. The program will increase
the following:
opportunities for personal connections with NASA and
its missions;
public interest in STEM; and,
NASA's access to the interest, knowledge, skills,
creativity and innovation that exists outside the NASA
community.
However, to enable this, NASA must make its research, development
and related discoveries more open and transparent. Additionally,
participatory exploration must embody far more than simply exposing
people to or educating them about NASA's discoveries and exploration
activities. Participatory exploration must encourage individuals to
contribute their creativity and capabilities to NASA's mission of
discovery.
President Obama has recognized the incredible benefits of
participatory exploration for NASA and the Nation and has provided $5
million in annual funding for NASA participatory exploration efforts as
part of the FY 2011 budget request. Currently, Participatory
Exploration is housed within NASA's ESMD. In general, it is envisioned
that the Participatory Exploration Office would support research on new
technologies that can increase public participation, coordinate NASA-
wide efforts to incorporate new participatory exploration approaches
into future work, and act as a clearinghouse for identifying and
communicating best practices both internally to NASA and externally to
our communities. While maximizing the strong efforts NASA already
places on reaching various audiences, Participatory Exploration will
foster, facilitate and support active public engagement and
collaboration by combining improved technology and Open Government
practices to provide a broad spectrum of engagement possibilities for
the maximum benefit of the public. The activities the Participatory
Exploration Office supports and coordinates would help empower citizens
to become not just consumers of NASA innovation but co-creators of
knowledge and ideas to advance space exploration.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. The Augustine Committee noted that developing a new, safe, human-
rated spaceflight system would require a phased funding increase of $3
billion per year above current levels. This Administration budget
request does the contrary; it removes $5.8 billion (compared to the FY
10 budget) from the program, yet asserts that commercial companies can
get astronauts to low Earth orbit as safely as Constellation on a
similar or better schedule.
a. What evidence or analyses convinced the Administration that
commercial providers can meet these performance goals? Please
provide the Committee with a copy of any analyses.
A1. NASA is in the process of developing a commercial crew development
plan that would include requirements and performance goals for
commercial crew providers. Upon receiving proposals, NASA will
carefully evaluate those responses on an individual basis to determine
if they meet the Agency's needs for the commercial crew program.
With regard to any specific analysis, per Section 306 of OMB
Circular A-11, ``Communications with Congress and the Public and
Clearance Requirements, budget formulation documents and discussions
are of a pre-decisional nature and thus cannot be provided for the
public record. However, in general, the Administration relied heavily
on the Augustine Report which stated that: ``Commercial services to
deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach. While this presents
some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and
life-cycle costs than government could achieve. A new competition with
adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all U.S.
aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging
roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the
continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.''
The Committee also found, ``Moving towards commercial crew services
will also contribute to the evaluation on Economic Expansion. Together
with commercial launch services for cargo to the ISS, and potentially
in-space refueling, the commercial crew options could further stimulate
the development of a domestic competitive launch capability.
Eventually, it could stimulate a commercial service for human transport
to low-Earth orbit that would be available to other markets.''
It is important to remember that at the highest level, the
President and his staff, as well as the NASA senior leadership team,
closely reviewed the Augustine Committee report, and we came to the
same conclusion as the Committee: the human spaceflight program and the
Constellation Program were on an unsustainable trajectory. Therefore,
the President recognized that what was truly needed for beyond LEO
exploration was game-changing technologies; making the fundamental
investments that will provide the foundation for the next half-century
of American leadership in space exploration.
NASA understands that human space exploration has driven
technological advances that have made the United States more
competitive in the global economy. NASA's new path forward will not
surrender the United States' leadership in space but rather will enable
the Nation to pursue exploration in new ways. The FY 2011 budget
request invests in commercial providers to transport astronauts to the
ISS. By allowing commercial providers to provide more routine access to
low-Earth orbit, NASA will once again be able to focus on the most
difficult technological puzzles to solve such as building rockets that
allow humans to reach other planets in days rather than months and
protecting humans from radiation during interplanetary travel. NASA's
FY 2011 budget request includes investments in a new space technology
research and development, and a new heavy-lift and propulsion
technology development program.
More specifically, the FY 2011 budget request challenges NASA to
develop the necessary capabilities to send Americans to places that
humans have not explored before, including longer stays at exciting new
locations on the Moon, near-Earth objects, strategic deep space zones
called Lagrange points, and the planet Mars and its Moons. We have not
sent people beyond LEO in 38 years, and this budget gives us the great
opportunity to focus on scouting and learning more about destinations
to further explore our solar system and to develop the game-changing
technologies that will take us there. It is important that we pursue
these objectives to continue leading the world in human space
exploration.
Q2. NASA's budget request for commercial crew and cargo procurements
states that, ``Government requirements are kept to a minimum and are
only concerned with assuring safe interaction with the ISS. The
partners are not required to follow the standard NASA Program and
Project Management Processes and Requirements, NPR 7120.5.'' In other
places the budget says crew safety won't be compromised and your own
testimony acknowledges the imperative of safety, yet NASA's ability to
verify safety standards relies on NPR 7120.5.
a. How are we to interpret NASA's process for ensuring safety?
Will commercials be held to a lesser standard?
A2a. NASA is in the process of developing a plan that supports the
development of commercial crew transportation providers to whom NASA
could competitively award crew transportation services. NASA released
the preliminary plan using a NASA Request For Information on May 21,
2010. Responses were due on June 18, 2010 and NASA is in the process of
reviewing and evaluating the responses. NASA plans to finalize the
Commercial Human-Rating implementation plan in time to support an open-
competition when NASA pursues the development phase of commercial crew
transportation systems.
Safety is and always will be NASA's first core value, so the Agency
will provide significant oversight over any commercial venture. U.S.
astronauts will not fly on any spaceflight vehicle until NASA is
convinced it is safe to do so. Therefore, we will establish strict
oversight processes to ensure that our safety standards are met. At no
point in the development and acquisition of commercial crew
transportation services will NASA compromise crew safety. NASA has
unique expertise and history in this area, and a clearly demonstrated
record of success. NASA will bring that experience to bear in the
appropriate way to make sure that commercial crew transportation
services are a success both programmatically, and with respect to
safety. For example, NASA has a Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services (COTS) Advisory Team comprised of approximately 100 NASA
technical experts from across the Agency. These experts work with our
partners and review partner technical and programmatic progress for
each milestone and provide progress assessments to NASA's Commercial
Crew Cargo Program Office. Additionally, they participate in all major
design reviews providing technical review comments back to our
partners. The advisory team provides another method by which NASA gains
confidence that our partners will be able to perform their flight
demonstrations.
One of the strengths of the COTS venture is that we let the
companies do what they do best, that is developing truly unique
spaceflight vehicles using innovative processes that aren't available
within the Federal bureaucratic framework. We give them requirements
that they have to meet and we ensure that they have met those
requirements, but we try not to dictate how they meet those
requirements. For example, each COTS partner must successfully verify
compliance with a detailed set of ISS interface and safety requirements
prior to their planned ISS berthing missions. These requirements are
imposed on all Visiting Vehicles wishing to visit to the International
Space Station (ISS). Both COTS partners are currently working with the
ISS program on a daily basis to ensure they meet the ISS visiting
vehicle requirements. This also helps to give NASA independent insight
into their progress and it builds confidence in their abilities.
With regard to commercial crew, at no point in the development and
acquisition of commercial crew transportation services will NASA
compromise crew safety. Simply put, U.S. astronauts will not fly on any
spaceflight vehicle until NASA is convinced it is safe to do so. NASA
has unique expertise and history in this area, and a clearly
demonstrated record of success in transporting crew. NASA will bring
that experience to bear in the appropriate way to make sure that
commercial crew transportation services are a success both
programmatically, and with respect to safety. At no point in the
development and acquisition of commercial crew transportation services
will NASA compromise crew safety. For example, NASA will have in-depth
insight of the vehicle design via NASA personnel who are embedded in
the contractor's facility. Additionally, NASA will impose strict
requirements and standards on all providers that will be carefully
evaluated and reviewed at multiple stages before a vehicle system is
certified by NASA for crewed flight.
b. Has NASA examined potential cost and schedule impacts of
human rating requirements on the commercial launch industry?
A2b. It is not possible for NASA to examine potential cost and schedule
impacts at this time, given that the impact of both issues would be
individualized based on commercial proposals submitted to NASA. In the
same vein, commercial providers have not yet been able to develop cost
and schedule baselines because they are waiting for the FY 2011 budget
to be approved and for NASA to issue procurement solicitations.
Additionally, potential commercial providers will need to see and
understand NASA's human-rating requirements which are planned to be
complete no later than the end of this calendar year.
c. NASA's own management process for human-rating Ares and
Orion took many months and many iterations to develop specific
design requirements. What are the agency's plans for developing
and publishing human rating standards for commercial launch
companies?
A2c. NASA agrees with the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), which
stated, ``it is crucial that NASA focus on establishing the
certification requirements, a certification process for orbital
transportation vehicles, and a process for verifying compliance. The
performance and safety requirements must be stated promptly and clearly
to enable NASA and non-NASA entities to proceed in the most productive
and effective manner possible.'' Therefore, NASA is working with the
commercial partners to clearly articulate human rating processes and
requirements that will contribute to the safe flight and safe return of
NASA crewmembers on commercial space vehicles. NASA released the
preliminary plan using a NASA Request For Information on May 21, 2010.
Responses were due on June 18, 2010 and NASA is in the process of
reviewing and evaluating the responses. NASA plans to finalize the
Commercial Human-Rating implementation plan in time to support an open-
competition when NASA pursues the development phase of commercial crew
transportation systems.'' The ASAP plans to complete work on the final
human rating plan by the end of the calendar year.
d. Once standards are published, what is the process for
applying them to individual launch company systems? Will
requirements be tailored for each potential vendor, and how
long do you envision such a process to take?
A2d. While NASA is working to develop a new human-rating document that
will have a series of generic requirements and standards, it is
important to remember that human rating is a process that involves more
than a simple set of design requirements; it is not cookie-cutter task.
Instead, it is an intricate process of flowdown requirements that are
translated into hardware designs; hardware tested against the
requirements; design improvements developed and test; vehicles
certified for flight; and risks understood with mitigation approaches
in place. Additionally, NASA human rates an entire system, including
ground elements and operational procedures (fundamentally, anything
about the flight or ground system that impacts flight crew/passenger
safety), not specific elements of a system. Therefore, additional
human-rating plans will have to be developed based on the vehicle
design characteristics for each proposed commercial system. Thus, those
plans will be developed after selection for developmental funding.
e. Do you expect new space vendors will be required to fly
several demonstration missions to validate system safety and
reliability?
A2e. NASA does not plan to dictate a specific test program. It is
envisioned that the commercial providers will propose a test program
and NASA will assess those test programs as part of the Agency's
evaluation of proposals and determination of rules.
Q3. Currently the Shuttle program carries an enormous amount of
infrastructure and related overhead-costs as part of its budget. If
Constellation proceeds, in a similar vein it is likely NASA would also
charge related infrastructure and overhead to the program.
a. In order to make an apples-to-apples comparison between
Constellation and the commercial crew proposal, where would the
costs of NASA's human spaceflight infrastructure and overhead
be borne under a commercial crew scheme?
A3a. It is assumed that NASA's human spaceflight infrastructure and
overhead would not be borne by commercial providers, unless the
providers required a part of that infrastructure. NASA would then have
to explore options for providing that infrastructure on a reimbursable
basis. NASA does not know what infrastructure will be needed by future
commercial crew partners given that we have not yet seen their
proposals. Additionally, NASA is continuing to evaluate the Agency's
own needs for current facilities and property so as to determine what
assets could be used by the new programs and projects outlined in the
FY 2011 budget request.
b. If the commercial crew option is approved, going forward
how would NASA account for infrastructure and overhead-costs
formerly carried under the Shuttle program?
A3b. It is premature for NASA to answer this question at this time.
First, NASA does not know what infrastructure will be needed by our
commercial crew partners, given that we have not yet seen their
proposals as part of a competitive bidding process. Second, NASA is
still gathering information to make this decision.
Following the release of the FY 2011 budget request, NASA
established a series of study teams to understand the steps (and
implications of those steps) that would be needed for an orderly
transition to new initiatives outlined in the budget request. The
Constellation Transition team, for example, is leveraging expertise
from across the Agency to develop a rapid and cost effective ramp-down
plan that will free the resources required for new programs. As part of
the early characterization and integrated planning effort, this team
has initiated a broad survey of current workforce, contracts,
facilities, property, security, knowledge capture, information
technology, and other Government agency interface issues to determine
what NASA infrastructure and hardware could be used by the new programs
and projects.
It is important to note that NASA will be working to eliminate
unneeded infrastructure going forward. Part of the reason that the
Shuttle was so expensive was because it required a large ground
infrastructure to refurbish orbiters, prepare them for flight, and
launch them. NASA hopes to be able to replace elements of the Shuttle
infrastructure with less costly alternatives.
Q4. With regard to the Administration's heavy-lift launch vehicle
proposal, who will build and operate them? Does NASA plan to rely on
commercial operators for heavy-lift capabilities in the same manner as
commercial crew?
a. Does NASA plan to use commercial providers to launch and
operate deep-space long-duration missions?
A4a. As outlined in the FY 2011 budget request, NASA will work with
industry (and, to a lesser degree, academia) on research and
development activities related to space launch propulsion technologies.
This effort will include development of a U.S. first-stage hydrocarbon
engine for potential use in future heavy lift (and other) launch
systems, as well as basic research in areas such as new propellants,
advanced propulsion materials manufacturing techniques, combustion
processes, and engine health monitoring. Additionally, NASA will
initiate development and testing of in-space engines. Areas of focus
could include a liquid oxygen/methane engine and low-cost liquid
oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines. This work will build from NASA's recent
R&D experience in this area, and the test articles will be viewed as a
potential prototype for a subsequent operational engine that would be
restartable and capable of high acceleration and reliability. These
technologies would increase our heavy-lift and other space propulsion
capabilities and significantly lower operations costs--with the clear
goal of taking us farther and faster into space consistent with safety
and mission success criteria. In support of this initiative, NASA will
explore cooperative efforts with the Department of Defense and also
develop a competitive process for allocating a small portion of these
funds to universities and other non-governmental organizations. This
research effort along with many of our new technology initiatives will
be coordinated with the broader Agency technology initiative led by
NASA's new Chief Technologist. NASA will be aiming to decide the design
of a new-heavy lift vehicle by 2015.
Q5. How did the Administration develop its $6 billion estimate for the
commercial crew program?
A5. With regard to how the Administration developed its estimate,
budget formulation discussions are of a pre-decisional nature and thus
cannot be provided for the public record. However, in general, industry
input from previous competitions indicate that NASA's available funding
could reasonably be expected to provide financial and in-kind support
to up to four companies through the development period.
a. Does this budget cover projected development costs for at
least two launch companies, and does it assume initial
operating costs?
A5a. NASA is still developing the acquisition strategy for commercial
crew efforts. However, in general, it would be NASA's preference to
award development funding for multiple proposals, thus increasing the
likelihood that multiple partners would succeed at developing a
commercial crew vehicle. Then after the commercial crew services
procurement is released, NASA could potentially select more than one
partner to supply those services, thus providing redundancy of
capabilities. The $6 billion for commercial crew is for development
activities only, not services.
b. What contracting mechanism (e.g. Space Act Agreements, or
Federal Acquisition Register-based) does the agency intend to
use?
A5b. NASA is still developing the acquisition strategy for commercial
crew efforts. Therefore, the Agency has not yet decided which
contracting mechanism will be used for the development effort and/or
eventual procurement of commercial crew services.
c. What assumptions were made regarding the amount of private
equity required to develop each system?
A5c. With regard to the assumptions used by the Administration to
develop its estimate, budget formulation discussions are of a pre-
decisional nature and thus cannot be provided for the public record.
However, it is important to remember that NASA did not specify a
minimum level of cost sharing for Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services partners because the Agency felt that it would be
inappropriate to prejudge a potential partner's business case. NASA
reviewed each proposal as a whole, and assessed each proposal based on
its own merits. That included review and evaluation of the type of
vehicle system proposed, the development process proposed, as well as
market factors such as the potential for other non-Government
customers, the amount of investment each company plans to contribute,
the company's experience in similar endeavors, etc. No single factor is
necessarily more important than another. NASA will likely implement a
similar strategy for commercial crew selection.
In addition, it is noteworthy to point out what the Augustine
Committee said about the costs of potential crew cargo program:
``Comparing the scope of providing a commercial crew capability to the
cost of historical programs offers a sanity check. In the existing COTS
A-C contracts, two commercial suppliers have received or invested about
$400-$500 million for the development of a new launch vehicle and
unmanned spacecraft. Gemini is the closest historical program in scope
to the envisioned commercial crew taxi. In about four years in the
early- to mid-1960s, NASA and industry human-rated the Titan II (which
required 39 months), and designed and tested a capsule. In GDP-
inflator-corrected FY 2009 dollars, the DDT&E cost of this program was
about $2.5-3 billion, depending on the accounting for test flights.
These two comparatives tend to support the estimate that the program
can be viable with a $5 billion stimulus from NASA.''
Q6. Under the Administration's commercial crew proposal, how many
privately-financed launches that would be required on an annual basis
in order to provide sufficient operating efficiencies to meet NASA's
assumed launch and operating costs? Please provide copies of any
analyses used to develop these estimates.
A6. These estimates do not exist because they depend on commercial
proposals that have not yet been solicited.
Q7. The budget proposal suggests precursor missions to several
possible locations, such as the Moon, Mars and Lagrange Points. What
are the value of such missions if we've already put robotic spacecraft
there; what goals would such missions accomplish, and how do they
contribute to NASA's newly-defined mission?
A7. A key contributor to a robust exploration program will be the
acquisition of critical knowledge gained through the pursuit of
exploration precursor robotic missions. Led by ESMD, this effort will
send precursor robotic missions to candidate destinations that will
pave the way for later human exploration of the Moon, Mars and its
moons, and nearby asteroids.
Like the highly successful Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and
Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) missions that
captured the Nation's attention last fall, future exploration precursor
missions will scout locations, gather key knowledge and demonstrate
technologies to identify the most compelling and accessible places to
explore with humans and validate potential approaches to get them there
and back safely. These missions will provide vital information--from
soil chemistry to radiation dose levels to landing site scouting to
resource identification--necessary to plan, design and operate future
human missions. These missions will help us determine the next step for
crews beyond LEO, answering such questions as: Is a particular asteroid
a viable target for crewed mission? Do the resources at the lunar poles
have the potential for crew utilization? Is Mars dust toxic? Dedicated
precursor exploration missions are planned to remain below $800 million
in total cost, and many will be considerably less expensive. NASA plans
to begin funding at least two dedicated precursor missions in 2011, and
to identify potential future missions to begin in 2012 and/or 2013.
Additionally, a new portfolio of explorer scouts will execute
small, rapid turn-around, highly competitive missions to exploration
destinations. Generally budgeted at between $100 million and $200
million lifecycle cost, these missions will allow NASA to test new and
innovative ways of doing robotic exploration of destinations of
interest to future human exploration. Selected projects may provide
multiple small scouting spacecraft to investigate multiple possible
landing sites, or provide means of rapid-prototyping new spacecraft
approaches.
Q8. NASA's proposal appears to repudiate the use of solid rocket
motors on human-rated launch systems by eliminating the Ares 1 and Ares
5 launch vehicle developments, and by emphasizing research into new
heavy-lift hydrocarbon-based liquid motors. Is the Administration
opposed to utilizing solid rocket motors in manned systems, and if so,
what is its rationale?
A8. On April 15, 2010, the President laid out the goals and strategies
related to the FY 2011 budget request for human exploration of our
solar system, including a sequence of deep-space destinations matched
to growing capabilities, progressing step-by-step until we are able to
reach Mars. In doing so, he also announced that in addition to
investing in transformative heavy-lift technologies, he will commit to
make a specific decision not later than 2015 on the development of a
new heavy-lift architecture. A decision no later than 2015 means that
major work on building a new heavy-lift rocket will likely begin two
years earlier than under the Constellation Program.
In support of that timeline, NASA will begin heavy lift vehicle
system analyses on various launch vehicle concepts to determine the
best approach that meets the affordability and reliability figures of
merit. The Administration is not opposed to using solid rocket motors.
Concept heavy-lift vehicles could include solid rocket motors as well
as liquid strap-ons and all concepts will be evaluated during a
rigorous systems analysis effort to identify the best configuration to
meet the Nation's needs.
Q9. NASA initiated Cargo Resupply Services contracts with potential
service providers before any of the COTS systems have been
demonstrated. The agency has also made initial payments in the absence
of demonstration flights. What is the agency's back-up plan to re-
supply ISS if a commercial cargo provider is unsuccessful or goes out
to business?
A9. Two companies, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital
Sciences Corporation have funded Space Act Agreements with NASA as part
of the COTS project to demonstrate cargo transportation to ISS. At this
time, SpaceX plans to conduct its first NASA demonstration cargo
mission supply to ISS in tentatively September 2010, and Orbital
Sciences Corporation in June 2011. The actual purchase of cargo
services to ISS is being conducted through the separate ISS Commercial
Resupply Services (CRS) procurement effort. In December 2008, NASA
awarded CRS contracts to SpaceX and Orbital Science Corporation for
cargo delivery beginning as early as late 2010. NASA is pre-positioning
spares onboard the ISS with the final Space Shuttle logistics flights
to provide some margin for delay in commercial cargo services. Beyond
that, there is no planned back-up capability for ISS commercial cargo.
Timely commercial cargo capability is critical for effective ISS
operations. Without commercial cargo capability, the crew size and
research operations planned for ISS would need to be reduced.
NASA will also rely on the transportation capabilities of Russia,
the European Space Agency (ESA) and Japan to transport cargo to ISS.
Russia's Progress vehicle has been providing cargo services to ISS
through a contract with NASA. The ESA Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV)
had a successful initial flight to the Space Station in 2008. The
Japanese HII Transfer Vehicle (HTV) had a successful initial flight to
ISS in 2009. ESA's and Japan's services are provided through barter
agreements. It should be noted that NASA does not plan to continue to
procure Progress cargo resupply services after 2011, opting instead to
rely on U.S. commercial cargo delivery capabilities provided through
Commercial Resupply Services contracts.
Q10. The budget proposes an aggressive and expensive spending program
($1.93 billion) to transform the Kennedy Space Center into a modern
launch complex, yet the level of detail in the budget justification is
vague. For instance, it uses the phrase: ``areas under consideration
include . . .'' There is nothing in the current plan that would launch
from the Kennedy Space Center. All the potential commercial providers--
ULA, SpaceX, Orbital Sciences--use launch facilities away from KSC.
This is true for the Eastern Test Range as well, which is controlled
from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. How did NASA develop the
estimate and why at Kennedy Space Center?
A10. The 21st Century Space Launch Complex Program is an initiative to
focus on upgrades to the Florida launch range, expanding capabilities
to support commercial cargo providers, and transforming KSC into a
modern facility. NASA's infrastructure at KSC was originally designed
to support the Apollo Program, and was later modified for the Space
Shuttle. While this infrastructure has served America well, ongoing
concerns about its age have led the Agency to develop this $1.9B range
upgrade initiative, based on the longstanding need to modernize
integration and operations infrastructure. This effort will be closely
coordinated with the United States Air Force (USAF), the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), and the space user community to develop
a requirements plan. This will help ensure that KSC and the larger
range shared with Cape Canaveral Air Force Station can continue to
serve as a robust, flexible launch site for civil, military, and
commercial missions for decades to come.
NASA currently has a team working with the USAF and FAA on the
specific details of the initiative, but the primary focus is to make
investments in overall launch and processing operations.
In support of this goal, NASA has revisited previous activities
that have addressed future launch/range technologies and capabilities
(ex., the Launch Enterprise Transformational Study), and formed teams
at KSC to prepare an initial list of proposed projects. In addition,
Agency representatives have been meeting with commercial and government
agencies and organizations to initiate relationships. NASA plans to
release a Request for Information (RFI) in the near future to request
infrastructure and capabilities needs and associated timelines from
potential customers. NASA will also establish Customer Advocates for
each entity showing an interest in building relationships and
assisting/enabling market entry, recognizing that future commercial
users may not be limited to those currently involved in the Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Commercial Resupply Services
(CRS) efforts. It is particularly important to begin this effort as
soon as possible in order to effectively utilize the time between the
retirement of the Space Shuttle and the operational availability of
future systems to implement facilities upgrades.
Q11. The five year run-out for the Science Mission Directorate (SMD)
clearly favors new spending for Earth Sciences, while the other
divisions (Planetary Sciences, Astrophysics, and Heliophysics) grow
slowly or are flat-funded. Earth Sciences is proposed to receive a
$380M increase in FY 2011 (versus FY 2010 enacted) and $1.8B additional
over the five year run-out to accelerate development of new missions
recommended in the Decadal Survey. Earth Sciences' share of the SMD
budget grows from 30 percent in FY 2009 to 40 percent in FY 2015. Is
this an appropriate balance? How will the other science divisions be
able to respond to upcoming decadal surveys due out later this year?
A11. The President's FY 2011 budget request for NASA reflects the
Administration's commitment to science and innovation broadly and also
its commitment to address the challenge of climate change. NASA is
essential to the nation's efforts on both fronts. Earth observations
from space and the research to turn those data into scientific
understanding and practical applications are indispensable to climate
change research, mitigation, and adaptation.
The FY 2011 budget request for Earth Science at NASA continues the
reverse of a substantial decline in national investment in that program
since FY 2000. In fact, the trend set by the FY 2011 budget request
will by FY 2015 restore NASA's Earth Science program to the buying
power it had in FY 2000. As a consequence of the decline in funding
since FY 2000, NASA's fleet of Earth observing satellites--which
provide most of the global observations employed in national and
international climate change research--has not been refreshed at a rate
commensurate with satellite design lifetimes or the need for advances
in important science questions. The FY 2010 budget request and
Appropriations put the NASA Earth Science missions currently in
development on a firm budgetary path to successful completion, and the
President's FY 2011 Budget Request enables development and launch of
the first Tier of Decadal Survey missions by 2017 and of two Tier 2
missions by 2020. This accomplishes half of the Decadal Survey mission
recommendations in the time frame proposed by the National Academies of
Science. The funded accelerations of Decadal Survey missions and the
addition of key climate continuity measurement missions constitute a
robust, responsible, and world-leading capability for climate change
research. This is the capability the Nation needs.
With regard to how other NASA Science Mission Directorate divisions
will be able to respond to their Decadal Surveys, the schedule for
release by the National Academies of Science and the corresponding
first budget request to be influenced by those Surveys is as follows:
NASA will work with the Administration and the Congress to craft an
optimal implementation of these Decadal Surveys' recommendations
consistent with budget guidelines and constraints that pertain at the
time.
Q12. What compelled the Administration to cancel production of Orion?
It includes advanced technologies, many of which are identified in
NASA's budget plan as candidates for flagship and enabling technology
demonstrations, such as closed-loop life support systems, automated
rendezvous and docking, and radiation shielding technology. Wouldn't it
be more prudent to continue with its design and production instead of a
clean sheet approach?
A12. On April 15, 2010, President Obama laid out the goals and
strategies for his new vision for NASA. In doing so, he outlined how he
wants NASA to restructure the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle project to
design a simpler and more efficient capsule that will be focused on
crew emergency escape from the International Space Station. Under the
Constellation Program, the Orion crew capsule was intended to house
astronauts during their travel to the International Space Station and
later missions to the Moon. It also was to be capable of docking at the
Space Station for six months and returning crews to the Earth.
Per the President's direction, NASA will build on the good work
already completed on the Orion crew capsule and focus the effort to
provide a simpler and more efficient design that would provide crew
emergency escape from the ISS and serve as part of the technical
foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space
missions. This approach also will preserve a number of critical high-
tech industry jobs in key disciplines needed for our future deep space
exploration program.
We have put together a formulation team including Headquarters and
Center personnel to develop a baseline approach that meets these
requirements, balanced with the other priorities proposed in the
President's FY 2011 budget request. This team will report to the
Administrator on how best to meet these requirements.
The team has been directed to align this work so that it
complements, and does not compete with, our commercial crew development
effort. In this manner, we will simplify the requirements for potential
crew service providers to the ISS by having the restructured Orion
effort fulfill the important safety requirement of emergency escape
system for astronauts on the ISS. The formulation team will also focus
on innovative approaches to oversight, and believe that we can
significantly reduce oversight requirements based on lessons learned in
previous focused development flight programs. We must accomplish this
activity more efficiently and effectively to maintain a healthy funding
balance across our exploration priorities. And this will be done
without reducing our commitment to safety for crew escape. The crew
rescue mission has many fewer requirements than the deep space mission,
providing design flexibility and reducing the system's lifecycle cost.
Finally, the team must identify how this activity will align with the
development efforts proposed in the Flagship Demonstration program as
well as our other technology efforts so that investments in these
programs can be leveraged to the greatest extent possible.
The funding for this restructuring will come within NASA's top-line
request released in February. The out year funding requirements will be
refined as part of the President's FY 2012 budget submission.
Q13. We understand NASA leadership and the Augustine Committee
received approaches from Constellation contractors to streamline the
current program. These approaches offered ways to reduce Constellation
program cost and accelerate the schedule. What is NASA's rationale for
rejecting this approach--which had fairly mature cost, risk and
schedule estimates--in favor of opting for a clean sheet approach with
much greater level of unknowns?
A13. Budget formulation discussions are of a pre-decisional nature and
thus cannot be provided for the public record.
However, in general, at the highest level, the President and his
staff, as well as NASA senior leadership, closely reviewed the
Augustine Committee report, and came to the same conclusion as the
Committee: The Constellation Program was on an unsustainable
trajectory. They determined that, given the current budget environment,
Constellation's funding needs would have required terminating support
of the International Space Station in 2016 and NASA would not have had
sufficient resources to significantly advance the state of the art in
the technology areas that would be needed to enable lowering the cost
of heavy-lift access to space, and developing closed-loop life support;
advanced propulsion technology; and radiation protection and other
technologies on a faster schedule. The President determined that what
was truly needed for beyond LEO exploration was game-changing
technologies; making the fundamental investments that will provide the
foundation for the next half-century of American leadership in space
exploration. At the same time, under the new plan, NASA would ensure
continuous American presence in space on the ISS throughout this entire
decade, re-establish a robust and competitive American launch industry,
start a major heavy lift technology program years earlier, and build a
technological foundation for sustainable beyond-LEO exploration of our
moon, near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, and ultimately Mars.
Questions submitted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. As you know, the Constellation Program's Ares crew launch vehicle
is being designed to meet Columbia Accident Investigation Board and
Astronaut office requirements that the Shuttle's replacement be at
least 10 times safer than the Space Shuttle.
a. Will NASA require that commercial crew transportation
alternatives be 10 times safer than the Shuttle? If not, why
not?
A1a. Safety is and always will be NASA's first core value, so we will
provide significant oversight over any commercial venture. Simply put,
U.S. astronauts will not fly on any spaceflight vehicle until NASA is
convinced it is safe to do so.
To date, NASA has not specified a Loss of Crew requirement for
commercial crew transport, but will do so as part of the acquisition
strategy process currently in progress. However, we intend for
Commercial Crew to be much safer than the Space Shuttle.
b. How will NASA verify that selected commercial crew
alternatives selected meet the safety standard set by NASA?
A1b. NASA is in the process of developing a plan that supports the
development of commercial crew transportation providers to whom NASA
could competitively award crew transportation services. NASA released
the preliminary plan using a NASA Request For Information on May 21,
2010. Responses were due on June 18, 2010 and NASA is in the process of
reviewing and evaluating the responses. NASA plans to finalize the
Commercial Human-Rating implementation plan in time to support an open-
competition when NASA pursues the development phase of commercial crew
transportation systems.
As noted earlier, U.S. astronauts will not fly on any spaceflight
vehicle until NASA is convinced it is safe to do so. Therefore, we will
establish strict oversight processes to ensure that our safety
standards are met.
At no point in the development and acquisition of commercial crew
transportation services will NASA compromise crew safety. NASA has
unique expertise and history in this area, and a clearly demonstrated
record of success. NASA will bring that experience to bear in the
appropriate way to make sure that commercial crew transportation
services are a success both programmatically, and with respect to
safety.
Q2. During your remarks introducing the FY 2011 budget request, you
referenced the commercial space industry's claim that as many as 5,000
new jobs would be created. What is the basis for this estimate and has
NASA independently verified the likelihood of that claim? What is the
nature of the jobs created?
A2. The 5,000 figure should be considered a low end initial estimate.
The Tauri Group, using U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis model Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (RMIS II) estimated an overall average of
more than 11,800 jobs per year over five years with a peak of 14,200
jobs in FY 2012. NASA is trying to reduce the cost needed to support
commercial spaceflight and believes that these approximate contractor
workforce levels will be reflected in their proposal submissions.
Q3. The Augustine Committee report pointed out the importance of
sustaining critical national skills such as the capability to produce
solid rocket boosters when it stated: ``Special attention needs to be
devoted to assuring the vitality of those portions of the workforce
that represent critical and perishable skills that are unique to the
space program. One example is the design and manufacturing of very
large, solid propellant motors.''
a. To what extent do the Administration's proposed plans
address this workforce issue?
A3a. NASA is very cognizant of the workforce and industrial base issues
mentioned in Section 9.3 of the Report, NASA Management Challenges. The
management challenge was well stated, in that ``only a modest fraction
of jobs generally fits the `critical, perishable, and unique'
criterion.'' The proposed FY 2011 budget invests heavily in advanced
technology, which will allow NASA to invest in the critical skills
associated with these technologies. NASA will work towards a no later
than 2015 decision on the design of a heavy-lift launch vehicle. While
a key focus of early R&D will be on a hydrocarbon engine, a range of
design options will be considered. NASA will provide special attention
to identifying those critical skills required to enable this range of
design options.
NASA has been in the process of planning for the transition of its
workforce after the retirement of the Space Shuttle since 2004. While
the proposed transition away from the Constellation Program would
change the array of projects available to workers moving forward from
Shuttle, many of the transition practices and Federal/state/local
networks set up in affected areas will be applicable to this new
transition challenge. These practices have included an effort to ensure
that critical skills are retained by providing a career path to
meaningful follow-on work in other programs, maintain NASA's quality
workplace by providing a collaborative and creative environment, and
support career development and learning opportunities. NASA is
committed to transitioning the key Space Shuttle civil servant
workforce to other Agency programs as necessary using tools such as
workforce synergy, matrixing, detailing, and retraining. In addition,
Centers identify opportunities for the placement of employees with
needed skills in other organizations.
To ease the transition for workers dislocated while the new space
strategy is being implemented, the President has dedicated up to $100M
of the funds requested for the Constellation transition to promote
economic growth and job creation. At least $40M of those monies will be
dedicated to transforming the regional economy around the Kennedy Space
Center (KSC) and prepare its workforce for these new opportunities. On
May 3, the President identified a high-level team of senior officials
from the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Labor as well as NASA
and the White House to develop a plan for regional economic growth and
retraining dislocated workers to pursue new work opportunities. The
team will report its recommendations to the President by August 15.
Currently, NASA plans to provide an update of its Workforce
Transition Strategy to Congress last this year. In addition, on June
28, the Agency provided Congress with more qualitative update on
ongoing transition efforts since last summer.
b. Have any industrial base impact assessments been performed
by NASA or the administration on the potential cost increases
to other government agencies or loss of industrial base
capabilities if systems or materials that are critical to
national security are no longer procured by NASA? If so, please
provide the assessment to this Committee.
A3b. NASA has not conducted any formal assessments in these areas.
However, NASA worked with Defense officials to develop a plan to
maintain the intellectual and engineering capacity, including key
workforce skills, to support next-generation rocket motors as needed.
The task force is co-chaired by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics office and NASA and
includes representatives from the Department of Defense, NASA, the
Missile Defense Agency, the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. This DOD
report, entitled ``SRM Industrial Base Interim Sustainment Plan'' was
released to Congress on June 23, 2010.
Q4. You testified that ``While . . . we cannot provide a date certain
for the first human visit, with Mars as a key long-term destination we
can identify missing capabilities needed for such a mission and use
this to help define many of the goals for our emerging technology
development.'' When can the Committee expect to see a technology
roadmap for Mars? When will NASA have a plan that outlines how the new
technology initiatives will address the goals in a Mars technology
roadmap?
A4. The President's FY 2011 budget request outlines an innovative
course for human space exploration, but does not change our goal--
extending human presence throughout our solar system. NASA's
exploration efforts will focus not just on our Moon, but also on near-
Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, and ultimately Mars. The President
has voiced his commitment to sending humans to orbit Mars by the mid-
2030s with a landing on Mars to follow. While we cannot provide a date
certain for the first human visit, with Mars as a key long-term
destination we can identify missing capabilities needed for such a
mission and use this to help define many of the goals for our emerging
technology development. The research and technology investments
included in this budget describe the many near-term steps NASA will be
taking to cultivate the new knowledge and breakthrough capabilities
required for humans to venture beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) to stay.
NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) will lead the
Nation on this new course of discovery and innovation, providing the
technologies, capabilities and infrastructure required for sustainable,
affordable human presence in space. Many of these capabilities have
been recommended consistently for at least 24 years in national level
reports of committees and commissions addressing future human space
exploration. ESMD's investment in gaining critical knowledge about
future destinations for human exploration, as well as transformational
technology development and demonstration will serve as the foundation
of NASA's ongoing space exploration effort, broadening opportunities
for crewed missions to explore destinations in our solar system that we
have not been to before. We have not sent people beyond low-Earth orbit
in 38 years, and this budget gives us the great opportunity to focus on
scouting and learning more about destinations to further explore our
solar system and to develop the game-changing technologies that will
take us there. It is important that we pursue these objectives to
continue leading the world in human space exploration.
Pursuant to the President's proposed new course, NASA has initiated
planning activities to be able to effectively and efficiently implement
these new activities in a timely manner upon Congressional enactment of
the FY 2011 budget. In April, NASA outlined for the Committee the
Agency's planned major program assignments across the Agency's Centers
for new or extended activities proposed as part of the President's FY
2011 budget request. These planned assignments build on the deep
knowledge and expertise that NASA has built up over five decades,
recognize the wealth of experience, commitment, and expertise resident
at the NASA Centers, and expand upon the strengths at each Center.
Additionally, following the release of the FY 2011 budget request, NASA
established study teams within ESMD to ensure we understand the steps
(and the implications of those steps) that would need to be taken for
an orderly transition of the Constellation Program and to plan for the
implementation of the new initiatives in the Exploration program. The
work undertaken by these teams is a necessary part of that planning.
NASA is taking prudent steps to plan for the new initiatives
included in the FY 2011 budget request, including Requests for
Information (RFI), workshops, and preliminary studies.
NASA is eager to seek external input from industry, academia, and
other partners, and plans to accomplish this via a series of RFIs and
industry workshops conducted this spring and into the summer. Doing so
will ensure that NASA receives important feedback from our space
partners before it begins to finalize its implementation plans for the
proposed technology demonstrations and human spaceflight systems
development activities that will be supported by the FY 2011 budget,
once approved by Congress. During CY 2010, NASA plans to issue a series
of program formulation documents seeking input from the broader space
community.
Finally, NASA also has established the Human Exploration Framework
Team (HEFT) to serve as a cross-Agency planning activity. The team is
being led by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and staffed
with technical leaders from across NASA Centers. The team is focused on
developing and reviewing the integrated set of requirements and
technologies required for future human spaceflight missions to many
destinations, including Mars. As part of its broad integration charter,
HEFT will develop implementation recommendations on the performance and
pacing requirements for the technologies needed for future human
exploration missions using ``design reference missions,'' or DRMs.
These DRMs will be the basis for validating capabilities and missions
for five, 10-, and 15-year horizons, with milestones including crewed
missions beyond the Moon into deep space by 2025, sending astronauts to
an asteroid, and eventually landing on Mars. NASA expects to have
initial products from the HEFT team this summer.
Q5. Who will assume the liability for accidents involving commercial
space transportation vehicles carrying U.S. government employees or
carrying researchers paid with government funds?
A5. NASA is still developing the acquisition strategy for commercial
crew efforts. Therefore, it is premature to specifically address how
liability will be addressed in connection with the Agency's acquisition
of crew transportation services. The answer to this question may depend
on what type of contract the Agency chooses to utilize to develop and
eventually procure crew transportation services, the role that any
licensing or regulatory agency may play in Agency crew transportation
services, and the availability of private insurance for these services.
Q6. Some emerging ``commercial'' companies have indicated publicly
that they intend to keep all development and production efforts
internal to ``reduce cost.'' Under this plan, would the ``commercial''
providers be required to comply with the same small/small disadvantaged
business requirements as the current government contractors? What
effect would relaxing that requirement have on the thousands of small
businesses who depend on government programs to remain viable?
Currently NASA contractors are required to foster economic development
by partnering with small businesses, specifically, small disadvantaged
businesses, historically black universities, and minority institutions.
Would these same requirements exist for commercial suppliers under the
new program?
A6. Although NASA is still developing the acquisition strategy for
commercial crew efforts, NASA will ensure that once final, this effort
will take into account all applicable laws and regulations. However, it
is premature to specifically address how requirements for small and
disadvantaged businesses will apply to the Agency's commercial crew
efforts because the answer to that question will depend on what type of
contract the Agency uses to develop and eventually procure commercial
crew services.
Q7. Approximately how much of the budget of the Constellation program
pays for facility operations and other overhead functions that are
shared with other programs? If the Constellation program is cancelled
as the Administration is proposing, how will these shared costs be
reallocated to other programs? Which programs will be affected? Please
provide the committee with an estimate of how much additional cost will
be borne by each affected program.
A7. NASA's budget has discrete appropriations for Center Management and
Operations and Agency Management and Operations, so the ``facility
operations and other overhead functions that are shared with other
programs'' paid for by Constellation are limited to human space flight
programmatic functions shared with the Shuttle program and to some
extent the International Space Station program.
Since much of the unaffordability issue that led to the decision to
transition away from Constellation is due to absorbing legacy
facilities, capacity and costs, NASA has substantial incentive to
reduce human spaceflight facilities and overhead costs rather than pass
them on to future programs. NASA is in the process of assessing what
infrastructure and hardware would be needed by the new programs and
projects outlined in the FY 2011 budget. Also, NASA does not know what
infrastructure will be needed by our commercial crew partners, given
that we have not yet seen proposals from a competitive bidding process.
Q8. According to the NASA Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimates, one of
the potential missions mentioned for the Precursor Robotic Missions
program is a ``lunar mission to demonstrate tele-operation capability
from Earth . . . including the ability to transmit near-live video to
Earth.'' At the same time, the Google Lunar X Prize website states that
``the Google Lunar X Prize is a $30M competition for the f rst
privately funded team to send a robot to the moon, travel 500 meters
and transmit video, images and data back to Earth.'' What is the added
value of NASA's proposed mission?
A8. One of the first two candidate missions being considered as part of
the proposed Exploration Precursor Robotic Program is a mission
involving a lunar lander and a robotic rover. Such a mission would help
to verify the findings of NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)
mission, which launched in June 2009. The LRO mission has a one-year
primary mission to develop a highly detailed, topographic map of the
lunar surface--the highest resolution and most comprehensive data set
ever returned from the Moon.
While the LRO mission orbited the Moon, a lunar precursor mission
with a robotic rover would allow NASA to have a vehicle on the lunar
surface that would be used to verify LRO observations from space
(topography, lighting, volatiles, surface radiation, etc.). The lander
would also provide risk reduction of future human spaceflight through
demonstrations of important technologies (ISRU, autonomous hazard
avoidance and landing) and enhance experience with surface operational
concepts. Additionally, the landers will be equipped with high
definition video cameras sending exciting video back to Earth that will
help inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists.
To some it may appear that this proposed mission is similar to the
Google X-Prize. However, this comparison is inaccurate for several
reasons, including:
While the Google X-Prize is designed to foster
commercial capability in the realm of space exploration,
provide a venue for new commercially-developed technologies,
and to stimulate public interest, NASA's precursor mission will
reduce risk through measurements of hazards and demonstrations
of important technologies, and enable and inform human
exploration objectives, while also seeking opportunities for
partnerships and engagement with the public.
With regard to mission, Google X-Prize participants
will attempt land a rover on the lunar surface, travel 500
meters over the surface and then send back video and data.
(There are additional ``bonus'' awards for longer durations,
longer distances, imaging of Apollo sites, etc.) In contrast,
NASA's precursor mission will include a payload to address
important investigations as a precursor to enable and inform
human exploration. Although the candidate mission payload and
its selection process are still being defined, NASA currently
intends for the payload to include a larger complement than
just a camera. Candidate investigations may include radiation
measurements to enhance the safety of future human explorers,
in situ resource utilization experiments and related
measurements such as volatile mass spectroscopy or dynamic
albedo neutron spectroscopy, to enhance exploration
sustainability.
The low-cost Google X-prize missions may be limited
in their reach on the Moon's surface, and unlikely to be
capable of reaching many high value destinations such as the
lunar poles.
While different, NASA's mission and the X-Prize also could be
complimentary. Therefore, NASA looks forward to capitalizing on any
capabilities developed by X-Prize competitors.
Q9. The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 directed NASA to establish an
intra-Directorate, long-term technology development program for space
and Earth science within the Science Mission Directorate for the
development of new technology and structured to include competitively
awarded grants and contracts. To date, such a program has not been
established. Given the enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars that the
Administration is requesting to support NASA-sponsored advanced
technology developments, what is the rationale for not following the
direction Congress established in the 2008 law?
Background: The relevant portion of the 2008 NASA Authorization Act
says:
SEC. 501. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
The Administrator shall establish an intra-Directorate long-term
technology development program for space and Earth science within the
Science Mission Directorate for the development of new technology. The
program shall be independent of the flight projects under development.
NASA shall have a goal of funding the intra-Directorate technology
development program at a level of five percent of the total Science
Mission Directorate annual budget. The program shall be structured to
include competitively awarded grants and contracts.
A9. NASA believes the approach to managing and funding technology
development reflected in the President's FY 2011 Budget Request,
coupled with technology programs already in existence in the Science
Mission Directorate (SMD), meet and exceed the goals of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2008. The technology goals stated in the Act and
NASA's approach to achieve them are:
Development of new technologies: Future science objectives and
missions recommended by National Academy of Sciences decadal surveys
received or underway (as well as mission concepts to be proposed in
response to future competitive solicitations) will require
technological capabilities beyond those in hand to day to make them
possible, affordable, or both. These include: drilling, sample
handling, ascent, rendezvous, and return for Mars Sample Return; in-
space propulsion and radiation hardening for future outer planets
missions; precision maneuvering and control for multi-spacecraft
astronomical observatories; and multi-frequency lasers and high-
precision lidars for three-dimensional profiling of changes in Earth's
atmosphere and surface.
NASA's SMD is investing in these and other technologies, guided by
the decadal surveys and science community's expression of future needs.
SMD's investment is focused on maturing specific technologies to the
point where they can be successfully incorporated from a technical risk
standpoint into instrument and mission proposals. NASA's new Office of
the Chief Technologist (OCT) is developing plans to implement
technology developments that address multiple NASA Mission Directorates
and or other government agencies needs and run the full range on the
TRL scale from advanced system concepts to flight demonstrations.
Independent of flight projects in development: While some flagship-
class missions such as the James Webb Space Telescope include
technology development needed for the success of the mission in the
formulation stage of the project, much of SMD's technology development
occurs in programs separate from flight projects. For example, the
Earth Science Technology Program comprises the Instrument Incubator
Program, the Advanced Technology Initiative program, and the Advanced
Information System Technology program all upstream-and independent-from
specific flight projects. The Earth Science Technology Office has
examined the Earth Science and Applications from Space decadal survey
and is targeting its solicitations and technology investments to enable
the missions identified in that survey. The Planetary Instrument
Definition and Development research element in SMD's Planetary Science
Division, the Living with a Star Targeted Research and Technology
research element in SMD's Heliophysics Division, and the Strategic
Astrophysics Technology research element in SMD's Astrophysics Division
do similarly. The Agency-level technology program proposed in the
President's FY 2011 Budget Request is designed to enable future
missions with advanced technologies outside of and in advance of the
specific benefiting flight projects.
Funded at a level of five percent of SMD budget: The sum of SMD
technology investments solicited through the Research Opportunities in
Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) omnibus solicitation, including the
focused technology programs named above and suborbital research
programs exceeds five percent of the SMD budget. When adding the
technology development activities within flight projects--many of which
will also benefit future flight projects--the total SMD technology
investment approaches ten percent. While the portion of the FY 11
proposed Agency-level technology program that will benefit SMD is yet
to be determined, at a planned investment level on the order of $1
billion annually, the positive benefit to future SMD missions is likely
to be substantial.
Include competitively awarded grants and contracts: The SMD
technology programs named above consist largely of competitively
awarded grants and contracts. As with all SMD solicitations, these are
open to academia, industry, other government labs, and other sources.
In ROSES 2010, open competitive solicitations planned for technology
development include:
Instrument Incubator;
Advanced Component Technology;
Advanced Information System Technology;
Living with a Star Targeted Research and Technology--
Strategic Capability;
Mars Instrument Development;
Mars Technology;
Planetary Instrument Definition and Development;
Astrobiology Science and Technology for Instrument
Development;
Astrobiology Science and Technology for Exploring
Planets;
In-Space Propulsion;
Astrophysics Research and Analysis;
Strategic Astrophysics Technology.
The proposed technology program managed by the NASA's OCT will also
employ open, competitive solicitations as one mechanism to stimulate
and garner the best ideas from the nation's technical experts.
NASA's SMD will work closely with the OCT to coordinate activities
and enable SMD to benefit from OCT's investments. The SMD Associate
Administrator or designee will be a member of OCT-chaired NASA
Technology Executive Council, and SMD has identified a Chief
Technologist within SMD to coordinate SMD technology programs and the
SMD interface to OCT.
Q10. The proposed FY 2011 request includes $429 million and a total of
about $2B over five years for a 21st Century Space Launch Complex. What
was the process used to identify this space launch complex as a
priority for modernization as opposed to other aging NASA facilities?
A10. The 21st Century Space Launch Complex Program at KSC is an
initiative to focus on upgrades to the Florida launch range, expanding
capabilities to support commercial providers, remediating environmental
issues, and transforming KSC into a modern facility. The decision to
focus on the Florida range was founded in part on the President's
budget that enhances and grows our Nation's commercial space industry.
Additionally, there has been a growing concern relative to the support
of national security payload processing and launch capabilities with an
aging launch infrastructure that this initiative addresses. NASA's
infrastructure at KSC was originally designed to support the Apollo
Program, and was later modified for the Space Shuttle. While this
infrastructure has served America well, the retirement of the Shuttle
presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to use this $1.9B range
upgrade initiative to modernize the nation's primary launch complex.
This effort, based on the longstanding need to modernize integration
and operations infrastructure, will be closely coordinated with the
United States Air Force (USAF), the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), other national security entities, and the commercial space user
community in the coming weeks to develop a requirements plan. This will
help ensure that KSC and the larger range shared with Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station can continue to serve as a robust, flexible launch
site for civil, military, and commercial missions for decades to come.
NASA is working preliminary planning with commercial, the USAF and
national security partners on the specific details of the initiative,
but the primary focus is to make investments in overall launch and
processing operations.
a. Given the Administration's proposal to cancel the Ares
launch vehicle program and indefinitely defer development of a
heavy-lift launch vehicle, is there any urgent requirement for
this modernization initiative and, if so, what is it?
A10a. For some modifications, it is important to begin this effort as
soon as possible in order to effectively utilize the time between the
retirement of the Space Shuttle and the operational availability of
future systems to implement facilities upgrades. Other modifications,
such as enhancing payload processing capabilities, will be helpful for
our on-going robotic missions and therefore are beneficial as soon as
they can be implemented. NASA has revisited previous activities that
have addressed future launch/range technologies and capabilities (ex.,
the Launch Enterprise Transformational Study), and formed teams at KSC
to prepare an initial list of proposed projects. In addition, Agency
representatives have been meeting with commercial and government
agencies/organizations to initiate relationships. NASA plans to release
a Request for Information (RFI) in near future to request
infrastructure and capabilities needs and associated timelines from
potential customers. NASA will also establish Customer Advocates for
each entity showing an interest in building relationships and
assisting/enabling market entry, recognizing that future commercial
users may not be limited to those currently involved in the Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Commercial Resupply Services
(CRS) efforts.
b. What is the specific breakdown of the $429M requested for
this initiative for FY 2011 by proposed task?
A10b. While NASA is reviewing the specific tasks that would be funded
by the $429M requested for this initiative in FY 2011, in order to
achieve low-cost, routine, and safe access to space, the Agency must
invest in capabilities and technologies that address:
Manufacturing and Processing;
Launch Operations;
Interoperability among Spaceports and Ranges,
including common systems and open architectures;
Range Tracking and Surveillance Capabilities and
Technologies that protect the public, but also provide test and
evaluation capabilities that support an engineering
environment;
Common Communications Architectures;
Flexible System Telemetry that are Internet
Compatible;
Weather Prediction and Decision-Making Models;
Inspection and System Verification Capabilities and
Techniques;
Transportation, Handling, and Assembly Capabilities;
and
Supply Chain Management.
Not all of these elements would necessarily be addressed in FY
2011, but the Agency is working with its commercial, USAF, and other
national security partners to develop a plan forward with respect to
specific tasks and timeframes. Below is a list of candidate projects
that are being considered for FY 2011 and beyond. NASA will work to
ensure that Congress is kept informed as further details are developed.
KSC Modernization Potential Projects
Construction of public access to the Space and Life
Sciences Laboratory (SLSL) to allow for integrated business
partnerships and other private sector support facilities in the
area
Exploration Park IT/Telecommunications Services
Modernization of Launch Control Facility
Integrate information technology advancements
Renovation of Vehicle Assembly High Bay areas
Modification of existing launch Pad (LC-39B) and
associated systems
CCAFS Range Modernization Potential Projects
Development of Range/Customer interface software tool
Development of NASA/CCAFS integrated transmission
system
Partner with USAF on Launch Enterprise Transformation
Study
Gaseous Nitrogen infrastructure on CCAFS
Replace 50MHz Doppler Radar Wind Profiler
Environmental Remediation/Technology Potential Projects
Remediation and Cleanup, permitting and compliance,
and climate change adaptation that address current issues and
enable growth and modernization to follow
KSC-wide Land Use Controls Elimination
Dune Restoration
Energy projects that reduce overall operating cost
and comply with reduction Executive Orders
R&D that contribute to environmentally responsible
ground operations
Payload Processing Potential Projects
Astrotech Payload processing capacity improvement
Provide supplemental funding to complete the 4th
Eastern Processing Facility bay (CCAFS) for shared use by
multiple NASA and NRO programs
CCAFS Area 59 Satellite Processing Facility
Provide a standardized payload transporter and
supporting infrastructure
Upgrades to the Multi-Payload Processing Facility to
allow hazardous and compartmentalized processing on KSC
Upgrade Space Station Processing Facility for non-
hazardous civil, commercial and government/national security
payload processing
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Q1. During testimony before the House Appropriation Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies on March 23, 2010,
Administrator Bolden asserted the Ares 1 would cost $1.6 billion per
flight and the program would cost approximately $4.5 billion per year.
a. What is the basis of these cost estimates'? Please provide
the documentation that supports these estimates.
A1. NASA recognizes that there is often confusion with regard to
publicized flight cost estimates associated with the Ares projects,
largely because those estimates often include different assumptions.
One key point of confusion, for example, comes from the fact that the
Ares I and Ares V share significant fixed costs for vendor production
base and sustaining engineering, since both vehicles would use similar
solid rocket boosters, upper stage engines and avionics. Therefore,
there are two ways to consider the cost of an Ares I flight--one, where
the Ares I fixed costs are lower because it is assumed that certain
fixed operational costs would be shared with the Ares V, and another,
where the Ares I fixed costs are higher because the current shared-cost
scenario is not assumed.
In general, NASA does not budget by flight, but rather by fixed and
marginal costs expected on an annual basis. The fixed cost (i.e. prime
and non-prime support labor, costs of facilities) would be the cost
that must be incurred whether one rocket or multiple rockets are built.
In other words, the fixed cost is absorbed by the first annual flight
and is not counted again that year. The marginal costs, on the other
hand, are those costs that can be cleanly attributed to the production
of one unit, and that cost is generally the same, unit by unit. So for
each subsequent annual flight, NASA adds on only the marginal cost,
given that the fixed cost has already been absorbed into the first. It
is important to note, however, that NASA's formula of calculating the
cost of an Ares I flight (or subsequent annual flights) does not
include the project costs for the associated support elements, such as
ground operations, mission operations, Extra Vehicular Activity and
program integration. Those costs would be book kept under their
respective project lines.
With regard to the cost per flight, NASA currently estimates that
both Ares I and Orion account for $69M each in marginal costs for a
flight unit, thus totaling $138M in marginal costs for each flight
since each flight would be assumed to have a capsule and a rocket.
However, the fixed cost per flight would vary based on whether Ares I
and Ares V shared operational costs were assumed.
For example, the FY 2010 budget request assumed that Ares I and
Ares V would share some operational costs--approximately $700M per
year, which would, in turn, equate to lower fixed costs for the Ares I.
Therefore, under that scenario--which was provided to Congressman
Aderholt's staff in November 2009--the total cost for the first flight
would be $919M ($781M in fixed cost plus $138M in marginal costs) with
each subsequent flight costing $138M extra in marginal costs, as
outlined in the chart below:
However, if the assumption is that Ares I and Ares V would not
share operational costs, it is equally true to say that the cost of an
Ares I flight is nearly $1.6B. Under this scenario, all operational
costs would be carried by Ares I--which would account for an
approximate $700M increase in the fixed cost for Ares I. Thus, under
this scenario, the total cost for the first flight would be $1.461B in
fixed cost plus $138M in marginal costs, with each subsequent flight
costing $138M extra in marginal costs, as outlined in the chart below:
NASA is unsure about the source of the number cited since there are
similar figures often used, albeit with different assumptions included
in each. However, judging by the hearing exchange, it seems the
question derived from a discussion about how much it would cost to keep
the Ares project running in FY 2011. If that is indeed the question,
then, in order to understand the cost of the Ares I project, it is
important to understand the full cost of the Constellation Program.
Based on the FY 2010 budget request, NASA estimates it would cost $5.4B
to continue the full Constellation Program, including Ares I and Orion
development and testing, and all supporting elements (ground processing
facilities, mission control, program integration etc.) which together
would lead to an Initial Operational Capability for two crewed flights
to the International Space Station per year. Of the $5.4B figure, the
Ares I project was estimated to cost $2.1B, with Orion costing $1.8B,
and other Constellation supporting elements equating to about $1.5B.
The FY 2011 budget request transitions away from the Constellation
Program. Therefore, under this assumption, if NASA were required to
continue only the Ares I project, the cost to do so would be about $4-
4.5B--which would pay for the project elements and also include the
full cost of all supporting elements outlined in the FY 2010 budget
request, such as ground processing facilities, mission control, program
integration etc. Without these supporting elements, the Ares I could
not fly. This scenario also assumes that Orion would be cancelled, so
close-out costs for Orion were factored into this estimate. (Note:
Without an Orion, this scenario would not provide an IOC capability.)
Additionally, it is important to remember that under the FY 2010 budget
request and its five-year runout, the Constellation Program as a whole
was expected to begin ramping up work in FY 2011, and in doing so, was
expected to also begin assuming additional Shuttle infrastructure and
workforce costs in addition to increased development costs, currently
estimated to be $600-700M. Therefore, those costs are factored into the
continuation cost estimate.
Q2. During his speech at the Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010,
president Obama directed NASA to begin developing a rescue vehicle
using the Orion crew capsule.
a. What is the cost estimate for such a development?
A2a. NASA is currently assessing what it will take to develop an
emergency crew return derivative of the Orion spacecraft, per this new
direction from the President's April 15th address. The goal is to be as
cost effective as possible, taking maximum advantage of the work
performed to date on Orion design, development, and testing while
deferring further work on systems that would provide capabilities not
needed for emergency crew return. Once the cost estimate is finalized,
NASA will submit a revised FY 11 budget request to the Congress.
b. Where in the budget will the funding come from?
A2b. It is not yet determined precisely where the funding will come
from. The sources will be dependent on the magnitude of the estimated
cost, which is still in work. The total proposed budget for NASA did
not change with this new direction to develop an Orion emergency crew
return module. Therefore, its costs will need to be offset by
reductions to other line-items. When a funding plan is finalized, NASA
will submit it to the Congress.
c. What previous programs will be displaced by this new
change?
A2c. NASA has not yet determined precisely where the funding will come
from. The sources will be dependent on the magnitude of the estimated
cost, which is still in work. The total proposed budget for NASA did
not change with this new direction to develop an Orion emergency crew
return module. Therefore, its costs will need to be offset by
reductions to other line-items. When a funding plan is finalized, NASA
will submit it to the Congress.
d. How would such a vehicle get to the International Space
Station?
A2d. The Orion crew emergency return module will launch un-crewed as a
payload on a yet-to-be determined expendable launch vehicle. The Orion
will then utilize autonomous rendezvous and docking technology similar
to the European Space Agency's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and
Russian Progress spacecraft, or autonomous rendezvous with Remote
Manipulator System capture/berthing such as the Japanese HII Transfer
Vehicle (HTV) and as planned for the NASA COTS cargo vehicles.
e. Given that NASA will have to use the Russian Soyuz capsule
for crew access to the International Space Station, what
additional capability would an Orion-based crew lifeboat
provide?
A2e. As part of the President's new plan for NASA, the development work
already performed on this capability will be re-oriented to meet the
important safety requirement of providing stand-by emergency escape
capabilities for astronauts on the Space Station. We will be able to
launch this vehicle within the next few years, enabling an American
crew escape capability that will increase the safety of our crews on
the Space Station, reduce our dependence on foreign providers, and
simplify requirements for other commercial crew providers. This effort
will also help establish a technological foundation for future
exploration spacecraft needed for human missions beyond low Earth
orbit.
Q3. How will NASA flight-qualify a human-rated Orion-based crew rescue
vehicle?
A3. Safety is and always will be NASA's number one core value.
Therefore, NASA will ensure that any vehicle that carries U.S.
astronauts meets stringent safety standards.
The preliminary qualification plan for the Orion emergency return
module will be determined as part of the cost estimating exercise which
is currently in process. The qualification plan will meet applicable
human rating requirements for the emergency crew return mission. As
with the baseline Orion project, the emergency return variant will be
qualified using a combination of model-based analysis and ground
testing. Currently, flight testing will be done as part of its
operational development. The Orion emergency crew return module will be
fully certified before any potential use for ISS escape.
Q4. If Congress does not appropriate the $312M requested in the FY
2011 budget for commercial cargo, will that in any way effect the
ability of the COTS providers to fulfill the current, existing
obligations of the CRS contract?
A4. The $312M would be utilized to help improve the chance of mission
success of NASA's current commercial cargo program by adding or
accelerating the achievement of already-planned milestones, adding
additional capabilities, or tests that may ultimately expedite the pace
of development of cargo flights to the ISS. The funds could be utilized
to add additional tests or capabilities for risk reduction purposes or
to evaluate the benefits of accelerating hardware fabrication and
assembly of long-lead items.
Both the COTS and CRS contractors are legally required to meet
their milestones and deliver services under the terms of their
agreements.
It should be noted that on June 29, 2010, the Summary of NASA-
Related Provisions from the FY 2011 Senate-Reported Commerce, Justice,
Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill included the following
wording, ``The major feature of the House Appropriations Subcommittee
markup is that it `fences' all Exploration funds, with the exception of
$306M for Commercial Cargo, `subject to enactment of legislation
authorizing human spaceflight activities in FY 2011.'''
Q5. During his speech at the Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010,
president Obama asserted his plan would add more than 2,500 jobs along
the Space Coast in the next two years compared to the plan under the
previous administration.
a. What is the basis for this assertion? Please provide the
supporting documentation for this analysis.
A5. NASA has committed to provide Congress an updated Workforce
Transition Strategy by August 2010. That document will fulfill NASA's
statutory requirement to provide detailed workforce estimates to the
Congress. The basis for the above assertion is work done in preparation
for that public document. The specific number used was derived from the
work that was done by NASA's Office of Independent Program and Cost
Evaluation, but used different assumptions.
The FY 2010 plan, which included retirement of the Space Shuttle
and little need for build-up of workforce for Constellation launches,
shows a drop of nearly 7,000 in total workforce demand in Florida, from
just over 14,000 total contractors needed in 2010 to approximately
8,500 needed in 2012. These estimates include direct labor and support
labor in Florida, both contractor and civil servant, for both FY 2010
and FY 2011 President's budget request (PBR) plans.
The FY 2011 PBR plan extends the Space Shuttle three months, and
locates a large amount of work in Florida, including but not limited to
the 21st Century Space Complex construction and the program office for
the Commercial Crew Program. Additionally, the proposed plan nominates
Kennedy Space Center as the deputy program office for the new Flagship
Technology Demo program, which will bring some additional workforce
demand. The estimates are that workforce demand for the FY 2011 PBR
plan will begin and remain higher than the FY 2010 plan, starting at
nearly 15,000 needed and falling to approximately 12,000 needed in
2012. This is an increase of as much as 3,500 over the FY 2010 plan,
depending on assumptions of how much design and manufacturing work the
commercial crew providers locate in Florida.
NASA will continue to refine these estimates as program definition
matures in preparation for the August 2010 Workforce Transition
Strategy report submitted to Congress.
Methodology:
This methodology was used on both the FY 2010 plan and the FY 2011
PBR plan for comparative purposes. To calculate civil service, support,
and prime contractor workforce in Florida, we began with dollars for
each relevant program. First, the cost of the civil servants is
accounted for. Second, it is assumed that the prime contractor will
subcontract 33 percent of the procurement dollars. As it is unknown
where these subcontractors will be located, this funding is assumed to
create no jobs in Florida. The remaining 67 percent is divided, on a
per-program basis, to each center.
We then use the American Community Survey to estimate the average
salary in Florida for aerospace engineers and technicians. We assume a
``wrap'' cost--the cost of health care, management, facilities, and
profit--of 100 percent of the average salary. For each program, we
estimate a percentage of workforce that will be engineers and a
percentage that will be technicians. Finally, we divide the previously
calculated procurement dollars by the wrapped average salaries to
obtain an estimate of the number of jobs for each program, and add up
the Kennedy Space Center supplied jobs to determine an estimate for
Florida.
Q6. During his speech at the Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010,
president Obama proposed a $40M initiative to develop a plan for
regional economic growth and job creation.
a. Is that $40M from NASA's budget? If so, from where in
NASA's budget will the funding come from?
A6a. Yes, the $40M will come from the Constellation Transition budget.
b. What previous NASA programs will be displaced?
A6b. Only the Constellation Transition budget will be reduced.
Q7. Why was 2015 chosen as an appropriate date for making a decision
on a new heavy lift launch vehicle? What new technologies are expected
to be developed between now and 2015 that will support such a decision?
A7. During his visit to KSC, the President specifically recognized the
need for a heavy lift launch capability to carry humans beyond LEO by
requiring a decision on a vehicle design no later than 2015. Such a
decision would include setting performance goals, identifying lift
capability and selecting the general vehicle design--work that will
ultimately lay the path for launching a spacecraft for crewed missions
into deep space. The 2015 milestone was chosen to make sure that
critical technologies for realizing affordable propulsion systems were
well underway prior to committing to launch vehicle architecture.
The FY 2011 budget request includes funds for NASA to conduct the
important R&D and analysis necessary to make an informed decision on a
heavy-lift vehicle no later than 2015. This effort will primarily focus
on the development of a U.S. first-stage hydrocarbon engine for
potential use in future heavy lift (and other) launch systems, as well
as basic research in areas such as new propellants, advanced propulsion
materials manufacturing techniques, combustion processes, propellant
storage and control, and engine health monitoring. Additionally, NASA
will initiate development and testing of in-space engines. Areas of
focus could include a liquid oxygen/methane engine and low-cost liquid
oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines. This work will build on NASA's recent
R&D experience in this area, and the test articles will be viewed as a
potential prototype for a subsequent operational engine that would be
re-startable and capable of high acceleration and reliability. These
technologies will increase our heavy-lift and other space propulsion
capabilities and significantly lower operations costs--with the clear
goal of taking us farther and faster into space consistent with safety
and mission success criteria. In support of this initiative, NASA will
explore cooperative efforts with the Department of Defense and also
develop a competitive process for allocating a small portion of these
funds to universities and other non-governmental organizations. This
research effort along with many of our new technology initiatives will
be coordinated with the broader Agency technology initiative led by
NASA's new Chief Technologist.
More specifically, the FY 2011 budget request challenges us to
develop the necessary capabilities to send Americans to places that
humans have not explored before, including longer stays at exciting new
locations on the Moon, near-Earth objects, strategic deep space zones
called Lagrange points, and the planet Mars and its Moons. We have not
sent people beyond LEO in 38 years, and this budget gives us the great
opportunity to focus on scouting and learning more about destinations
to further explore our solar system and to develop the game-changing
technologies that will take us there. It is important that we pursue
these objectives to continue leading the world in human space
exploration.
While we cannot provide a date with certainty for the first human
visit to Mars, we can identify essential capabilities needed for such a
mission. These are outlined in the programs within this budget request.
They are capabilities that have been recommended consistently for at
least 24 years in national level reports of committees and commissions
addressing future human space exploration. For example, NASA will begin
development of high power electric propulsion and nuclear thermal
propulsion systems to reduce mass launched to low Earth orbit; in-space
propellant storage and transfer systems to enable refueling of
interplanetary transfer vehicles; closed-loop life support systems to
reduce consumables such as water and oxygen on long-duration missions;
advanced habitat systems incorporating inflatable structures and
radiation shielding to increase crew living space and improve safety;
aerocapture systems to reduce the mass of propellants required for
braking into Mars orbit; and advanced telerobotics to allow astronauts
in orbit to control robots on the surface of Mars before the crew
lands.
On May 3, 2010, NASA issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking
general information regarding potential launch or space transportation
architectures (expendable, reusable, or a hybrid system) that could be
utilized by multiple customers (e.g., NASA, commercial and other
Government agencies). The RFI solicits information regarding propulsion
system characteristics; technology challenges related to liquid
chemical propulsion systems; as well as innovative methods to manage a
heavy-lift development program to include effective and affordable
business practices. The RFI is open to the broad space community,
including commercial, other Government agencies and academia.
Information obtained from the RFI will be used for planning and
acquisition-strategy development for current heavy-lift planning
activities, funded at a total of $100M in the FY 2010 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117).
On June 29, 2010, NASA issued a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
seeking proposals and industry input on heavy-lift system concepts and
propulsion technology. NASA is seeking an innovative path for human
space exploration that strengthens its capability to extend human and
robotic presence throughout the solar system. The information also may
help lay the groundwork for humans to safely reach multiple potential
destinations, including asteroids, Lagrange points, the moon and Mars.
The total funding available under this announcement is approximately
$8M; maximum individual contract award is $625,000. The deadline for
submitting proposals is July 29, 2010.
Questions submitted by Representative Marcia L. Fudge
Q1. I strongly support the extension of the life of the International
Space Station (ISS) and increases in funding for conducting scientific
research on the ISS. Effective management and leadership for ISS
Research are critical for the effective utilization of the ISS for
science. Glenn Research Center has preeminent capabilities for managing
and conducting collaborative research and extensive experience in these
efforts. What leadership roles and responsibilities and funding are
being provided to Glenn for ISS Research?
A1. The President's FY 2011 budget proposes $50M for basic science and
technology research on the ISS. Currently, within this account,
research projects are funded at Glenn Research Center (GRC), Kennedy
Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, and
Ames Research Center, all of which have preeminent capabilities for
managing and conducting collaborative research and extensive experience
in these efforts. The specific sub-allocation to GRC in FY 2011 will be
determined later this year during the annual budget process.
Historically, GRC has received a significant proportion of available
funds based on GRC's leadership role on two research facilities already
deployed on the ISS--these include: (1) the Combustion Integrated Rack;
and, (2) Fluids Integrated Rack. In FY 2010, approximately $17M was
allocated to GRC to operate, maintain, and utilize these facilities for
scientific research, as well as to conduct crosscutting technology
development on packed bed reactors and two-phase flow separation.
Q2. Additional funding in the FY 2011 Budget Request is provided for
upgrading ISS capabilities and demonstration of new technologies on the
ISS. Power is a critical capability for both the ISS and future NASA
science and exploration missions. Glenn Research Center is eminently
qualified to lead upgrades of the ISS power system and demonstrations
of exciting new power technologies on the ISS. What roles and
responsibilities and funding are being provided to Glenn for these
efforts?
A2. On February 1, 2010, a call was issued to all NASA field
installations, including GRC, to propose new concepts for using ISS as
a test bed for the research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
of next-generation technologies. The response from GRC included a
variety of technologies in areas such as power generation, propulsion,
optical communications, cryogenics, and robotics. These concept
proposals are currently in the evaluation process and a determination
will be made by the end of this fiscal year regarding which
technologies will be funded for research and development in FY 2011.
Upgrades to the International Space Station power systems are not
planned at this time. Investments in developing better power systems
for future human spaceflight activities and science missions are part
of the President's FY 2011 request for the NASA Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate and the Office of the Chief Technologist. Over the
next five years, ESMD plans to invest $34M in advanced batteries and
fuel cells to power spacecraft, robots, and space suits, and $49M to
demonstrate technologies for fission power systems that could be used
for nuclear electric propulsion or power plants on the surface of Mars.
GRC will lead these two projects to develop new power system
technologies. Many of these power technologies could have terrestrial
applications for electric vehicles and the smart electrical grid. The
Space Technology program is planning on issuing open solicitations in
FY 2011 for potential disruptive technologies that could enable power
generation, collection and distribution capabilities, whether on-board
a flight vehicle, a habitat, or, on planetary surfaces.
Q3. The FY 2011 Budget Request includes significant funding for a
technology development and demonstration program to reduce the cost and
expand the capabilities of future exploration activities. Glenn
Research Center is exceptionally well qualified to develop and
demonstrate critical power, propulsion, communications and in-orbit
refueling and storage technologies to achieve these goals. What
leadership roles and responsibilities and funding are being provided to
Glenn to develop and demonstrate these technologies, particularly in-
orbit refueling and storage?
A3. Glenn Research Center (GRC) employs more than 1,600 civil servants:
scientists and engineers comprise more than half of the workforce, with
technical specialists and other skilled workforce focused on space
flight systems development, aeropropulsion, space propulsion, power
systems, nuclear systems, and communications. Center capabilities that
will be tapped in the President's new program include expertise in
space flight systems, power and propulsion, program management, and
technology innovation, development, and transfer. In April 2010, the
Agency announced planned major program assignments across the Agency's
Center for new or extended activities proposed as part of the
President's FY 2011 budget request. Establishment of program offices
and initiation of effort in support of new and extended activities for
this proposed new work is contingent upon Congressional approval of the
President's FY 2011 request for these activities. Specific new
activities planned for GRC include the following:
Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration
(ETDD) Program Office: This new program will provide a path for
bringing key exploration technologies to maturity from the
laboratory environment through ground testing, and ultimately
to flight testing. Initial demonstration projects are likely to
focus on: high-power electric propulsion; autonomous precision
landing; in-situ resource utilization (including lunar
volatiles characterization); human robotic systems (including
operating robots from planetary orbit); and fission surface
power systems. As the Program Office, GRC will coordinate and
manage these activities across the Nation.
Space Technology Research Grants Program Office: This
program will meet NASA's future science and exploration needs,
as well as the needs of other Government agencies and the
commercial space sector, through technological innovation. This
portfolio focuses on foundational research in advanced space
systems and space technology performed primarily through
collaborative efforts between academia and NASA Centers, with
the option of including small business and industry partners. A
significant aspect of this program is the Space Technology
Graduate Fellowship Project which will train the next
generation of aerospace engineers and scientists by funding
NASA-related graduate student research performed on campus
during the academic year and research performed at a NASA
Center during the summer months, gaining hands-on experience.
Research selection for this project will be based on topics
that show significant promise for future application toward
NASA missions and strategic goals. As the Program Office, GRC
will spearhead the development of this approach as part of
NASA's new Space Technology Program.
Q4. The Space Power Facility (SPF) at Glenn Research Center's Plum
Brook Station is being modified to conduct large scale environmental
testing of spacecraft and launch vehicles. Constellation hardware
testing was planned to be the first utilization of the new capabilities
of the facility. SPF is a world-class facility with unique
capabilities. In light of the proposed cancellation of Constellation
what are the plans and schedule for utilization of this invaluable
asset for exploration and other NASA programs?
A4. The Space Power Facility at GRC's Plum Brook Station in Ohio is now
known as the Space Environmental Test facility. Construction started on
the facility in 2007 and is currently about 75 percent complete. The
remaining construction is expected to be completed this October. NASA
believes this unique facility is an invaluable asset for the Nation and
thus, we believe that other Government customers such as the Department
of Defense, industry and other partners may have use of this unique
facility in the future.
Following the release of the FY 2011 budget request, NASA
established six study teams within ESMD to ensure we understand the
steps (and the implications of those steps) that would need to be taken
for an orderly transition of the Constellation Program and to plan for
the implementation of the new Exploration program. One of these teams
has initiated a broad survey of current Agency infrastructure and
workforce to determine what assets could be used by the new programs
and projects outline in the FY 2011 budget request. NASA is still
assessing the Agency's future requirements for the Space Environmental
Test facility and its capabilities as part of that survey.
Questions submitted by Representative Ben R. Lujan
Q1. Administrator Bolden, thank you for testifying here today. I
wanted to touch on the education component of the President's FY 11
budget request. The President's budget requests $145.8 million in FY 11
to support NASA's Education program, a reduction of about $38 million
from the FY 10 enacted budget. Coming from a largely rural, minority-
majority state, I know firsthand that the shortage of Hispanics and
Native American students in science, mathematics and engineering fields
is a real problem that must be addressed. How does the Administration
intend to preserve and expand critical minority education and outreach
programs, such as the Minority University Research and Education
Program, or the Motivating Undergraduates in Science and Technology
Project (MUST)? How can Congress help to ensure that NASA continues to
prioritize the education of our most underrepresented communities in
STEM fields?
A1. Budget
The President's FY 2011 budget requests $145.8M, reflecting the
funding required to execute the Agency's education plan in FY 2011. The
FY 2011 budget request of $145.8M for NASA Education is an increase of
$19.7M from the FY 2010 request of $126.1M. The nearly $20M increase in
the FY 2011 budget request will support the Summer of Innovation
project.
This FY 2011 budget request embeds competitive opportunities in
NASA Office of Education core operations. In the past three years,
Congress has appropriated funds for competitive grants supporting
global climate change education, K-12 STEM education, and museum and
science center activities. Competitive grants offered by the Office of
Education in FY 2011 will include:
Innovations in Higher Education STEM Education, which
will offer competitive awards that improve higher education and
workforce development;
Innovations in K-12 STEM Education, providing seed-
grants to schools, districts, and non-profit organizations with
innovative approaches to improving science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teaching and learning;
Global Climate Change Education (GCCE), which will
more actively engage community colleges and minority serving
institutions; and
NASA Informal Education Opportunities; providing
funds to science and museums and planetariums.
Reaching Underserved and Underrepresented Audiences
NASA remains committed to ensuring that its education program
participants reflect the diversity of the Nation, in terms of race,
ethnicity, gender, and geography. NASA's education activities are
inclusive of all, but several are specifically designed to appeal to
and attract underserved and underrepresented audiences. NASA funding
for the Minority University Research and Education Program (MUREP)
remains a priority. In FY 2011, MUREP will continue to support students
and faculty at Minority Institutions (MIs), including Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions
(HSI), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU), to strengthen their
research capabilities and provide opportunities that attract and
prepare increasing numbers of underrepresented and underserved students
for NASA-related careers. The specific objectives of MUREP are to:
Contribute to and promote the development of research
and academic infrastructure for MIs in areas of strategic
importance to the NASA mission.
Improve the capabilities of MIs to gain support from
sources outside of MUREP.
Increase the participation of underrepresented and
underserved students in NASA research and education
opportunities.
Increase the number of underrepresented and
underserved students in STEM disciplines and careers by
providing scholarships, fellowships and internship
opportunities.
MUREP projects such as the Motivating Undergraduates in Science and
Technology (MUST) will continue to provide competitive scholarship and
internship opportunities for undergraduate students specifically
targeting rising sophomores and juniors from underrepresented and
underserved groups in STEM disciplines. MUST is administered in
collaboration with the Hispanic College Fund, Inc. The most recent MUST
cohort of 100 students included 53% Hispanics, 26% African Americans
and 4% Native Americans. Students perform well academically (overall
grade point average for this cohort was 3.74 on a 4.0 scale), and
former MUST participants have been very successful in achieving
employment with NASA. In NASA's ``Early Career Hiring Initiative,''
MUST scholars successfully competed for 38 of 173 available positions.
The Curriculum Improvement Partnership Award for the Integration of
Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum (CIPAIR) project represents
NASA's largest outreach effort to community colleges. Two-year colleges
must be the lead or partner on each CIPAIR award. CIPAIR helps two-year
and four-year MIs strengthen their STEM curricula in order to attract
more students into STEM-based academic programs, retain them, and
prepare them for advanced academic or career success. A current CIPAIR
partnership is between the University of Texas at San Antonio and San
Antonio College, both HSIs. They are partnering to infuse and enrich
their engineering and earth sciences curricula with NASA-related
technology and research, so that predominantly Hispanic students from
both institutions are able to participate in NASA research and
education experiences. The relationship is also improving the
engineering ``2+2 pipeline'' for students beginning study at community
college and graduating from the four-year university.
A new project in MUREP, Innovation in Global Climate Change
Education (GCCE), is based on the previously offered competitive grants
opportunity. This project will improve research and undergraduate-level
education in the area of global climate change. Competitive grants to
MIs will foster collaborations between NASA and awardees, and ensure
that work of the grantee is well integrated with other relevant Earth
System science education and research efforts within the NASA Science
Mission Directorate. GCCE objectives are to:
Improve the teaching and learning about global
climate change through collaborations with MIs.
Increase the number of undergraduate students at MIs
using NASA Earth observation data/NASA Earth system models to
investigate and analyze global climate change issues.
Increase the number of undergraduate underrepresented
and underserved students prepared for employment and/or to
enter graduate school in technical fields relevant to global
climate change.
Space Grant is similarly increasing its work with minority serving
higher education institutions and community colleges. For example, the
Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium is currently partnering with the
College of Menominee Nation to offer the ``First Nations Tribal College
Sounding Rocket Competition.'' The first stage of the competition will
include evaluation of students' oral reports (April 30, 2010). The
second stage will be the actual rocket competition, the first-ever
national rocket competition for tribal colleges. Thirty-one students
and faculty advisors are scheduled participate in the event, to be held
in Kansasville, WI on May 1, 2010. The third stage of competition will
consist of final reports given after all payload data is analyzed. To
increase engagement of Native American students at majority
institutions, a separate competition division is being considered for
future years.
Space Grant is also leveraging its national reach and academic
infrastructures to support NASA's K-12 education program. Four Space
Grant consortia were recently announced as recipients of awards for the
2010 Summer of Innovation pilot targeting middle school learners: New
Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, and Massachusetts. Two of the awards are of
special interest with respect to reaching Hispanic and Native American
students and educators. The New Mexico Space Grant Consortium will
implement a ``Launch and Learn,'' project for middle school teachers
and students. In this project, participants will design and build
experiments that study science and engineering problems in suborbital
space. Activities will include launching the experiments on a sounding
rocket. A strong element of the proposal was the inclusion of New
Mexico's underserved and underrepresented populace. The Idaho Space
Grant Consortium award funds ``NASA Education and STEM Program for
Underrepresented Populations.'' This activity will build physics
knowledge and skills in contexts with Native American cultural
relevance and sensitivities. Middle school students in Idaho, Montana
and Utah will study topics related to NASA's planetary science,
robotics, space exploration and aeronautics missions. Students will be
drawn from schools on tribal reservations in Idaho, Montana and Utah,
and three additional locations in southern Idaho.
Questions submitted by Representative Rob Bishop
Q1. A Department of Defense report, completed by the Industrial Policy
office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, dated June 2009, entitled ``Solid Rocket Motor Capabilities
Report to Congress'' at page 47, states that a ``delay'' in the NASA
Ares I rocket program ``could have significant negative impact[s] on
the large SRM prime contractor industrial base and on some of the SRM
subtier base, specifically material suppliers.'' Did you, or anyone in
top NASA management, specifically consult with the Department of
Defense on the industrial base impacts of a Constellation cancellation
decision on the shared defense solid rocket motor industrial base prior
to making your recommendation to the President? If so, please provide
details as to who at NASA was involved in those consultations, and
describe the nature and extent of those consultations, and which
Department of Defense officials were consulted.
A1. Per Section 306 of OMB Circular A-11, ``Communications with
Congress and the Public and Clearance Requirements,'' NASA cannot relay
budget formulation discussions within the Administration. However, NASA
would like to emphasize that our Nation's space partners communicate
frequently with regard to the Federal Government space enterprise. NASA
will continue to work closely with our other Government partners,
including the Department of Defense as planning for FY 2011
implementation moves forward. For example, discussions are under way at
all levels about ensuring we carefully consider and maintain the space
industrial base, particularly with regard to NASA's discontinued use of
solid rocket fuel and motors following the cancellation of
Constellation. Several recent studies in this area, coupled with
current dialogue in the Government's Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base
Interagency Task Force and several other joint forums, also address the
this important area and NASA will continue to work to resolve any
integrated issues in these joint forums at all levels.
Additionally, NASA Administrator Bolden has consulted with his
colleagues at the Department of Defense and the National Reconnaissance
Office. In particular, the Administrator has had several meetings with
Secretary Donley, General Kehler, and General Carlson, and he plans to
continue to meet with them, as program decisions are made and we gain
additional insight into the potential relevance to the space industrial
base.
Q2. Now that NASA is presumably more aware of the shared industrial
base concern with the Department of Defense, are you presently engaged
in, or do you plan to have, specific consultations with the Department
of Defense and/or the United States Air Force on how to preserve the
critical Solid Rocket Motor shared industrial base?
A2. As noted in the response to Question 1, NASA will continue to work
closely with our other Government partners, including the Department of
Defense, as planning for FY 2011 implementation moves forward. For
example, NASA is working with Defense officials to develop a plan to
maintain the intellectual and engineering capacity, including key
workforce skills, to support next-generation rocket motors as needed.
The task force is co-chaired by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics office and NASA and
includes representatives from the Department of Defense, NASA, the
Missile Defense Agency, the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy.
NASA has not conducted any formal assessments in these areas.
However, NASA worked with Defense officials to develop a plan to
maintain the intellectual and engineering capacity, including key
workforce skills, to support next-generation rocket motors as needed.
The task force is co-chaired by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics office and NASA and
includes representatives from the Department of Defense, NASA, the
Missile Defense Agency, the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. This DOD
report, entitled ``SRM Industrial Base Interim Sustainment Plan'' was
released to Congress this month.
Q3. Is preservation of the shared solid rocket motor industrial base a
concern for NASA management, and if so, please provide your preferred
recommendations on how to best sustain this critical shared industrial
base.
A3. The health of the shared solid rocket motor industrial base is a
concern for NASA management because this industrial base is critical
ensuring that the Agency can safely complete the remaining Shuttle
flights. However, at this time, the Agency is unclear about its future
needs for solid rockets given that the FY 2011 budget request is
focused on developing transformative heavy-lift technologies, including
new propellants. However, concept heavy-lift vehicles could include
solid rocket motors as well as liquid strap-ons and all concepts will
be evaluated during a rigorous systems analysis effort to identify the
best configuration to meet the Nation's needs.
Questions submitted by Representative Gary C. Peters
Q1. Mr. Bolden, I understand NASA awarded a $1.75 million grant to Dr.
Jack Bergman for a space radiation study involving the use of live
squirrel monkeys. NASA has justified this research by stating that
``there is no information regarding the effects of space radiation on
CNS function in non-human primates.'' But haven't there been previous
studies conducted by NASA and the U.S. Air Force examining the
cognitive and behavioral effects of space radiation exposure on non-
human primates? Why is this study necessary?
A1. There is no information regarding the effects of space radiation on
central nervous system (CNS) functioning in non-human primates that
NASA can use to establish space radiation exposure limits to protect
crewmembers.
In the 1960s, the U.S. Air Force and NASA collaborated on research
with rhesus monkeys studying X-rays and protons of energies
representative of solar flares. Exposures were carried out in 1965 and
1966; however the monkeys were followed up for possible health
consequences for their remaining lifetimes. The study ended in the
early 1990s. The initial research was vital to the Apollo program to
understand the immediate health consequences of possible solar flare
exposure to the Apollo astronauts. A historically large solar event
occurred in August of 1972 during the gap between the Apollo 16 and
Apollo 17 missions. It has been reported in the scientific literature
many times that early radiation sickness and significant increases in
cancer fatality would have occurred if one of the Apollo missions had
taken place during the August, 1972 solar event. These health
consequences were only understood by using the vital data sets
previously collected under controlled experimental conditions, by the
Air Force and NASA. These same data sets were also used to help make
decisions on the shielding requirements for the Orion capsule. However,
the 1960s rhesus monkey studies with protons do not provide any
information on galactic cosmic ray (heavy ion) effects, and the
distinctive types of biological damage they cause that are now
recognized as the largest risks for any long-duration space exploration
missions beyond low Earth orbit, such as trips to Mars. In addition,
while the earlier studies provided information on cancer risks from
radiation exposure involving solar protons (from solar particle
events), which was appropriate for short-duration Apollo missions, the
new research focuses on the astronaut CNS and the effects of galactic
cosmic rays (heavy ions) on it and subsequent performance.
With regard to the question about why NASA's proposed research is
important, the Agency's proposed study regarding squirrel monkeys will
study the long-term effects of space radiation in non-human primates.
The study was selected for funding using a rigorous, independent peer
review process, is considered necessary to understand the effects
radiation will have on crewmembers who will participate in long-
duration spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit. However, to clarify, while
NASA has selected the study for award, NASA has not made the final
award.
Given the priority placed on astronaut health, this NASA research
study will focus on one of the largest unknowns facing human
exploration: the effect of space radiation on an astronaut's CNS. Only
in very limited cases can previous NASA research involving mice and
rats be extrapolated to humans, and there is no information regarding
the effects of space radiation on CNS function in non-human primates.
This research is necessary for NASA to develop radiation exposure
limits and, if necessary, mitigation strategies for missions within the
solar system and for long-duration stays in LEO. The study will help
NASA protect crewmembers by setting radiation exposure standards,
determining acceptable time limits that astronauts can be in space, and
enabling spacecraft designers to incorporate effective shielding
technologies.
NASA, and the scientific community it supports, has long recognized
its responsibility to treat laboratory animals humanely and to house
and care for them properly. NASA well recognizes that only significant
and necessary research should be performed on animals and such studies
should be minimized. The Agency carefully follows all Federal
Government laws and policies regarding the care and use of animals in
research, including reviews by appropriate institutional animal care
and use committees.
Furthermore, NASA has also developed and continuously implements
its own additional rules and processes to further ensure the humane
treatment of any animal involved in NASA-sponsored research, both in
NASA ground-based laboratories and in manned and unmanned space
flights. Specifically, NASA adheres to the animal welfare principles
articulated in the ``NASA Principles for the Ethical Care and Use of
Animals.'' These principles, which are modeled after those created for
the use of humans in research, were created in 1996 by a panel of
bioethicists and animal welfare experts, as well as representatives
from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and
the Humane Society of the United States. In the case of this proposed
study, review by biomedical ethicists and technical experts concluded
that the study follows the NASA guidelines.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Additional Responses from Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Material requested for the record on page 20, line 409, by Chairman
Gordon resulting from the February 25, 2010, hearing.
With respect to commercial cargo providers, NASA is unaware of any
recent company statements that indicated they could get to LEO for less
funding than expected. Currently NASA is investing $278M with SpaceX
and $170M with Orbital Sciences for each company to develop and
demonstrate ISS cargo transportation systems. Both companies continue
to make progress with their demonstration programs.
Recognizing the vital importance of the timely completion of the
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) development program
and flight demonstration to meet the cargo resupply needs of the ISS,
NASA's FY 2011 budget request includes $312 million in FY 2011 for
incentivizing NASA's current commercial cargo program. These funds--by
adding or accelerating the achievement of already-planned milestones,
and adding capabilities or tests--aim to expedite the pace of
development of cargo flights to the ISS and to improve program
robustness.
Industry analysts believe that the commercial crew providers may be
able to demonstrate their capabilities earlier than a Government-
developed system, just as they are expected to develop commercial cargo
services earlier than the Government as part of the COTS program. At a
hearing before SCST (Science & Space Subcommittee of the Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee) on March 18, 2010,
SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell testified that her company would have
crewed flights via its Falcon 9 and Dragon spaceflight system to the
International Space Station within three years of award of a
development agreement by NASA. During the same hearing, Orbital
Sciences Corp Senior Vice President Frank Culbertson testified that
commercially-provided crew systems could be demonstrated by 2015, if
capital, safety, and other requirements were met. NASA, however, cannot
verify those statements given that the Agency has not yet issued a
solicitation for commercial crew proposals. Such information would be
included in proposals for award and would be reviewed by NASA at that
time. Therefore, the FY 2011 budget request builds upon NASA's
commercial cargo efforts by providing significant funding for the
development of commercial human spaceflight vehicles, freeing NASA to
focus on the forward-leaning work we need to accomplish for beyond-LEO
missions. Specifically, the budget request includes $6 billion over
five years to spur the development of U.S. commercial human spaceflight
vehicles.
While it is not possible to say with certainty that commercial crew
could be achieved more cost effectively than Government efforts,
commercial crew services will provide many significant benefits to NASA
and the Nation. For example, this investment funds NASA to contract
with industry to provide astronaut and international partner
transportation to the ISS as soon as possible, reducing the risk of
relying solely on foreign crew transports, and frees up NASA resources
to focus on the difficult challenges in technology development,
scientific discovery, and exploration. We also believe it will help to
make space travel more accessible and more affordable. An enhanced U.S.
commercial space industry will create new high-tech jobs, leverage
private sector capabilities and energy in this area, and spawn other
businesses and commercial opportunities, which will spur growth in our
Nation's economy. And, a new generation of Americans will be inspired
by these commercial ventures and the opportunities they will provide
for additional visits to space. NASA plans to allocate this FY 2011
funding through competitive solicitations that support a range of
activities such as human-rating existing launch vehicles and developing
new crew spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch vehicles. NASA
will ensure that all commercial systems meet stringent human-rating and
safety requirements before we allow any NASA crewmember (including NASA
contractors and NASA-sponsored international partners) to travel aboard
a commercial vehicle on a NASA mission. Safety is, and always will be,
NASA's first core value.
Material requested for the record on page 22, line 465, by Chairman
Gordon resulting from the February 25, 2010, hearing.
The letters in question were sent to the Constellation contractors
requesting estimates of their termination liability costs for the
quarters constituting the upcoming calendar year, from April 1, 2010,
to January 1, 2011. We do not believe the letters violated the
conditions of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act. The Budget does request
funding in 2011 that could be used to cover termination liability
costs, but the Antideficiency Act prevents NASA from promising or
spending those funds before they are appropriated.
Material requested for the record on page 72, line 1703, by Cong.
Kosmas resulting from the February 25, 2010, hearing.
The Space Shuttle is an extremely capable but complicated system to
operate, with annual fixed costs of $2.7-3.0B per year. NASA and this
Administration are committed to safely flying out the current manifest.
The President's budget requested an additional $600M to accommodate the
manifest should it drift into the first quarter, FY 2011. Hardware
required to fly out the current manifest has already been procured and
associated production lines are shutting down as the final hardware is
delivered. Major production contracts and production-support
subcontracts have been terminated or are close to completion which
makes the option of flying additional flights beyond the current
manifest difficult. The Agency would incur costs in re-starting these
contracts, and there would be a gap between the current manifest and
new missions reflecting the need to manufacture and/or assemble
components for the latter. In addition, it would be difficult to retain
the focus necessary from the workforce to fly safely for multiple years
with an uncertain future. If Space Shuttle is extended beyond the
current manifest with an uncertain end, it will be extremely difficult
to retain the personnel necessary to manage the closeout and fly
safely. Finally, after ISS assembly and outfitting is complete the
unique capabilities of the Space Shuttle are no longer needed, and the
accompanying risk of flying a complicated vehicle is not warranted.
After 2010, the primary focus would be crew transportation, logistics
and scientific resupply. These tasks can be performed with a simpler
and less complicated transportation system.
The 21st Century Space Launch Complex Program at KSC is an
initiative to focus on upgrades to the Florida launch range, expanding
capabilities to support commercial cargo and crew providers, and
transforming KSC into a modern facility. NASA's infrastructure at KSC
was originally designed to support the Apollo Program, and was later
modified for the Space Shuttle. While this infrastructure has served
America well, ongoing concerns about its age have led the
Administration to develop this $1.9B range upgrade initiative, based on
the longstanding need to modernize integration and operations
infrastructure. NASA will coordinate closely with the United States Air
Force (USAF), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the space
user community in the coming weeks to develop a requirements plan. NASA
currently has a team working with the USAF and FAA on the specific
details of the initiative, but the primary focus is to make investments
in overall launch and processing operations. This will help ensure that
KSC and the larger range shared with Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
can continue to serve as a robust, flexible launch site for civil,
military, and commercial missions for decades to come.
While NASA is reviewing the specific tasks that would be funded by
the $429M requested for this initiative in FY 2011, in order to achieve
low-cost, routine, and safe access to space, the Agency must invest in
capabilities and technologies that address:
Manufacturing and Processing;
Launch Operations;
Interoperability among Spaceports and Ranges: common
systems, open architectures;
Range Tracking and Surveillance Capabilities and
Technologies that protect the public, but also provide test and
evaluation capabilities that support an engineering
environment;
Common Communications Architectures;
Flexible System Telemetry that are Internet
Compatible;
Weather Prediction and Decision-Making Models;
Inspection and System Verification Capabilities and
Techniques;
Transportation, Handling, and Assembly Capabilities;
and
Supply Chain Management.
Not all of these elements will necessarily be addressed in FY 2011,
but the Agency is working with its USAF and FAA partners to develop a
plan forward with respect to specific tasks and timeframes. NASA will
work to ensure that Congress is kept informed as further details are
developed.
Kennedy Space Center will also have a new Program Office to manage
$5.8 billion over five years, with the Deputy Program Office at
Johnson, to foster private-sector transportation services to Earth
orbit. In addition KSC will have a new Deputy Program Office to manage
the $6 billion (over five years) program to demonstrate next-generation
commercial space flight capabilities. Finally, the increased pace of
activity from the new approach will mean more launches from KSC than
would have happened under the old plan.
Material requested for the record on page 90, line 2150, by Cong.
Bishop resulting from the February 25, 2010, hearing.
Administrator Bolden has been in contact with Mike Donley, Air
Force Secretary and DOD Executive Agency for Space; General Bob Kehler,
Commander of Air Force Space Command, and General Bruce Carlson
(retired), Director of the Nation Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The
Administrator's most recent interaction with these officials occurred
in May.
While the FY 2011 budget request for NASA transitions away from the
Constellation program, it also invests significant funding to develop
technologies and infrastructure to enable human exploration both to
low-Earth orbit and beyond. As NASA moves forward with decisions
regarding specific spaceflight technologies and programs, the Agency
will gain additional insight into the potential impacts to the space
industrial base. NASA is working in close consultation with DOD and NRO
on the management of the National government space enterprise and will
continue to do so. For example, discussions with DOD are already
underway regarding NASA's FY 2011 investment in range infrastructure
and first-stage propulsion.
Material requested for the record on page 92, line 2198, by Cong.
Bishop resulting from the February 25, 2010, hearing.
The FY 2011 budget request transitions away from the Constellation
Program, and in doing so, provides a total of $2.5B in FY 2011 and FY
2012 for Constellation closeout and transition costs--funding that is
expected to cover contract termination and closeout activity associated
with facilities, environmental remediation, workforce, and prime and
support contracts. It should be noted, however, that at present, the
breakdown of costs is not complete. The Agency is using the current
budget planning activities to develop the details; and an
implementation plan and coordinated communications with NASA
responsible offices and current Constellation contractors are required
to further refine this estimate, which is consistent with past planning
experience and cost estimation for the Space Shuttle Transition and
Retirement. NASA's experience with close-out of the Shuttle program
will serve as a useful reference for the complexity of the tasks and
the potential associated costs. For example, costs for covering
closeout of activities associated with facilities, workforce and prime
and support contracts are expected to be covered by the requested
funds.
Material requested for the record on page 100, line 2402, by Cong.
Posey resulting from the February 25, 2010, hearing.
While the closeout of the Space Shuttle Program and planned
transitioning away from the Constellation Program will result in the
loss of those specific jobs, the new programs and funding increase in
the President's FY 2011 request will result in potentially more total
aerospace employment. The vast majority of NASA's budget is spent on
workforce and once NASA can begin implementation on these new programs,
we anticipate many new aerospace jobs to be created to align with the
overall increase in dollars in the FY 11 Budget. NASA is fully
committed to maintaining the full civil service workforce to help this
nation carryout these programs. NASA is prohibited by the FY 2010
appropriations law from reducing its civil service total. Furthermore,
those civil servants, including headquarters civil servants, will be
required to formulate and manage the new programs in the President's FY
2011 budget request. Civil servants at all NASA Centers, Headquarters
included, will be redirected from the Shuttle and Constellation
programs to the new FY 2011 programs.