[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2010
BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 19, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-28
__________
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
49-551 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
May 19, 2009
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.......... 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 19
Written Statement............................................ 20
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 21
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 21
Witness:
Mr. Christopher J. Scolese, Acting Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 34
Discussion
ISS Re-supplying............................................... 35
Negative Effects of Insufficient Funds......................... 36
Budget Plan for 2020 Goal...................................... 36
ITAR and Export Controls....................................... 37
Transition From the Shuttle to Constellation................... 39
NASA Perspective on Review Panel............................... 40
International Competition...................................... 40
Mars and Moon Programs......................................... 41
Glenn Research Center.......................................... 42
Moon Program and Cyber Security................................ 43
NASA's Education Efforts....................................... 45
Climate Change and Asteroids................................... 46
Russian Cooperation............................................ 47
Shuttle Program Future......................................... 48
Benefits of NASA............................................... 49
Aeronautics.................................................... 50
NASA Workforce During Gap...................................... 51
Current NASA Budget Increase................................... 53
Orbiting Carbon Observatory.................................... 54
Workforce and Funding Gap...................................... 55
U.S. Space Industrial Base..................................... 56
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Christopher J. Scolese, Acting Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).................... 60
NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NASA's Fiscal Year 2010
Budget Request
tuesday, may 19, 2009
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 2:00 p.m., the Committee on Science and
Technology will hold a hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request, NASA's
proposed Fiscal Year 2009 Operating Plan, and use of funds provided
through the Recovery Act.
Witness:
Mr. Christopher Scolese
Acting 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 projected civil service workforce for FY
2009 is 17,900 employees. 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, microgravity research, and long-term technology
development. NASA also operates a fleet of three Space Shuttles and is
assembling and operating the International Space Station (ISS). NASA is
undertaking an exploration initiative with the goals of developing a
new human space transportation system for both low-Earth orbit and for
missions beyond low-Earth orbit, returning American astronauts to the
Moon by 2020, and carrying out a broad program of human and robotic
exploration of the solar system. NASA also maintains a space
communications network that supports both NASA missions and other
federal agency requirements. As of 2007, the most recent date for which
complete data are available, about 82 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.
Budgetary Information
NASA's proposed budget for FY 2010 is $18.7 billion, an increase of
5.1 percent over the enacted FY09 appropriation for NASA. The FY10
budget projection for NASA beyond FY10 is essentially flat through
FY13. Attachment 1 summarizes the FY10 budget request and its five-year
funding plan. In addition, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
[P.L. 111-5], included $1 billion for NASA's Earth science, aeronautics
exploration programs, cross-agency support, and Inspector General.
Recovery Act funds are to be expended by September 30, 2010.
The President's request for FY10 continues the budgetary structure
that was introduced for the FY09 budget and is presented in seven
accounts--Science; Aeronautics; Exploration; Space Operations;
Education; Cross Agency Support; and Inspector General. As part of the
budget restructuring that was introduced with the FY09 President's
request, NASA shifted from a full-cost budget, in which each project
budget included overhead costs, to a direct cost budget. All overhead
budget estimates are now consolidated into the Cross Agency Support
budget line. The direct cost budget shows program budget estimates that
are based entirely on program content. Individual project managers
continue to operate in a full-cost environment, including management of
overhead costs.
Attachment 2 compares the NASA budget plan that accompanied the
Vision for Space Exploration introduced by President Bush in 2004 with
the actual funds requested for NASA. As can be seen, previous budget
requests for NASA have been significantly less (i.e., typically on the
order of a half-billion dollars or more in the early years) than what
was projected as being needed to carry out the Exploration initiative
and NASA's other core missions. The cumulative shortfall over that
period is in excess of $4 billion. The additional funding provided in
the FY09 appropriation and the FY10 budget request help to redress that
shortfall. However the FY10 budget request does not project growth for
the NASA budget beyond FY10, and the disparity between the 2004 budget
projections for FY11-FY14 that the Agency was planning against and the
budgets that are now being proposed through FY 2014 is shown in the
chart. In addition, the impact of the budgetary shortfalls since 2004
has been exacerbated by the requirement to absorb the cost of the
Shuttle's return-to-flight following the Columbia accident, the
additional cost associated with the under budgeting of Shuttle
transition and retirement that occurred in the FY05 budget plan, and
the under budgeting of ISS program support that also occurred in the
FY05 budget plan, which NASA indicates resulted in an unfunded lien
against the Agency's budgets of about $6.5 billion through FY10
To put the FY10 budget request into context, NASA has been tasked
with flying the Shuttle safely until the end of the decade and then
retiring the Shuttle fleet; completing assembly of, operating, and
utilizing the International Space Station; completing the development
of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle/Crew Launch Vehicle by 2015;
returning American astronauts to the Moon by 2020; and conducting
science and aeronautics programs. The NASA Authorization Act of 2008
[P.L. 110-422] authorized an FY09 funding level for NASA of $20.21
billion; the FY09 NASA budget request was $17.61 billion and the
appropriation for FY09 was $17.78 billion. The Committee is planning to
move a multi-year reauthorization of NASA this year.
Acquisition Management
Problems of cost growth and schedule delay in NASA's programs were
addressed in the past two NASA Authorization Acts. Specifically:
Provisions in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005
[P.L. 109-155] were enacted to help NASA and Congress spot
potential cost growth and schedule problems early in the
development phase of a major program. Under the 2005 Act, a
Baseline Report is required whenever a major program completes
required reviews and is approved to proceed to implementation.
After completing the Baseline Report, the Act requires NASA to
report periodically on a major program through an Annual
Report, which is provided as part of the annual agency budget
submittal to the Congress, until the program enters operation.
The provision defines a major program as an activity with a
life cycle cost estimate greater than $100 million. Having
established the baseline, the 2005 legislation sets thresholds
that, if exceeded, require agency action.
Concerns regarding the increasing number of Earth and
space science missions that were exceeding the 15 percent
threshold established in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005
prompted a requirement in the NASA Authorization Act of 2008
[P.L. 110-422] for an independent review of the situation. The
Act directs the NASA Administrator to arrange for an
independent external assessment to identify the primary causes
of cost growth in large, medium, and small space and Earth
science spacecraft mission classes.
NASA's submission provided in conjunction with the FY 2010 budget
indicates that five of eleven projects included in this year's report
have had schedule growth in excess of six months from their baseline.
Three of these five projects have reported cost growth of 15 percent or
more from their baseline. The Mars Science Laboratory reported a 68
percent increase from its baseline development cost estimate, from $969
million to $1.63 billion, and a 26 month delay.
With respect to NASA's contract management practices, NASA remains
on the General Accountability Office's (GAO)'s ``high risk'' list for
its contract management practices. Regarding financial management, an
independent audit was unable to provide ``an opinion on NASA's
financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2008 and
2007.'' Although the audit found that NASA had improved its internal
controls, the auditor (Ernst & Young LLP) disclaimed an opinion due to
``continued significant weaknesses in NASA's financial management
processes and systems, including issues related to internal controls
for property accounting.'' NASA will need to address other ``material
weaknesses'' identified in the audit.
NASA has taken actions to improve its cost estimating and budgeting
process for its space mission acquisitions, and has been recognized by
the GAO for its progress in those areas. Acquisition management is an
area that the Committee will continue to watch closely. The
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing in March 2009 on
NASA's acquisition management and will continue to conduct oversight of
this issue.
PROGRAM AREAS
Earth Science
The President's budget for FY10 requests $1.4 billion in direct
dollars for Earth science research, applications, Earth observing
missions, education and outreach, and technology development, and
increase of about $25 million over the FY09 enacted budget. In
addition, Earth science received $325 million in Recovery Act funds.
When taken together, the Earth Science account represents an increase
of over $1.2 billion for the FY09-FY13 period over the previous NASA
budget plan, including the Recovery Act funds. The budget proposal for
Earth science reflects the Administration's commitment to fund ``space-
based research that supports the Administration's commitment to deploy
a global climate change research and monitoring system.'' The budget
increases for Earth science are aimed at accelerating the development
of missions recommended in the National Academies' Earth Science
Decadal Survey and on completing development of Earth science
``foundational'' missions.
Thus far, the Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) has entered its
formulation phase and the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite
(ICESat II), will soon enter its formulation phase. The other two
missions in the Decadal Survey's first tier of priority, the Climate
Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) and the
Deformation, Ecosystem Structure, and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI)
projects are in the pre-formulation stage (concept study). The FY10
budget also includes $12.9 million in FY10 and about $233 million over
FY10-FY13 for Venture-class missions, which will support a program for
competitive sub-orbital, airborne, and small satellite projects that
was recommended in the Decadal Survey. The augmentation for Earth
science has been done, in part, with the goal of accelerating work on
the Decadal Survey missions. An issue for the hearing is how much
``acceleration'' is this funding buying?
NASA has allocated at least $100 million of Recovery funds to
support ``foundational missions'' that are currently in the formulation
and implementation phases of development. These missions include the
Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Mission, the Landsat Data
Continuity Mission, and Glory. The FY10 budget proposal does not
include funds to re-fly an Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) satellite
(or a similar sensor), which was lost due to a launch failure in late
February 2009. NASA is analyzing options to re-fly the satellite or a
similar sensor and expects to have a decision by late June. NASA would
need to reallocate funding among its programs in order to replace the
OCO satellite. If NASA were to fund an OCO replacement using funds
allocated to SMAP and ICESat II, those satellite mission developments
could be expected to slip by roughly two years or more, according to
NASA officials.
Other Changes to Earth Science Program Areas
The proposed FY10 provides increases for research and computing
over the FY10-FY13 period, as compared to the FY09 enacted budget, but
makes modest cuts to technology, Applied Sciences, and multi-mission
operations budgets. NASA's Applied Sciences program, involves 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 NASA's plans to support decision support tools for
stakeholders, especially in the area of climate change, is a potential
issue to explore in the hearing.
Research to Operations
The 2005 NASA Authorization Act and the 2008 NASA Authorization Act
directed NASA to coordinate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and report on plans for transitioning research
sensors and satellites into operational service. In addition, the 2008
Authorization Act directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) to develop a process and to coordinate agency budget requests to
enable the transitions. NASA and NOAA have continued to coordinate
plans to address climate measurements that were eliminated in the
restructuring of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) program, to acquire the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite System (GOES)-R weather spacecraft
and instruments, and to plan for Earth science decadal survey missions.
NASA has not provided details on the level of resources required to
enable effective planning and transition of its sensors and satellites
into operations. The hearing could explore this question, especially
given the importance for long-range planning on climate monitoring.
Space Science
The President's FY10 budget requests $3.07 billion in direct
program dollars (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 budget request for space science is about
$126.3 million less than the FY09 enacted budget (including the
transfer of funding for the lunar precursor robotic program to space
science from the Exploration Systems budget). Over the FY10-FY13
period, the Astrophysics budget remains essentially flat, the Planetary
Science program is reduced by approximately $100 million, and the
Heliophysics budget decreases by about $35 million, as compared to the
FY09 budget projection for FY10-FY13.
Space Science topics and issues related to the FY10 budget request
include the following:
Program Readjustments to Reflect Budgetary Outlook
While the previous FY09 budget request included new initiatives
including a Mars Sample Return mission, an Outer Planets Flagship
mission, and a Joint Dark Energy mission, among others, that could not
realistically be accommodated within the FY09 budget proposal, the FY10
budget plan for space science no longer includes these or other major
new initiatives. For example, NASA selected the Europa Jupiter System
target as the focus of an Outer Planets Flagship mission, but elected
to proceed with technology development, further definition, and
discussions on a potential partnership with the European Space Agency
(ESA) on a potential future mission. The FY10 budget plan for planetary
sciences does not include a Mars Sample Return mission. NASA officials
have indicated their interest in working more closely with ESA on
potential Mars missions for the 2016 and 2018 launch opportunities. In
addition, NASA is sustaining technology development on potential
exosolar planet detection and dark energy missions. NASA has reported
that it will base its decisions on which missions to initiate on the
results of the National Academies decadal surveys for astronomy and
astrophysics and for planetary science that are expected to be finished
in 2010 and 2011 respectively.
Research
The FY10 request for Planetary Sciences restructured the program to
include a new Lunar Quest budget line, which organizes planetary
activities in lunar science, a lunar atmosphere and dust mission, and
an International Lunar Network activity into a single program. The FY10
budget request for Lunar Quest is $103.6 million. The status of the
International Lunar Network activity is pending the outcome of the
Human Spaceflight Review that is described in a later section of the
Charter.
The Mars Exploration Program
The FY10 budget requests $416 million for the Mars Exploration
Program, an increase of about $116 million over the FY10 request in the
previous budget submission. The NASA budget requests an increase of
$431.3 million for Mars Exploration over the FY10-FY13 period, as
compared to the FY09 budget request, in large part to complete work on
the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission. NASA moved MSL's launch date
from 2009 to 2011 due to technical problems with the mission. The
Management and Performance section of the FY10 budget request reports
that MSL experienced a 68 percent cost growth. NASA has stated its
interest in cooperating with ESA on future Mars missions. According to
NASA officials, the Agency has initiated a review of the Mars
architecture.
Aeronautics Research
For FY 2010, NASA is requesting $507 million for aeronautics
research, $143 million less than that enacted in FY 2009 (The FY 2009
enacted level includes $150 million appropriated by the Recovery Act).
The requested FY 2010 level is about $60 million greater than that
projected for FY 2010 in last year's budget submission.
NASA's aeronautics research directly supports the goals and
objectives of the National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy
signed by the President in December 2006. The budget request funds
activities that include (1) foundational research across a number of
core competencies that support aeronautics and space exploration
activities; (2) research in key areas related to the development of
advanced aircraft technologies and systems, including those related to
aircraft safety, environmental compatibility, and fuel efficiency; and
(3) research that supports the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen). NextGen is a joint effort between the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, and the Departments of Defense,
Homeland Security and Commerce that will transform the entire national
air transportation system, gradually allowing aircraft to safely fly
more closely, reduce delays, and providing benefits for the environment
and the economy through reductions in carbon emissions, fuel
consumption, and noise. The aeronautics budget also funds the
Aeronautics Test Program which encompasses the critical suite of
aeronautics test facilities needed to conduct aeronautics research.
In FY 2010, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate plans to
realign its NextGen work to distinguish research conducted on concepts
and technologies from that focused on systems analysis, integration,
and evaluation. In addition, in FY 2010, NASA plans to establish a
program of integrated, system-level focused activities, the first of
which will be the Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project.
ERA's research goal will be the reduction of environmental impacts of
aviation in terms of noise and emissions.
Human Space Flight
NASA's Human Space Flight activities to be funded in FY 2010
encompass completing construction of the International Space Station
(ISS), retiring the Space Shuttle fleet upon completion of the ISS and
delivery of the AMS to the ISS, stimulating development and
demonstration of commercial space transportation vehicles that may
support NASA's ISS cargo and potentially its crew requirements, and
continuing the development of systems to deliver people and cargo to
the ISS and the Moon and to explore other destinations. Along with the
budget release, the Administration also announced the establishment of
an independent review of NASA's human space flight activities. Results
from that review will support a planned August 2009 decision on how the
Nation's human space flight will proceed. OSTP Director John Holdren's
May 7, 2009 letter to NASA's Acting Administrator and a recent
communication to the Committee from NASA concerning the Human Space
Flight Review are attached as Attachments 3 and 4 respectively.
Space Shuttle
NASA is requesting approximately $3.16 billion for the Space
Shuttle Program, an increase of about $175 million over that enacted in
FY 2009 and an increase of about $173 million from that projected for
FY 2010 in last year's budget submission. Requested funding will enable
the Agency to conduct an additional Shuttle mission to transport the
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) per the direction of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2008 [P.L. 110-422]. Following return of the
Hubble servicing mission currently underway, eight Space Shuttle
flights will remain to be flown. NASA believes these flights can be
accomplished by the end of 2010, after which the Shuttle fleet will be
retired.
According to NASA, it has accounted for Shuttle transition and
retirement costs in projected budgets for the Shuttle Program in FY
2011 ($383 million) and FY 2012 ($88 million). This is a significant
reduction from the multi-billion dollar cost estimate projected by NASA
two years ago.
International Space Station
NASA is requesting approximately $2.27 billion for the ISS, an
increase of about $207 million over that enacted in FY 2009 and a
decrease of about $10 million from that projected in last year's budget
submission for FY 2010. Since the first component of the Station was
put in orbit in November 1998, the ISS has grown into a fully
functioning laboratory that will shortly house an increased crew size
of six. The recent additions of the final set of solar arrays and a
replacement Distillation Assembly for the water recycling system make
this increased crew size possible. NASA plans to complete assembly of
the ISS in 2010, including the additional research capability provided
by the AMS.
NASA and its Russian, Japanese, European, and Canadian ISS partners
are nearing completion of their goal of being able to conduct various
types of research on a Space Station in Earth orbit. Some of NASA's
work is focused on increasing knowledge of the effects of long-duration
human space flight, which is critical for the design and operation of
future human space vehicles to return U.S. astronauts to the Moon and
explore other destinations. Other non-exploration-related research is
also being conducted, as described in the next section. At present, the
U.S. has made no final decision on whether or not to operate and
utilize the ISS after 2015; however, the international partners have
indicated a desire to conduct research beyond that time. The question
of whether to operate and utilize the ISS beyond 2015 will be addressed
by the aforementioned Human Space Flight Review.
The ISS Cargo Crew Services budget request for FY 2010 is $628
million, an increase of about $323 million over that enacted for FY
2009. It is worth noting that the ISS Cargo Crew Services budget is
projected to reach about $1.14 billion in FY 2012. This activity
consists of International Partners and commercial purchases. NASA has
contracted with Russia's Roskosmos to purchase cargo transportation
through 2011 and crew transportation through the spring of 2012. NASA
recently made awards to SpaceX and Orbital Sciences to provide cargo
and return services beginning in 2011 under the Commercial Resupply
Services contract.
International Space Station Utilization
The ISS is intended to serve as an on-orbit facility where R&D in
support of both human exploration and non-exploration purposes and
other exploration technologies is to be conducted. To that end, NASA is
conducting research on the effects of long-duration space flight on
humans, as well as examining potential countermeasures. NASA is also
using the ISS to demonstrate advanced communications networking. For
example, NASA is testing Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) software,
a ``deep space communications network modeled on the Internet,''
according to a November 2008 press release issued by NASA and JPL. NASA
is also using the ISS to experiment with Communication, Navigation and
Networking re-Configurable Testbed (CoNNeCT), which will use software
reprogrammable radios that can be used to support long-duration space
exploration missions. In addition, the ISS is currently testing and
demonstrating technologies critical for long-term exploration, such as
various life support system technologies.
The International Space Station National Laboratory activity allows
other federal agencies and commercial partners to utilize research
capacity on the ISS. NASA has signed memoranda of understanding with
the National Institutes of Health and the USDA Agricultural Research
Service for their potential research utilization of the ISS. A
commercial company has been conducting research on Salmonella that is
directed at developing a Salmonella target vaccine. According to NASA,
non-NASA partners will be required to pay for the transportation of
their research experiments to and from the ISS.
The FY10 budget request for ISS research, which is bookkept in the
Exploration Systems (ESMD) budget has been cut by about $20 million
from the FY09 enacted budget and is projected to be relatively flat in
the out years. The status of the research community and investigations
that are ready to fly on the ISS will be an issue for any potential
plans to increase the utilization of the ISS. Previous budget cuts to
space life sciences and physical sciences research have drastically
reduced the number of principal investigators working in these areas of
research since FY 2004. In addition, the number of post-doctoral
students, Ph.D., Master's and Bachelor of Science students has dropped
precipitously since FY 2004.
In the near future, NASA expects to increase the ISS crew from
three to six, which will increase the crew time available for research,
according to NASA officials. In addition, following the planned
retirement of the Space Shuttle, opportunities to ferry research
supplies, hardware, and samples to and from the ISS will depend on the
availability of commercial and international cargo resupply services.
Exploration Initiative
President Bush proposed an exploration initiative in 2004 that
envisioned a broad program of human and robotic exploration of the
solar system, including completion of the ISS, development of a new
human space transportation system, a human landing on the Moon by 2020,
and exploration of other solar system destinations. The Congress
authorized the exploration initiative in the NASA Authorization Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-155) and the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-
422).
The President's proposal for NASA's FY 2010 budget provides $3.96
billion for Exploration Systems to fund Constellation Systems, which
includes the development, demonstration, and deployment of the Orion
Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV)
as well as associated ground and in-orbit infrastructure; Advanced
Capabilities, which includes human research to support ISS and future
exploration; a lunar precursor robotic program; microgravity research;
and technology development to support Orion and other exploration
programs. The funding requested for FY 2010 is an increase of about $58
million over that enacted for FY 2009 and is about $225 million greater
than that projected for FY 2010 in last year's President's budget
request.
According to NASA, its requested FY 2010 funding level of $3.50
billion for Constellation Systems, coupled with an enacted FY 2009
funding level of $3.43 billion, puts it in a position to achieve the
projected Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date of March 2015 for
the Orion/Ares I. The Orion crew exploration vehicle ($1.38 billion)
and Ares I crew launch vehicle ($1.42 billion) form the bulk of the
Constellation FY 2010 budget request. The FY 2010 budget request for
the Ares V cargo launch vehicle ($25 million) and its run-out budget
for FY 2011 through FY 2014 ($100 million total) is insufficient to
initiate full scale development of the heavy-lift launch vehicle that
is designed to support exploration missions beyond low-Earth orbit. In
addition, the five-year budget plan contains no significant funding for
the Altair lunar lander.
Cargo and Crew Transportation
Once the Shuttle fleet is retired, NASA will rely on a variety of
sources to transport cargo and crew to the ISS. The Agency's Commercial
Crew and Cargo Program, whose goal is to spur private industry to
provide cost-effective cargo delivery to the ISS, requests about $39
million in FY 2010; with the infusion of Recovery Act funds, the FY
2009 enacted level was $303 million. Flight demonstrations to the ISS
are being planned by SpaceX and Orbital Sciences for May 2010 and March
2011 respectively. The Crew and Cargo Program is administered by the
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate under Constellation Systems.
The demonstration program ends in 2011.
Human Space Flight Review
As part of the submission of its FY 2010 NASA budget request, OSTP
Director John Holdren announced that the Obama Administration was
asking Mr. Norman Augustine to chair an independent review of NASA's
planned human space flight activities. The stated goal of the review is
``to ensure that the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the
future of human space flight-one that is safe, innovative, affordable,
and sustainable.'' The panel is to report its results by August of this
year. According to Dr. Holdren's May 7th letter to NASA's Acting
Administrator:
``The review should aim, specifically, to identify and
characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable
possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight
activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle. Results and
supporting analysis should be provided to involved
Administration agencies and offices in sufficient time to
support an August 2009 decision on the way forward. The
identification and characterization of options should be
cognizant of-and should address the implications for-the
following objectives: (1) expediting a new U.S. capability to
support utilization of the International Space Station; (2)
supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond
low-Earth orbit; (3) stimulating commercial space flight
capabilities; and (4) fitting within the current budget profile
for NASA exploration activities.''
Space Communications
The President's FY10 budget requests $496.6 million for Space
Communications and Navigation, about $86 million less than the FY09
enacted budget. The budget reflects the fact that NASA has largely
completed acquisitions to replenish aging Tracking and Data Relay
Satellite System (TDRSS) spacecraft, which are used to support
``tracking, data, voice, and video services to the International Space
Station (ISS), Space and Earth science missions, as well as other
government agency users.''
The FY10 budget request includes plans for NASA's Space
Communications and Navigation program to demonstrate optical
communications, which provide higher data rates and involve lower
weight, space, and power requirements on spacecraft. Optical
communications will help enable more science data to be transmitted to
Earth more efficiently. NASA is planning to use a lunar dust and
atmosphere mission, anticipated to launch in 2012, to conduct the first
optical communications demonstration.
The Deep Space Network (DSN) ``consists of three facilities spaced
approximately 120 degrees apart on the globe to enable continuous
communications to spacecraft as the Earth rotates.'' The DSN is aging
and the GAO has raised concerns about its fragility and continuing
ability to service a mounting workload. NASA's FY10 budget does not
include funds for an upgrade. NASA will construct a new 34-meter beam
waveguide antenna in Australia and maintain the existing DSN system
while completing an analysis to support a plan for a new phased-array
DSN system.
Education
The President's budget proposes $126.1 million in FY10 to support
NASA's Education program. Although the proposed FY10 budget represents
no change in the request for FY10 made in the previous budget plan, it
reflects a reduction of about $43 million from the FY09 enacted budget.
The FY10 budget reflects some reorganization of education projects
into three program areas:
The Higher Ed STEM Education program includes the
Minority University Research and Education Program (MUREP),
Space Grant, and Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR).
The K-12 STEM Education program is aimed at engaging
and retaining students in STEM disciplines through flight
opportunities, hands-on science and engineering activities, and
the use of NASA content in teacher development resources.
Informal STEM Education supports NASA Center
activities that respond to requests from community and other
informal education providers that use NASA content to engage
participants in STEM activities. This program also supports
museums, science centers, planetariums, and other venues that
help ``the American public understand NASA's exploration
mission.''
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. How NASA is coordinating education among the Office of
Education, the Centers, and the mission directorates on education
activities and whether that coordination is effective are potential
issues for the hearing.
Facilities and Maintenance
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. NASA
is requesting $355.4 million in FY 2010 for institutional investments.
Of that amount, about $284 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 $71 million requested for FY 2010 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 $2 billion. So while
projected budget requests for construction and facilities rise from FY
2011 ($326 million) to FY 2014 ($397.4 million), it is unlikely that
such projected levels will appreciably reduce the backlog in the near
future.
In the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (P.L. 110-422, Section 1022),
the Committee 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 percent over the next
five years.'' The Administrator is to deliver those reports to Congress
concurrent with the delivery of the FY 2011 budget request.
Earth-Bound Applications of NASA-Developed Technologies
Technologies and devices developed by NASA to enable space missions
and aeronautics research can provide societal benefits when transferred
to terrestrial applications. For example:
A resin developed by NASA for space applications was
licensed to a medical technology company who in turn
incorporated the material into its design for a left-heart
lead. The left-heart lead, which was recently approved by the
Food and Drug Administration, delivers electrical impulses
directly to the heart from a pacing device implanted in a
patient's chest. The NASA-developed resin is highly flexible,
resistant to chemicals, and can withstand extreme hot and cold
temperatures. The ``super plastic'' is biologically inert, thus
making it suitable for medical use, including implantable
devices. The NASA-developed insulation material enabled the
company to develop one of the thinnest left-heart leads
available.
An electronic nose developed for monitoring air
quality on the International Space Station has shown promise as
a new weapon against brain cancer. The electronic nose,
developed by NASA to automatically monitor the station's air,
is able to detect contaminants within a range of one to
approximately 10,000 parts per million. In a series of
experiments, researchers used NASA's device to ``sniff'' brain
cancer cells and cells in other organs. Their data demonstrated
that the electronic nose can sense differences in odor from
normal versus cancerous cells. These experiments will help pave
the way for more sophisticated biochemical analysis and
experimentation.
Transfer of NASA technology to the private sector is performed by
NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program. The agency's view is that
advancing technology through partnerships enables it to address its own
needs and apply NASA-derived technology to a range of applications that
can provide broad benefit to the public. The program consists of three
elements: Technology Infusion, Innovation Incubator, and Partnership
Development. For FY 2010, NASA is requesting $184.8 million for the
Innovative Partnerships program, an increase of about $25 million over
that enacted in FY 2009 and an increase of about $3 million from that
projected for FY 2010 in last year's budget submission.
Chairman Gordon. This hearing will come to order, and good
afternoon, and welcome. Mr. Scolese, we are glad you are here,
and Mr. Hall is here, too. We are--just to let everyone know,
at 2:30 or hopefully more of a quarter until votes will start
on the Floor we are told, and there will be a series of them,
so it goes for awhile, and so what we are hoping to do is be
able to have a good hearing here before so we don't hold
everybody up. And Mr. Hall concurs, and we are glad of that.
So before I go any further I would just like to take a
moment and express my appreciation for your service over these
past few months. You were handed a very challenging job when
you were asked to serve as our Acting Administrator for NASA,
and by all accounts you have handled your responsibility with
distinction as you have done your previous jobs there. It is a
clear reflection of your competence and skill, but it is also I
think an indication of the high caliber of civil service
employees at NASA.
And so we have seen the competence on display over the past
few days as a crew of seven NASA astronauts has worked to
service the Hubble Space Telescope to the extent its ability to
conduct productive science. At the same time three crew members
are operating overhead in the International Space Station with
their own set of complex tasks to carry out, and we have seen
multiple examples of the value of NASA science research that
has helped us to better understand both climate change here on
Earth and events in the far reaches of the universe.
And we have seen NASA-funded aeronautics R&D transform the
Nation's commercial and military aviation capabilities over the
past five decades, yet it has become clear in recent years that
resources given to NASA haven't kept pace with the tasks that
the Nation has asked it to carry out.
That is why this committee and ultimately Congress as a
whole passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, which
authorized a significant increase in funding for NASA, and I am
very pleased that the Obama Administration has responded to
that Congressional consensus by supporting augmented funding
for NASA in both the Recovery Act and the fiscal year 2010,
budgetary request.
It is a welcome recognition that NASA is relevant to
address the Nation's societal needs and is an important
contributor to our scientific and technical competitiveness.
That is good news.
However, more needs to be done if the positive steps taken
by this Administration are going to be sustained. For example,
it is clear that the flat-funded proposal for NASA after fiscal
year 2010 would make it very difficult to make progress on a
number of important programs, including the Exploration
Initiative that was endorsed by Congress in the last two NASA
Authorizations Acts.
And while I hope and expect that the human space flight
review that is going to be conducted under the very able
leadership of Norm Augustine will help clarify what is needed
to keep that important initiative on track, I think the basic
situation is already clear. Either the Nation is going to have
to give NASA enough funding to meet the dual challenges of
carrying out its current and planned missions and of
revitalizing the Agency's human and physical capital, or the
Nation is going to have to agree on what it wants NASA to cut.
As the overwhelming bipartisan support of--for the NASA
Authorization Act of 2008 demonstrates, Congress believes that
NASA is an important contributor to America's future, well-
being, and worthy of our increased investment in it. At the
same time I don't view investing in NASA as a blank check. This
committee is going to be vigilant in seeking to ensure that
NASA is a good steward of taxpayer dollars.
Indeed, the first hearing of Chairman Giffords' Space and
Aeronautics Subcommittee earlier this year was on NASA's cost
management practices, and I have no doubt the Committee will
continue our oversight on these issues in the months ahead.
So we are going to go forward with the Reauthorization of
NASA this year, and we need to have a good understanding of the
issues and opportunities facing the Agency in the wake of the
President's budget request. Today's hearing is the first step
in that progress--in that process, and I, again, want to
welcome Acting Administrator Scolese for your participation and
look forward to your testimony.
And now I recognize Mr. Hall for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
Good afternoon, and welcome Mr. Scolese.
Before I go any further, I'd just like to take a moment to express
my appreciation for your service over these past several months.
You were handed a very challenging job when you were asked to serve
as Acting Administrator of NASA, and by all accounts you have handled
your responsibilities with distinction.
That's clearly a reflection on your competence and skill.
But it's also an indication of the high caliber of the civil
service employees we have at NASA, of which you are one.
We've seen that competence on display over the past few days as a
crew of seven NASA astronauts has worked to service the Hubble Space
Telescope to extend its ability to conduct productive science.
At the same time, three crew members are orbiting overhead in the
International Space Station, with their own set of complex tasks to
carry out.
We're seeing multiple examples of the value of NASA scientific
research that has helped us better understand both climate change here
on Earth and events in the far reaches of the universe.
And we've seen NASA-funded aeronautics R&D transform the Nation's
commercial and military aviation capabilities over the past five
decades.
Yet it's become clear in recent years that the resources given to
NASA haven't kept pace with the tasks that the Nation has asked it to
carry out.
That's why this committee and ultimately Congress as a whole passed
the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, which authorized a significant
increase in funding for NASA.
I'm very pleased that the Obama Administration has responded to
that congressional consensus by supporting augmented funding for NASA
in both the Recovery Act and in the FY 2010 NASA budget request.
It's a welcome recognition that NASA is relevant to addressing the
Nation's societal needs and is an important contributor to our
scientific and technical competitiveness.
That's good news.
However, more needs to be done if the positive steps taken by this
Administration are going to be sustained.
For example, it is clear that the flat-funding proposed for NASA
after FY 2010 would make it very difficult to make progress on a number
of important programs, including the exploration initiative that was
endorsed by Congress in the last two NASA Authorization Acts.
While I hope and expect that the Human Space Flight Review that is
going to be conducted under the very able leadership of Norm Augustine
will help clarify what is needed to keep that important initiative on
track, I think the basic situation is already clear.
Either the Nation is going to have to give NASA enough funding to
meet the dual challenges of carrying out its current and planned
missions and of revitalizing the Agency's human and physical capital .
. ..
Or, the Nation is going to have to agree on what it wants NASA to
cut.
As the overwhelming bipartisan support for the NASA Authorization
Act of 2008 demonstrated, Congress believes that NASA is an important
contributor to America's future well-being, and worthy of our increased
investment in it.
At the same time, I don't view investing in NASA as a blank check--
this committee is going to be vigilant in seeking to ensure that NASA
is a good steward of taxpayer dollars.
Indeed, the first hearing of Chairwoman Giffords' Space and
Aeronautics Subcommittee earlier this year was on NASA's cost
management practices, and I have no doubt the Committee will continue
our oversight of those issues in the months ahead.
We are going to be reauthorizing NASA this year, and we need to
have a good understanding of the issues and opportunities facing the
Agency in the wake of the President's budget request.
Today's hearing is the first step in that process, and I again want
to welcome Acting Administrator Scolese's participation.
We look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I will not
present my entire statement. I ask unanimous consent that it be
put in the record.
I just want to thank you. You have pretty well--you have
very well covered the opening statements for both of us, but I
want to thank you for holding this hearing. And 2010, as you
know and we all realize, is a very pivotal year for our Space
Program, and this is a very important opportunity to hear from
NASA and seek answers to a lot of questions.
I would like to also welcome our witness, Acting NASA
Administrator. Chris, thank you. You have been doing a
difficult job under challenging circumstances, and thank you
for your dedication.
I will skip on over and just say NASA is one area of the
federal budget where I think some increases are justified.
Three percent sounds like a lot to a lot of people, but that is
a very small budget for anything as important as NASA is to
this country. We may just defend the next war out of space. We
have got to be ready for those things, and NASA is so very
important to us. The Administration has called for an
independent review of human space flight to be chaired by Norm
Augustine, and the President couldn't have picked a better
person for that, a more knowledgeable person for it. I had a
visit with him this morning, and I am sure that he visited the
Chairman before he came to my office, but he is a great
American and outstanding person to make that study for you, and
let me tell you, he will call it like it is, and he will call
it like he sees it. So we are very lucky to have him doing
that.
And NASA is still on the path to complete the remaining
Shuttle missions, including an additional flight to deliver the
Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer. Hell, I can't say anything. And
then retire the Shuttle without having developed a new
capability to get independently to and from the ISS. That is
one of the major problems, and we are hoping that Norm is going
to give us some answers to that.
And I am very concerned that the budget has deleted nearly
all of the out-year funding for the lunar landing, and for the
heavy-lift Constellation launch vehicle that is necessary to
get us out of the lower orbit. The Exploration Program needs
stability in growth and can't be--has to be properly funded,
which I don't think they are.
I just close by saying American companies have until
recently led the world in the production of leading-edge
technology and aviation communications, surveillance and
navigation services. I am aware that under-investing in these
disciplines are going to be--and I don't know how many years to
say, but really come home to haunt us. We are making a mistake.
I hope you can lead us out of that mistake.
Look forward to hearing you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on
NASA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request. 2010 is a pivotal year for our
space program, and this is an important opportunity to hear from NASA
and seek answers to a wide-range of questions.
I would also like to welcome our witness, Acting NASA Administrator
Chris Scolese who has been doing a difficult job under challenging
circumstances. Thank you for your dedication and commitment.
NASA gives our country so much to be proud of. Right now, 350 miles
up, Shuttle astronauts are wrapping up an extraordinary mission. They
salvaged a multi-billion dollar Space Science mission by repairing the
Hubble Space Telescope during a series of complicated and dangerous
spacewalks. This mission showcases the unique capabilities of the Space
Shuttle which will be lost after it is retired. This is a very daring
mission, and the men and women we send into space put their lives on
the line. They deserve our support, and they deserve the best equipment
and training we can provide.
NASA is one area of the federal budget where I think some increases
are justified. While we do not need to add more money to the ballooning
deficit, we should prioritize federal spending on programs that yield
great returns--and NASA is one of those programs. I am encouraged that
NASA's FY 2010 budget request of $18.7 billion is about five percent
above last year's appropriation, but as I said to Dr. Holdren last
week, I am very concerned that priorities may be shifting away from
human space exploration at a very critical time. The Administration has
called for an independent review of Human Space Flight to be chaired by
Norm Augustine that is expected to make recommendations later this
summer. There are many questions that should be answered including
about whether to extend the International Space Station beyond 2016.
The ISS is a valuable National Laboratory and we should be seeking new
and innovative research to perform there well into the future.
NASA is still on a path to complete the remaining Shuttle missions,
including an additional flight to deliver the Alpha-Magnetic
Spectrometer (AMS) to the ISS, and then retire the Shuttle without
having developed a new capability to get independently to and from the
ISS. In the resulting gap we stand to lose a highly skilled workforce
and a number of accompanying parts suppliers and other contractors that
we cannot afford to lose--as we did between Apollo and Shuttle.
Mr. Chairman, I am also very concerned that this budget has deleted
nearly all the out-year funding for the Lunar Lander and for the heavy-
lift Constellation launch vehicle that is necessary to get us out of
low-Earth orbit. The Exploration program needs stability and growth and
cannot be the bill-payer for the rest of the Agency.
Moreover, NASA's science and aeronautics programs, like the
Agency's top line, show little growth, with the exception of Earth
Science and Heliophysics. Just like human space flight, these important
research programs are financially stressed, experiencing cost growth
that far exceed increases in their respective budget lines. We are at
risk of launching fewer and fewer research missions, and I am concerned
we will lose the research infrastructure that has been so important to
NASA, but is also a source of important new technologies for American
commerce, especially for our satellite and aerospace industries.
American companies have, until recently, led the world in the
production of leading-edge technologies in aviation, communications,
surveillance, and navigation services. I worry that under-investing in
these disciplines will--in 10 to 15 years time--really come back to
haunt us.
Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of issues to discuss today. I look
forward to a productive hearing.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I certainly concur
with your comments.
[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 NASA Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) Budget Request.
NASA has requested $18.7 billion in funding for FY10, an increase
of 5.1 percent over Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09). I am pleased to see that
the FY10 budget request continues to address the budget shortfalls NASA
saw during the previous Administration and to make steps towards
fulfilling the Vision for Space Exploration introduced by President
Bush in 2004. However, the budget projects relatively flat funding
through Fiscal Year 2013, which may negatively impact NASA's ability to
fulfill its complex, important, and broad-ranging mission. I look
forward to discussing how NASA can continue to fulfill its mission
under this projected budget.
I have three specific concerns about the NASA budget request for
FY10. First, as a strong supporter of STEM education, I was concerned
to see a $43 million reduction in funding for STEM programs. I support
NASA's decisions to reorganize and streamline STEM education projects
into three program areas, and I am pleased to see that NASA will
continue to contribute to STEM projects at every level of education.
However, I believe these programs need more financial support than
requested in the FY10 budget. I would like to hear from Administrator
Scolese how this committee can work with NASA to ensure that this
decrease in funding does not impact access to STEM education for
American students.
Second, as the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am pleased
to see that NASA will continue to invest in aeronautics research,
particularly the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).
In particular, I support NASA's decision to redesign its research
efforts and distinguish between technology development and research on
integration and evaluation. However, the FY10 budget proposes a $143
million decrease in funding for NASA's work on NextGen. I do not
support reducing this funding, in particular because NASA contributes
vital research on aviation safety and environmental impact to the
program. I would like to hear from Administrator Scolese how the
decrease in the Aeronautics budget will impact NASA's role in NextGen.
Third, I am concerned about the continued cost growth and schedule
delays that plague NASA projects. NASA remains on the GAO watch list
for agencies at a high risk for contract management, and despite
efforts to improve the budget process within the Agency, an independent
auditor could not come to any conclusion on the Agency's financial
statements because of serious problems in its financial reporting.
These problems make NASA inefficient, and as we discussed in an Energy
and Environment Subcommittee hearing last month these continued delays
and cost increases limit the Agency's ability to update technology and
remain on the cutting edge of space exploration and research. I would
like to hear from Administrator Scolese what long-term and short-term
strategies NASA has in place to address these problems.
I welcome Administrator Scolese, and I look forward to his
testimony.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will discuss NASA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request,
NASA's proposed Fiscal Year 2009 Operating Plan, and use of funds
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
NASA conducts vital research and development projects that help us
learn about our surroundings.
Arizona State University, which is located in my District, is home
to researchers who work on many of these important NASA research
projects.
To maintain America's competitiveness in science and technology, we
must do more than merely keep up. We must lead, and commit ourselves to
providing the resources necessary to keep us at the forefront of this
kind of cutting edge research and development.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses.
I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Where we are is that the votes have
started earlier than we thought, so Mr. Scolese, I think the
thing to do is for you to go forward, make your statement, and
then we will try to make you comfortable here while we go vote
and come back as quickly as we can.
And so let me now call upon our witness today, Mr.
Christopher Scolese, who is the Acting Administrator, as well
as the Associate Administrator, of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
And you are recognized for five minutes or the time you may
consume.
STATEMENT OF MR. CHRISTOPHER J. SCOLESE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Mr. Scolese. Okay. Thank you, sir. Chairman Gordon, Ranking
Member Hall, and Members of the Committee, thank you for
inviting me here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
2010 budget request for NASA. The President's request of
$18.686 billion for NASA represents an increase of $903.6
million above the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriation.
First, let me note that NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget is
$18.784 billion or about $1.17 billion above the fiscal year
2009 request, which reflects and increase of $168.2 million in
the regular appropriation and about $1 billion in the Recovery
Act. NASA is appreciative of the support of this committee and
Congress for the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 full funding of
the fiscal year 2009 request, and for the additional Recovery
Act funds which will enable NASA to meet critical priorities.
The President's fiscal year 2010 request includes $4.5
billion for science. In Earth science, NASA is continuing to
work aggressively to implement the recommendations of the
Decadal Survey. The first four Decadal missions will be
accelerated, and NASA will issue its first venture class
announcement of opportunity later this year.
Over the next year we plan to launch the Glory and Aquarius
missions and the GOES-R mission for NOAA and complete the
NPOESS Preparatory Project. Further, we will continue
development of the foundational missions, including the Global
Precipitation Mission, the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, and
initiate work on the Thermal Infrared Sensor. NASA is further
assessing options to recover from the disappointing loss of the
Orbiting Carbon Observatory and will keep you informed of our
findings and plans.
In planetary science, we are continuing the exploration of
the solar system with the Juno Mission to Jupiter and the Mars
Science Laboratory and the MAVEN Scout Mission.
In astrophysics, I am pleased to report that the final
Hubble Servicing Mission, EBA, was completed yesterday, and
this morning the Space Shuttle successfully released a
revitalized Hubble Space Telescope. We look forward to the safe
return of the crew and to many more years of discovery from
Hubble.
Development continues on the James Webb Space Telescope,
which passed its confirmation review in 2008, and has an agency
commitment to launch in 2014. NASA's fleet of Heliophysics
Missions strategically placed throughout the solar system is
providing researchers the first ever solar system-wide view of
solar influences on Earth and other planets. The fiscal year
2010 request of $507 million renews NASA's commitment to a
strong national program in aeronautics that will continue to
contribute to the economic wellbeing and quality of American--
of life of American citizens through strong partnerships with
industry, academia, and government.
In exploration, the President's fiscal year 2010 budget
request is $3.963 billion, an increase of $457.6 million above
the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations level and $225.4
million above last year's plan. This increased budget will
support continued progress in NASA's efforts to advance the
development of the Next Generation Human Space Flight System to
carry American crews and supplies to space and work to return
Americans to the Moon.
Specifically, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the
Lunar Crater Observation Sensing Satellite Spacecraft are ready
for launch next month. Later this year, two major test flights
will be conducted; the Ares I-X developmental test flight from
Kennedy Space Center and the Orion Pad Abort 1 test at White
Sands.
At the request of the director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, NASA is initiating an independent review of
U.S. human space flight plans to be conducted by a blue ribbon
panel of outside experts chaired by Norm Augustine. The review
will examine ongoing and planned NASA human space flight
development activities, as well as potential alternatives and
present options for advancing safe, innovative, sustainable,
and affordable human space flight program in the years
following the retirement of the Space Shuttle. It will also
evaluate options for extending the life of the ISS beyond 2016
and present its results by August, 2009.
During the review, the NASA workforce will continue to work
on all current exploration projects including Ares I. The
President's budget request includes $6.176 billion for space
operations, which funds safe flight of the Space Shuttle to
complete the eight remaining scheduled flights to the ISS and
then retire the Shuttle. We believe these flights can be
accomplished by the end of 2010.
This month ISS will host its first six-person crew and next
month will deliver the third and final component of the
Japanese Kibo Laboratory. Last December, NASA awarded two
commercial re-supply services contracts to develop vehicles
needed to deliver supplies and experiments to the ISS.
Finally, the 2010 request supports NASA's education program
to continue developing a future aerospace technical and
scientific workforce, improving the technological
competitiveness of our nation's universities and attracting and
retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics disciplines. This request also funds NASA's cross-
agency support programs, which provide critical mission support
activities necessary to ensure the efficient and effective
operation and administration of the Agency and its centers.
Chairman Gordon, thank you again for your support and that
of this committee. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scolese follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Scolese
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's FY 2010 budget
request for NASA. The President's FY 2010 budget request for NASA is
$18.686 billion. The FY 2010 request represents an increase of $903.6
million above the amount provided for NASA in the FY 2009 Omnibus
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-8). The FY 2010 budget does a number of
things: it supports the Administration's commitment to deploy a global
climate change research and monitoring system; it funds a strong
program of space exploration involving humans and robots with the goal
of returning Americans to the Moon and exploring other destinations;
and it supports the safe flight of the Space Shuttle to complete
assembly of the International Space Station by the Space Shuttle's
planned retirement.
Highlights of the FY 2010 Budget Overview
With the FY 2010 budget request, NASA advances global climate
change research and monitoring. The NASA investment in Earth science
research satellites, airborne sensors, computer models and analysis has
revolutionized scientific knowledge and predictions of climate change
and its effects. Using the National Research Council's recommended
priorities for space-based Earth science research as its guide, NASA
will develop new space-based research sensors in support of the
Administration's goal to deploy a global climate research and
monitoring system. NASA will work to deploy these new sensors
expeditiously while coordinating with other federal agencies to ensure
continuity of measurements that have long-term research and
applications benefits.
The FY 2010 NASA request funds a robust program of space
exploration involving humans and robots. NASA's astronauts and robotic
spacecraft have been exploring our solar system and the universe for
more than 50 years. The Agency will create a new chapter of this legacy
as it works to return Americans to the Moon by 2020. NASA also will
send a broad suite of robotic missions to destinations throughout the
solar system and develop a bold new set of astronomical observatories
to probe the mysteries of the universe, increasing investment in
research, data analysis, and technology development in support of these
goals.
With the FY 2010 request, NASA will complete the International
Space Station (ISS) and advance the development of new space
transportation systems and the unique scientific research that can be
conducted on-board the ISS. The FY 2010 budget request funds for the
safe flight of the Space Shuttle to complete the ISS, incorporates an
additional flight to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) to
the ISS, and then retires the Shuttle. NASA is committed to completing
these nine remaining scheduled Shuttle flights, including the current
mission underway to service the Hubble Space Telescope, which we
believe can be accomplished by the end of 2010. Funds freed from the
Shuttle's retirement will enable the Agency to support development of
systems to deliver people and cargo to the ISS and the Moon and explore
other destinations. 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 requirements for ISS. In
addition, the Agency will continue to utilize the ISS, the permanently
crewed facility orbiting Earth that enables the Agency to develop,
test, and validate critical space exploration technologies and
processes, and to conduct microgravity research. NASA also will
continue to coordinate with international partners to make this
platform available for other government entities, commercial industry,
and academic institutions to conduct research.
At the request of the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, NASA is initiating an independent review of planned
U.S. human space flight activities, with the goal of ensuring that the
Nation is on a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving its boldest
aspirations in space. This review will be conducted by a blue-ribbon
panel of outside experts chaired by Norman R. Augustine. The panel will
present its results in time to support an Administration decision on
the way forward by August 2009. This Review of U.S. Human Space Flight
Plans will examine ongoing and planned NASA human space flight
development activities, as well as potential alternatives, and present
options for advancing a safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable
human space flight program in the years following completion of the
current Space Shuttle manifest and retirement. The independent review
panel will seek input from Congress, the White House, the public,
industry, and international partners. In addition, the review will
examine the appropriate amount of R&D and complementary robotic
activities needed to make human space flight activities most productive
and affordable over the long-term, as well as appropriate opportunities
for international collaboration. It will also evaluate what
capabilities would be enabled by each of the potential architectures
considered. And it will evaluate options for extending International
Space Station operations beyond 2016. We will keep the Congress
informed, as appropriate, with the progress of the review.
It is important to note that the President has submitted a FY 2010
budget request for NASA Exploration Systems of $3.963 billion, an
increase of $457.6 million above the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations
level. During the review, the NASA workforce will continue to focus on
the safe flight and operation of the Space Shuttle and ISS, and
continue to work on all current exploration projects, including Ares I,
Orion, and Commercial Crew and Cargo efforts.
The President's FY 2010 budget request includes $507 million for
Aeronautics Research, renewing NASA's commitment to cutting-edge,
fundamental research in traditional and emerging disciplines to help
transform the Nation's air transportation system and to support future
aircraft. NASA research will increase airspace capacity and mobility,
enhance aviation safety, and improve aircraft performance while
reducing noise, emissions, and fuel consumption. The Integrated Systems
Research Program, a new program beginning in FY 2010, will conduct
research at an integrated system-level on promising concepts and
technologies and explore, assess, and demonstrate the benefits in a
relevant environment.
Finally, consistent with Administration priorities, NASA is
developing plans to stimulate innovation and increase investments in
technologies for the future while ensuring that nearer-term Agency
commitments are met.
NASA Initial FY 2009 Operating Plan and Recovery Act Funding
Before I highlight key accomplishments and plans for activities
across the Agency, I would like to summarize NASA's initial FY 2009
Operating Plan, including Recovery Act funding, as recently submitted
to the Committee. The initial FY 2009 Operating Plan is $18,784.4
million, or $1,170.2 million above the President's FY 2009 request,
which reflects an increase of $168.2 million in the regular
appropriation and $1,002.0 million in the Recovery Act. NASA is
appreciative of the action by the Committees on Appropriations and
Congress in providing regular appropriations for the Agency with full
funding for Science, Aeronautics, Exploration, Space Shuttle, ISS, and
Education. This total FY 2009 appropriations level, with minor
adjustments within the total, will enable NASA to meet critical
priorities, in accordance with the direction from the Congress and the
President. NASA also appreciates the efforts by the Committees to
include funding for NASA in the Recovery Act. This funding will help
NASA achieve programmatic goals in Science, Exploration and
Aeronautics, and repair damage done to the NASA Johnson Space Center
during Hurricane Ike, and support national recovery goals.
NASA has allocated the $1,002.0 million in Recovery Act funds as
follows:
Science, $400.0M
Earth Science, $325.0M
Astrophysics, $75.0M
Aeronautics, $150.0M
Exploration, $400.0M
Constellation Systems, $250.0M
Commercial Crew & Cargo, $150.0M
Cross Agency Support, $50.0M
Inspector General, $2.0M
I would be happy to address the objectives to which NASA is
applying the Recovery Act funds in detail.
Science
NASA's Science Mission Directorate continues to expand humanity's
understanding of our Earth, our Sun, the solar system and the universe
with 57 science missions in operation and 31 more in development. The
Science budget funds these missions as well as the research of over
3,000 scientists and their students across the Nation. The President's
FY 2010 request for NASA includes $4,477.2 million for Science.
The Science budget request includes $1,405.0 million for Earth
Science in FY 2010, and steadily increases Earth science funding in the
outyears. NASA's 15 Earth Science missions in operation provide a large
share of the global observations used for climate change research in
the United States and elsewhere. This year, NASA's Earth Science
satellites enabled research to understand how changes both in the
tropics and in Arctic sea ice are changing ocean biology globally. NASA
also recently conducted the first Ice Bridge aircraft campaign to
demonstrate a new airborne laser capability to bridge the gap in time
between ICESats 1 and 2. In FY 2010, NASA plans to launch the Glory
mission to map atmospheric aerosols and continue the long record of
solar influences on climate, and the Aquarius mission to provide the
first global measurements of sea surface salinity. NASA will complete
development of the NPOESS Preparatory Project and continue development
of the Global Precipitation Mission and the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission (LDCM). The request fully funds development of a Thermal Infra-
red Sensor (TIRS) at a total cost of approximately $150-175 million. A
decision whether to fly TIRS on LDCM or another spacecraft will be made
this summer; meanwhile, funding for TIRS is carried within the LDCM
budget. The launch vehicle failure of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory
(OCO) was a significant loss to the climate science communities, and
NASA is assessing options to recover from that loss; we will inform the
Congress of the results of these studies when they become available.
NASA is continuing to work aggressively to implement the
recommendations of the National Research Council Decadal Survey for
Earth Science. The first two Decadal Survey missions, SMAP and ICESat-
II, will continue formulation in FY 2010, and the next two, DESDynI and
CLARREO, will be accelerated and transition to formulation. NASA also
expects to issue its first Venture-class Announcement of Opportunity
later this year, implementing another important decadal survey
recommendation.
The FY 2010 Science budget request includes $1,346.2 million for
Planetary Science. NASA's Planetary Science missions continue to return
images and data from the far reaches of the Solar System. This year,
the Mars Phoenix Lander completed its mission, conducting the first
chemical test providing evidence of water ice on another planet.
MESSENGER returned stunning imagery of portions of the planet Mercury
never before seen. The Cassini spacecraft continues to provide un-
paralleled science of the Saturnian system; the spacecraft flew within
25km of Enceladus viewing the ejecting plumes and surface, and data
from 19 fly-bys of Titan enabled creation of a radar map showing 3-D
topography revealing 1,200-meter (4,000-foot) mountain tops, polar
lakes, vast dunes, and thick flows from possible ice volcanoes.
Development is continuing on the Juno mission to Jupiter for launch in
2011. NASA and ESA jointly announced they will work together on a
Europa Jupiter System mission as the next outer planets flagship
mission. The rovers Spirit and Opportunity continue to study the
Martian surface and have exceeded their fifth year of successful
operations. NASA is continuing development of the Mars Science
Laboratory (MSL) for launch in 2011 and selected MAVEN, a Mars aeronomy
mission, as the next Mars Scout mission for launch in 2013. NASA has
integrated its lunar science research program with the Lunar Precursor
Robotic Program into a single Lunar Quest Program under the Science
Mission Directorate, which includes the LADEE mission, the U.S. nodes
of the ILN, and a new virtual university research collaboration called
the NASA Lunar Science Institute. The Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) was
launched aboard Chandrayaan-1 and has begun making scientific
observations of the Moon's composition. Development is continuing on
the GRAIL mission to map the Moon's gravity field for launch in 2011.
NASA has issued an Announcements of Opportunity for the next New
Frontiers mission, and will do so for the next Discovery mission later
this year.
The FY 2010 Science budget request includes $1,120.9 million for
Astrophysics. 2009 is the International Year of Astronomy, and NASA's
Astrophysics program will deploy exciting new capabilities for studying
the cosmic frontier. The Kepler mission, launched in March, is NASA's
first mission dedicated to the search for Earth-like planets in our
galaxy. ESA will launch the Herschel and Planck missions in April,
carrying several NASA instruments, to study the far-infrared sky and
the cosmic microwave background. The final Hubble Space Telescope
serving mission aboard STS-125, currently in progress, is upgrading the
observatory to its peak scientific performance. Late this calendar
year, NASA plans to launch the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer
(WISE) as part of its highly successful Explorer Program, following on
the recent successes of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (launched
as GLAST in July 2008), which has provided the best-ever view of the
gamma-ray sky revealing energetic sources in our solar system, our
galaxy, and galaxies billions of light-years away. Development is
continuing on the James Webb Space Telescope, which passed its
Confirmation Review in 2008 and has an Agency commitment to launch in
2014. Development continues on the NuSTAR mission to study black holes
for launch in 2011, along with a Soft X-ray Spectrometer to fly on
Japan's Astro-H mission in 2013. Development continues on the airborne
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy or SOFIA, which will
conduct open door flight tests in 2009 and early science flights in
2010, with planned full operational capability in 2014. Conceptual
design is continuing for ambitious future mission concepts to
investigate the origins of planets, stars, and galaxies; to search for
Earth-like planets around nearby stars; and to examine the nature of
dark energy, dark matter, gravity waves, and black holes. These and
other mission concepts are currently under consideration by the NRC's
decadal survey for Astrophysics, or Astro2010, which will be completed
during 2010, and will provide recommendations to NASA on the science
community's highest priority science questions and strategic missions
for the next decade.
The FY 2010 Science budget request includes $605.0 million for
Heliophysics. The fleet of NASA Heliophysics missions strategically
placed throughout the solar system is providing researchers the first
ever solar system-wide view of solar influences on the Earth and other
planets, and the dynamic structures of space itself. This virtual
``Great Observatory'' is in place and functioning for the next solar
magnetic activity cycle, and has already detected the first signs of a
new solar maximum anticipated for 2011-2012. Late this year or early
next, the launch of Solar Dynamics Observatory will add to this fleet
the capability to observe the solar atmosphere to a depth one-third of
the Sun's radius to study the flow of plasmas that generate magnetic
fields and the sudden changes that produce coronal mass ejections that
we experience as space weather. Also this year, NASA plans to select
two Small Explorer (SMEX) missions in response to an Announcement of
Opportunity issued in 2008, which could be either Heliophysics or
Astrophysics missions depending on the proposals selected. Development
of the Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission to study the interactions of
space weather events with Earth's magnetic field is continuing for
launch in 2012. The Magnetosphere Multi-Scale mission to observe the
processes of magnetic reconnection, energetic particle acceleration,
and turbulence in Earth's magnetosphere will undergo a Confirmation
Review this year for a planned launch in 2014. Finally, NASA is
continuing early formulation work on the Solar Probe-Plus mission that
will travel into, and sample, the near-Sun environment to probe the
origins of the solar wind.
Aeronautics Research
NASA's FY 2010 budget provides $507 million for Aeronautics
Research. Over the past year, the Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate has continued to pursue long-term, innovative, and cutting-
edge research that develops revolutionary tools, concepts, and
technologies to enable a safer, more flexible, environmentally
friendly, and more efficient national air transportation system. NASA
Aeronautics Research also plays a vital role in supporting NASA's space
exploration activities.
A primary goal across Aeronautics Research programs is to establish
strong partnerships with industry, academia, and other government
agencies in order to enable significant advancement in our nation's
aeronautical expertise. NASA has put many mechanisms in place to engage
academia and industry, including industry working groups and technical
interchange meetings at the program and project level, Space Act
Agreements (SAAs) for cooperative partnerships, and the NASA Research
Announcement (NRA) process that provides for full and open competition
for the best and most promising research ideas. To date, 68 SAAs have
been established with industry partners across all programs and 375
NRAs have been awarded to academia, industry and non-profit
organizations. NASA Aeronautics has continued to collaborate with the
Joint Planning Development Office (JPDO), Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), U.S. Air Force, Army, and other government
organizations.
New for FY 2010, $62.4 million has been provided for the Integrated
Systems Research Program (ISRP) to conduct research at an integrated
system-level on promising concepts and technologies and explore,
assess, or demonstrate the benefits in a relevant environment. The
research in this program will be coordinated with on-going, long-term,
foundational research within the three other research programs, and
will be closely coordinated with other Federal Government agency
efforts. The project within ISRP will be the Environmentally
Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project, a ``green aircraft initiative,''
that will explore and assess new vehicle concepts and enabling
technologies through system-level experimentation to simultaneously
reduce fuel burn, noise, and emissions. The ERA project will transfer
knowledge outward to the aeronautics community so that aircraft and
propulsion system manufacturers can confidently transition these
technologies into new products, as well as transfer knowledge inward to
the Fundamental Aeronautics Program when the need for further
development at a foundational level is identified.
NASA's Airspace Systems Program (ASP) has partnered with the JPDO
to help develop concepts, capabilities and technologies that will lead
to significant enhancements in the capacity, efficiency and flexibility
of the National Airspace System. For FY 2010, ASP has been reorganized
from the NextGen Airspace and NextGen Airportal projects into the
NextGen Concepts and Technology Development project and the NextGen
Systems Analysis, Integration and Evaluation project. The distinctions
between airport operations, terminal-area operations and en-route
operations were sometimes confusing, leading to time expended
determining the line of demarcation between the responsibilities of the
two projects. A more significant distinction is the development of air
traffic management concepts and the technologies that enable air
traffic management improvements and the evaluation of these concepts
and technologies at a system level. The previously planned work on
airspace concepts, technologies and systems will continue. This new
project structure is better aligned to the nature of the work being
performed. A notable accomplishment for ASP is the successful
completion, by NASA researchers in collaboration with academia and the
FAA, of a series of human-in-the-loop experiments that explored
advanced concepts and technology for separation assurance, which
ensures that aircraft maintain a safe distance from other aircraft,
terrain, obstacles, and certain airspace not designated for routine air
travel. The technology being developed by NASA and its partners is
critical to relieving air-traffic controller workload, a primary
constraint on airspace capacity that is expected to increase in coming
years. In the future, this Program will continue to develop new
technologies to solve important problems such as surface traffic
planning and control, and initial algorithms for airport arrival and
departure balancing as well as developing traffic flow management
concepts for increased efficiencies at the regional and national levels
for different planning intervals.
NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) conducts research in
all aeronautics disciplines that enable the design of vehicles that fly
through any atmosphere at any speed. For FY 2010, all ARMD research
into planetary entry, descent and landing (EDL) has been consolidated
into the Hypersonics project in FAP. EDL is an integral part of many
space missions and is not easily divided into distinct hypersonic and
supersonic phases. This change will provide more focus to technical
developments and will also yield technical management efficiencies. The
FAP program has supported the testing of various new concepts that will
help enable much improved capabilities for future vehicles. For
example, wind-tunnel testing was conducted for several promising
powered lift concepts. Powered lift concepts increase lifting force on
an aircraft at slow speeds (e.g., at take-off and landing) without
increasing drag under cruise conditions. Successful use of the concepts
will enable short take-off and landings on runways less than 3,000
feet, which will increase next-generation air transportation system
capacity through the use of shorter fields and improved low-speed
maneuverability in airport terminal areas. Testing was also completed
for a Smart Material Actuated Rotor Technology (SMART) helicopter
rotor, which offers the potential for significant noise and vibration
reduction in rotorcraft. Future work includes technologies and advanced
tools to evaluate the trades between noise, emissions, and performance
of future aircraft entering service in the 2012-2015 timeframe.
Additionally, with the transfer of technologies to be matured to
system-level within ISRP, the Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW) project is
streamlining its research content. This is enabling new efficiencies
across the foundational disciplines remaining in the project. The
integrated system-level research in this program will be coordinated
with on-going, long-term, foundational research within the three other
research programs, and will focus specifically on maturing and
integrating technologies in major vehicle systems and subsystems for
accelerated transition to practical application.
NASA's Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) continues to develop tools
and technologies to improve on today's incredibly safe air
transportation system, while ensuring that future technologies can be
safely incorporated to the system. Examples of advances that support
this development include NASA's ongoing and new research into aircraft
icing. For example, with current knowledge we cannot extrapolate how
ice forms on a straight wing such as found on a turbo-prop to how it
will form on a swept wing, or a radically new aircraft configuration.
The Aviation Safety Program is tackling this with a combination of
computational models and experiments in NASA's Icing Research Tunnel.
We are establishing that, in high and cold flight conditions, ice can
form deeper in jet engines than previously understood. NASA is working
collaboratively with the FAA, industry and international partners, such
as the National Research Council of Canada, to conduct tunnel tests of
the underlying physics, to fly our instrumented S-3 Viking into such
engine icing conditions, and design upgrades to our Propulsion System
Lab in which jet engines may be tested in detail. Additional future
work in Aviation Safety includes addressing gaps in validation and
verification of critical flight software, developing new data-analysis
capabilities to mine aviation operational data for safety issues,
examining the safety of new vehicle systems and structures, and
tackling the biggest human factors issues in the NextGen flight deck.
NASA's Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) is focused on ensuring a
healthy suite of facilities and platforms to meet the Nation's testing
needs including the development of new test instrumentation and test
technologies. As part of its continuous efforts to improve facility
operational efficiencies, ATP initiated the National Force Measurement
Technology Capability, to address the severe erosion of NASA's
capability to utilize strain gage balances in wind tunnel testing. The
National Partnership for Aeronautics Testing, a strategic partnership
between NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD), recently commissioned
a study of government-owned, mid-to-large supersonic facilities
necessary to fulfill future air vehicle test requirements. The Program
will continue to develop a long-term strategic approach that aligns the
NASA and DOD facilities to meet future requirements with the right mix
of facilities and appropriate investments in facility capabilities.
Exploration Systems
Human space flight is important to America's political, economic,
technological and scientific leadership. In the span of a few short
years, NASA has already taken long strides in the formulation of
strategies and programs to develop a robust program of space
exploration. These critical steps will allow our nation to build the
next-generation space flight vehicles that will carry humans and
deliver cargo to the ISS and the Moon, and on to other destinations in
our solar system. The President's FY 2010 budget request for
Exploration Systems is $3,963.1 million, an increase of $457.6 million
above the FY 2009 appropriation and $225.4 million above the planned FY
2010 level in last year's request. Based on the Recovery Act funds and
the President's increased budget request for FY 2010, the Exploration
Systems budget plan includes about $630 million more in FY 2009 and FY
2010 than the previous plan. At this critical juncture, full funding at
the President's requested level is essential for expediting development
of new U.S. human space flight systems to support the International
Space Station and explore the Moon and other destinations beyond low-
Earth orbit.
The Constellation Program will apply additional Recovery Act funds
to critical activities related to the successful completion of the
Orion, Ares I and Ground Operations projects. The Commercial Crew and
Cargo Program plans to use Recovery Act funds to stimulate efforts
within the private sector in order to develop and demonstrate
technologies that enable commercial human space flight capabilities--
efforts that are intended to foster entrepreneurial activity leading to
job growth in engineering, analysis, design, and research, and to
economic growth as capabilities for new markets are created.
Following the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight activities, the
Administration will provide an updated request for Exploration
activities, as necessary. In the meantime, NASA is proceeding as
planned with current Exploration activities, including Ares I, Orion,
Commercial Crew and Cargo efforts, and lunar systems.
During the past year, NASA Exploration Systems continued to make
significant progress in developing the next-generation U.S. human space
flight vehicles and their associated ground and mission support
systems. In the next several weeks, the first lunar robotic mission,
the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar Crater Observation
Sensing Satellite spacecraft, will be launched from the Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station aboard an Atlas V, which will help NASA scout for
potential lunar landing and outpost sites. Later this year, two major
test flights for the Constellation Program will be conducted: Ares I-X
is the first developmental test flight to support the design of the
Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle; and the Pad Abort 1 (PA-1) is the first
test of the Launch Abort System to be used on the Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle. NASA will continue to work with other nations and
the commercial sector to coordinate planning, leverage investment, and
identify opportunities for specific collaboration on Exploration
activities.
The Constellation Program continues to complete the formulation
phase of its projects--in particular Ares I, Orion, and major ground
facilities. Major development work is underway, contracts are in place;
and we have a dedicated group of civil servants and contractors who are
all working hard to accomplish the Constellation Program's objectives.
So far, NASA engineers have conducted about 6,500 hours of wind tunnel
testing on sub-scale models of the Ares I to simulate how the current
vehicle design performs in flight. These wind tunnel tests, as well as
the Ares I-X test flight, will lay the groundwork for maturing the Ares
I final design prior to its Critical Design Review (CDR). When launched
later this year from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the Ares
I-X will climb about 25 miles in a two-minute powered test of the First
Stage performance and the First Stage separation and parachute recovery
system. Work on the Orion Project also continues to advance. Recently,
NASA conducted testing of the water recovery process for the Orion
capsule, and NASA also selected the material for Orion's heat shield.
Later this year, Orion's PA-1 test will take place at White Sands
Missile Range, New Mexico. PA-1 will demonstrate the Launch Abort
System's ability to pull crew to safety should there be an emergency
while the Orion and Ares I stack is still on the launch pad.
In September 2008, Ares I completed a key milestone with its
Preliminary Design Review (PDR). PDR is the final step of the initial
design process, and thereby a crucial milestone during which the
overall project verifies that the preliminary design can meet all
requirements within acceptable risk limits and within cost and schedule
constraints, and identifies technical and management challenges and
addresses approaches for eliminating or mitigating them. This fall, the
Orion is expected to have progressed to the point of completing PDR,
and obtaining Agency approval to proceed to Critical Design Review
(CDR). Current plans call for Ares I to progress to the point of
obtaining Agency approval by early 2010 to proceed to CDR.
As part of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program and its associated
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) cargo projects, NASA
is completing its promised $500 million investment to the two funded
COTS partners, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of
El Segundo, California, and Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) of
Dulles, Virginia. Recently, SpaceX successfully operated the full
complement of the first stage engines of the Falcon 9, the SpaceX
launch vehicle. Orbital continues to progress in achieving engineering
milestones, and completed its PDR earlier this month. In addition, NASA
has two non-funded COTS partners.
The transition of NASA facilities, infrastructure, property, and
personnel from the Space Shuttle Program to the Constellation Program
continues to be a major activity. This joint effort between the Space
Operations and Exploration Systems Mission Directorates includes the
utilization and disposition of resources, including real and personal
property; personnel; and processes in order to leverage existing
Shuttle and Space Station assets for NASA's future Exploration
activities.
NASA's Advanced Capabilities programs include the Human Research
Program (HRP) and the Exploration Technology Development Program
(ETDP). These programs continue to reduce risks for human explorers of
the Moon and beyond by conducting research and developing new
technologies to aid future explorers. HRP focuses on the highest risks
to crew health and performance during exploration missions while also
developing and validating a suite of human health countermeasures to
facilitate long-duration space travel. For example, NASA is conducting
research to better understand the effect of space radiation on humans
and to develop effective mitigation strategies. This year, HRP
delivered a space radiation risk assessment tool, provided cockpit
display design requirements for the Orion spacecraft, and provided
design requirements for the new Constellation Space Suit System. HRP is
also conducting research on-board the ISS with regard to: the cardiac
structure and function of astronauts; radiation shielding technologies;
and, the effect that certain pharmaceuticals may have on the prevention
of bone loss during long-duration missions. ETDP will conduct a range
of activities, including testing cryogenic hydrogen and methane
propulsion systems for future missions; developing a small pressurized
rover for transporting astronauts on the lunar surface; and
demonstrating the capability to produce oxygen from lunar soil. ETDP
also is conducting experiments on the Space Station to investigate the
behavior of fluids and combustion in microgravity, and operating
instruments to monitor atmospheric contaminants on the Space Station.
Space Operations
The FY 2010 budget request includes $6,175.6 million for Space
Operations.
It is an exciting time for NASA's Space Shuttle Program. At this
moment, the astronauts of Shuttle Atlantis are in orbit on STS-125, the
final mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. We anticipate that
the work they are doing, which includes upgrading the Hubble's
instruments, should extend the observatory's operational life several
years. The President's FY 2010 budget funds the safe flight of the
Space Shuttle to conduct its remaining missions, including the AMS
flight and completing assembly of the ISS. NASA is committed to
completing the eight remaining scheduled Shuttle flights, which we
believe can be accomplished by the end of 2010. These Shuttle flights
will leave the ISS in a configuration to support a broad portfolio of
research and to receive and be maintained by commercial cargo services.
The FY 2010 budget request includes $3,157.1 million for the Space
Shuttle Program.
NASA and its Russian, European, Canadian, and Japanese
International Space Station partners are working together to realize
one of the most inspiring dreams of the last 50 years: the
establishment of a station in Earth orbit for the conduct of various
types of research. We are now approaching two significant milestones.
In May, the ISS will host its first six-person crew. The recent
delivery of the Station's final set of solar arrays and other equipment
by the crew of STS-119 represents the final step toward this goal. In
June, the STS-127 mission will deliver the third and final component of
the Japanese Kibo laboratory--the Kibo Exposed Facility. The addition
of the Exposed facility enables the Kibo laboratory, with the European
Columbus module and the U.S. Destiny module, to complete the three
major international science labs on ISS, setting the stage for
utilization of ISS as a highly capable microgravity research facility.
The President's FY 2010 budget request includes $2,267.0 million for
the ISS.
The ISS will represent both an unparalleled international
cooperative effort and a U.S. National Laboratory in orbit. Scientists
will be able to conduct biomedical and engineering research from a
unique vantage point. Some of the work will increase our knowledge of
the effects of long-duration human space flight, which is critical for
the design and operation of future human space vehicles, including
those being developed under the Constellation Program to return U.S.
astronauts to the Moon and explore other destinations. Other research
will not be focused on space exploration at all, but may have
significant applications right here on Earth. Medical research, for
example, may be applicable to the development of vaccines; NASA's
research into Salmonella aboard the Space Shuttle and ISS has already
increased our knowledge in this area. In the key areas of energy and
the environment, the ISS serves as a daily demonstration of ``green''
technologies and environmental management techniques. The ISS receives
120kW of power from its solar arrays to operate the Station and run
experiments. The ISS environmental system is designed to minimize the
amount of mass that has to be launched from Earth to support the
Station, so recycling is a must. STS-119 supplied ISS with a
replacement Distillation Assembly for Station's water recycling system,
which is key for supporting a full six-person crew for extended periods
of time. Given the central role science and technology play in our
society, it is important that the United States maintain a leadership
role in these fields. The availability of a research laboratory in the
microgravity environment of space will support this aim.
Another benefit from Space Shuttle missions and ISS research is
reflected in the programs' ability to inspire the next generation of
Americans. This was reflected recently in the delighted faces of
students who participated in the up-linked phone call between President
Obama and the crews of the ISS and STS-119 on March 24. The ISS will
support the President's goal of making math and science education a
national priority by demonstrating what can be accomplished through
science and engineering, and by inspiring both teachers and students.
NASA is relying on U.S. industry to develop vehicles to deliver
supplies and experiments to the ISS. In December 2008, the Agency
awarded two Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts for the
provision of this critical capability. Cargo resupply is important for
the continued viability of ISS. In addition, the vendors 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.
The FY 2010 budget request includes $751.5 million for Space and
Flight Support, which supports Space Communications and Navigation,
Launch Services, Rocket Propulsion Testing, Crew Health and Safety, and
the new Human Space Flight Operations programs.
Education
The FY 2010 budget request for Education totals $126.1 million and
furthers NASA's commitment to Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) education. NASA will continue its successes in
developing a future aerospace workforce, improving the technological
competitiveness of our nation's universities, attracting and retaining
students in STEM disciplines, and engaging the public in NASA's
missions. NASA will accomplish these goals by offering competitive
research grants to universities, providing targeted educational support
to Minority Serving Institutions, and strengthening curricula at two-
year community colleges. NASA's plans to streamline and centralize
internship and fellowship application processes will realize cost
savings and facilitate student access to information while attracting a
wider, more diverse participant base. The Agency is also seeking new
opportunities for student involvement in current space and aeronautics
research missions and flight projects, including those using high
altitude balloons, sounding rocket payloads, airborne sensors, and
space satellites. NASA will further these efforts through a new
project, Innovation in STEM Education, which will allow the Agency to
investigate and offer opportunities for student and faculty to
participate in NASA-related research. In coming months, the Agency will
complete award announcements for competitive grant programs in K-12,
global climate change, and informal education, and revise and issue new
solicitations using FY 2009 funds.
NASA will further pursue a goal to attract and retain students in
STEM disciplines in the upcoming fiscal year. Last year, the
Interdisciplinary National Science Program Incorporating Research &
Education (INSPIRE) program engaged over 200 high schools in STEM
areas, and NASA Explorer Schools conducted instructional and enrichment
activities that reached over 105,000 students. The March 2009 STS-119
mission also provided a unique educational opportunity as two Mission
Specialists who are science teachers, Joe Acaba and Richard Arnold,
were part of the crew. NASA Education continues to provide internships,
fellowships, and research opportunities to help students and educators
gain hands-on experiences in a range of STEM-related areas. These
opportunities provide students with the motivation, inspiration, and
experience needed to serve the Nation's current and future workforce
needs. In FY 2008, the Agency provided more than 3,000 summer
internships, reached 5,331 students through significant research
experience or grants, and provided 139 grants to under-represented and
under-served institutions.
NASA will also engage elementary and secondary school and informal
education audiences by using Earth and deep space observations, the
flight experience of Educator Astronaut Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger
aboard STS-131, as well as future missions to the Moon and other
destinations. New technologies such as social networks, Internet
collaborations, a new virtual magnet school, and remote control of
science instruments will expand and enhance these efforts. In FY 2010,
NASA also plans to provide an online professional development system
for students training to become educators, in-service teachers, and
informal educators. Additionally, NASA will promote continuous public
awareness of its mission and improvement to STEM literacy by partnering
with informal education providers, which allows Agency partners to
share the excitement of NASA missions with their visitors in meaningful
ways.
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, but cannot be directly
aligned to a specific program or project requirement. 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 Center Management
and Operations, Institutional Investments, and Agency Management and
Operations. The FY 2010 budget request includes $3,400.6 million for
Cross Agency Support.
Center Management and Operations 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. The FY 2010 budget request includes $2.084 million for Center
Management and Operations.
Institutional Investments funds design and execution of non-
programmatic revitalization construction of facilities projects,
demolition projects for closed facilities, and environmental compliance
and restoration activities. The Construction of Facilities Program
makes capital repairs and improvements to NASA's critical
infrastructure to improve safety and security and improve NASA's
operating efficiency by reducing utility usage. NASA continues to right
size the infrastructure by demolishing facilities that are no longer
needed. Emphasis has been placed on energy and water conservation.
Currently, NASA has five buildings that are certified under the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria, three
additional buildings that are built and awaiting certification as LEED
Silver facilities, and 13 buildings in various stages of design and
construction as High Performance Buildings and are expected to be LEED-
certified when completed. The FY 2010 budget request includes $355.4
million for Institutional Investments.
NASA's FY 2010 request includes $961.2 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,
Innovative Partnerships Program, and Strategic Capabilities Assets
Program.
The FY 2010 budget request provides $412.7 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.
The FY 2010 budget request provides $183.9 million for Safety and
Mission Success activities required to continue strengthening the
workforce, training, and strengthening the fundamental and robust
cross-checks 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.
The FY 2010 budget request for Agency Information Technology
Services is $150.4 million, 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.
The request for the Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) is $184.8
million. IPP works with all four Mission Directorates to provide
innovations meeting NASA's technology needs, and transfers NASA
technology for broad Spinoff applications that improve quality of life
and contribute to economic growth. Included in the IPP portfolio are:
NASA's SBIR/STTR Programs seeking out innovative high-technology small
businesses; a new Innovative Technology Project seeking high-impact
revolutionary research and technology projects; a Seed Fund to address
technology needs through cost-shared, joint-development partnerships;
use of commercial flight services by the FAST program to demonstrate
new technologies; Innovation Ambassadors to exchange ideas; and the
Centennial Challenges prize program for the citizen inventor. IPP seeks
partnerships through offices at all 10 NASA Centers.
Finally, NASA is requesting $29.4 million in FY 2010 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.
Conclusion
The President's FY 2010 budget request for NASA supports the
Administration's commitment to deploy a global climate change research
and monitoring system, funds a robust program of space exploration
involving humans and robots with a goal to return Americans to the Moon
by 2020 and explore other destinations, and funds the safe flight of
the Shuttle to complete assembly of the ISS through its retirement,
planned for the end of 2010. The FY 2010 budget request funds continued
use of the ISS to enable the Agency to develop, test, and validate
critical exploration technologies and processes and, in coordination
with our international partners, to make the ISS available support
other government entities, commercial industry and academic
institutions to conduct unique research in the microgravity environment
of space. It will also stimulate private sector development and
demonstration of vehicles that may support NASA's cargo and crew
requirements. And it renews NASA's commitment to aeronautics research
to address fundamental aeronautics, aviation safety, air traffic
management, and mitigating the impact of aviation on the environment.
NASA's diverse portfolio of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) educational activities is also aligned with the
Administration's goal of improving American innovation and global
competitiveness. NASA looks forward to working with the Committee on
implementation of the detailed FY 2010 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 Christopher J. Scolese
Since January 20, 2009, Mr. Christopher J. Scolese has been serving
as the Acting Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). As the Acting Administrator, Mr. Scolese is
responsible for leading the development, design, and implementation of
the Nation's civil space program. As such, Mr. Scolese provides overall
leadership for NASA's multiple field installations, works closely with
the Executive and Legislative branches to ensure that NASA is
supporting appropriate national policy, and leads an international
collaboration in carrying out high-profile space missions including the
Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, the Hubble Space
Telescope, and a multitude of other scientific and technological
efforts.
In addition, Mr. Scolese is still serving in the position of
Associate Administrator, NASA's highest-ranking civil servant. As
Associate Administrator, Mr. Scolese is responsible for the oversight
and integration of NASA's programmatic and technical efforts to ensure
the successful accomplishment of the Agency's overall mission.
Previously, Mr. Scolese served as NASA's Chief Engineer. As Chief
Engineer, Mr. Scolese was responsible for ensuring that development
efforts and mission operations within the Agency were planned and
conducted on a sound engineering basis, as well as for the long-term
health of the NASA engineering workforce.
Formerly, Mr. Scolese was the Deputy Director of the Goddard Space
Flight Center where he assisted the Director in overseeing all
activities. He also served as the Deputy Associate Administrator in the
Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters. In this position, he was
responsible for the management, direction and oversight of NASA's Space
Science Flight Program, mission studies, technology development and
overall contract management of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Mr.
Scolese also served as the Earth Orbiting Satellite (EOS) Program
Manager and the Deputy Director of Flight Programs and Projects for
Earth Science at Goddard. In these positions, he was responsible for
the operation and development of all Earth Science missions assigned to
Goddard. While there, he also served as the EOS Terra Project Manager.
In addition, Mr. Scolese was the EOS Systems Manager responsible for
the EOS system architecture and the integration of all facets of the
project. During his tenure at Goddard, he chaired the EOS Blue Team
that re-scoped the EOS Program; he supported the EOS investigators in
the development of the EOS payloads in the restructured EOS; and he has
been responsible for the adoption of common data system architecture on
EOS and some other Earth orbiting spacecraft. Prior to his 1987
appointment at Goddard, Mr. Scolese's experience included work in
industry and government. While a senior analyst at the General Research
Corporation of McLean, Va., he participated in several SDIO programs.
He was selected by Admiral Hyman Rickover to serve at Naval Reactors
where he was associated with the development of instrumentation,
instrument systems and multi-processor systems for the U.S. Navy and
the DOE while working for NAVSEA. Mr. Scolese is the recipient of
several honors including the Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious
Executive, Goddard Outstanding Leadership, two NASA Outstanding
Leadership Medals and the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA) National Capital Section Young Engineer/Scientist
of the Year award. He was recognized as one of the outstanding young
men in America in 1986, was a member of college honor societies
including Eta Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi, and was recipient of the 1973
Calspan Aeronautics award. He is a Fellow of the AIAA and a member of
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He also served
as a member of the AIAA Astrodynamics Technical Committee and chaired
the National Capitol Section Guidance Navigation and Control Technical
Committee.
Discussion
Chairman Gordon. Well, we are down to a little over seven
minutes, so I think probably--on this coming vote, so I think
the best thing for us to do is to recess, and I would ask all
of our Members to try to come back as promptly as they can
after this series of votes, and we will then move forward with
the questions.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gordon. All right. We will reconvene, and we thank
you, Mr. Scolese, for your patience, and at this point we will
start a round of questionings, and the Chairman recognizes
himself for five minutes.
ISS Re-supplying
Mr. Scolese, as you know, Congress has made significant
contribution to the International Space Station in our--and at
the same time we really don't have a clear path to re-supplying
the Space Station other than hoping that the private sector is
going to move forward.
Is there a plan B, and is there any type of discussion
going on with international partners in case this does not work
out?
Mr. Scolese. Well, as you know, the plan for re-supplying
the station goes through part of the eight flights that we
have----
Chairman Gordon. Right.
Mr. Scolese.--of the Shuttle, and then we do have our
international partners that do have--on the European side the
ATV and the Japanese side the HTV that provided, but to fill
the gap between what they can provide and progress we are
relying on the commercial sector to go off and do that, and at
this stage there is no plan B.
Chairman Gordon. And so how long do you see us having
there?
Mr. Scolese. Well, we are not anticipating a gap. Right now
with the eight Shuttle flights, if we complete them, you know,
roughly in the 2010 timeframe, we will have pre-positioned
enough of the large spares and other resources that we need
that will carry us through as we anticipate the commercial
capability coming on board, assuming that the ATV, the HTV, and
the Progress vehicles are performed per planned.
Chairman Gordon. And when are they--what is the timeframe
on those?
Mr. Scolese. The ATV has already demonstrated its
capability to rendezvous with the Station last year. I believe
the next flight is next year. The HTV is scheduled for this
fall. That will be the first flight of the Japanese module, the
Japanese capability, and of course, Progress has been going for
some time and the commercial capability is expected in the 2012
timeframe, I believe.
Chairman Gordon. Okay.
Mr. Hall, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to be as
brief as I can.
As I said in my opening remarks, I am not in favor of more
deficit spending, but I believe we have to prioritize, and I
think in my opinion closing the gap in our human space flight
capability is a goal that should have been given a higher
priority in the fiscal year 2009 Recovery Act, and as it is I
am encouraged that the fiscal year 2009 stimulus funding
combined with the fiscal year 2010 request ought to give the
exploration system an increase of about $630 million.
By that is not, that is over two years, and it is critical
to keeping the Constellation on schedule but it doesn't do a
lot about those four years that we are losing.
Negative Effects of Insufficient Funds
Mr. Scolese, if--I will give you one you can knock out of
the park here. If the 302B budget allocations are not
sufficient or if NASA is not appropriated the money that you
are asking for, why don't you just explain to the Committee and
to those that will read it, and actually, this is made
available to all Members of Congress and anybody anywhere can
read it, what are the negative effects to exploration goals if
sufficient funds are not allocated as we have asked for?
Mr. Scolese. Well, frankly, sir, we won't make IOC.
Mr. Hall. What will that do to our partners, worldwide
people that believe in us and join with us in pursuits?
Mr. Scolese. I think we will let them down. I mean,
frankly, you know, the plan is that we will be able to start
carrying crew up to the Space Station in 2015, so we would have
to rely even further on the Russians to carry crew up and down
from the Station. That clearly isn't good for our international
partners, it is not good for this country, and it would further
delay the, you know, the human lunar return, and it, depending
on how severe the reduction was, it may even impair what we
were just talking about now with the commercial cargo re-
supply. So it could potentially impact the Space Station's
liability for the future as well.
Mr. Hall. And probably would.
Mr. Scolese. And probably would.
Mr. Hall. And in your wildest estimation or maybe outright
guess, can you envision some time in the future, sometime,
somewhere a situation where we might need all the
sophistication in space we can to defend a war?
Mr. Scolese. Sir, I think we need it today.
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, and I do, too.
Mr. Scolese. And, I mean, we--if you look at what space
provides us in terms of communications, our understanding of
the weather and climate and preventing natural disasters and
just tracking hurricanes as an example, plus the capabilities
that we get by having, you know, the ability of humans to go
off and do things in space as we have just seen over the last
couple of weeks with Hubble.
So I think we are already a space-dependent civilization,
and we cut back, we are going to lose significantly.
Mr. Hall. You are giving us the negative effects, and I
think, I hope those that think three percent is a gross amount
of the budget to allocate to something as important as space
are daydreaming.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Ms. Giffords is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Scolese, for being here and for your service to NASA and to our
country.
Budget Plan for 2020 Goal
Norm Augustine, of course, who is heading up the human
space flight review, testified before our committee in 2004,
and he said it would be a grave mistake to try to pursue a
space program on the cheap. To do so in my opinion is an
invitation to disaster. And I don't mean to beat a dead horse,
but obviously we are really concerned that the 2010 budget
looks positive, but I am more concerned, as the Members are,
about the out-year budget that would cut more than $3 billion
for the Exploration program, adding to cuts made in previous
years and essentially halting the work on the Ares V Heavy-Lift
Launch Vehicle and the Altair Lunar Lander.
Your testimony confirms, and we have heard the President
talk about the mission of going back to the Moon by 2020, but I
don't know how we are going to be able to achieve this, given
the budget plan.
So Mr. Scolese, how does NASA plan to achieve the 2020 goal
under the budget that is being proposed, and also, based on the
fiscal year 2010 budget request, do you have sufficient funding
to maintain the current schedule for completion of Ares I and
Orion?
Mr. Scolese. On the last part first, we believe with the
current budget we can complete Ares I and Orion and the
associated elements by 2015. You may recall in previous
testimony by Administrator Griffin that we needed additional
resources to try and accelerate and hold the 2015 date, and we
needed those resources in 2008, '09, and '10. We received them
in '09 and '10, so that helps us, you know, considerably with
Ares I and Orion and all the associated elements. And in fact,
you can see a lot of those coming together. Anybody that visits
Kennedy Space Center will see that going on today, as well as
our other facilities.
As far as the other elements, we are in the process of
evaluating what that means. We have not stopped work on Ares V.
We are still doing some work on that, and some of that work
comes from the development of Ares I, the solid rocket motor
and the J-2 engine, are both integral to the Ares V, plus some
additional work that is going on.
But the overall impact, we are in the process of assessing
what that will mean in terms of our ability to do 2020, and
what we do by 2020.
So I don't have a good answer for the impact but clearly
the situation as it stands right now means that we couldn't do
the program of record, putting humans on the Moon by 2020. We
may be able to do something lesser in that timeframe, but we
haven't completed the work to answer that question fully.
ITAR and Export Controls
Ms. Giffords. I know other Members are probably going to
drill down a little bit harder on the budget, but I would like
to shift gears. The Science and Tech Committee held a hearing
earlier this year that looked at the current export controls
regime that is current in our commercial space industry and the
competitiveness factor for science and technology. I also serve
on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we are currently
considering legislation that relates to export controls.
So I would be interested in your thoughts on how big an
impact ITAR and export controls are having on NASA's ability to
carry out our international space collaborations and joint
research projects, and are there some problems that you can
specifically talk about and ways that we could improve the
situation?
Mr. Scolese. Yes. There are issues with ITAR. It does make
our ability to work with our international partners more
difficult from a NASA perspective. We have issues in how we can
frankly go off and communicate issues, you know, technical
information because we have to protect information and
technologies that frankly are widely available. So it adds some
additional complexities to what we do.
The bigger impact is probably to our industry where they
have less opportunity to compete for work due to the delays
that it takes to get licenses and the ability to sell on the
market whatever they have. That, of course, hurts our industry,
but it also hurts us because it provides us with less--the
industry is doing less, therefore, our products are costing
more as we become the main customer for industry rather than
them sharing it. There is statistics on communication
satellites where we held 60, 70 percent of the market, and we
are down to 25 percent today. That has an impact on the
industry obviously, but it has an impact on us because they
were building satellites that we could take advantage of to buy
down our costs for scientific satellites and other activities.
So it has impacts all the way across the board, and
finally, there is an impact in our ability to work with people
because it takes longer for us to get the authority to work
with internationals that may have dual citizenship. So right
across the spectrum it is an issue for us.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Scolese. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hall. The gentlelady yield?
Ms. Giffords. Yes.
Mr. Hall. The President, I think, stated about three weeks
ago that all of research and development ought to be three
percent. I think that is vastly underrated. I think NASA alone
needs one percent, and if that, if you escalate that up and put
the other two points there out of the three percent, I think he
is under-guessing maybe by a full percent or maybe two percent.
But NASA is terribly under-funded, and if we don't do
something, we are going to be at Russia's mercy. I don't want
to be there, and they are not going to finish the Constellation
on time. We need to fly one bird and borrow off the other three
and get that to go a couple of years and then have
Constellation funded properly to where they could escalate the
finishing, the completion of that.
You know, I hate to talk about World War II, but in World
War II we had one aircraft carrier when we knew the Japanese
was going to bomb Midway, and they were going to attack Midway.
There was another aircraft carrier that came into Pearl Harbor
several days after the Battle of the Coral Sea, it took seven
months to repair it, but when they found out they was going to
bomb Midway, they said do this in seven days, not seven months,
and they did, and we had two carriers at Midway or we might not
have won the battle in the Pacific. We need to tell the folks
that are down, that are not sufficiently taking care of NASA
that this is an emergency, too. This is very much an emergency
because the next war might be fought out of space.
I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I believe I can speak
for the Members of the Committee that we love your passion and
having you on this committee, and it is an honor to serve with
you. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Olson is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Scolese, I just want to first of all say I applaud you for
doing an outstanding job under some very trying circumstances.
The task of leading NASA is difficult under normal situations,
but the position you found yourself in is something that is not
to be envied, and aside from the budgetary and the programmatic
challenges you have overseen have been extremely successful and
above all else we have got a safe Shuttle Mission which is
going on as we speak. Front page here of the Washington Post.
Mr. Scolese. Thank you, sir. Yeah.
Mr. Olson. There you go. Great, great stuff. And, again, I
want to thank you and say congratulations on a job well done.
Mr. Scolese. Thank you, sir.
Transition From the Shuttle to Constellation
Mr. Olson. In terms of my questions I want to talk about
could you please give us an update on the transition from the
Shuttle to the Constellation? For example, I knew that we had
to keep both of the launch pads at Kennedy in configuration for
the Shuttle until this mission was complete, so one of them
should be getting transitioned to the Ares I-X, and I just want
an update on those type issues if you don't mind, sir.
Mr. Scolese. Certainly. The transition is going per plan.
We are in the process of flying out the Shuttle Manifest. We
have eight more flights now that Hubble is almost done. The
workforce is starting to transition as some of the Shuttle
people working Shuttle are also working on the Constellation
or--sorry, on Ares or Orion.
As far as the progress that you can visibly see, at all of
our centers it is probably most visible at the Kennedy Space
Center when you look at--we have two pads, 39A and 39B. We
launched the Shuttle off of 39A to go up to Hubble. Sitting on
the adjacent pad, 39B, is the rescue vehicle, and we won't
release that until we are ready to return to Earth with this
mission.
But when you look at that pad, you can already see that is
different. We have the lightning towers up, and once we roll
that Shuttle back, we will turn it completely over to the
Constellation Program. We have turned one of the mobile launch
platforms over already to support to Ares I-X test that will
happen later this year. We have had to delay it because we kept
39B. When you walk into the vehicle--the vertical assembly
building at Cape, you will see the Ares I-X vehicle being
built. It is being stacked. Every time I go down there I look
at it, and I am absolutely impressed by the progress that the
people are making on that. It is scheduled for launch later
this year.
Go out the back of the VAB, and you will see the mobile
launch platform, the new mobile launch platform, being built
for the Ares I, and as you visit our various facilities at
Johnson or Marshall or the contractor facilities in Denver, you
can see some great progress going on on the Orion vehicle, the
ground support equipment, the launch site--excuse me, the
launch site equipment. So we are making some very good progress
on Orion and Ares as we speak.
NASA Perspective on Review Panel
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that answer.
Shifting gears a little bit to the new Human Spaceflight
Review Panel, just wanted to get a sense for what so the
employees at NASA from your perspective sort of think about
that review panel? I mean, are there concerns, are they pleased
that it is proceeding? Just want to sort of get your kind of
lay of the land on how that is with the personnel.
Mr. Scolese. Well, I think it is fair to say it is mixed.
No one likes to take a test, and this is a test. Some people
clearly recognize the value of the review given some of the
questions that have been opened, and they clearly are relieved
and recognize the objectivity and openness of Norm Augustine
leading the panel, you know, identifies the seriousness that
the Administration takes in coming up with a good answer.
What I can say is that while people are concerned, I am
sure they are, they are going to go off and demonstrate that
they are making the right progress and they are doing the right
things, and they will be fully open with the team and provide
them with whatever information that they need. And I think in
the end we will have a good outcome, and I think the team
recognizes that, too.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that question. I agree
with that. I mean, I think our problem has been not a vision
but just a lack of commitment on our part to put the resources
we need to it, but thank you, and I yield back my time.
Chairman Gordon. We will move from Houston down to Marshall
Spaceflight Center and Dr. Griffith.
International Competition
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. Appreciate you being
here. I think America had this conversation about a half a
century ago when we were challenged by the Russians. We are
having it again, and the question is are we committed. Can we
do it again? Are we ready to accept the challenge?
China is walking in space, six weeks ago Russia is up,
India is going up, Iran has launched its satellite, and in my
opinion, although the Saturn is the 8th wonder of the world, we
have another one on the drawing board, and that is our Ares V.
I don't think it is an option for America. I think it is an
essential for America to maintain its position. I think it has
to happen. I think Norm Augustine's commission should not be
reviewing whether or not human space exploration is a
possibility, feasibility. We are the wealthiest country in the
world. We know that it is. What we want him to say is how can
we get there and explain to the public and to the
Administration that we are under-funded.
And so with that you have done a great job, and we
appreciate you very much and all of the team that is working on
the Constellation Project.
Thank you.
Mr. Scolese. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Gordon. Where do you stand on that?
Mr. Griffith. I have watched too many space flights.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. Ehlers.
Mars and Moon Programs
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be--you
recognize someone who doesn't, whose district doesn't benefit
materially from the activities of NASA.
Just a couple of questions. On the Mars Exploration
Program, you mentioned the MSL and what you are doing there,
but what else do you have going in the Mars Program? Do you
have more robotic satellites planned, and is there still any
discussion at all of manned venture or human ventures to Mars?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir. We have besides MSL we recently
selected the MAVEN Mission, which is a competitively-selected
mission in our Scout Program to go off and look at the
atmosphere of Mars and understand its composition. In addition,
we have started a partnership with the Europeans to do an
aggressive mission on Mars and in orbit around Mars for the
2016 opportunity. That will start building up more and more
towards greater and greater capability at Mars.
As you know, we already have a number of satellites around
Mars, and we have vehicles on the surface of Mars. We are
trying to get Spirit unstuck, and we are working on that, but
we have two rovers that are still on Mars. And they are doing
the reconnaissance that--as well as the exploration to
understand more about Mars. They are also doing the
reconnaissance for potential human missions.
And the program of Constellation that we were just talking
about with the heavy-lift launch vehicles and the capabilities
that we are developing has as its ultimate goal to get humans
to Mars at some time in the future.
So we are still looking towards Mars and looking how to do
that with humans. As you know, Mars presents more biological
challenges almost than the physical ones to keep a crew alive
for three or four years in space is quite a challenge, but that
is a goal of the program, to take humans to Mars.
Mr. Ehlers. I assume you also hope to return them to Earth.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, we do. Alive.
Mr. Ehlers. You haven't mentioned that part. That is where
all the expense really comes in.
Mr. Scolese. That is right.
Mr. Ehlers. Maintaining and the coming back. You could
probably find lots of volunteers who don't mind whether they
come back.
Mr. Scolese. Go one way. No. I don't think you want to do
that.
Mr. Ehlers. No. I agree. I do also incidentally want to
thank you for the work on the Hubble. I was one of the chief
agitators against the initial decision not to repair it, and I
was sort of pleased when Mike Griffin make the decision to go
for it, and I assume it will pay off, you know. We don't know
how long it is going to be able to continue, but it has been
such a wonderful addition to the science and astronomy of the
universe that it would be a shame to let it die before we get
the next one up.
Mr. Scolese. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Ehlers. So I appreciate your good work on that.
I was half serious about the manned or human mission to
Mars. I got the impression when the President in the previous
Administration announced that there was an attempt to give NASA
personnel a shot in the arm, but I just didn't see much in the
way of specifics about what we hoped to do and what we hoped to
gain from that mission. And I am also not clear how that
relates to the Moon exploration and why we believe it is
important to go to the Moon at this point.
So I would appreciate some clarification on that.
Mr. Scolese. Well, there hasn't been much on the Mars, the
human Mars mission because of the distances involved, and as I
said, the, you know, keeping the crew alive for that amount of
time. We have been focusing on getting the new capability
developed, but as we develop that capability, we are
recognizing that the things that may be needed to carry a crew
to Mars, as well as other destinations that are out there in
the solar system, as well as other capabilities that are
provided for by a vehicle like an Ares V.
Why go back to the Moon? There is lots of reasons for going
back to the Moon. One is to practice. We have not landed with
humans on another planetary body since Apollo 17 in the early
1970s, and we need to go off and develop those skills again as
a very minimum if we are going to go there.
And, of course, you know, the Moon provides an opportunity
to practice those capabilities in a relatively safer
environment where you are only three days away from Earth as
opposed to months or years away from Earth, as well as the
scientific benefits and the potential commercial benefits of
the Moon that we will be looking at.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, let me just comment that I think--you
haven't mentioned anything about new propulsion systems. I
think that is basically your biggest problem. Trying to use
chemical propellants to get to Mars and back, particularly to
get the crew back off the surface. It is a huge problem and a
huge expense.
Mr. Scolese. Absolutely.
Mr. Ehlers. Are you investigating other systems that might
be far better than using chemical propellants?
Mr. Scolese. For in-space propulsion? That is one of the
areas that, unfortunately, we don't have as much investment in
as we would like. The activities looking at alternative types
of propellants, nuclear propulsion, and nuclear electric have
mostly been for smaller missions, but that is an area that
clearly we could--we would like to do it, but we don't have the
resources right now.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, and Ms. Fudge is
recommended--is recognized.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
Glenn Research Center
Just a couple of questions. One is I happen to come from an
area where NASA Glenn is located, so my questions will be about
NASA Glenn.
I was very interested to read in your prepared statement
that you are looking at and addressing some computational
models and experiments in the Icing Research Tunnel at NASA, at
Glenn Research Center, and I am just curious, do you think that
if the Glenn Icing Research Tunnel, which is a very, very old
structure, it was built right after World War II, would be more
productive if it were modernized?
Mr. Scolese. We are looking at modernization of various
facilities. I am not 100 percent sure if that is one of them,
so I couldn't say sitting here, but we can get back to you on
that.
Ms. Fudge. Okay.
Mr. Scolese. But we are looking at revitalizing and
upgrading facilities where possible and when needed.
Ms. Fudge. Well, additionally, are you making use of other
aviation safety issues that--you know, Glenn has, does have an
expertise in propulsion. Are you using that expertise in any
other way?
Mr. Scolese. We--if the question is are we using Glenn's
capabilities to develop improved propulsion systems for
aviation----
Ms. Fudge. Yes.
Mr. Scolese.--the answer is yes and in a broad spectrum of
areas so we are. We have the test capabilities there. Also in--
actually in rocket propulsion, electric propulsion Glenn is the
leader there, so they are working on capabilities there for
electric propulsion.
Also in a small way for robotic systems. Although it is not
directly propulsioned, it is providing power. Glenn is leading
the effort to develop new and improved ways of developing RTGs,
where we work with the Department of Energy, and they provide
radioactive source, and we more efficiently convert that heat
into electricity that can be used for propulsion or used for
keeping the systems alive, particularly when they are far away
from the sun.
And let us see. I have a note here that says that we are,
in fact, using some Recovery--of the Recovery Act funds to
repair the refrigeration systems on the Icing Research Tunnel
at Glenn.
Ms. Fudge. Very good.
Mr. Scolese. So----
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back. Oh, Ms. Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Giffords. [Presiding] Thank you, Ms. Fudge.
The Chairman recognizes Mr. McCaul.
Moon Program and Cyber Security
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome and good to see
you again, and I have several NASA employees and contractors. I
have Houston in my District. I just recently took Dr. Anna
Fisher through my schools and a delightful astronaut. I thought
that was a great thing to do with the kids, get their
excitement, and they are all, they always wonder, well, we were
on the Moon in 1969, and why are we looking at 2020 and of
course, you have to explain you have to build a station on the
Moon.
A lot of the concerns that we have looking at this budget
have already been talked about, but I wanted to reiterate them
and that is the cut in the Constellation systems of $3 billion,
eliminating the development of the Ares V Heavy-Lift Launch,
and the Altair Lunar Lander.
Is all that possible to cut those programs as severely as
this budget does and still get to the Moon by 2020?
Mr. Scolese. Well, that is what we are evaluating right
now, and as I mentioned earlier, the architecture allows for
Ares V development, if you will, to continue because the Ares I
has a solid that is similar to what we are going to have on
Ares V, it has the J2-X engine on its upper stage, which is
what we want to use on Ares V, and we do have some funding in
there to continue the studies and development of Ares V.
Altair is something that we have to look at further. That
is the lander, as you know, to land on the Moon. We developed a
conceptual study, and we need to go off and refine that. It is
impacted by this budget, and that will be part of the product
that comes out of this study that we were talking about earlier
that Norm Augustine is going to lead. I think once we get
clarity on that, that will provide greater clarity as to the
human lunar return portion and the viability of 2020 in terms
of what we do and whether we can make 2020.
Mr. McCaul. I look forward to hearing about that. I am also
concerned about our aerospace industry and their strength in
the private sector, providing procurement for you that is
cheaper and more competitive.
Lastly, this is a little bit outside the budget
questioning, but I just read recently, I think in Newsweek
Magazine, about cyber security with respect to NASA and about
some of the intrusions that have taken place at NASA. As we
know, to be competitive we have to have the upper hand and edge
intellectual property wise with State secrets. How confident
are you about the cyber security situation at NASA?
Mr. Scolese. Well, we have had intrusions as has been
reported, and of course, we don't really talk too much about
our security and how we caught those and whether they actually
took any information of significance.
But we are constantly vigilant about it, and we work with
our other government agencies on this because the threat is
constantly evolving, and we have to be very careful about that.
We have, in fact, strengthened our cyber security. We have
created a security center out of the Ames Research Center to go
off and monitor all of our computer activities, and at the same
time, of course, with NASA we also have to provide resources to
the public. That is part of what NASA does.
So while having an open system, we also have to have a
system that is protected so that we don't lose vital secrets
and more importantly we don't lose our assets on--in space
because we control them all from the ground, and we use
computers with it.
So I think it is--we do have an investment, we do recognize
that it is an ever-evolving threat, and we are working with our
other government agencies to identify that threat and to adapt
and adjust, and it is taking resources to go off and do that.
Mr. McCaul. I know the President is planning to launch a
new cyber security initiative which hopefully will strengthen
these assets, because I think the ones at NASA are perhaps the
most valuable assets that we have.
So thank you so much.
Mr. Scolese. Thank you.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. McCaul.
Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
NASA's Education Efforts
Mr. Scolese, I want to drill down a little bit into the
educational component, commitment that NASA has. New Mexico's
universities benefit most from the education programs through
the science budget specifically, which shows an increase of
approximately $500 million between now and 2014.
Can you just discuss briefly the plans that NASA has with
how they plan to expend those educational opportunities, with
their university system in that specific regard?
Mr. Scolese. The--from the science side, our science
mission directorate and our science missions, of course, play
directly into it through providing opportunities for graduate
students and for, you know, improving the tax as we, as
professors are involved in it and what have you. And also in
providing opportunities for them to build experiments. We have
a number of opportunities. We have sounding rockets and balloon
experiments where oftentimes students with their professors
will go off and propose an experiment, develop it, fly it, all
within three years so they get the experience of designing and
developing an experiment, building the experiment, flying the
experiment, analyzing the data, all within the timeframe that
it takes to get a degree.
The--as we get to the bigger missions, of course, we try
and do competitive missions where universities are engaged in
those missions, and they are longer term, so they may be, you
know, five or ten years and longer if you are going to
someplace like Jupiter or Saturn where the transit time is
considerably longer. So we have those types of activities.
In addition we have the direct educations activities where
we work in partnerships with universities to get grants for
students and for professors to conduct work, and we can get you
more information on all of those, but that is sort of a summary
of it at the very top level.
Mr. Lujan. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. Mr.
Scolese, the area where I had a concern, and although I saw an
increase in the budget in the science portion of this with the
projected decrease in the educational component, of which I
believe there is a program called MUST, Motivating
Undergraduates in Science and Technology, which is funded by
NASA in a joint partnership currently between the Hispanic
College Fund, the United Negro College Fund, special programs
in the Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers, which is a
competitive program to be able to offer opportunities open to
all children but targeted in each of these specific areas. Is
there a commitment from NASA that this program specifically
will not be reduced? Is there something that we can do to help
ensure that this program will remain at the same levels, if not
strengthen them, acknowledging that we do need to make sure
that we are providing opportunities especially educational
opportunities for students to get into these fields so we can
continue to provide NASA the support that they need?
Mr. Scolese. Those are all--that is very important. I am--I
would have to go off and look to see if it is being reduced.
MUST is one of the activities that we do definitely support,
and it is one of our critical activities in the education
enterprise. I will have to go off and look and see if there is
any reduction to it in the future years, but that is not the
intent.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, and lastly, Mr. Scolese, New Mexico
is home to White Sands Missile Range. Just if you could briefly
discuss what the future plans and support that we should expect
in New Mexico for White Sands through NASA.
Mr. Scolese. Well, we see a continued need for White Sands.
In fact, later this year we are going to have the first test of
our abort system for the Orion Ares stack. It is called Cad
Abort I, and it is scheduled for this fall. So--fall or winter
timeframe depending on when all the hardware arrives. So we are
going to continue to do testing out of White Sands, and it will
be a little bit different because we--as the Shuttle moves off,
we will have some different components there, but we still need
White Sands to do some of our testing. So it will continue to
be an active system, and of course, we have the communications
for TDRS are located there as well, and that will continue to
be there for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Scolese.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back my time. Thank you.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Climate Change and Asteroids
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and appreciate the
fact that you folks at NASA do not now have the leadership to
be making major policy directions decisions and even to be
advocating new policy directions, but I am disappointed in one
aspect of what your budget seems to reflect, and that is that
with all the, you know, we have here certainly ample spending
by NASA to yet again prove global warming. Okay. That is fine.
Those of us who believe it is solar activity and chart all
these changes in the world's temperature with the Sun. Okay.
Forget us but let us keep spending money to prove that people
are changing the climate.
But spending all of that money but yet we can't spend money
on something that absolutely--we know is a potential threat to
this world. I mean, we are totally ignoring, while we are
looking over here at global warming, which more and more
scientists every day are saying, no, it is solar activity, it
is not human activity, but everybody knows there are objects
out in space that could well hit this planet and causes tens of
thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of lives to be lost.
In March Asteroid DD-45 came within 38,000 miles of our
planet, was not detected until it went by, and had that object
hit this Earth, we would--it could well have caused hundreds of
thousands of people to lose their lives, maybe millions. What
is it, Apophis?
Mr. Scolese. Uh-huh.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There is an asteroid that we know could do
incredible damage to this planet, maybe not destroy all life on
the planet but kills millions of people. It is going to come
around in 2029, but the people that we have talked to have told
us that we won't know until it comes through that time whether
or not it might come back to the second time in 2036, and then
be on a course to hit the Earth.
I do not understand that--why we cannot put at least a
little money into trying to mitigate this real threat that is
out there, but we don't have, we haven't identified exactly
what it is yet. I mean, there is no money, correct me if I am
wrong, there isn't even a couple million dollars to keep the
Arecibo Telescope going in this budget. We got all this money
to study global warming, which as I say, which most, a lot of
us believe solar activity is responsible for, but nothing, not
even a couple million dollars for the Arecibo Telescope, which
is essential to tracking some object far enough away so that we
might be able to do something about it.
Mr. Scolese. Well, let me try and address parts of those. I
have----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Scolese.--some good news on the near-Earth asteroids.
We were asked awhile back to go off and catalog 90 percent of
the one kilometer or larger asteroids.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. You are looking at the guy who asked
you to do that.
Mr. Scolese. I know that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am the Chairman of that committee.
Mr. Scolese. I know. That is why I thought I would
mention----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You did a good job at 90 percent of them.
Mr. Scolese. And we are going to finish earlier as a matter
of fact. We believe that we will have accomplished that goal by
next year in working with partnerships with other
organizations, and as far as Arecibo, you know, we worked in
partnership with the Air Force and with NSF. Arecibo is I
believe in the NSF budget, so I wouldn't--we didn't have
anything in the NASA budget on that.
So we haven't ignored the near-Earth asteroids or near-
Earth objects, and we are working it, and as I said, I think we
have made some good progress over the last couple of years, and
we will address the one kilometer or larger earlier than we
thought, and we are starting to look at the smaller ones now.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, there is ample evidence that these--
about every year now something comes through and we miss it,
and if it would have been just like one degree different
trajectory, it could end up creating a tidal wave off of my
district in southern California. And being a surfer that might
be good for one wave. It might not be after that.
Russian Cooperation
One--and then over to space transportation. The--we are
going to be spending more and more money with the Russians, and
I think we ought to thank our lucky stars that the Russians are
even willing the way we have been treating them diplomatically
for the last 10 years, treating them as if they are the enemy,
we are lucky they are even willing to do it. But aren't there
some people in the private sector that we might be able to give
contracts to for some of the space station missions that the
Russians are going to help us with?
Mr. Scolese. Well, we are on the cargo portion. We
definitely are. We have signed two contracts this past year for
cargo supply to the Space Station, and we are relying on that.
In this budget request or operating plan request with the
stimulus funds, we are looking to stimulate interest in
commercial crew to the Space Station.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, because we are going to spend a
billion point two with the Russians for transporting our people
up there. It seems to me that that would be a mighty strong
incentive for some of our private sector people to develop an
alternative that might go up on things like the Atlas V or
other rockets that we already have.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, thank you very much.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Grayson.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
Shuttle Program Future
Mr. Scolese, what options have you given to the White House
concerning extending the Shuttle Program?
Mr. Scolese. I am sorry. Can you----
Mr. Grayson. What options have you given to the White House
concerning extending the Shuttle Program?
Mr. Scolese. We have not been asked for options to extend
the Shuttle Program.
Mr. Grayson. Have you offered any?
Mr. Scolese. No.
Mr. Grayson. Well, I understand that there are pros and
cons in favor of and against extending the Shuttle Program. Can
you lay out for us some of the pros?
Mr. Scolese. Well, we would keep on flying the Shuttle. It
would provide us some opportunities clearly to keep the Station
re-supplied and obviously the jobs in the various districts
that are impacted by the Shuttle. However, the concern, of
course, is that a lot of those people who are working on
Shuttle are also working on Constellation, and that would take
them away from working those programs, plus without additional
resources we would be taking funds away from developing the
Next Generation System so we would just be moving the gap out
as opposed to resolving the gap.
The other aspect of the Shuttle, of course, is it doesn't
relieve us of our dependence on Soyuz or any other system
because we can't do crew rescue with the Shuttle. It cannot
stay on orbit for longer than a few weeks based on its design.
So we would still have to have a Soyuz attached to the Station
or some other vehicle attached to the Station for the duration
that the crew is there if they had to escape.
So those are the reasons that we haven't in the course
provided that. Even if we were to start up today to do it,
though, we still have, would have to restart some lines, the
external tank and the solid rocket motors in particular. It
would be about three years before you could get another
external tank if we start it today.
So there is--there would still be a gap in the program
along those lines.
Mr. Grayson. If the White House asked you to figure out a
way to extend the program for a certain period of time, what
would you recommend to them about how to do that?
Mr. Scolese. We would have to, you know, ask for more
budget, I guess, would be the answer. Or we would have to delay
the Constellation Program. Those would be the only real things
we could do.
Mr. Grayson. Now, you said you were moving employees from
one program to the other, but you--in your testimony you have a
projection that there is 6,400 contractor employees in one
fiscal year and 1,600 in the next. So that is a 4,800
contractor employee drop. Those people aren't going to be
working on Constellation. Right?
Mr. Scolese. We don't know. I mean, when it comes to the
contractors, it is a little bit more difficult for us to say
because the contractors do the work assignments on those, and
it depends, of course, on what work those people get. We make
our projections based on when we stop doing this work, this is
how many people will leave on the contractor side and then if
they win work, those same people may be brought back to do
other jobs.
So we have a hard time telling you what the actual net
impact will be given our understanding of where contracts are
going to be awarded and where they are not.
Mr. Grayson. Have you had any discussions with the White
House concerning spacing out the remaining launches?
Mr. Scolese. We have recently changed, if you noticed, the
wording based on discussions that have occurred to say that we
intend to fly out the remaining manifest, and we have not put a
date on it. Now, we believe we can fly out that manifest by
September of next year, but the requirement now is that we will
fly out the remaining eight missions without a date specific.
Mr. Grayson. What would be some of the benefits of
expanding that timetable, spacing out the missions more
broadly?
Mr. Scolese. Well, again, it comes down to budget. We do
not have the resources to go beyond 2010, beyond September,
2010, so it is going to require additional resources that will
have to either be added to the NASA budget or have to be
removed from other portions of the budget with, you know,
impact to those portions of the budget.
Benefits of NASA
Mr. Grayson. Let me ask you a different kind of question.
People often ask what is the benefit of this program, what is
the benefit of NASA in general to our society, and I think that
we Members of this panel have an answer to that, but I wanted
to ask you looking forward, looking into the future, and I
understand as Yogi Berra said, ``Predictions are hard to make,
particularly about the future,'' looking into the future, what
kind of scientific discoveries do you see being possible
through NASA's work? I guess one place to start would be the
discovery of life on other planets, on Mars, on Europa perhaps.
That is one.
Tell us what other possible scientific discoveries you see
from NASA's work.
Mr. Scolese. Well, that is a difficult one to answer, as
you said. Clearly, you know, one of the things that we look for
is the search for life that would have some significant changes
to what we do, and we look out in the universe already we have
seen some, you know, incredible changes that we didn't expect.
We found water almost everywhere we looked. You mentioned Mars,
you mentioned Europa. We also found it in Enceladus at Titan, I
mean, at Saturn. We have discovered planets outside of our
solar system, something that was, you know, science fiction
just 20 years ago. Finding a planet that is similar to Earth
will be, you know, a possibly as we develop the missions to go
off and do that. Kepler has recently been launched and is going
to go off and start cataloging, not observing, the sizes of
planets near our solar system, if you will.
Looking more down to Earth, our missions are going off and
helping us to better understand the Earth, better predictions
of weather, better predictions of climate will help markedly on
the Earth as we come up with better agricultural predictions,
as we develop, you know, a better understanding of where
hurricanes will go, we can do more with natural disasters,
already looking at ways to mitigate the impacts of volcanic
activity by understanding the flows of volcanoes and
identifying escape routes using satellites, fire mitigation to
go off and support that. Using orbital assets plus UAVs that
NASA has gone off and developed.
Chairman Gordon. Excuse me. With respect to Mr. Grayson, as
well as you, Mr. Scolese, we only have two days. There are
many, many benefits of NASA, and I think we could catalog those
for quite some time.
Mr. Grayson. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. And the gentleman's time is well over. So
with--if there is no objection, we will then yield to Mr.
Ehlers for five minutes.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. As I commented earlier, we are still
waiting for more of those benefits to come to Michigan, which
is in worse shape than any other state. That is not my
question.
Aeronautics
My question is NASA is National Aeronautics and Space
Agency. All the discussion here has been about space. I really
worry about aeronautics at NASA. You have some outstanding
people there, and I have been very impressed with them in a
number of ways. We desperately need their help, which means you
need more money as we go into NextGen. I respect the FAA and
their research efforts, but I also recognize the unique
capabilities you have at NASA, and I am not asking you to solve
this overnight, but I am very concerned about NASA being able
to fulfill what should be required of it, the NextGen, and
frankly, in a lot of other aeronautical areas. As you know, we
have a huge battle for market share between our aeronautics
manufacturers, our various plane manufacturers, and Europe, and
the Chinese are now beginning to manufacture airplanes.
So I don't want you to go at great length on this, but I
would very much appreciate some comments from you about the
future direction you see for the aeronautics and where the
Congress should put more money in view of the problems I
outlined. These are not immediate problems, but they are
pressing problems, and we are going to be very sorry if we
don't provide adequate support for the aeronautics part of
NASA, because it is going to come back and bite us in the next
five or ten years.
So I would appreciate your comments on that.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir. I think it is probably worth just
mentioning the new program that we have in the Agency, the
Environmentally Responsible Aviation Program, which is going
off and working to develop more efficient utilization of the
air space, more efficient aircraft operation, and working on
the technologies both to make those systems more efficient but
also working to understand with our colleagues in the FAA and
others to make the airspace system more efficient.
So it is more than just making an aircraft better or making
the air traffic control system better but to make the whole
system improved. That is a new initiative in this budget that
is proposed in fiscal year 2010. We have--it builds upon all of
our other activities in fundamental aviation and other areas,
so I think that is a new area that goes off and recognizes the
needs for the future, to have more fuel efficient air system,
to have a safer air system, and those are the types of things
that we will be working on in that activity.
Mr. Ehlers. And how much new money are you getting for this
new endeavor?
Mr. Scolese. I would have to look exactly, but I believe it
is in the order or--maybe David you can give me the exact
number. We have $60 million in fiscal year 2010 to start that
program off.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. I hope you get considerably more than
that because I think the need is really there, and it is not
just for NASA, and it is not just for science. It is--I think
it is a major item for our country as well.
With that I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, and Ms. Kosmas from Florida is
recognized.
NASA Workforce During Gap
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scolese
for being here. I, too, appreciate your service, and I would
echo the comments of my colleague, Dr. Griffith about the
importance of this and during my short time here I have tried
to be very vocal and my expressions for my respect and passion
for the Manned Space Program.
And I wanted to ask some questions that have already been
asked. I won't re-ask but specifically because, as you know,
Kennedy Space Center is in my district, and I represent the
workforce there. I am most concerned about the gap in terms of
the workforce. During the time period that we have suggested
that we intend to procure up to 24 seats per astronauts on the
Russian Soyuz, is there an alternative for us during that time
period where we would not be--and I think according to Aviation
Week, the price has risen to $51 million per seat for 2012.
This means, as was earlier suggested, $1.2 billion creating
jobs for Russians as opposed to in the United States.
Has there been an alternative discussed between you and the
Administration with regard to how we might keep that revenue
source inside our borders?
Mr. Scolese. Well, with the current plan there is no
alternative to doing it. As I mentioned earlier, we need the
Soyuz not just for getting the crews to the Space Station or
back from the Space Station, we need the Soyuz for crew rescue
as well. So we need it to stay on orbit, and we don't have any
other vehicle that--at this stage that can do that.
I am certain this is going to be addressed as part of the
review that is going on this summer, but at this stage of the
game the Soyuz is really the only opportunity that we have that
can address all three of those things; taking the crew to the
Space Station, returning the crew from the Space Station, and
serving as a rescue vehicle in the event that we need to remove
crew from the Station for any reason.
Ms. Kosmas. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate also the
commitment to finishing the Shuttle manifest and removing the
hard deadline for having that occur, because I think that is
very important for the safety of the program.
But given the fact that we are going to have a gap between
the Shuttle Program and the Constellation or whatever comes
next, I assume according to our discussion you are continuing
not slowing down anything on that front, how do we intend to
keep our astronauts engaged, or I understand we are getting
ready to select a new class of astronauts. And how do we intend
to make that work during the time, keep our core engaged or
attract new ones during that time period?
Mr. Scolese. Well, of course, we will still be flying the
Space Station, we will still be going to the Space Station, so
there will still be crew there, and we will need our astronauts
to train for that and fly to that. So we will continue to need
that core. In addition, as we are building and testing the new
vehicle, we will need the astronauts to be intimately involved
with the design and test of that vehicle.
So there will be still be ample opportunities and ample
jobs for the astronauts both on the Space Station and in
developing the new hardware as we get ready to--and as we get
ready to fly it.
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you. The only other question I had at the
moment is with regard to the workforce at the Kennedy Space
Center. We have heard the numbers projected of what I think
will be the loss of a very big number of professional folks
during that gap, and what I am wondering is that Kennedy Space
Center has been viewed as an operations center only, and there
is much discussion in my District and among others about the
opportunities to increase the amount of research and
development that would go on at Kennedy Space Center,
particularly perhaps with regard to the Constellation and the--
all that goes along with that.
In fact, former Administrator Griffin stated last year that
the work on the Altair Lunar Lander would be conducted at KSC,
and I am wondering whether you have had any further discussion
about that in particular.
Mr. Scolese. I think we are continuing to do things at
Kennedy Space Center, and of course, it has been operations in
the past several years, but as you know, we are doing a lot of
development there right now as we are developing the launch
pads and the control centers for the new vehicle. So there is
development going on there. I am sure you are also aware that
they are going to do manufacturing of Orion there, manufacture
and test of it. So we do have development work that does go on
there, plus, you know, some research work as well.
So I think there is no change in that in seeing that
development go on.
Ms. Kosmas. I think we are looking to expand the operations
there so that we are not so vulnerable to the gap and other
time periods that have taken place historically where we have a
shutdown in our community.
So I would appreciate that consideration during the
review----
Mr. Scolese. Will do.
Ms. Kosmas.--that is coming up. Thank you very much.
Chairman Gordon. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kosmas.
And Ms. Brooks is recognized for five--I mean, Ms. Edwards
is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much, Mr. Scolese, for your testimony.
Current NASA Budget Increase
I just have a couple of questions about--and I put this to
Mr. Holdren when we heard from him, I guess last week, and it
has to do with the budget. We have, you know, we have a goal
out there of going back to the Moon, we have a goal of this
Next Generation of exploration, technology, and vehicles, but
it just seems to me that the budget is not quite reflecting
that goal.
And so I wonder if you could, apart from the funding that
we just put into the Recovery Act, which was, you know, a
substantial $630 million for the--for fiscal year 2009 and
2010, how critical are the activities that are going to be
conducted with this increase, and then discuss for me the
budget as you see it for the future as it impacts areas in
Orion. And I am wondering if there might be an unanticipated
risk by essentially putting on hold the budget decisions in the
out years on our ability to retain capacity, technical,
scientific, and research capacity for those and other programs.
Mr. Scolese. The $630 million additional that fiscal year
2009 and 2010 budget is absolutely critical to maintaining the
Ares and Orion programs. The early years, '09, '10, '11, '12,
essentially, are really focused on getting the first systems,
the Orion and the Ares I and the associated ground systems and
control systems ready. So that funding is critical to keeping
us on what we call initial operational capability, the ability
to get into low-Earth orbit, to get to the Space Station, and
that capability is also needed in the future for when we do
want to leave Earth orbit to rendezvous and dock with the
vehicle that will take us beyond low-Earth orbit, to the Moon
or wherever.
So the first few years are absolutely critical to keep that
in for initial operational capacity. We were doing less on Ares
V and the landing systems in those years, so the out-year
budgets in '13 and '14, principally, would have an impact on
those. So as this review gets done, we will have time to
understand, you know, what we want to accomplish by 2020 that
will help determine what we need out there in those years.
In addition, the heavy-lift launch vehicle is absolutely
critical to getting out of low-Earth orbit. That was mentioned
earlier, the Ares V. It has common elements with Ares I, which
allows for the development that is going on today to be
directly applicable to the Ares V. So the development on the
solid rocket motor and development of the J-2X engine are
directly applicable to the Ares V. So work we are doing today
also plays into what is going to happen in 2013, and '14.
Ms. Edwards. Do you worry at all about the loss, potential
loss of technical capacity at all?
Mr. Scolese. I don't think we have that issue for the
immediate future. As I was saying, we are concentrating right
now in the next couple of years on the initial operational
capability. So of course we always worry about it. You want to
make sure that people understand that there is a future out
there so they stay, but I think we have sufficient interesting
work and sufficient work altogether that that won't be an issue
for a few years.
Ms. Edwards. And related to that are you concerned at all
that we have this couple of months that we are waiting for the
review to take place but we are on a, you know, track to look
at the budget, and you know, we maybe, in fact, putting the
heart--the cart before the horse in terms of, you know, scaling
back in some ways on those out-year budgets without actually
understanding what the review holds for us.
Mr. Scolese. Well, if--as I said, any change in '09 and
'10, or '10 budget will have a significant impact on the
program. So--and specifically we were directed not to change
anything until the review--we, NASA, not to change anything, to
continue working with--on Ares I and Orion and all their
elements until told to do otherwise, and we haven't been told
to do otherwise, so we do need that '10 funding if we are going
to stay on that track. Otherwise there will be impacts along
the lines of what you are talking about to the workforce as
well as to our ability to meet the mission goals.
Orbiting Carbon Observatory
Ms. Edwards. I just have one additional question, and it is
related to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory that was lost in
February, 2009. Any plans to replace that? I noticed it is not
in the budget.
Mr. Scolese. It is not in the budget. We are off reviewing
how to go off and do that, so we didn't have a plan. Three
parts to it. One, we don't plan for losses, so we have a review
with science community and the operational community the value
of that mission, and it was determined to be a valuable
mission. So we are off evaluating two options for re-flying it.
We hope to have that done by the end of the summer, and we will
be able to get back to you at that point.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. They are good
questions, and Mr. Hall has some clean up he wants to do.
Workforce and Funding Gap
Mr. Hall. First, I was a little astounded at your answer
that you didn't think it was any big problem when we lose that
workforce. Did I misunderstand you?
Mr. Scolese. I don't think I said that, sir.
Mr. Hall. Okay. Well, I hope you didn't.
Mr. Scolese. No, I didn't.
Mr. Hall. Because they are an exclusive group and the
highest type of workforce and sophisticated, and they would be
quickly picked up by someone else, and if we wait two years or
four years, we are going to have a hard time finding the people
to take those places, I think. Don't you--you agree to that?
Mr. Scolese. Oh, absolutely. We have one of the most
highly-motivated workforce and the most capable workforce there
is, but I thought I said, what I intended to say was I felt
that we had sufficient work and sufficiently-interesting work
to retain that workforce.
Mr. Hall. Well, good. That is great. I want to just talk a
minute--I mentioned and talked about funds and about the gap,
four-year gap, and it is going to take money and time, and we
were worrying a little bit about the deficit, but I think there
are some answers to that. We seem to spend billions of dollars
every year on foreign assistance, you know, all over the world,
and I sometimes wonder what we are getting out of that, and who
knows where, when, or how this money is spent. I know that we
sent money--we use part of NASA's budget to purchase services
from our international partners on International Space Station,
and I have wondered why some tiny fraction of the billions of
dollars that the government spends on foreign assistance
couldn't be transferred to NASA like a lot of countries that
vote 80 to 90 percent of the time in the U.N. against this
country that were receiving foreign aid. I think we ought to
take a look at that, and that would be one place--I think it is
our duty to point out where that money can come from if we are
willing to up the budget of NASA, and I think that ought to be
not too tough to do.
Do you think the blue ribbon panel that is going to be
chaired by Mr. Augustine would have the freedom to suggest or
propose alterative funding options and from elsewhere within
the federal budget to help reduce the gap? I know they are not
going to want him to bust the budget or go outside that, but I
don't believe he is the type guy you can give some parameters
to and tell him he has got to stay within those. I think he is
going to tell you what he really and truly thinks, and that is
the reason that most everybody I know is very proud that we
have him leading us to help reduce the gap and better meet our
international obligations.
It looks like we could use some of those sources. You don't
have any problem with that, do you?
Mr. Scolese. No, sir.
Mr. Hall. I like you. I like the Chairman here, too. I like
him so much I am going to yield back my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We have, in effect,
opened the second round, so Ms. Kosmas or Ms. Edwards, do you
have a second question?
Okay. Mr. Olson, you can close us out then.
U.S. Space Industrial Base
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I have
just a very brief question for you, Mr. Scolese, involving
our--concerning the industrial base, and as the Acting
Administrator, you have got a pretty broad view of all of
NASA's programs and some insights into other governmental
programs.
What is your assessment of the U.S. Space Industrial Base
and how might NASA and Congress improve the situation to make
our aerospace industry stronger and our procurements cheaper?
Mr. Scolese. That is--you are right. That is a very broad
question. It is--I think we mentioned earlier that with some of
the restrictions that happen with the ITAR that it limits our
industry from being able to compete overseas, there is other
portions of the activity as well. We aren't launching as many
missions, we aren't doing as many things in this country that
we have done in the past. So we have had a lot of
consolidations within industry.
The instrument industry is probably an area that is the
easiest to go off and look at recently where we are seeing some
significant impacts into our missions because the instruments
are coming, you know, very, very late, and part of the reason
is what we were talking about before. We consolidated so much
that we lost a lot of the really high-value talent. They have
gone off to do other things, and excuse me, and that has caused
us to have to reinvent the wheel every time we go off and start
a new activity, and we don't have enough new activities to keep
any one organization sufficiently busy that they can carry the
workforce through all of, you know, effectively from one
development to the next.
And that seems to be general throughout the industry. So it
is something we need to address. In addition, we have stepped
back from specs and standards that we used to have in the early
'90s, and while at times they were constraining and prevented
us from doing things, they also allowed us to go off and have a
capability that we could draw on when we needed it.
So today we often talk about why our spacecraft cost so
much, we have to go off and understand our part suppliers, what
kind of a part are we getting. Do we either invest in
developing a new part, which isn't going to have very much
statistics associated with it, so we have to do a lot of
testing, or do we go off and get a commercial part and up-
screen it, which requires a lot of testing until we find a part
that we can use.
So we have done a number of things in terms of stepping
back from specs and standards, reducing the number of
activities that we have going on so that we are losing some of
our workforce, and of course, the pipelines. I think you have
heard, and I don't need to report, to repeat the statistics
here, how the United States isn't putting out as many
scientists and engineers as many other countries are, so, you
know, putting in the pipeline to go off and fill those jobs is
equally difficult.
So those are the things that we have going on, and they do
have an impact into where we are going, but what can we do
about it is probably a question that you want to ask, and I
think what we need and what we are working, we are working with
our partners in the Department of Defense and in industry and
academia to form a partnership so that we can take various
elements of it and effectively utilize it to put the resources
where we can maintain them over the long term, which is one
reason why the NASA infrastructure is important, to do the R&D
that needs to be done and NASA, being an R&D agency, is an
ideal place to do that. There is others as well, NSF and NIST
as examples that do R&D, and working with our industrial
partners where they can do what they do best, which is
manufacturing and manufacturing technologies.
So we are trying to work together with, as I said, with our
colleagues in industry and academia and other government
agencies to try and bring that together and bring to you
solutions that are in our budgets to maintain our
infrastructure, to maintain the research and development and to
encourage the educational system to produce more science and
technology people.
Mr. Olson. Well, thank you for that answer, and I have one
comment to make, and it is probably not going to be a surprise
to you, but I just want to assure you and everybody within the
sound of my voice that NASA still has our Manned Space Flight
Program, still has the ability to inspire America's youth.
Mr. Scolese. Absolutely.
Mr. Olson. I had the privilege to watch the launch Monday
before last with the entire 3rd grade at Settlers Way
Elementary School in Sugar Land, Texas, about 50 or 60 of them,
and we started watching about 20 minutes before the launch, and
those kids were on me for all 20 minutes, I mean, hands up,
hands up, hands up, asking about the solid rocket boosters,
what happens when they land and how come they don't hit ships,
you know, all the questions, I mean, great questions for third
graders. We got down to 25 seconds and the countdown. As kids
would do, they all just started counting down at the top of
their lungs, but as soon as those main engines started firing
and that solid rocket boosters came on, and she pulled away
from the pad, they went silent and just stared. It was a great,
great moment, and that is why what we are doing here is so
important.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for running over. I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. That is all right, Mr. Olson. Thank you
for your presence here today and good questions.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Yes, sir, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. I just thought of two other places. You know, the
$40 billion George Bush hollered back over his shoulder when he
was leaving, that he wanted for AIDS for, I think Africa. Give
them $30 billion and there is $10 billion that we have, and the
Obama asked for buckets full more than $40 billion and just--I
think the money ought to--we ought to rob those that don't
deserve it, and we absolutely have to do something about that
four-year gap.
You will be a magician if you can do it, but there are some
places it can come from, and I won't ask to be recognized
anymore today.
Chairman Gordon. Don't you own a bank?
Well, there has been a lot of discussion today about the
quality and expertise of the NASA workforce, and Mr. Scolese,
as I said at the beginning, you have exemplified that during
this hearing that you are a representative of that, and we
thank you for your service, we thank you for being here.
And the record now will remain open for two weeks for
additional statements from the Members and for answers to any
of the follow-up questions the Committee may ask of the
witnesses.
The Chairman--the witness is excused, and the hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Christopher J. Scolese, Acting Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. NASA's FY 2010 request provides $458 million more funding for
NASA's Exploration program than was provided in the FY 2009 Omnibus. At
the same time, the Administration is carrying out an independent review
of NASA's human space flight programs this summer that could result in
changes to NASA's Exploration program. Congress is going to be working
on NASA's FY 2010 appropriations in the relatively near future.
a. For the record, why do you need increased funding for
Constellation at the same time that the program is under
review?
b. Specifically, how important is it for Congress to fully
fund Constellation, including reserves, for FY 2010?
c. What would be the impact of a cut to your FY 2010
Exploration budget request?
d. If Congress is being asked to fully fund the
Administration's budget request for NASA's exploration program
in FY 2010, what assurances can you give this committee that
the Administration is committed to continuing work on the
Exploration program's Constellation projects as planned during
the review and will not divert funding from them or slow them
down?
A1. As NASA and the Administration review findings of the Augustine
Commission in the coming weeks and formulate an Administration
recommendation for submission to Congress on the way forward for human
space exploration, it is important that the President's FY 2010 request
for Exploration be fully funded and flexibility be fully preserved. Any
reductions would likely cause major negative impacts to any options
that may emerge from the ongoing blue ribbon review of U.S. human space
flight plans.
Following the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight activities, the
Administration will provide an updated request for Exploration
activities, as necessary. In the meantime, NASA is proceeding with
current Exploration activities, including Ares I, Orion, Commercial
Crew and Cargo efforts, and lunar systems. For example, NASA is
continuing to work toward completing two major test flights this year.
The Ares I-X was the first developmental test flight to support the
design of the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle; and the Pad Abort 1 (PA-1)
will be the first test of the Launch Abort System to be used on the
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. NASA will continue to work with other
nations and the commercial sector to coordinate planning, leverage
investment, and identify opportunities for specific collaboration on
Exploration activities.
Q2. NASA's Earth science program received an increase of over $1.2
billion when taking into account Recovery Act funds and FY 2010 budget
projections through FY 2013.
Q2a. To what extent is this increase going to enable progress on the
Earth science missions recommended in the National Academies decadal
survey report?
A2a. The funds will enable NASA Earth Science to make marked progress
toward conducting the balanced program recommended by the National
Research Council's decadal survey in Earth science, Earth Science and
Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and
Beyond. Following the Decadal Survey framework, the funds will enable
NASA Earth Science to:
Complete as rapidly as possible the foundational
missions that are currently in development (Aquarius, Global
Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Glory, Landsat Data Continuity
Mission (LRCM), and the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) ). The
Decadal Survey recommendations for new missions were predicated
on the assumption that these foundational missions would be
completed and flown in advance of the new missions.
Establish Earth Venture (EV) as a new element within
the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program. The
additional Earth Science funding enabled NASA to issue in July
2009 a solicitation of proposals for the first group of Earth
Venture (EV-1) missions.
Earth Venture consists of a series of regularly
solicited, competitively selected Earth Science
investigations. Earth Venture will provide competitive
opportunities on two-year intervals with $150M per
solicitation. Opportunities will alternate between
integrated sub-orbital investigations, instruments of
opportunity and small satellites.
The EV-1 solicitation is for complete sub-orbital
science investigations involving sustained data
acquisition from airborne (aircraft and/or unattended
airborne system (UAS) ) and/or balloon platforms. Each
sub-orbital Venture-class investigation will have a
life cycle of up to five years and a total
investigation cost of up to $30M; several
investigations will be selected depending upon the cost
of each.
Accelerate progress on the new missions recommended
by the Decadal Survey, including the Tier 1 missions: the Soil
Moisture and Active Passive (SMAP) mission, the Ice, Cloud, and
land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) mission, the Climate
Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO)
mission, and the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics
of Ice (DESDynI) mission.
Initiate in FY 2009 the IceBridge airborne field
campaign series in both the Arctic and the Antarctic to
mitigate the gap in observations of the polar ice caps that
will occur between the end of ICESat-1 and start of ICESat-2.
IceBridge uses various NASA aircraft and instruments to
characterize key areas of polar ice, including the diminishing
Arctic sea ice cap and rapidly changing outlet glaciers in
Greenland and Antarctica. The mission is planned to run until
the launch of ICESat-2.
Maintain a balanced program of satellite and sub-
orbital observations, research and analysis studies, and
societal application activities lauded by the Decadal Survey,
including:
15 operating missions that provide the world with a
primary source of observations and science information
on Earth's changing environment
A suite of aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) with scientific instruments to fly at 100 feet
(30m) to 70,000 feet (21,000m) that will ensure high
accuracy, well calibrated observations from satellites
and enhance interpretation of satellite data
Internationally recognized state-of-the-art climate
models
The world's largest scientific data and information
system for collecting, processing, archiving, and
distributing Earth system data to worldwide users
Practicable applications of observations and results
for informed decision-making
Technology development investments for Tier-2 and -3
missions.
The funds will enable the flight of a Thermal Infrared Sensor
(TIRS) instrument on the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), one of
the foundational missions referenced by the Decadal Survey.
Q2b. How much acceleration on those missions is this funding buying?
A2b. The funds will enable NASA Earth Science to progress from a period
of declining budgets and the resultant reduction in satellite
measurement capability, which the Decadal Survey raised as a serious
concern, to carrying out its mission with improved overall
capabilities. The funds allow NASA Earth Science to achieve many
recommendations of the Decadal Survey, as noted in Answer 2, including
the flight of the foundational missions.
The Decadal Survey, in recommending launch readiness intervals of
2010-2013, 2013-2016, and 2016-2020 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3, respectively,
presumed a budget for NASA Earth Science of $2.013 per year (about 25
percent higher than its current budget) and lower mission costs than
NASA estimates are projecting. All future missions identified by the
Decadal Survey are extremely early in their definition process, thus
there is no substantiated basis against which acceleration can be
compared or quantified. With that caveat, Table 1 indicates the
estimated schedule and content changes for missions presently in
development enabled by the additional funds that have been identified
for the program. It also references the ICEBridge airborne campaigns
and Earth Venture solicitation made possible by available funds.
Q2c. Based on what you have studied and know about what is required to
develop the Decadal Survey missions recommended for implementation by
NASA, what is the total level of investment that will be required? Over
what period of time do you expect it will take to implement those
missions?
A2c. For the Tier 1 missions (SMAP, ICESat-2, DESDynI, and CLARREO),
NASA's current preliminary total estimate of life cycle cost (LCC) is
$4.213. Based on the FY 2010 Budget the launch of SMAP, the only
mission which has progressed to date into Formulation, is planned for
2015 and the estimated mission life cycle cost (LCC) is $700M. The
launch of ICESat-2, which will enter formulation in FY 2010, is planned
for 2015 based on the FY 2010 Budget and the estimated LCC is $750M.
Timing decisions for the remaining Tier 1 missions, CLARREO and
DESDynI, will be made in FY 2010, with the expectation of launching
these missions before the end of the decade.
NASA Earth Science did generate a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)
life cycle cost (LCC) estimate for each mission shortly after release
of the Decadal Survey in order to provide an initial comparison with
the Decadal Survey ROM estimates. The collective ROM LCC's for the Tier
2 (SWOT, HyspIRI, ACE, ASCENDS, and GEO-CAPE) and Tier 3 (LIST, PATH,
GRACE-II, SCLP, GACM and 3D-Winds) missions were $4.5B and $4.0B in FY
2007 dollars, respectively, compared with Decadal Survey estimates of
$2.5 billion for Tier 2 and $3.1 billion for Tier 3. The currently
projected funding profile translates to launches of the Tier 2 and 3
missions during the 2020's and into the 2030's.
These estimates are ROMs because the concepts are preliminary.
Developing a credible life cycle cost (LCC) is a challenge because it
includes all design, development, verification, production, launch,
operation and maintenance, and disposal costs. Because of the level of
design maturity required to generate this information, NASA formally
commits to LCC at KDP-C, following a Preliminary Design Review at the
end of the Formulation phase. At that time, the work associated with
Phase A and Phase B concept development studies is complete and NASA is
able to establish a baseline mission concept and generate the
associated LCC with a 70 percent confidence level.
To help plan for these missions and reduce future schedule and cost
risk, NASA Earth Science is providing funding within the current budget
for preliminary workshops to discuss requirements and concepts for
individual Decadal Survey missions and investing in efforts designed to
ensure the technological readiness of these missions.
Q3. The Mars Exploration Program has experienced great successes
scientifically and technically with its lander, rover, and orbiter
missions. The next Mars mission, the Mars Science Laboratory, has
overrun its baseline estimate for development by 68 percent. What is
the implication of this cost growth for the future Mars Exploration
Program?
A3. The impact on future Mars Exploration Program missions is as
follows:
The Mars 2013 aeronomy mission Mars Atmosphere and
Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) is unchanged.
The Mars 2016 mission budget has been reduced; NASA
is in negotiation for a joint mission with the European Space
Agency (ESA), which had also been planning a mission in 2016
but is also cost-constrained.
Mars technology funding from FY 2010 through 2015,
targeted at long-lead investments for a Mars sample return
mission, has been drastically reduced.
NASA is currently revising its Mars architecture for future
missions, in an attempt to create a collaborative program with ESA,
culminating in a joint Mars sample return mission late in the next
decade--the National Academy's highest priority science mission for
Mars.
Q4. The National Academies is in the process of carrying out three
decadal surveys in the areas of astronomy and astrophysics, planetary
science, and biological and physical sciences in space. The decadal
surveys will recommend the priorities for mission activities to be
conducted over the next decade.
Q4a. To what extent have the mission priorities from the previous
decadal surveys been accomplished?
A4a. Taking each decadal survey area individually:
Astrophysics:
The 2001 National Academy of Sciences ``Astronomy and Astrophysics
for the New Millennium (AANM)'' report provided its recommended new
initiatives for astrophysics in three categories according to the
amount of anticipated funding required: Major, Moderate and Small
Initiatives (AANM, page 33). The report included initiatives for both
ground- and space-based projects, and discussed the importance of
program balance and basic research. The top priority Major Initiative
for space was the Next Generation Space Telescope, which has since been
named the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). NASA is making substantial
progress and JWST is under development having passed its confirmation
review in July 2008 with a launch readiness date of June 2014. The top
priority Moderate Initiative for space was the Gamma-ray Large Area
Space Telescope, now renamed the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. Fermi
was launched in June 2008 and is producing excellent data. The top
priority Small Initiative was funding for the National Virtual
Observatory, now called the Virtual Astronomical Observatory (VAO).
NASA is coordinating the VAO funding with the National Science
Foundation, which has recently announced the selection of the VAO
provider.
For each of these categories there were numerous other activities
recommended, but at lower priority. In the Major Initiatives category
the second priority was the Constellation-X Observatory. Mission-level
studies and early technology development activities have been
accomplished throughout this decade. NASA was unable to start the
mission because there were insufficient funds to begin development of
the mission once its costs were better understood. The third priority
was mission studies and technology development funding for a
Terrestrial Planet Finder mission. NASA devoted the recommended level
of funding to this activity and gained a better understanding of what
such a mission would cost. These activities have positioned the
community and NASA to provide the current decadal survey panels more
accurate information on the technical challenges and likely costs for
such. a mission. The final Major Initiative priority was for early
study of and technology development for a large aperture sub-millimeter
optimized space mission (SAFIR). Only a small amount of funding for a
SAFIR mission-level study has been expended during this decade.
For Moderate Initiatives at lower priority than Fermi the NAS
report listed the Laser Interferometry Space Antenna (LISA), Solar
Dynamics Observatory (SDO), Energetic X-ray Imaging Survey Telescope
(EXIST) and Advanced Radio Interferometry between Space and Earth
(ARISE). For LISA, a collaborative mission with the European Space
Agency, mission studies and technology development were funded
throughout the decade. NASA was unable to start the mission because
there were insufficient funds to begin development of the mission once
its costs were better understood. The SDO satellite has completed
development under the management of NASA's Heliophysics Division, and
is awaiting launch in Fall 2009. NASA funded a mission-level study for
EXIST. There were no mission-level activities for the ARISE activity
this decade.
In the Small Initiative category lower priority activities included
recommendations for augmented funding in various areas of basic
research at NASA and for the Advanced Cosmic-ray Composition Experiment
for the Space Station (ACCESS). Agency policy decisions regarding usage
and access to the International Space Station shifted the focus of
cosmic-ray experiments to balloon borne payloads. NASA flew several
such payloads during the decade. NASA has kept the level of funding for
Theory and Laboratory astrophysics essentially constant throughout the
decade despite several directed reductions in the broad area of
research and analysis [out of which Theory and Laboratory astrophysics
are funded]. The Astrophysics Division has recently augmented its
funded postdoctoral programs to levels at or above those recommended in
the decadal survey. Finally, this past year saw a successful test of
the first Ultra-long Duration Balloon. NASA is now considering what
payloads would be good candidates for this type of balloon platform.
The report also endorsed continuation of a vigorous Explorer
program (page 9). Since the 2001 decadal survey, NASA has launched the
GALEX and Swift missions, as well as the Kepler mission in March 2009
(the Kepler mission to search for Earth-sized planets was selected in
the Planetary Science Division's Discovery Program, which like the
Explorer Program is a line of competitively-selected Principal
Investigator-led missions). The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer
(WISE) is planned for launch this December, and the Nuclear
Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) is being developed for launch in
2011.
In addition to these new initiatives the AANM report reaffirmed the
community's interest in NASA completing projects initiated in the
previous decades: the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy
(SOFIA), the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), and the fifth Hubble
Servicing Mission (HST-SM4). SOFIA will be conducting early science
flight in 2010 and is expected to reach full operational readiness in
2014. Extensive study and technology development efforts for SIM were
conducted throughout the decade. As a result of these efforts NASA
better understood the SIM mission and its costs and determined that
there were not sufficient funds to fully develop the mission within the
decade. In May 2009 HST-SM4 was successfully completed with all mission
objectives being achieved. In addition, all early instrument tests are
going well and HST is expected to be returning science again later this
summer.
Planetary Science:
In contrast to the Astrophysics decadal survey, the 2003-2013
decadal survey for planetary science, entitled ``New Frontiers in Solar
System Exploration'' (NFSSE, published in 2003) started its list of
mission priorities with smaller missions and moved to medium and large.
In today's terms, it proceeds from Discovery missions to New Frontiers
missions to Outer Planets Flagship missions. In addition, it
prioritized Mars missions separately from other Planetary Science
missions.
As recommended in NFSSE, NASA has continued the existing series of
Discovery missions. Dawn is on its way to the asteroids Vesta (arriving
in 2011) and Ceres (arriving in 2015). The MErcury Surface, Space
ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging mission (MESSENGER) mission
completed its very successful second flyby of Mercury in October 2008,
with its third flyby scheduled for September 2009, and its insertion
into Mercury's orbit on schedule for March 2011. The Gravity Recovery
and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission is on track for launch in 2011.
In addition, NASA is preparing a Discovery Announcement of Opportunity
for release later this year to begin planning the next Discovery
missions. Also in the ``small'' investment category, the NFSSE
recommended an extended mission for Cassini. The Cassini Extended
Mission is underway and is providing excellent data about Saturn and
its moons, rings, and magnetosphere. The Mars Science Laboratory,
recently renamed Curiosity after a national naming contest, is now
scheduled for launch in late 2011.
NASA also fulfilled the recommendation in NFSSE to establish the
New Frontiers Program within NASA's Planetary Science budget. The New
Horizons and Juno missions were selected via the first two New Horizons
Announcements of Opportunity. The New Horizons mission, which is
addressing the science objectives of the NFSSE's Kuiper Belt-Pluto
Explorer, will rendezvous with Pluto in 2015: NASA's Juno mission, a
Jupiter polar orbiter (without probes), is progressing toward its
planned launch, also in 2011.
Proposals for other missions in this class included in NFSSE for
launch between 2003-2013 (including South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample
Return, Venus In Situ Explorer, Comet Surface Sample Return) as well as
several `candidate missions for flight after 2013' (Geophysical Network
Science, Asteroid Rover/Sample Return, to Observer, Trojan/Centaur
Reconnaissance Flyby) are currently being solicited under the New
Frontiers 3 Announcement of Opportunity (AO), with proposals due on
July 31, 2009. These and other candidates mentioned in NFSSE were re-
affirmed by the NRC prior to the release of the NF-3 AO.
NASA announced in January 2009 that the Europa mission will be the
next Outer Planet Flagship (OPF) mission (the survey's highest priority
large mission), to be followed by a Titan mission which was highlighted
in the NFSSE report as a candidate mission for beyond 2013. NASA is
working closely with the European Space Agency (ESA) on plans for a
joint OPF mission that may also include an ESA-provided Ganymede
observer similar to what was also included in the `candidates for
flight after 2013' list in NFSSE.
For Mars missions, the NFSSE recommended missions in small, medium,
and large categories. In the small category, the report recommended
continuation of the Mars Scout line of competed, Principal
Investigator-led missions, and a Mars Upper Atmosphere Orbiter. The
Mars Scout mission Phoenix successfully landed in the northern polar
region of Mars and completed its mission in 2008. The next Mars Scout
mission is the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) mission,
which also fulfills the upper atmosphere orbiter recommendation.
NFSSE recommended the Mars Science Laboratory mission, and this
mission is in development for a 2011 launch. The NFSSE identified MSL
as a medium-class mission, as it did not include the cost of
radioactive power supplies, a launch vehicle, or complete operations
costs; nor had the instrument complement been selected. The other NFSSE
medium class Mars mission concept was a long-lived lander network; this
concept has been studied, but has not been initiated as a mission in
this decade.
Finally, NFSSE recommended beginning planning on a Mars Sample
Return (MSR) mission for implementation in the decade 2013-2023. MSR
concepts have been studied, but mission formulation and implementation
have not yet begun. The cost of an MSR mission is such that major
international collaborations and contributions will be required. But
MSR remains the goal of NASA's Mars Exploration Program.
Life and Physical Sciences Space Research:
Pursuant to direction in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the
FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), NASA has asked the
NRC to conduct a decadal survey to establish priorities and provide
recommendations for life and physical sciences research in microgravity
and partial gravity for the 2010-2020 decade. The decadal survey report
will provide updated strategic planning advice from representatives of
the U.S. research and Technology community to help NASA to define
appropriate investments in life and physical sciences research. This
study will be the first of its kind regarding this research arena.
Recommendations on the timeline and sequence of research from the
NRC decadal study will allow NASA to develop an implementation plan
that will impact future exploration missions. The specific objectives
of this NRC decadal survey are the following:
Define research categories that are required to
enable exploration missions or those that are enabled or
facilitated because of exploration missions;
Define and prioritize an integrated life and physical
sciences research portfolio;
Develop a timeline from 2010-2020 and define inter-
dependencies for objectives;
Identify terrestrial, airborne, and space-based
platforms and facilities that could most cost-effectively
achieve the objectives;
Explain how achieving the objectives will enable
exploration, produce knowledge, or provide benefits to space
and other applications;
Identify potential research synergies between NASA
and other U.S. Government agencies, as well as with commercial
entities and international partners; and,
Summarize future research objectives beyond 2020.
Although this is the first NRC decadal study in this research area,
past NASA studies have been instrumental in helping to set NASA's
research priorities. A recent example is related to establishing
research priorities for NASA's space biomedical research program that
includes ISS research activities as a central component to reducing the
risks to crews for future exploration missions. The National Academies
through the Institute of Medicine completed its review (July 2008) of
the potential hazards and health issues related to long-duration space
flight. These risks frame the research to be undertaken by NASA to
mitigate the health dangers to crew members. ISS biomedical research is
critical to mitigating 17 of the 28 human health risks relevant to
exploration. This review builds on the previous National Academies work
done for the Bioastronautics Roadmap--a framework developed and used by
NASA to assist in identifying research priorities and technology
development, establishing exposure standards, and guiding resource
allocation. The resulting IOM report, A Risk Reduction Strategy for
Human Exploration of Space: A Review of NASA's Bioastronautics Roadmap
(IDM, 2006), focused its findings and recommendations on accelerating
countermeasure and technology development; establishing a safe
radiation exposure level for all relevant risks; and improving the
process by which the content of the Roadmap was represented,
communicated, and kept current.
Q4b. To what extent does the FY 2010 budget request include funding to
begin work on priorities to be recommended in the next three decadal
surveys?
A4b. In the FY 2010 President's budget request the NASA sustains
support for mission candidates being considered by the decadal survey,
such as SIM Lite, IXO, LISA and JDEM, until the decadal survey report
is issued in summer 2010. Out-year projections in the FY 2010 request
position the division to begin supporting results of the decadal survey
through funding available in Future Missions lines. The distribution of
funds among the Cosmic Origins program, Physics of the Cosmos program,
ExopIanet Exploration program, and basic research and technology will
be adjusted to reflect decadal survey priorities and the estimated
costs of high priority missions in the FY 2012 and subsequent budget
requests. The Agency has requested that the decadal survey recommend
how future investments might be balanced among new small, medium, and
large mission initiatives, extending on-orbit operations of existing
missions, mission enabling technology investments, and research grants.
NASA has funding in the competed mission lines (i.e., Discovery,
Mars Scout, and New Frontiers) to support Planetary Science missions
identified in the next decadal survey. The final amount of funds
available, however, will depend on the timing and content of the next
Planetary Science decadal survey. The next Planetary Science decadal
survey will not be released until 2011 and will cover the period from
2013 to 2023. However, only 2013 and 2014 are within the five-year
budget horizon in the President's FY 2010 budget request.
The President's FY 2010 budget request provides out-year funding to
support new missions recommended in the next decadal survey, however,
the ability of the FY 2010 budget request to meet the mission
recommendations of a future decadal survey will depend on several
factors. First and foremost, a lot depends on what the National Academy
of Sciences recommends in the form, size (small, medium or large) and
complexity of the missions. In addition, NASA and ESA are discussing
how to more closely collaborate on both Mars missions and the Jupiter
Outer Planet Flagship. The outcome of those NASA-ESA discussions could
affect the amount of NASA funds available to support missions
recommended in the future decadal survey. The more the Europeans are
willing to contribute to the joint Mars and OPF missions, the more NASA
funding is freed up to support missions recommended in the next decadal
survey.
NASA has worked with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
improve the cost realism of missions recommended in the various decadal
surveys. Cost estimates from NASA center-proposed missions will be
concurred in by NASA Headquarters before they are submitted to the NAS.
Further, we are requiring the NAS to contract for independent cost
analysis to ensure that each decadal survey-considered mission has some
fidelity to its budget estimate.
Finally, since the first-ever decadal survey for life and physical
sciences space research is currently under development by the NRC, it
is not possible to identify recommended priorities that are contained
in the FY 2010 budget. The results of this decadal survey will assist
in defining and aligning NASA's space life and physical sciences
research based on external experts from the U.S. research and
technology community. Further, the recommendations regarding the
timeline and sequence of research will allow NASA to develop a research
plan and define appropriate investments in life and physical sciences
research consistent with national space policy and goals.
Q5. Shuttle transition and retirement costs are quantified in this
budget request on the order of about $400 million with possible
unfunded threats of $200 million to $300 million. This is a far cry
from the $2-$3 billion level mentioned a few years ago. What enabled
NASA to make such a big reduction in its estimate? Are there any
assumptions, if not realized, that could increase your $400 million
estimate?
A5. The NASA estimates of the cost of Shuttle transition and retirement
(T&R) have decreased consistently over the past few years. This is due
in part because the Agency's Constellation Program requirements are
becoming more and more refined, and NASA has gained an improved
understanding of which assets may be transferable to that program. NASA
treated the first estimates as approximations and chose not to
implement these estimates in formal budgets. This allowed the team to
understand the cost drivers and systematically remove, refine, and
reduce the cost drivers. The Government Services Administration has
been helpful in supporting NASA with disposition requirements
interpretation and changing processes to allow for more the effective
disposition of retired assets. These practical approaches have reduced
the estimates for transition. In addition, NASA has explored options
for disposing of unassigned assets more cost effectively (e.g., using
the DOD approach of dismantling, rather than destroying, certain pieces
of equipment).
The Agency's estimates for T&R costs could change depending on the
results of the ongoing Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and the
Administration's subsequent decisions.
Q6. If the Augustine committee does not recommend continuing to
operate the ISS beyond 2015, what, if any, alternative facilities does
NASA have for conducting the type of microgravity research needed to
enable human space flight beyond low-Earth orbit?
A6. NASA recognizes the value of undertaking research in gravitational
and space biology, and as such, NASA utilizes both ground-based and
space-based experiments to try to document the health risks to future
explorers. Recently, NASA was directed by Congress to have the National
Research Council conduct a Decadal Survey to help the Agency establish
priorities and provide recommendations for life and physical sciences
research in microgravity and partial gravity for the 2010-2020 decade.
NASA expects the report to be completed by fall 2010. This report,
along with the findings of the Augustine Commission, will influence
future Agency plans for microgravity research.
If the ISS is retired, the Agency would plan to continue depending
on a variety of platforms that offer varying amounts of time to
simulate microgravity: 1) Sounding Rockets; 2) Drop Towers; 3)
Parabolic flights; and, 4) Domestic and International free-flyers. In
addition, some of the human research and countermeasures validation
would be conducted in analog environments such as long-duration bed
rest studies. As noted earlier, NASA currently uses these research
platforms to develop and validate countermeasures for a large number of
human health risks and to conduct high priority research in other life
and physical science disciplines to gain an insight of the underlying
phenomenon associated with gravity dependent processes.
Q7. In FY 2010, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate plans to
realign its NextGen work to distinguish research conducted on concepts
and technologies from that focused on systems analysis, integration,
and evaluation. Will these changes result in accelerating transition of
NASA's research to FAA operational use?
A7. The intent of the changes to the projects within the Airspace
Systems Program is to provide a structure that will allow more
efficient and effective management of efforts to conceive and develop
advanced NextGen technologies while reducing risk and accelerating
timely transition those technologies to implementing organizations. The
new structure will support and enhance existing efforts to initiate
integrated system research in key areas of R&D gaps identified by JPDO
and will include the collaborative engagement with the FAA as planned
within the recently created Research Transition Teams to accelerate
progress for NextGen advancements.
The work will transition, from the laboratory to the field, key
concepts within the baseline Airspace Systems Program integrating
surface, terminal, transitional airspace and en route capabilities to
enable operational enhancements envisioned by NextGen. Since the
technical maturity of research concepts will largely take place within
the Concept and Technology Development project, resources must be well
invested there to generate the research products to transition at later
points as part of integrated systems. In fact, some capabilities are
expected to be transferred at low maturity levels directly from the
Concept and Technology Development project, because the FAA has
expressed a need for some advanced algorithms for early incorporation
in current air traffic control tools.
The development of infrastructure for systems analysis,
integration, and evaluation will be managed within the Systems
Analysis, Integration, and Evaluation project. It will assess and
validate collective impact of technologies using fast-time modeling,
simulation, and field evaluations and will feed back results into the
baseline program to enhance and validate research concepts. This
validation and integration of research products in relevant
environments will be a multi-year process, and will accelerate and
reduce the risk of transition of research products to the implementing
agency.
Q8. The Committee expressed concern that adequate maintenance and
upgrading of facilities be performed on a regular basis in the 2008
NASA Authorization Act. 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 percent over the next five years.'' In view of
the projected funding for facilities and maintenance projected through
FY 2014, how long will it likely take to eliminate this backlog?
A8. NASA will present the requested data as part of the FY 2011 budget
request.
Questions submitted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. Another impact of the tight budgets you have been given in recent
years is that a number of your programs appear to have very thin
reserves. For example, the FY 2010 budget request for the Space Shuttle
program has minimal reserves at the same time that NASA is
acknowledging that the Shuttle program has cost and schedule threats
that it must guard against. Thus the budget request assumes that the
flight schedule can be maintained but with almost no leeway to deal
with uncertainties. What options does NASA have if unforeseen events do
materialize?
A1. Operational programs typically have much lower levels of funding
reserves than do development programs simply because of the steady-
state nature of the work being done. In addition, the potential
technical challenges to operational programs tend to be better
understood than those of programs still in development. The Space
Shuttle Program has sufficient resources to fly out the remaining
manifest, including the flight of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer
(AMS), before the end of FY 2010. NASA intends to fly out the Shuttle
manifest safely as possible until its retirement. However, as there is
no budget for flying into FY 2011, the Agency would have to determine
the optimal approach for providing resources to support missions
delayed beyond this point.
Q2. An important part of NASA's portfolio is its science program. What
are the most significant challenges in space science and Earth science
over the period covered by the President's FY 2010 five year budget
runout? To what extent can those challenges be addressed with the
resources requested in the FY 2010 budget? Where are the shortfalls
that will need attention in future budget requests?
A2. NASA faces the challenge of implementing the 27 innovative science
missions, including NOAA reimbursable GOES missions the Agency has in
formulation or development, but these are fully funded in the FY 2010
budget request and run out.
NASA's science priorities are guided by NRC decadal surveys, one of
which (Earth Science) was received for the first time in 2007 and three
of which will be updated and delivered over the next three years
(Astrophysics, Planetary Science, and Heliophysics). These surveys
convey science community priorities, and their results influence budget
submissions. The FY 2010 budget request, along with resources provided
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allows for steady
progress in achieving the priorities recommended in the current decadal
surveys in Earth science, planetary science, astrophysics, and
heliophysics. While NASA expects the forthcoming surveys to continue to
guide these programs, managing scientists' expectations that NASA will
be able to fund all of their priorities consistent with the budget
horizon will be a challenge.
Q3. The FY 2010 budget request for Earth Science does not include
resources to fly a replacement of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory,
which was lost due to a launch failure in February 2009, or a similar
sensor. What impact would a decision to develop a replacement for OCO
have on the overall Earth Science program if additional funds for an
OCO replacement were not provided?
A3. Following the loss of OCO in February 2009, the mission's science
team concluded that an OCO reflight or a functionally equivalent
mission was necessary to advance carbon cycle science and to provide
the basis for thoughtful policy decisions and societal benefits. In
response, NASA evaluated a range of options to develop and launch a
replacement instrument or acquire data from international missions. Of
the options under consideration, the most mature and best-understood
option is to rebuild an OCO mission with as few changes as possible and
launching the so-called ``Carbon Copy'' into its planned orbit as an
element of the ``A-Train.'' Such a mission could have a minimum
development time of 28 months and cost approximately $331M.
NASA is working to implement the balanced program recommended by
the National Research Council's Decadal Survey in Earth Science, Earth
Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next
Decade and Beyond. In preparing its recommendations, the NRC assumed
the successful launch of OCO and therefore did not recommend any near-
term carbon monitoring missions which would be included in NASA's
budget. If a decision was made to re-fly OCO and if the required
funding for an OCO replacement would come from within the Earth Science
portfolio, it would delay the development and launch readiness dates of
existing or new missions.
Q4. The FY 2010 budget request for NASA's Education programs
represents a reduction of $43M from the FY 2009 enacted budget. What is
the reason for the reduction and what was cut?
A4. The President's budget request of $126.1M for NASA Education
reflects the funding required to execute the Agency's education plan in
FY 2010. The FY 2010 budget request for NASA Education is an increase
of $10.5M from the FY 2009 budget request.
The FY 2010 budget request does not contain the Congressional plus-
ups of FY 2009 for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship
Program (Space Grant) and the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR), nor does the FY 2010 budget request
include funding for other Congressionally-directed activities added in
FY 2009.
The FY 2009 budget request was $115.6M, with $169.2M enacted.
The enacted FY 2009 budget included the following Congressional
modifications from the original budget request:
+53.6M, Funds four Congressionally-directed projects (Competitive
Educational Grants Program; Global Climate Change Education; Science
Museums and Planetariums Grants; and NASA visitor centers) and
increases two existing projects (Space Grant and EPSCoR).
+$16M, Fund a Competitive Educational Grant project
as directed
+$10M, Fund a Global Climate Change Education project
as directed
+$7M, Fund a Science Museums and Planetarium Grants
project as directed
+$7M, Fund Education projects at the 10 NASA visitor
centers as directed
+$11.7M, Increase EPSCoR to $20.0M as directed
+$11.3M, Increase Space Grant to $40M as directed
-$8.9M, Elementary, Secondary and e-Education core
programming
-$1.0M, Informal Education core programming
+$0.1M, Minority University Research and Education
Program
+$0.5M, Higher Education programming
Q5. What specific insight do you have in the progress of the two COTS
vendors? Is simply meeting the scheduled contract milestones to justify
vendor payment enough to give you confidence that each vendor can
perform agreed to flight demonstrations?
A5. NASA is pleased with the progress that our funded COTS partners
have made to date in meeting the terms of their Space Act Agreements
(SAAB). Both commercial partners continue to make steady progress in
achieving their cargo demonstration milestones. While each has
experienced some milestone delays, this is not unexpected, since both
partners have aggressive, success-oriented schedules, and are facing
challenges typical of a space flight development program. As such, NASA
sees no reason to doubt either company's ability to achieve its desired
objectives--that of demonstrating commercial cargo delivery to and from
the International Space Station (ISS).
As of July 2, 2009, SpaceX had completed the first 14 of 22
milestones and has received a total of $234M in payments with $44M
available for the retraining milestones. SpaceX has completed the
majority of Dragon capsule qualification testing. Technical progress is
being made and qualification testing is progressing on the Falcon 9
launch vehicle as well. SpaceX has begun manufacturing the flight
Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 to be used for the COTS demonstration
flight 1.
Recently, SpaceX notified NASA that the company expects delays in
completing its three demonstration flights. According to the terms of
the current SAA, SpaceX was supposed to complete its first
demonstration flight in June 2009 so as to allow additional time for
Falcon 9 manufacturing and testing programs. SpaceX now expects to
complete its first demonstration flight in January 2010, with the
second and third flights now planned for June 2010 and August 2010,
respectively.
The Orbital demonstration flight is currently planned for March
2011 due to the company's decision to change its cargo transportation
architecture from an unpressurized (external) cargo system to a
pressurized (internal) cargo system. However, delays such as these are
not unexpected since both partners have aggressive, success-oriented
schedules, and are facing challenges typical of a space flight
development programs. It is important to note that NASA will not pay
for any milestone missed until the milestone is successfully completed
per the SAA and approved by NASA. Should a milestone be missed, NASA
will evaluate partner progress made and recommend future actions that
are in the best interest of the government.
Although meeting existing SAA milestones is a primary indicator of
progress, and completion does increase our confidence levels, it is not
the only indicator. The Commercial Crew & Cargo Program Office (C3P0)
maintains technical, programmatic, and schedule insight into the COTS
partners' progress. The program office includes representation from the
Safety Technical and the Engineering Technical Authorities who provide
independent progress insight for each partner. The ISS program office
maintains independent insight into partner progress as well, in order
to verify ISS visiting vehicle interface and safety requirement
compliance.
The C3PO has established the COTS Advisory Team (CAT) comprised of
approximately 100 NASA technical experts from across the Agency. These
experts review partner technical and programmatic progress for each
milestone and provide progress assessments to the C3PO. Additionally,
they participate in all major design reviews providing technical review
comments back to our partners. The CAT provides another method by which
NASA gains confidence that our partners will be able performs their
flight demonstrations.
As mentioned above, each COTS partner must successfully verify they
comply 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 dock to the ISS. Both COTS
partners are currently working with the ISS program on a daily basis to
ensure they meet the ISS Visiting Vehicle requirements, providing
independent insight into their progress and building confidence.
Please see milestone charts on attached pages.
Q6. After the successful Hubble servicing mission, it seems that the
ability to perform human repair is something worth keeping. What plans
are there, if any, for including provisions in the design for putting
some sort of robotic arm on Orion or its service module?
A6. The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle was designed from the beginning
to be a versatile spacecraft, with the possibility that additional
capabilities not included in the current baseline design could be added
at a later date, depending on mission need and funding availability.
Currently, NASA does not have a requirement for a robotic arm for
Orion's missions to the International Space Station and the Moon.
However, should a requirement arise, and additional funding becomes
available, the Orion could be adapted via future upgrades or ``kits''
to include a robotic arm, for example. The baseline Orion architecture
has already allocated mass and volume for ``unpressurized cargo,''
which will accommodate such kits and thereby precluding the need for a
redesign of the Orion vehicle architecture should such upgrades be
required at a later date.
Q7. Now that the Exploration strategy is essentially put on hold for
three months, how is NASA proceeding with attempting to secure
international participation in future exploration activities? How is
NASA's experience with the ISS informing discussions with potential
exploration partners?
A7. During the Review of the Human Spaceflight Plans, NASA did not
initiate any new human lunar exploration activities. That said, NASA
has continued to pursue its four pronged international engagement
strategy related to establishing interest in lunar exploration
cooperation. Specifically, NASA continued to: (1) meet NASA's
commitments to its International Space Station (ISS) Partners; (2)
conduct multilateral dialogue with space organizations which have
expressed interest in the Moon; (3) conduct bilateral technical
discussions and identify areas of potential cooperation; and, (4) seek
other complementary initiatives that support NASA's plans to explore
beyond Low Earth Orbit with humans and robots.
NASA's early decision to meet its ISS commitments after the Space
Shuttle's return to flight and NASA's leading role in the development
of common principles for exploration among 14 space agencies under the
banner of the ``Global Exploration Strategy (GES)'' have convinced
potential international partners that NASA is serious about
international cooperation in exploration. Multilaterally, NASA led the
development and release in May 2007 of the Global Exploration Strategy
Framework Document as well as its follow-on, 13-agency coordination
mechanism called the International Space Exploration Coordination Group
(ISECG). Under NASA's leadership, the ISECG is continuing work to
define candidate human and robotic lunar architectures.
Bilaterally, NASA has had initial significant successes in
completing lunar robotic cooperative agreements with India
(Chandryaan), Japan (Selene/Kaguya), and Russia (LRO). Other
discussions and precursor activities are underway with space agencies
in such countries as Canada, ESA, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Russia, and the United Kingdom. Finally, NASA is seeking other
complementary initiatives such leading the development of a
multilateral set of lessons learned from ISS to help exploration,
advocating more research using the ISS as a testbed that feeds forward
to human lunar exploration, and stimulating international scientific
interest in the Moon through the NASA-led International Lunar Network
(ILN) concept.
NASA's success in its international discussions continues to help
lay the foundation for future sustained and affordable space
exploration activities by the United States.
Question submitted by Representative Ben R. Lujan
NASA's participation in NM spaceport:
Q1. Last year NASA examined whether the NM space flight program could
carry NASA instruments and investigators into space cost effectively.
The Ames Research Center briefed NM on the potential of NASA's use of
the NM spaceport for sub-orbital research. Does NASA intend to pursue
this potential, or continue studying the use of sub-orbital passenger
carrying capabilities in the NM spaceport?
A1. NASA is studying the use of commercially available, passenger
carrying sub-orbital rockets as a science platform, and has created a
Human Sub-orbital Flight Program led by the Space Operations Mission
Directorate (SOMD). The SOMD will work with service providers as
capabilities become available to acquire services to support NASA users
selected through a competitive process.
The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is always interested in
any platform that enables science. The SMD has issued multiple calls
for Earth and space science investigation ideas. SMD issued two
Requests for Information (RFIs) (Feb/Mar 2008; Sep/Dec 2008) seeking
expressions of interest in potential NASA science investigations and
payloads/experiments taking advantage of the new platforms. The
response was low for both RFIs, totaling only six responses suggesting
a concept for an Earth or space science investigation (14 responses
suggested Exploration Systems Mission Directorate-relevant
investigations).
A NASA Research Announcement was issued (Aug/Dec 2008) seeking
proposals for funded concept studies in Earth and space science using
any capability of the new platforms. Again, the number of responses was
low--17 compliant proposals. These were subjected to standard community
peer review. Most proposals fared poorly in peer review, rated as poor
science or poor use of the platform. The only highly rated proposal was
selected for a one-year funded concept study--``Firefly on Demand,''
PI: Joanne Hill, USRA/GSFC, for study of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes
emitted during thunderstorms and their impact on upper atmosphere
energetics.
While these efforts have not identified uses for such platforms for
the space and Earth sciences, NASA is continuing to explore this
concept and the potential benefits it might bring to other areas of
research and technology development. Since the vehicles to provide
these services are still in various stages of development and testing,
it will take time for this activity to mature.
Questions submitted by Representative Charles A. Wilson
Q1. How is NASA working with DOD, DOE, FAA, and other agencies to
enable aircraft to operate with non-petroleum based fuels?
A1. NASA is working with a number of agencies to investigate non-
petroleum fuels for aircraft use. The Agency is performing research to
develop combustors with reduced emissions capable of operating on a
wide range of fuels. While recent flight demonstrations have shown that
current aircraft engines can operate with alternative fuels, NASA
intends to develop methods to maximize the efficiency of combustors
regardless of the type of fuel. In addition, NASA will ensure that the
differences between the fuels are well understood and that there are no
long-term detrimental issues with utilizing alternative fuels. In this
activity, NASA is actively engaged in a number of research activities.
Some of the main ones include developing and evaluating advanced
combustion concepts using conventional and alternative fuels, improving
computational combustion codes to improve emissions predictive
capability to enable better combustion systems to be designed, and
emissions testing of aircraft engines. Other aspects of this research
includes characterizing new fuels to insure they meet the minimum
requirements (e.g., freeze point, flash point, etc.) and that lab
burner and engine tests prove feasibility of safely operating on
alternative fuels.
The Air Force has a very large program to certify and investigate
the use of non-petroleum fuels for their fleet. NASA has benefited from
collaborating with the Air Force on this alternative fuel research. The
Agency has purchased two Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) fuels in conjunction
with the Air Force and is currently involved in a new purchase to
obtain a substantial quantity of biojet fuel for our research
activities. NASA has also collaborated with the Air Force in exchanging
fuel property data for a number of alternative fuels. The Air Force has
provided data to NASA on their engine emissions measurements using
alternative fuels. NASA and the Air Force recently collaborated on
emissions testing using a Pratt and Whitney 308 engine with F-T fuel
and the Aviation Alternative Fuel Emissions Experiment (AAFEX) using a
NASA DC-8 aircraft with two F-T fuels. The Air Force was an active
participant in both of these tests and sent a research team and
instrumentation to participate in the tests. NASA has also teamed with
the Air Force Research Laboratory for combustion flame tube testing
using a CFM-56 sector with a Fischer-Tropsch fuel. Some of NASA
sponsored work on alternative fuel chemical kinetics was recently
provided to the Air Force for their use.
NASA also works with the FAA for non-petroleum fuels. NASA
participates as a member of the FAA Commercial Aviation Alternative
Fuel Initiative (CAAFI) and attends CAAFI meetings, serves on a number
of CAAFI teams, and participates in road mapping exercises. Through the
CAAFI coalition NASA also learns what research others are performing,
learns what fuel and emissions characteristics data are needed for
alternative fuel certification and then develops roadmaps for NASA
alternative fuels research aimed at obtaining and disseminating the
required information.
NASA has also worked with The EPA on sampling emissions from
aircraft in the Aircraft Particle Emissions Experiment and AAFEX
measurement campaigns to evaluate emissions from numerous aircraft
engines. EPA sent a research team and participated in these experiments
at various locations across the country. NASA is also working with DOE
in the biofuels area. The Agency currently has a space act agreement in
process for DOE to characterize oil samples obtained from various
biofeedstock sources.
Q2. How can NASA's capabilities in aerospace power technologies and
systems be applied to help solve our nation's energy challenges?
A2. As a research and development agency, NASA has a unique role in
government to support civil aeronautics research. Therefore, the Agency
can have the most significant impact by focusing on improving the
efficiency (and coincidently minimizing the environmental impact) of
the air transportation system. The NASA Aeronautics program conducts
cutting-edge, long-term research in areas that are well aligned with
the National Aeronautics R&D Policy guidance and with the high-priority
national aeronautics R&D goals and time-phased objectives established
by the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D and Related Infrastructure.
Much of NASA's civil research can also directly benefit military
aircraft. Through close partnership with the DOD, NASA also helps to
improve the efficiency of military aircraft. The impact of this
research is most profound for the U.S. Air Force because fuel costs
have a major impact on the service.
While it is important for NASA to focus on air transportation
challenges, other sectors can benefit from NASA's technologies. Since
the restructuring, there has been a renewed emphasis on the publication
of research results, preferably in peer reviewed venues. A primary
reason for this emphasis is to help ensure technical excellence of
NASA's work, but another significant benefit is the dissemination of
knowledge to the broader community. Such dissemination facilitates the
transfer of knowledge in areas such as computational fluid dynamics,
materials and structures, and aerothermodynamics that may help meet the
broader energy challenges that face the Nation.
From a space perspective, as part of the NASA Exploration
Technology Development Program (ETDP), NASA is developing advanced
lithium-ion batteries and hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells to store energy at
the lunar outpost, and to power lunar rovers and space suits. These
energy storage technologies could help to increase the driving range of
terrestrial electric vehicles, and to increase the battery life of
portable consumer electronic devices such as cell phones and laptop
computers. Work on these technologies is taking place at the NASA Glenn
Research Center (GRC) in Ohio and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
California. As part of the ETDP, GRC also is developing Stirling power
convertors for small nuclear reactors and radioisotope power systems to
generate power for the lunar outpost. Stirling convertors could be used
for Earth-based power generation systems that use concentrated solar
energy or waste heat from power plants.
The NASA Johnson Space Center in Texas, in coordination with other
NASA centers, has the lead for developing lunar electric rovers that
will be used by the Constellation Program during human lunar missions.
The largest of the rovers, named the Lunar Electric Rover, is designed
to carry two astronauts hundreds of miles across the lunar surface.
These rovers share many common technology development requirements with
electric vehicles on Earth (energy storage like batteries, electric
motors, recharging systems, new tires, etc.). Because of this need,
NASA is pursuing partnerships both with other government agencies and
U.S. industry partners to ensure NASA is at the forefront of electric
vehicle technology development. The technologies developed for the
Lunar Electric Rover may be helpful in enabling technologies for
electric cars and electric heavy equipment used on Earth.
NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program has also supported renewable
energy research and partnerships, with 76 projects recently, including
45 from Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), 18 partnership
projects, seven jointly-funded Seed Fund technology development
projects, five Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) projects and
one Centennial Challenges competition. The projects involved many
technologies including solar power, fuel cell technology, laser power,
and nano-material and cryogenic applications.
The attached summary was developed in March 2009, in response to a
request from the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for
information to support the Subcommittee's planned round table regarding
renewable energy.
Q3. Given the history of NASA in spinning out commercializations, does
the committee feel NASA is receiving adequate funding for support of
patent protection, licensing, and commercialization activities with
companies to develop new technologies?
A3. The NASA Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) conducts technology
development to meet the Agency's needs and technology transfer for a
broad spectrum of technologies having applicability across key U.S.
industrial sectors. In addition, IPP provides and facilitates a
grassroots opportunity for U.S. businesses, academia and citizens to
apply their innovations to NASA missions. Funding for IPP activities
pays dividends toward U.S. industrial competitiveness in global
markets, and in sparking young people's interest in STEM disciplines.
The current budget plans for FY 2010 and out years in the IPP
budget will lead to a reduction in current service levels, especially
in Partnership Development. Partnership Development includes licensing
out of NASA technology and facilitating the protection of the
government's rights in its inventions, as mandated by a long history of
legislation, as well as partnering with external entities for joint
development of critical, near-term, cutting edge technologies having
both NASA mission use and commercial applicability.
Q4. What are NASA's plans to invest in technologies to improve the
efficiency of turbine engines to reduce carbon emissions?
A4. The most direct way to reduce carbon emissions in the near-term is
to improve the efficiency of jet aircraft engines since approximately
20 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted for each gallon of aviation
fuel burned. The key to quiet, efficient aircraft propulsion is to move
large amounts of air at velocities that are not much higher than the
aircraft's forward flight speed. To date NASA has been moving in this
direction with ever-larger turbofan engines. However, we are
approaching the point where nacelle size, weight, and drag are
offsetting the noise and efficiency gains. We are currently performing
research aimed at lowering the weight and drag of nacelles for ultra-
high bypass turbofans and increasing the fuel-burn efficiency of the
core engine which powers the large fan. One of the next steps in
improving engine efficiency is open-rotor technology which removes the
nacelle and uses large-diameter prop-fan rotors, but that too has its
limitations. Currently, open-rotors are noisier than large turbofans
and we are performing research aimed at significantly reducing the
noise in order to capitalize on the fuel-burn benefits which open-
rotors offer compared to large turbofans. Technology improvements to
ultra-high bypass turbofans and open-rotor engines are expected to
enable new engines in the 2020 time frame which burn 25 percent less
fuel than today's engines. Aircraft engine manufacturers as well as
Airbus and Boeing are considering open-rotor propulsion systems for the
next generation of single-aisle commercial transport aircraft, expected
to enter service around 2020. Part of their decision on whether to
adopt open-rotor technology rests on the success of our current efforts
at reducing the noise of open-rotors. More advanced propulsion
technologies are expected to involve hybrid propulsion systems in which
gas turbine engines drive electric generators which in turn power
electrically-driven fans, with many fans distributed along the
airframe. Other changes might involve embedding engines in the airframe
to eliminate the large nacelles which cause drag, or coupling gas
turbine engines with fuel cells to generate electric power for fans. In
general we envision propulsion architectures which no longer feature
just two or four large engines suspended below the aircraft wing.
Embedded-engine and distributed propulsion technologies are not
currently expected to be ready for entry into service until 2030 or
beyond.
In addition, NASA will continue to invest in advanced combustor
technologies that are more efficient than today's systems. An important
aspect of this work is to enable the development of combustors that can
operate at peak efficiencies with a variety of fuel types, including
alternative fuels such as biofuel. NASA has unique expertise with the
understanding and predicting the impact of these fuels on combustor
systems, and these contributions will help ensure that aircraft engines
can operate effectively if these new fuels become viable.
Q5. Current program plans for human space flight assign significant
roles and responsibilities and provide for commensurate funding and
workforce participation for a number of NASA Centers including the
Glenn Research Center. What will NASA do to insure that any changes in
plans resulting from the independent review of human space flight
activities will be implemented in a manner which continues to
effectively utilize the capabilities of the various Centers supporting
NASA's Exploration Mission?
A5. When Center exploration-related work assignments were determined in
2007, NASA followed a formal process in which current and future
potential center skills were assessed. The proposed lunar work
assignments were then coordinated with NASA senior management and
formally presented at the Senior Management Council for final Agency
approval. If changes are made following the Administration's response
to the independent Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans, NASA will
ensure that each Center contributes appropriately to the revised plan.
Q6. NASA is to be commended for its acknowledgement that industry,
academia, and non-profit organizations will be the implementers of
technology into products. The maturing and integrating of Aeronautics
technologies for accelerated transition to practical application is
important for both environmental and economic competitiveness reasons.
The Budget Request describes an acquisition strategy for the Integrated
Systems Research Program which allocates only $10 million of the $62.4
million of FY 2010 funding for grants, contracts, and cooperative
agreements with industry, academia, and non-profit organizations.
Please describe why such a small percentage of the budget is designated
for this effort, as well as the smaller sum, contained within that
figure, for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. What are the
plans to increase this amount in the future?
A6. The FY 2010 budget request for NASA Aeronautics Research of $507M
is adequate to support a healthy program that addresses aviation's
effect on the environment. This funding level allows the Agency to
continue the fundamental research approach that conducts cutting-edge,
long-term research in areas that are well aligned with the National
Aeronautics R&D Policy guidance and with the high-priority national
aeronautics R&D goals anal time-phased objectives established by the
National Plan for Aeronautics R&D and Related Infrastructure. In
addition, with the approximately $60M increase in funding request above
the FY 2009 President's budget request run-out, we will add a
significant systems-level research component centered on
environmentally friendly technologies. The Integrated Systems Research
Program (ISRP) will conduct research at an integrated system-level on
promising concepts and technologies and explore, assess and demonstrate
the benefits in a relevant environment. The goal of the first project
in ISRP, the Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) project, is to
explore and document the feasibility, benefits, and technical risks of
vehicle concepts and enabling technologies identified to have the
potential to mitigate the impact of aviation on the environment.
NASA's overall Aeronautics program achieves its expected role and
contributions within the current budget by focusing on NASA's unique
capabilities and by maximizing coordination and collaborations with
industry, academia, and other government agencies. We are able to fund
a workforce at four NASA research centers (Ames, Dryden, Glenn, and
Langley) that allows for robust implementation of our research programs
in such a manner that our workforce is sustained as a premier technical
organization and a true national asset. NASA has put many mechanisms in
place to engage academia and industry, including industry working
groups and technical interchange meetings at the program and project
level, Space Act Agreements (SAAB) for cooperative partnerships, and
the NASA Research Announcement (NRA) process that provides for full and
open competition for the best and most promising research ideas. It is
anticipated that these mechanisms, as well as competitive procurements,
will be utilized to involve the private sector in ISRP and ERA. NASA
plans to allocate $15M towards NRA in FY 2010, which equates to
roughly 24 percent of the program budget, which is greater than the
amount allocated by the other research programs. In addition to the
NRA, it is anticipated that a significant amount of the remaining funds
within the program will be used for out-of-house procurements on
advanced concepts and testing. An acquisition strategy plan will be
developed in FY 2009 to identify and outline the strategy for the
larger procurements and collaborative efforts of the project.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. On many occasions the previous NASA Administrator discussed
potential advantages of flying small NASA-research experiments aboard
human sub-orbital launch vehicles which are anticipated to be
operational within the next few years. It was his belief that this
could help reduce the cost of sub-orbital flight research by leveraging
the private sector and also bolstering the industry with an additional
market, as well as provide a cost-effective way to test micro-gravity
research payloads before being launched to the Space Station. This
committee has been a longtime supporter of micro-gravity research, and
is concerned about reductions in ISS research utilization in the coming
years. Last year there was some discussion within NASA as part of the
Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process about
budgeting approximately $5 million in FY 2010 to establish a Human Sub-
orbital Flight Program to enable and conduct scientific research aboard
human-tended launch vehicle services. What is the status of this
effort, and how much is in the FY 2010 budget for this purpose? Will
NASA provide funds this year so scientists can begin developing
experiments that could fly once these new vehicles become available?
A1. NASA is studying the use of commercially available, passenger
carrying sub-orbital rockets as a science platform, and has created a
Human Sub-orbital Flight Program led by the Space Operations Mission
Directorate (SOMD). The SOMD will work with service providers as
capabilities become available to acquire services to support NASA users
selected through a competitive process.
The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is always interested in
any platform that enables science. The SMD has issued multiple calls
for Earth and space science investigation ideas. NASA issued two
Requests for Information (RFIs) (Feb/Mar 2008; Sep/Dec 2008) seeking
expressions of interest in potential NASA science investigations and
payloads/experiments taking advantage of the new platforms. The
response was low for both RFIs, totaling only six responses suggesting
a concept for an Earth or space science investigation (14 responses
suggested Exploration Systems Mission Directorate-relevant
investigations).
A NASA Research Announcement was issued (Aug/Dec 2008) seeking
proposals for funded concept studies in Earth and space science using
any capability of the new platforms. Again, the number of responses was
low--17 compliant proposals. These were subjected to standard community
peer review. Most proposals fared poorly in peer review, rated as poor
science or poor use of the platform. The only highly-rated proposal was
selected for a one year funded concept study--``Firefly on Demand,''
PI: Joanne Hill, USRA/GSFC, for study of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes
emitted during thunderstorms and their impact on upper atmosphere
energetics.
While these efforts have not identified uses for such platforms for
the space and Earth sciences, NASA is continuing to explore this
concept and the potential benefits it might bring to other areas of
research and technology development. Since the vehicles to provide
these services are still in various stages of development and testing,
it will take time for this activity to mature. NASA is currently
assessing the level of resources to be committed to this effort in FY
2010.
Q2. Aeronautics research at NASA has suffered funding reductions over
the last ten years. As a consequence, the agency ``reshaped'' its
aeronautics R&D program to do more collaborative, foundational research
with industry, other federal agencies, and research institutions. To
what degree are industry, research institutions, and other federal
agencies collaborating with NASA? It is too soon yet to assess the
development and adoption of new technologies under this structure? If
so, when will NASA be better able to evaluate its progress?
A2. NASA is very pleased with the degree of collaboration that exists
with other government agencies, industry and the academic community.
NASA has established strong partnerships with other government agencies
and organizations, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Department of Defense (DOD), and the Joint Planning and Development
Office (JPDO). As a member of the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) Aeronautics Science and Technology Subcommittee, NASA is
pursuing a coordinated approach with its government partners to
managing and utilizing the Nation's research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure, which includes test facilities as
well as computational infrastructure. An example of how this
partnership is performing is exemplified by the Research Transition
Teams that have been established between NASA and the FAA. These teams
help ensure that the fundamental research that NASA leads can be
effectively transitioned to the FAA and ultimately implemented into the
air transportation system.
The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) NASA Research
Announcement (NRA) process has also been very successful. Since 2006,
NASA has issued awards for more than 380 research proposals from
organizations across the country. These efforts span from focused
research topics that involve a few researchers to complex
investigations that involve very large teams from industry and
academia. A key attribute of the ARMD NRA process is the focus on
collaboration. Almost every solicitation promotes collaboration and
encourages external researchers to propose work that is collaborative
with NASA researchers. Because of this focus, very few grants have been
issued. Instead, there is a large proportion of cooperative agreements
that are utilized because of the close interactions between NASA and
external personnel.
In addition to funded activities, NASA is engaged in a number of
non-reimbursable space act agreements with industry partners. ARMD has
established more than 68 of these Space Act Agreements since 2006.
While these collaborative efforts are important for advancing the
aeronautics technologies, they are also important mechanisms to
facilitate the transfer of knowledge between NASA and U.S. industry.
NASA utilizes the ``N+1, N+2, and N+3'' notation to indicate the
generation of aircraft that are expected to primarily benefit the long-
term cutting edge research that is conducted today. There is a
significant focus on technologies for the N+2 generation of aircraft
which are expected to enter service around 2025-2030. Therefore, there
is not an expectation that much of this research will be adopted today.
In fact, the development timelines for aircraft are so long that it is
unlikely that many of the technologies be developed by NASA today will
be implemented on the next generation of civil transports. However,
NASA has established challenging goals for future systems and is making
the high risk investments today that are needed to realize such
profound improvements in capabilities in the future. ARMD has refrained
from establishing definitive transition metrics because these tend to
promote the development of more incremental technologies. Instead the
focus is on enabling significant improvements to capabilities. If
successful these will be adopted and will make a difference. The ARMD
portfolio is quite broad, and while most technologies will not be
implemented in the near future, there are examples where some
technologies may make a difference in the near-term. For example, as a
result of collaboration under the NRA process, a new scheduling tool
has been developed that is estimated to save approximately $2.8M per
year for airlines operating into San Francisco.
Q3. The budget establishes a new Integrated Systems Research Program
within the Aeronautics Directorate. What is the role of this program,
and to what degree will it be able to validate or demonstrate promising
technologies?
A3. The Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP), a new $62.4M
program effort beginning in FY 2010, will conduct research at an
integrated system-level on promising concepts and technologies and
explore/assess/demonstrate the benefits in a relevant environment. The
integrated system-level research in this program will be coordinated
with on-going long-term, foundational research within the three other
research programs, and will focus specifically on maturing and
integrating technologies in major vehicle and operational systems and
subsystems for accelerated transition to practical application.
The goal of the first project in ISRP, the Environmentally
Responsible Aviation project, is to explore and document the
feasibility, benefits, and technical risks of vehicle concepts and
enabling technologies identified to have the potential to mitigate the
impact of aviation on the environment. Through system-level analysis,
promising vehicle and propulsion concepts and technologies will be
down-selected based on their potential benefit towards simultaneously
reducing fuel burn, noise and emissions. NASA will provide much more
informed trade space with validation in relevant environments for the
selected concepts and technologies by 2015, so that industry can
accelerate the introduction of these promising ideas in future product
development.
Q4. What provisions does NASA have in place if the two COTS
contractors are not able to develop their launch systems in time to
meet ISS cargo requirements by 2012? How will the void of cargo
services be filled?
A4. In the post-Shuttle era, the ISS will be supplied by domestically
developed commercial cargo services under the Commercial Resupply
Services (CRS) contract, the Russian Progress, the European Automated
Transfer Vehicle (ATV), and the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV).
NASA is relying on U.S. industry to develop cargo transportation
capabilities that will be able to support the ISS and intends to
purchase cargo transportation from the U.S. commercial market. The
major uncertainty will be the schedule. The contracts are fixed price
with milestone driven payments. The total cost will be fixed but the
payment schedule will vary. NASA realizes that the commercial industry
is evolving, and choosing two CRS providers increases the probability
of success of commercial ISS resupply services. While international
partners' vehicles do provide some capabilities, it remains vital to
the full utilization of the ISS that the CRS contractors attain the
capability of supporting the Space Station's full, six-person crews in
the future.
Q5. What do you consider the three highest technical risks to
maintaining the Ares I and Orion IOC, and what steps are being taken to
address them? Include details of how the $630M provided by the Recovery
Act will be allocated within the program to reduce schedule and
programmatic risk.
A5. NASA has identified clear mitigation strategies for the key
technical challenges that have been identified, such as those listed
below. All launch vehicle development efforts encounter technical
challenges as the design evolves. This is part of the design process
and normal engineering practices. As such, NASA is actively working
these risks, and has made great progress in mitigating many of them.
Ares I Thrust Oscillation: Thrust oscillation is a
characteristic within solid rocket motors based on internal
geometry. Early Ares I structural analyses indicated that
thrust oscillation, unless corrected, could result in high
dynamic G force levels in the upper stage and the Orion. This
is not an uncommon problem in solid rocket motors. In November
2007, NASA chartered the Thrust Oscillation Focus Team to
precisely define the frequency spectrum and oscillation
amplitudes that the five-segment motor is expected to produce.
The team's analysis has led to several mitigation strategies,
including propellant dampening, spring isolator concepts, and
an aft skirt tuned vibration absorber. The team's final
analysis and recommendations for incorporation of thrust
oscillation mitigation designs will be presented during the
Constellation Preliminary Design Review, which is scheduled to
begin late this year and continue through early next year.
Orion Mass: Orion, like all spacecraft, has a mass
limit, and will not be able to accomplish its mission if it
goes over it. The Orion team continues to refine its design and
has made several changes that reduce the overall spacecraft
mass. For example, the power distribution system was redesigned
to a distributed system configuration achieving considerable
mass reduction. Also, a passive loads attenuation system for
contingency land landing was selected, thereby eliminating the
weight of an airbag system.
Common bulkhead manufacturing risk: The common
bulkhead was employed to reduced mass of the upper stage, but
has a complex manufacturing process. The Ares Project continues
to perform subscale and full scale testing of manufacturing and
inspection techniques for the common bulkhead to mitigate any
development risks.
With regard to the second question about funding, the President's
FY 2010 budget request for Exploration Systems is $3.963B, an increase
of $457.6M above the FY 2009 appropriation and $225.4M above the
planned FY 2010 level in last year's request. Based on the $400M in
Recovery Act funds and the increase in the FY 2010 President's budget
request over last year's levels, the Exploration Systems budget plan
includes about $630M more in FY 2009 and FY 2010 than the previous
plan. The $400M in Recovery Act funds for Exploration Systems includes
$310M which will be applied to Constellation Systems and $90M which
will be applied toward the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program.
Pending potential changes due to the results of the Review of U.S.
Human Spaceflight plans, the Recovery Act funding for Constellation
Systems will be allocated to critical activities related to the
successful completion of the Orion, Ares I and Ground Operations
projects. The Constellation Program plans to use the funds to
accelerate its test schedule and the procurement of long-lead items,
thereby mitigating risk. More specifically, the funding will:
Increase fidelity in the Orion Ground Test Article
providing better understanding of the loads environment and
reducing risk as the Project moves forward with design.
Additional risk reduction is provided by tasks that will
demonstrate and test materials and spacecraft systems to better
understand the potential failure limits. Overall schedule risk
reduction is being accomplished through use of the Recovery Act
funds for Orion Engineering Development Units and efforts to
begin Long Lead Procurement activities earlier.
Design the specialized systems and equipment for the
Mobile Launcher, which are a critical part of the overall
structure. The Mobile Launcher is a large platform with a tower
used to transport, service, and launch the next generation
launch vehicle and spacecraft (Ayes I and Orion).
Accelerate development of J-2X engine components.
Develop Ares Upper Stage tooling for common bulkhead
and the Upper Stage Vertical Assembly Tool.
Development and outfitting A-3 test stand.
The remaining $90M will support plans to stimulate efforts to
develop and demonstrate technologies that enable commercial human space
flight capabilities. These efforts are intended to foster
entrepreneurial activity leading to job growth in engineering,
analysis, design, and research, and to economic growth as capabilities
for new markets are created. It is important to note that some of these
funds will support the commercial space industry as well as the
Constellation Program. A portion of the funds will be used for
competitive awards for commercial development of crew concepts and
technology demonstrations and investigations. A portion of the funds
will be used to accelerate an International Space Station docking
interface that could be utilized by both the commercial space community
as well as the Orion project. A portion of the funds will support
investments in launch site and test infrastructure at various Centers
that will benefit both government and commercial interests. A portion
of the funds will be used for human rating requirements development
that will be applicable to the Constellation Program as well as
commercial partners, and will reduce the complexity associated with
human rating a space flight system.
Q6. Last year, GAO issued a report suggesting that NASA had not
adequately budgeted for Shuttle transition and retirement costs. The FY
2009 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report included language
directing the agency to better define these costs and incorporate them
into future budget requests. The FY 2010 budget request includes $47.1M
in FY 2011 and FY 2012 for Shuttle transition and retirement costs.
Although that figure is higher than the $96M proposed in last year's
budget, it is still low compared to NASA's previous estimate of $1.2B.
Given the costs associated with contract closeouts, employee retention
or termination, disposition or transition of real property and flight
qualified hardware, as well as other costs associated with such a
large, geographically diverse program, what has changed that permits
NASA to achieve these savings? Please provide a breakdown of how the
$471 million will be spent.
A6. NASA has been transitioning from the Space Shuttle Program to the
next generation of human space flight vehicles since 2005. Each time
the Agency has refined its Transition and Retirement (T&R) cost
projections, they have decreased. In large part, this is due to an
increasing understanding of all of the elements of this undertaking;
NASA has not retired a major human space flight system since the mid-
1970s, and the Space Shuttle is far more complex than its predecessors.
In addition, the Agency continues to find ways to put Shuttle assets to
effective use in the Constellation Program, further reducing T&R costs.
The President's Budget Request for FY 2010 includes $470.6M in the
Space Shuttle Program for T&R activities for FY 2011 and 2012. This
funding is to be allocated as below (numbers do not add to $470.6M due
to rounding).
$114.3M--Personal Property
$49.7M--Major Flight Assets
$55.6M--Real Property
$11.2M--Records Management
$2.0M--Software Disposition
$55.7M--Contract Closeout
$44.2M--Oversight and Integration
$42.3M--Civil Service Labor and Travel
$95.7M--Severance and Retention
Q7. What does this budget assume with regard to Shuttle retirement,
especially with regard to personnel actions, schedule, and facilities?
What are NASA's plans for the actual disposition of the Orbiters and
other flight and ground artifacts of the Shuttle program?
A7. The President's Budget Request for FY 2010 supports Shuttle
operations through the end of FY 2010; there is currently no funding to
support flights beyond FY 2010, though the Agency plans to fly out the
remaining missions even if the manifest slips. The decision has been
made by the Administration to fly the remaining International Space
Station assembly flights, including the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer
flight, while supporting the goal to fly the Space Shuttle safely as
possible until its retirement, which we believe can be accomplished by
the end of 2010.
The Space Shuttle Program is now moving forward with the retirement
plans previously established and notified to Congress. This includes
plans to transition workforce from the Shuttle program to follow-on
efforts where possible, as well as plans to utilize Shuttle facilities,
where appropriate, to support such efforts. NASA provides updates to
its Workforce Transition Strategy twice a year to ensure that Congress
is kept informed of the Agency's personnel transition activities. In
November 2008, the Agency reported to Congress on efforts to
disposition the Shuttle Orbiters and related artifacts in the Space
Shuttle Program Transition and Retirement Personal Property Disposition
Plan. On December 17, 2008, NASA issued a ``Request for Information''
(RFI) to obtain market research from educational institutions, science
museums, and other appropriate organizations regarding the community's
ability to acquire and display a Space Shuttle Orbiter. NASA received
about 20 responses to the RFI, which closed on March 17, 2009. The
responses will inform the development of strategies for placement of
the Orbiters anti Space Shuttle Main Engines after conclusion of the
Space Shuttle Program.
Q8. Many of NASA's science missions have been launched on the Boeing
Delta 11, which has proven to be one of the most reliable rockets ever
built. Unfortunately, production of Delta 11's is coming to an end. How
will this impact the cost of launching future science missions? What
steps is NASA taking to ensure continued access to an affordable,
reliable medium-lift launcher? What would be the cost impact if NASA
were to purchase launchers provided by the United Launch Alliance
(Delta 4 and Atlas 5)?
A8. NASA's strategy for providing domestic commercial launch services
in support of NASA's medium-class missions is linked to the
International Space Station (ISS) Commercial Resupply Services (CRS)
contracts that were awarded on December 23, 2008. The CRS vendors are
developing vehicles that could be available for medium-class NASA
science missions on a NASA Launch Services (NLS)-type contract, for
potential launches in the 2013-2014 timeframe. At this time, the CRS
launch vehicles are in an early stage of development, and have not yet
been demonstrated. This will establish a larger business base for
medium-class launch vehicles, which should help reduce launch prices
for NASA's space and Earth science missions in this class.
However, it is important to note that the CRS providers are not
currently developing the full range of capabilities (e.g., high
inclination launch site, upper stage for Earth escape missions, Dual
Payload Attach Fitting) typically utilized by NASA science missions.
Therefore, some additional costs will be incurred to fully meet NASA's
science needs. NASA has not yet finalized the funding estimate for
these capabilities, but the contract(s) which follows NLS will be used
to definitize service options to meet NASA's science needs.
NASA provided more information on the state of small- and medium-
class launch vehicles in its report to the Committee on the topic,
delivered in August 2009.