[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF NASA: PERSPECTIVES ON
STRATEGIC VISION FOR
AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-110
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-034 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
SANDY ADAMS, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Maj. Gen. Ronald Sega, USAF (Ret), Vice Chair, National Research
Council Committee on NASA's Strategic Direction
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 20
The Honorable Robert Walker, Wexler & Walker
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 30
The Honorable Marion C. Blakey, President & CEO, Aerospace
Industries Association
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen Ph.D, Professor for Space Science and
Aerospace Engineering, Associate Dean for Entrepreneurial
Programs, University of Michigan
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement............................................ 49
Dr. Scott Pace, Ph.D, Director, Space Policy Institute, The
George Washington UniversityTruth in Testimony
Oral Statement............................................... 63
Written Statement............................................ 65
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Maj. Gen. Ronald Sega, USAF (Ret), Vice Chair, National Research
Council Committee on NASA's Strategic Direction................ 114
The Honorable Robert Walker, Wexler & Walker..................... 116
The Honorable Marion C. Blakey, President & CEO, Aerospace
Industries Association......................................... 117
Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen Ph.D, Professor for Space Science and
Aerospace Engineering, Associate Dean for Entrepreneurial
Programs, University of Michigan............................... 119
Dr. Scott Pace, Ph.D, Director, Space Policy Institute, The
George Washington UniversityTruth in Testimony................. 121
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted Statement for the Record by Representative Jerry
Costello, Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 130
THE FUTURE OF NASA: PERSPECTIVES ON
STRATEGIC VISION FOR
AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hall. Okay. Good morning to everyone. The
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``The Future of NASA:
Perspectives on Strategic Vision for America's Space Program''
is our topic for today, and in front of you are packets
containing the written testimony, biographies and the Truth in
Testimony disclosures for today's witnesses.
Before I get into my opening statement, I want to say a few
words about some folks on this Committee. I don't believe
hardly any of them are here, and maybe we ought to wait until
they show, but I want to talk about Roscoe Bartlett and Judy
Biggert, Todd Akin, Sandy Adams, Ben Quayle, Chip Cravaack; on
the Democratic side, Jerry Costello, about as kind and classy
guy as you will ever know is not coming back to use, and Hanson
Clarke of Michigan. Of course, Lynn Woolsey, she is usually
here to fuss at me. I proposed to her three times and she
turned me down four. But they will be here in a little bit.
In the meantime, let me recognize the next Chairman of this
Committee, a long, long-term friend of mine, a person I
absolutely couldn't do without, wouldn't want to be in Congress
if he were not in Congress with me, my friend from San Antonio
who will be chairing this Committee for probably the next ten
years, and I am going to be right with him. We hope we can do
some things to EPA. We hope we can work on a health bill. We
hope we can do a lot of things together. Mr. Chairman, I am
honored to have you.
I guess I can go on and just read for the record. What do
you think I ought to do, Eddie? Wait until they get here? I
will go on with my opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. We have an organization meeting, so they
probably will not be coming.
Chairman Hall. Okay.
Ms. Johnson. A caucus organization, a committee.
Chairman Hall. This is the first opening statement I have
had that is 1,020 pages. I read well from a printed page. It is
not going to take me very long, and they are beginning to show,
so I recognize myself for five minutes or so for an opening
statement.
And I say once again good morning, and welcome to today's
hearing. I want to especially recognize some of our colleagues,
and our colleague and friend, Robert Walker, the former
Chairman of this Committee for many years, for agreeing to
testify here today. Bob, it is good to see you and I thank you
and the other witnesses for being with us. I recognize that it
takes a lot of time and effort goes into the preparation of
hearing testimony. I want you all to know that your expert
knowledge and your vast experience is very useful to the
Committee. Without you, we could not have a bill nor have a
recommendation for the future. As we consider legislation, we
also thank you for taking the time to appear here today.
There are a number of significant issues confronting NASA
and its space program: a diminishing number of missions under
development in the space sciences area; an aeronautics budget
that can no longer support full-scale demonstration flights;
and no clearly articulated vision for our human exploration
program beyond the International Space Station. And that
International Space Station to me is the number one. We have
got to get there first and have some security there before we
can even think about the other. We can think about it and may
have some plans for it, but with regard to human space flight,
during the national debate following the Columbia accident
nearly ten years ago, we emerged with guiding principles and
goals that were overwhelmingly endorsed by both Republicans and
Democrats in the House and Senate, resulting in the NASA
Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008. Even though funding was
often less than many of us recommended, there was a consensus
on the overall strategic direction. That consensus was short-
lived when the Administration, with no notice, abruptly
canceled Constellation via submission of the fiscal year 2011
budget. The current agreement, if it can be called that, is not
a consensus as much as it is a compromise. No one got
everything they wanted, but the lack of a clear consensus
grounded in an agreement on national priorities resulted in no
effective way to prioritize the many competing demands. It has
been clear over the last few budget cycles that there are
fundamental disagreements. Constellation was an integrated
development plan to first replace the space shuttle's access to
the space station in low-Earth orbit and then evolve over there
into heavy-lift rockets allowing NASA take longer strides and
once again reach beyond low Earth to the Moon and then on
beyond.
At Congress's insistence the present compromise includes a
heavy-lift rocket development program, but the general lack of
consensus on goals and destination has sown the seeds for
disappointment as three large development programs, the Space
Launch System, the Orion crew capsule and the Commercial Crew
program compete for the same diminishing resources in NASA's
Exploration Systems budget. Since the Commercial Crew program
supports the ISS, perhaps it should more appropriately be
funded by the Space Operations budget. The Administration,
Congress and NASA should all look for ways to eliminate waste
and duplication.
We are in a very challenging budget environment, and that
will be with us for some time, for the next several years.
Fiscal realities demand that NASA become more efficient and
sized correctly to accomplish its goals, but consensus will
have to be reestablished among the agency's stakeholders to
comply and also to clarify NASA's strategic vision, their goals
and their missions.
The good work that NASA has done, and that NASA can do in
the future, is so very important to me and to us, to everyone
here in this room. I want to preserve our International Space
Station, and as a strategic goal to go beyond it. But it is not
likely with this Congress and this electorate that we can
expect vast sums for the moon, Mars, or an asteroid. We can't
go to Mars until our people can go to the grocery store. In
other words, it is about the economy. The economy has to
improve before NASA funding increases. I want us to work
together to ensure that the American people get the kind of
results that NASA is capable of producing and has demonstrated
so often. We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today
and I look forward to this hearing and should really spark a
much-needed national dialogue about NASA's future. This group
is uniquely qualified to start this very important discussion
by sharing their own perspectives about the strategic direction
of America's space program.
That concludes my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph Hall
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. I want to especially
recognize our colleague and friend, The Honorable Robert Walker, the
former Chairman of this Committee, for agreeing to testify here today.
Bob it's good to see you. But I thank all our witnesses for being with
us. I recognize that a lot of time and effort goes into the preparation
of hearing testimony. I want you all to know that your expert knowledge
and vast experience is very useful to this Committee and Congress as we
consider legislation, so thank you for taking the time to appear here
today.
There are a number of significant issues confronting NASA and its
space program: a diminishing number of missions under development in
the space sciences arena; an aeronautics budget that can no longer
support full-scale demonstration flights; and no clearly articulated
vision for our human exploration program beyond the International Space
Station.
With regard to human space flight, during the national debate
following the Columbia accident nearly ten years ago, we emerged with
guiding principles and goals that were overwhelmingly endorsed by both
Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, resulting in the
NASA Authorization Acts of 2005, and 2008. Even though funding was
often less than many of us recommended, there was a consensus on the
overall strategic direction. That consensus was short lived when this
Administration, with no notice, abruptly canceled Constellation via
submission of the FY2011 budget. The current agreement--if it can be
called that--is not a consensus as much as it is a compromise. No one
got everything they wanted, but the lack of a clear consensus--grounded
in an agreement on national priorities--resulted in no effective way to
prioritize the many competing demands. It has been clear over the last
few budget cycles that there are fundamental disagreements.
Constellation was an integrated development plan to first replace
the space shuttle's access to the space station in low Earth orbit and
then evolve over time into heavy-lift rockets allowing NASA take longer
strides and once again reach beyond low Earth orbit, to the Moon and
beyond. At Congress's insistence the present compromise includes a
heavy lift rocket development program, but the general lack of
consensus on goals and destination has sown the seeds for
disappointment as three large development programs, the Space Launch
System, the Orion crew capsule, and the Commercial Crew program compete
for the same diminishing resources in NASA's Exploration Systems
budget. Since the Commercial Crew program supports the ISS, perhaps it
should more appropriately be funded by the Space Operations budget. The
Administration, Congress, and NASA should all look for ways to
eliminate waste and duplication.
We are in a very challenging budget environment that will be with
us for the next several years. Fiscal realities demand that NASA become
more efficient and sized correctly to accomplish its goals, but
consensus will have to be re-established among the agency's
stakeholders to clarify NASA's strategic vision, goals, and missions.
The good work that NASA has done, and that NASA can do in the
future, is so important to me. I want to preserve our International
Space Station, and as a strategic goal to go beyond it. But it's not
likely with this Congress--and this electorate--that we can expect vast
sums for the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid. We can't go to Mars until our
people can go to the grocery store. In other words, it's about the
economy. The economy has to improve before NASA funding increases. I
want us to work together to ensure that the American people get the
kind of results that NASA is capable of producing and has demonstrated
so often. We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today and I
look forward to this hearing sparking a much-needed national dialogue
about NASA's future. This group is uniquely qualified to start this
very important discussion by sharing their own perspectives about the
strategic direction of America's space program.
Chairman Hall. I now recognize Mrs. Johnson for her opening
statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning to all. I want to particularly welcome our witnesses,
and a former Chair that I previously served with, and I look
forward to all of the testimony. At this time the Democratic
Caucus is having a meeting, an organizational meeting that
started--it was supposed to start at nine but because of the
lateness of the ranking member meeting, it started a little bit
late--so our Members that are returning and concerned about
what committees they are going to be on for the next time will
probably not be here today.
Today's hearing is an important one for the Committee,
because NASA is a critical part of the Nation's research and
development enterprise, as well as being a source of
inspiration for our young people and a worldwide symbol of
American technological prowess, leadership and goodwill. We
want NASA to succeed in its endeavors, because its success
benefits our Nation in many, many ways.
In establishing NASA through the Space Act of 1958,
Congress directed the agency to contribute materially to the
preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in
aeronautical and space science and technology and in the
application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities
within and outside the atmosphere. Successive NASA
Authorization Acts over the years have stressed the need for a
balanced program of science, aeronautics, technological
research, and human spaceflight and exploration. The result has
been that this balanced program has given advances that have
enhanced knowledge, promoted innovation and economic vitality,
inspired our youth, and deepened our understanding of the Earth
and environment.
However, in recent years NASA's ability to carry out its
missions has been eroded. In that regard, it is estimated that
NASA's purchasing power has actually decreased by about 18
percent in constant dollars from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal
year 2012 in spite of the agency being given a number of major
initiatives to carry out over that same period. In fact, last
year's appropriated budget was about $1 billion less than in
fiscal year 2010. The cumulative impact of this budgetary
instability has been felt by all of NASA's programs and its
institutional infrastructure, a problem also highlighted by
NASA's Inspector General in a recent report. And we will hear
similar concerns raised by the National Research Council
witness today, as he discusses his panel's recently released
report.
Ironically, the issues considered by the NRC panel are not
new to this Committee. We have heard them raised in one form or
another in both this and previous Congresses. I hope that the
findings of the NRC panel's assessment will encourage both the
Administration and Congress to put NASA on a firmer footing and
to recognize NASA for the national asset that it is.
While NASA's programs are funded as part of the federal
domestic discretionary budget, we should not forget that those
programs are long-term R&D undertakings, and they can't just be
turned on and off whenever we have a short-term fiscal issue
needing attention, not if we want them to be successful and not
if we want to maintain our commitment to the dedicated
workforce that is trying to bring them to fruition. That is a
challenge we are going to face in the coming months and years
as we work to put the Nation's financial house in order.
Because we forget at our peril the hard reality that
investments in R&D and innovation, such as in the programs and
projects carried out at NASA are just that--investments--
investments in our Nation's future and in the future of our
children.
It may only be in retrospect that we will learn the true
costs of walking away from investments in R&D agencies such as
NASA, but I firmly believe that those costs will be high and
long-lasting if we go down such a destructive path. I hope we
don't do so, because other nations increasingly recognize the
benefits that a strong and active space program can deliver,
and as a result we see them being willing to make the necessary
investments to build their capabilities, even in the days of
austerity.
Mr. Chairman, our leadership and preeminence in space and
aeronautics are at stake. Our children's future jobs and long-
term global competitiveness are at stake. Resting on our
laurels from prior accomplishments is not an option, whether in
science, aeronautics, or human exploration. That is not to say
that we shouldn't do all we can to encourage efficiencies in
NASA's programs and infrastructure and eliminate waste wherever
we find it. But all of those efficiencies will be for naught if
we do not also recognize that sustained investments in
research, technology and development must also be made if NASA
is to succeed.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, allow me to
take a moment to thank Mr. Costello, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Miller,
and Mr. Clarke for their service to our Nation. Each of them
will be departing the House of Representatives at the
completion of the 112th Congress, and I want to wish them well.
They have been thoughtful and hardworking Members of our
Committee caucus, and I shall miss them.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning. I want to join Chairman Hall in welcoming our
witnesses. And in particular, I want to welcome former Chairman Walker
back to the Committee. I look forward to each of your testimonies.
Today's hearing is an important one for the Committee, because NASA
is a critical part of the Nation's research and development enterprise,
as well as being a source of inspiration for our young people and a
worldwide symbol of American technological prowess, leadership, and
good will. We want NASA to succeed in its endeavors, because its
success benefits our nation in so many ways.
In establishing NASA through the Space Act of 1958, Congress
directed the agency to ``contribute materially'' to ``The preservation
of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space
science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of
peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.''
Successive NASA Authorization Acts over the years have stressed the
need for a balanced program of science, aeronautics, technological
research, and human space flight and exploration. The result has been
that this balanced program has driven advances that have enhanced
knowledge, promoted innovation and economic vitality, inspired our
youth, and deepened our understanding of the Earth and its environment.
However, in recent years NASA's ability to carry out its missions
has been eroded. In that regard, it's estimated that NASA's purchasing
power has actually decreased by about 18 % in constant dollars from FY
1992 to FY 2012 in spite of the agency being given a number of major
initiatives to carry out over that same period. In fact, last year's
appropriated budget was about $1 billion less than in FY 2010. The
cumulative impact of this budgetary instability has been felt by all of
NASA's programs and its institutional infrastructure, a problem also
highlighted by NASA's Inspector General in a recent report. And we will
hear similar concerns raised by the National Research Council witness
today, as he discusses his panel's recently released report.
Ironically, the issues considered by the NRC panel are not new to
the Committee. We have heard them raised in one form or another in both
this and previous Congresses. I hope that the findings of the NRC
panel's assessment will encourage both the Administration and Congress
to put NASA on a firmer footing and to recognize NASA for the national
asset that it is.
While NASA's programs are funded as part of the Federal domestic
discretionary budget, we should not forget that those programs are
long-term R&D undertakings, and they can't just be turned on and off
whenever we have a short-term fiscal issue needing attention-not if we
want them to be successful, and not if we want to maintain our
commitment to the dedicated workforce that is trying to bring them to
fruition. That is a challenge we are going to face in the coming months
and years as we work to put the nation's financial house in order.
Because we forget at our peril the hard reality that investments in R&D
and innovation, such as in the programs and projects carried out at
NASA are just that--investments--investments in our nation's future and
in the future of our children.
It may only be in retrospect that we will learn the true costs of
walking away from investments in R&D agencies such as NASA-but I firmly
believe that those costs will be high and long-lasting if we go down
such a destructive path. I hope we don't do so, because other nations
increasingly recognize the benefits that a strong and active space
program can deliver, and as a result we see them being willing to make
the necessary investments to build their capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, our leadership and preeminence in space and
aeronautics are at stake. Our children's future jobs and long-term
global competitiveness are at stake. Resting on our laurels from prior
accomplishments is not an option, whether in science, aeronautics, or
human exploration.
That is not to say that we shouldn't do all we can to encourage
efficiencies in NASA's programs and infrastructure and eliminate waste
wherever we find it. But all of those efficiencies will be for naught
if we do not also recognize that sustained investments in research,
technology, and development must also be made if NASA is to succeed.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, allow me to take a
moment to thank Mr. Costello, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Clarke
for their service to our nation. Each of them will be departing the
House of Representatives at the completion of the 112th Congress, and I
want to wish them well. They have been thoughtful and hardworking
Members of our Committee caucus, and I shall miss them.
Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
If there are other Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
Chairman Hall. We have some of our departing Members here,
and I think it is time to say a few words about them before I
start my opening statement and before we introduce the
witnesses properly. I would like to say a few words about
several Members of our Committee and thank them for their
dedication to the Congress and to the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee. On the Republican side, Roscoe Bartlett--
I don't know if Roscoe is here or not, but Roscoe, I always
enjoy telling him he is too old to be here. His questions give
me more information than the answers he elicits, but he is a
great Member, and I am both surprised and disappointed that he
was defeated, and I am proud and pray for whoever is going to
take his place, if they yield the service that that old fellow
yielded.
And then of course, Judy Biggert, we all know had her
national lab in Argonne, and an outstanding Member. We were
conferees on the National Defense Act. I found Judy on the
right side of everything, and we are really, really going to
miss her.
Todd Akin of Missouri had a strong showing for the Senate
and had some rocks and handicaps along the way but he is a good
man. He served well for us, and people kept writing to me
telling me to put him off this Committee, and I said time and
time again, if I could put anybody off the Committee, I would
put Sensenbrenner off or Eddie Bernice or somebody, but we
don't have the right to put anybody off, and we couldn't do
without Sensenbrenner. He is still here.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes.
Chairman Hall. And doing a good job.
Sandy Adams of Florida is still young enough to continue
her fight for NASA and for the Kennedy Space Center. She did a
good job of that.
Ben Quayle, young man, he is not here either today but I
knew his father so well. I spent 7 or 8 days in Russia with his
dad, and I was with him when he made a speech to the retiring
editors and the retiring school people there, all of them
Communist, and he was making his speech and he made the mistake
of opening it up for questions, and the way Russians ask
questions, they make about a 15-minute speech and then get into
their question, but after their speech they said if you love us
so much, why do you still have all those guns pointed toward
us, and Dan and I were way back down away from them, there was
a rail between us, and they couldn't hear what I said to him. I
said ``Tell the SOB you don't trust him,'' and Dan said if I
ever did him like that again, he would get up and walk out of
there because he said he would laugh and they would run both of
us out there. But he made a good speech back to them and told
them they had a place at the table and he believed that one day
they would be there. His son is a very fine young man, did a
wonderful job as vice chairman of this Committee, and we will
miss that young man.
How do you lose a guy like Chip Cravaack? A Navy fighter
pilot--I don't hold that against him--for many years as an
airline pilot, very knowledgeable, fought for everything that
was right. He served with me on a--I believe we served together
on the Transportation Committee.
Jerry Costello, there is no more classy guy anywhere than
Jerry. He is going back to Illinois. We are going to really
miss him, miss his work here and miss his friendship.
Lynn Woolsey--is Lynn here yet? She is not here.
Brad Miller of North Carolina--Brad and I have gone at it
several times. I have learned something from him, several
things. He is a class guy. He goes back to one of the better
law practices in North Carolina. All my folks coming from
Cannon Mills, Kannapolis, not very far, Brad, from where you
live. You are young enough to come back, and I wish you well
and we will miss you on this Committee. You have been a great
Member.
And Hanson Clarke. We did a launch together and he was a
great guy.
It is an honor to serve on this Committee with all of you.
Your dedication, experience and wisdom is going to be deeply
missed by this Congress and the next Congress, but no matter
what they go to next, they will always be friends and
colleagues, and I look forward to seeing them back. Maybe we
will ask them to testify like we have asked Bob Walker here to
testify today. And Ms. Johnson, again, I thank you for yielding
back.
At this time I would like to introduce our panel of
witnesses. The Hon. Robert S. Walker needs little introduction
in this room. As the former Chairman of this Committee, Bob led
this Committee from 1995 to 1997, and since retiring from
Congress after 20 years of elected office, he is now the
Executive Chairman of Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates.
Our next witness is retired Major General Ronald Sega.
General Sega is here today in his capacity as the Co-Chair of
the National Research Council Committee on NASA's Strategic
Direction. General Sega currently serves as Vice President and
Enterprise Executive for Energy and the Environment for
Colorado State University and Ohio State University. He led a
very distinguished career in the U.S. Air Force and at NASA,
mostly recently as Under Secretary of the Air Force, DOD
Executive for Space, and prior to that, as Director of Defense
Research and Technology. As an astronaut, General Sega flew two
space shuttles, STS-60 in 1994 and STS-76 in 1996, and General,
we certainly welcome you.
We next welcome the Hon. Marion Blakey, who is the
President and CEO of Aerospace Industries Association
representing more than 150 leading aerospace manufacturers.
Prior to AIA, Mrs. Blakey served a five-year term as
Administrator of the FAA, and before that, as Chairman of the
National Transportation Safety Board. Mrs. Blakey, we do really
welcome you.
And our next witness is Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate
Professor for Space Science and Aerospace Engineering at the
University of Michigan. He is a specialist in robotic
exploration in space and team leader for the development of the
Fast Imaging Plasma Spectrometer on the Messenger spacecraft in
orbit around the planet Mercury, and we certainly welcome you.
And our next witness, Dr. Scott Pace, is the Director of
the Space Policy Institute and a Professor in the practice of
international affairs at George Washington's Elliott School of
International Affairs. From 2005 to 2008, he served as the
Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation at
NASA. Prior to that, he was Assistant Director for Space and
Aeronautics in the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. Dr. Pace, we welcome you as well.
And as our witnesses should know, testimony is limited to
five minutes, after which the Members of the Committee will
have five minutes each to ask questions, and you are not just
held to five minutes. Your time is valuable. You took your time
to prepare to come here. It took you years to get prepared to
be asked to come here, and you are here, and your time is very,
very important. We won't hold you to the five minutes. Just do
your best. Our Committee protocol dictates that we recognize
the former Science Chairman, Bob Walker, as our first witness,
but we have talked and discussed, and I know from reading the
testimony that he refers to many of the details in the NRC
report. With his indulgence and with our discussion, at his
suggestion, I think it would be useful to hear General Sega
describe the NRC's findings, and then turn to Chairman Walker
and the other witnesses for their testimony. Do I hear an
objection? The Chair hears none.
General Sega, the Committee now recognizes you for five
minutes to present your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. RONALD SEGA,
USAF (RET), VICE CHAIR, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
COMMITTEE ON NASA'S STRATEGIC DIRECTION
General Sega. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, Members
of the Committee, colleagues, I am Ron Sega, Vice Chair of the
National Research Council's Committee on NASA's Strategic
Direction. On behalf of Al Carnesale, chair of the committee,
and our 12 members, it is my pleasure to come before you today
to speak to you about the work of our committee.
Our committee was charged with considering the strategic
direction of the agency as set forth most recently in the 2011
NASA Strategic Plan and other relevant statements of space
policy issued by the President of the United States.
We were also charged with considering the goals of the
agency as set forth in the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space
Act as well as recent legislation, and with assessing the
relevance of NASA's goals and national priorities.
Finally, we were charged with recommending how NASA could
establish and effectively communicate a common, unifying vision
for NASA's strategic direction that encompasses NASA's varied
missions. Our committee was not charged with establishing
strategic goals for NASA, and we did not do so.
Our committee consists of members from industry and
academia, former NASA aerospace officials and former analysts
and experts from both the executive and legislative branches.
We met five times throughout 2012. The committee received
input from nearly 800 members of the public through a web-based
questionnaire, and small groups of Committee Members visited
each of the nine NASA field centers and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. The resulting report entitled: ``NASA's Strategic
Direction and the Need for a National Consensus'' is a
consensus report by the committee.
As I am sure you are aware, NASA has been tugged in
multiple directions for the past several years. Despite a
turbulent policy environment, the agency has made many
astonishing accomplishments. There remains, however, a lack of
consensus on the agency's future direction among the United
States political leadership. Without such a consensus, the
agency cannot be expected to develop or work effectively toward
long-term priorities. In addition, there is a mismatch between
the portfolio of programs assigned to the agency and the budget
allocated by Congress. What we found during the course of our
deliberations was rather obvious: although NASA develops a
strategic plan on a regular basis, the agency itself does not
establish its strategic goals. Those are developed by the
national leadership, and key stakeholders within the national
leadership do not always agree on the goals the agency should
pursue.
Thus, our committee recommends that the Administration
should take the lead in forging a new national consensus on
NASA's future that is stated in terms of a set of clearly
defined strategic goals and objectives. This process should
apply both within the Administration and between the
Administration and Congress and should be reached only after
meaningful technical consultations with the private sector and
potential international partners.
The strategic goals and objectives should be ambitious yet
technically rational and should focus on the long term.
Following the establishment of a new consensus on the agency's
future, NASA should establish a new strategic plan that
provides a framework for decisions on how the agency will
pursue its strategic goals and objectives, allows for flexible
and realistic implementation, clearly establishes agency-wide
priorities to guide the allocation of resources within the
agency budget, and presents a comprehensive picture that
integrates the various fields of aeronautics and space
activities.
To reduce the mismatch between the agency's activities and
the resources allocated to it, the White House, Congress and
NASA, as appropriate, could employ any or all of the following
four non-mutually exclusive options. The committee does not
recommend any one option or combination of options, but
presents these to illustrate the scope of decisions and trades
that could be made.
Option 1: Institute an aggressive restructuring program to
reduce infrastructure and personnel costs to improve
efficiency. Option 2: Engage in and commit for the long term to
more cost-sharing partnerships with other government agencies,
private sector industries and international partners. Option 3:
Increase the size of the NASA budget. Option 4: Reduce
considerably the size and scope of elements of NASA's current
program portfolio to better fit the current and anticipated
budget profile. This would require reducing or eliminating one
or more of NASA's current portfolio elements--human
exploration, Earth and space science, aeronautics and space
technology--in favor of the remaining elements. Each of these
sample options, with the possible exception of option 2, would
require legislative action.
Our recommendation with respect to NASA centers states
first: The Administration and Congress should adopt regulatory
and legislative reforms that would enable NASA to improve the
flexibility of the management of its centers. Second, NASA
should transform its network of field centers into an
integrated system that supports its strategic plan and
communications strategy and advances its strategic goals and
objectives.
With regard to partnerships, the committee recommends NASA
should work with other government agencies with
responsibilities in aeronautics and space to more effectively
and efficiently coordinate the Nation's aeronautics and space
activities, and the United States should explore opportunities
to lead a more international approach to future large space
efforts, both in the human space program and in the science
program.
The committee was impressed with the quality of personnel
and the level of commitment of NASA's civil service and
contractor staffs and with the superb work done by the agency
in general. However, the committee also heard about the
frustration of many staff with the agency's current path and
the limitations imposed upon it by the inability of the
national leadership to agree upon a long-term direction for the
agency. Only with a national consensus on the agency's future
strategic direction, along the lines described in this report,
can NASA continue to deliver the wonder, the knowledge, the
national security and economic benefits, and the technology
that typified its history.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions the Committee might have.
[The prepared statement of General Sega follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hall. Thank you, General, and we will have
questions.
It gives me pleasure now to recognize the Hon. Robert
Walker, the distinguished former Chairman of the Committee. I
listened to Bob as a Democrat, I listened to him as a
Republican, and I respected him always. We recognize you for
five minutes or as long as you might take, Bob.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT WALKER,
WEXLER & WALKER
Mr. Walker. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Hall and
Ranking Member Johnson, distinguished Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the warm welcome back to this Committee room.
Chairman Hall, I want to first congratulate you for the
leadership that you have given to this Committee. You have led
the Committee with grace and good humor, and you have really
given Chairman Smith a strong base on which to build the
Science, Technology, and Space leadership for the future, and I
thank you for all that you have contributed here and to the
Nation during your career.
If you believe, as I do, that humankind's destiny lies in
the stars, and if you believe, as I do, that NASA should be an
instrument in the fulfillment of that destiny, then the work of
preparing NASA for the daunting challenges of strategy, budget
and relevance in the 21st century is truly the work of shaping
the future.
The recently released report by the National Research
Council does a comprehensive job of detailing the challenges
that today's NASA faces: lack of agreed-upon direction, lack of
adequate resources to do all that is asked of the agency, aging
infrastructure, the emergence of other space-capable nations,
the collapse of some international partnerships, the rapid pace
of new technology development, and the increasing irrelevance
of the aeronautical research program. Much of this landscape
cannot be laid wholly at NASA's doorstep but its culture based
upon successes of 50 years ago contributes to these problems.
NRC provided four options for addressing an uncertain
future. I choose option 2, and to quote again what Ron just
told you: ``Engage in and commit for the long term to more
cost-sharing partnerships with other U.S. government agencies,
private sector industries and international partners.'' Within
that option, I will emphasize the public-private partnerships
because I believe them to be the best way to obtain the
resources so vitally needed to make NASA's missions achievable.
I say that mindful of the fact that one of the most important
cost-saving measures that could be implemented in our space
program would be to use the totality of U.S. assets for U.S.
purposes. It makes no sense for NASA to spend billions on
development of technology which is already available or under
development by other sectors of the government or private
industry. Some available technology may have to be modified to
meet specific NASA objectives, but the bulk of the costs can be
shared.
NASA's basic role must be to do projects that push the
envelope of what we know. High risk will lead to new
technologies. That combination of risk and reward will underpin
the next generation of space knowledge and products.
Space and technology leadership requires a much broader
view of the space community than has been traditional. If NASA
is to have the resources it needs to maintain a preeminent
world role, it must expand its funding base by reaching beyond
a narrow aerospace focus and beyond the authorization and
appropriation process on Capitol Hill. I say that latter point
with all due respect, but the reality is that no federal budget
in the foreseeable future is going to provide NASA with the
money it needs to do everything we want it to do. NASA must see
entrepreneurship and enablement as key components of its
science, technology and exploration programs. NASA can extend
its reach and find new financial resources by opening its doors
wide to collaborative programs that allow any and all American
space entrepreneurs willing to pay for it access to NASA
expertise.
There are some positive signs that NASA sees merit in this
approach. The Commercial Cargo and Crew programs are
encouraging. The use of NASA infrastructure by private sector
participant is welcome. But Congress needs to expand the
authority to move even more aggressively in this new direction.
Too often, the steps taken thus far have been grudging because
they really do represent a significant cultural shift. But that
shift has been endorsed by several recent commissions that
looked at NASA's future and became concerned. The commission I
chaired in 2002, one chaired by Aldridge in 2004, and one that
Norm Augustine chaired in 2009 all reached the conclusion that
commercial activity in the form of public-private partnerships
is a key to space leadership. The Aldridge Commission in
particular called for broadening the space-related community
and restructuring NASA to interact with that community. In
turn, it was believed that NASA could benefit directly from the
expanded community as it attracted outside investment in its
activities and used its people and facilities to enable
progress on many space fronts.
A larger network of people and industries with a direct tie
to NASA has to be a part of its strategic plan. It begins with
buying available services from nontraditional sources. It
evolves to a NASA prepared to see multiple nontraditional
opportunities for new funding for its programs and activities.
We already know there is interest. New companies have been
created to provide services to NASA and to pursue business
beyond NASA. Those companies should not be seen as rivals or
detriments to NASA. They are instead the outgrowth of past NASA
successes prepared to learn from what NASA has achieved and
poised to grow the U.S. presence in the world space enterprise.
Moreover, thinking in nontraditional entrepreneurial ways
potentially can access tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of
millions of dollars of private investment in NASA activities.
If NASA programs and centers were restructured to take
advantage of a flow of private capital, there is no end to
potential collaborations. For example, sports teams in the
country reap hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorships
without impact on their basic mission. Would anything in
science, aeronautics or exploration missions be harmed if the
names were attached to particular projects and they were
sponsored? I can't imagine why. These sponsorship dollars could
be structured to remain outside the appropriations process,
increasing the amounts of money available to NASA and at the
same time avoiding to some extent the vagaries of the annual
appropriations cycle, and what kind of money is conceivably
available? To pick a high-tech example, Formula One racing, the
sponsorships there pay for operations costing $200 million to
$300 million a year. That is enough for a whole space flight.
NASA as an entrepreneur and NASA as a space enabler for growing
space enterprise is how we address the resource problems and
assure NASA a future that is wholly relevant to our Nation's
economy.
Congress will have to be willing to make some adjustments
necessary to access that kind of future, but when the Go Daddy
rover is traversing Martian terrain, we will be more solidly on
our way to fulfilling our destiny in the stars. Moreover, we
will have assured that destiny by leveraging our greatest
economic asset, the inventiveness of a free market. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hall. And that is just the way it is. Thank you,
Mr. Walker. And I thank you too, General.
I now recognize the Hon. Marion Blakey to give your
testimony for five minutes, more or less.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARION C. BLAKEY,
PRESIDENT & CEO, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
Ms. Blakey. Thank you, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member
Johnson, and Members of this Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here again. I am Marion Blakey, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Aerospace Industries
Association, the Nation's premier trade association for
aerospace and defense manufacturers.
AIA believes that NASA continues to be a leading-edge
investment in our Nation's future. NASA missions and programs
save lives. They grow the economy and they inspire the world. I
must tell you, AIA has a new report called ``Space in our
World'' and I will make certain all Members of the Committee
have a copy, because we are very proud of the fact that we are
documenting space systems and how they are woven into the
everyday lives of Americans. NASA programs are hallmarks of the
character of our Nation and our leadership, and as Americans,
we are always looking forward to the next great frontier.
We need to think carefully therefore about changing from
current programs. It not only takes a consensus to do so, it
takes resources and capabilities, some that we are already
building today. Remember that had we not committed to the F-1
rocket engine program in the 1950s, well before President
Kennedy's Apollo announcement, we would never have gotten to
the moon by 1969. This engine enabled a wide variety of human
spaceflight missions, and SLS and Orion will certainly help us
take the next steps in space that I think all of us here at
this table want.
So how do we keep NASA moving in the right direction?
Clearly, NASA needs stable, long-term investment and steady
policy goals, and more funding would be better. But we are
concerned that constant churn in NASA's programs will lead to
less progress. Stability is essential to space mission success
and the health of the United States space industrial base. Any
examination of NASA's strategic direction must consider the
impact to this base, which is also essential to national
security space capabilities as well.
So let me take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to recognize
you as the longest-serving Member of the House Science
Committee. By giving NASA solid guidance with the 2010
Authorization Act, you have demonstrated the leadership
essential to assure future industry investments and recruit new
aerospace talent.
AIA agrees with NASA's three priority goals, which enabled
critical space capabilities. First, we must fully utilize the
International Space Station, which is a unique national lab.
Here, the Commercial Crew and Cargo program provides the
quickest way for our Nation to access the ISS. I thought it was
terrific to see the success of the first commercial cargo
resupply mission just this fall. NASA's commercial initiatives
promise to bring down costs and they will free resources for
other programs.
Second, NASA's capabilities-based architecture is a
realistic approach that is within the fiscal limits that we can
then build space systems needed to explore new destinations. To
date, significant progress has been made on this program
including the delivery of the first Orion capsule to Florida
for launch. NASA is also engaging the ISS international
partners in innovative ways that expand our ability to
completely support exploration together.
Third, we must maintain global leadership in space science.
Let us get the Webb telescope into orbit and operating, follow
up on our Mars exploration success and replenish our
indispensable Earth observation system capabilities. But I must
tell you, the spectrum of sequestration concerns me greatly.
Not only would it lead to program delays that would prove more
costly in the long term but it would also have the immediate
impact of putting more than 20,000 NASA contractor jobs at
risk. That is the conclusion, and this is very new, by George
Mason University economist Steven Fuller in an AIA-commissioned
study that we are releasing today, and again I will make
certain that all Members of this Committee have this brand-new
study because the report highlights the impact of NASA
procurement reductions in 11 key states. For example, Mr.
Chairman, Texas would lose nearly 6,000 NASA-related highly
skilled jobs as a result of sequestration. That is a $320
million impact to the State of Texas.
In conclusion, by focusing investments in support of the
2010 Act, the Congress can ensure the health of our space
industrial base and ensure our space program will remain second
to none.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
U.S. space industry and look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hall. I want to thank you for good testimony and
for your accolades. I am not the longest-serving, I am just the
oldest, and if John Dingell would cooperate with me, I will be
the oldest one of these days here, and I will yield you another
hour for your kind words if you like. Good testimony, and we
thank you.
Now we have Dr. Zurbuchen for your five minutes. Doctor, I
recognize you, sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS ZURBUCHEN PH.D,
PROFESSOR FOR SPACE SCIENCE
AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING,
ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL PROGRAMS,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Dr. Zurbuchen. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thanks for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Thomas
Zurbuchen, a Swiss name from the mountains in Switzerland, and
I am a Professor of Space Science and Aerospace Engineering at
the University of Michigan. I run a research group with six
space instruments in space right now and we are operating those
and developing breakthrough science that is published in
premier journals around the world. I am also the Associate Dean
for Entrepreneurial Programs and concerned about spreading of
innovation and entrepreneurship in our educational mission at
this university and universities around the country.
This is a period of limited resources, and we need to focus
to position ourselves for better times. The way to do this is
to ensure that a talented workforce will be available and
disruptive innovations and technology breakthroughs are
pursued. We need to do this through low-cost and modest-sized
missions. The talented workforce and the innovations will be
developed primarily by universities and industry, particularly
small businesses and not primarily NASA centers. Hence, we need
to pursue a strategy in which universities and industry as well
as NASA centers are fully engaged.
Today I want to focus on two key aspects of this strategy:
the focus on people and the focus on disruption, innovative
disruption, and I want to briefly talk about the balance, the
program balance that is responsive to both of them. The number
one priority of the space program and especially its science
program should be talented people. Every mission in space,
great or small, is carried out by people, not paperwork. We
need people and their know-how. We have to ensure that NASA's
space missions have access to the very best talent. How do we
do that? First, we must recognize that top talent does not just
hang out and wait for better times. Builders want to build.
Innovators will innovate. And NASA leadership must be focused
not just of the glory of days past but the aspirations and
dreams of the innovators of the future. Second, some of this
talent will be at NASA centers but most of the talent will be
in academia and industry, particularly in small companies.
Therefore, encouraging competition in emerging space industries
will keep top talent focused on efforts that ultimately will
aid this Nation in achieving its most ambitious goals through
both technical innovation and reduced cost.
The next priority in addition to people is innovative
disruption. Disruption is good. Disruptive programs overturn
old paradigms, create new markets and engender new value
systems. These programs focus on smaller spacecraft, rapid
turnaround missions, and I am convinced that science programs
with these kinds of priorities will look different than the
ones that we are building today. Consider, for example, the RAX
program at the University of Michigan, which built and launched
two CubeSats within two years for less than a million dollars.
These NSF-funded tiny satellites make new measurements probing
the origins of space weather, especially in high latitudes, the
auroral regions, and the first one failed a few weeks into
orbit. It is tough to do this, and the second one has now made
measurements for over a year--research that is published in our
premier journals. Also, this mission has provided hands-on
experience for 50 of our best students. Many of these leaders
work at SpaceX and some of the new space companies in fact
being leaders of certain domain expertise really shortly after
graduating and some of them work at NASA JPL and other NASA
centers. They got experience that most students in the United
States did not. RAX is all about innovative disruption,
training of the world's best talent and for our space program.
So how do we build a program that is responsive to these
kind of constraints, and I do believe that a program like this
requires small and responsive missions and projects from
suborbital to large, strategic missions. It is a big priority,
particularly to invest in modest-sized and principal
investigator-led missions such as Discovery or New Frontiers or
Venture-class missions, depending on the respective community.
These missions have provided the best value for the money
invested. That is the type of program that research resulting
in NASA's first Nobel Prize was conducted and it is the type of
program that built the spacecraft currently orbiting planet
Mercury, and one of my censors is on there
Consider, for example, University of Michigan's CYGNSS
mission that was recently selected that is focused to eliminate
one of the biggest uncertainties and predictions of big storms
such as hurricanes and some of the storms that bring tremendous
amounts of rain here sometimes, the uncertainty that relates to
the strength of these storms. The science payload is
approximately 100 times smaller in mass, in price and in power
than conventional satellite measuring instruments which enables
an entire constellation of these sensors to be flown at lower
cost. So the use of this constellation reduces the revisit time
and therefore the time resolution of the most pivotal
measurements of these wins from days to hours, which is needed
to observe the inner core processes of these storms. So these
short-term priorities, however, must be balanced and aligned
with big bets and big thinking worthy of NASA. NASA science
should stretch our imagination, stimulate our thinking and
demonstrate leadership worldwide. We must remember that the
work that we do is not purely scientific, technological or
economic or military based. The prime discoveries that further
out understanding of the cosmos have fueled and inspired the
human imagination across all cultures and all times and I
believe will do so in the future.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zurbuchen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Dr. Zurbuchen. Good advice, and
well presented. Thank you, sir.
At this time I recognize Dr. Pace for your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT PACE, PH.D, DIRECTOR,
SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Pace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for
this opportunity to discuss the important topic of NASA's
strategic direction.
It has been noted that the NASA Strategic Plan does not
drive NASA budget requests or the allocation of relative
emphasis to activities within those requests--exploration,
science aeronautics. As such, it is not surprising that there
are numerous disconnects between the stated policies, approved
programs and their actual funding. The technical and budgetary
risks facing the agency are the most visible symptoms of deeper
policy and management disconnects between the White House and
Congress. Such disconnects are not inevitable and can be
resolved by the White House and Congress as well as NASA
working together, and as often stated, budgets are policy and
NASA budgets are really a more accurate reflection of de facto
national policy than the NASA Strategic Plan is.
The NASA budget is a political choice. It is a reflection
of what we value as a society. The Obama Administration's
stimulus program was greater than NASA's budget cumulatively
from 1958 to 2008 in constant-dollar terms. The United States
sent humans to the moon, built and operated a space shuttle
fleet for 30 years, explored the solar system and contributed
its share of the International Space Station for less than the
cost of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The point
of such a comparison is not that space is inexpensive but
rather that in today's environment, sustaining discretionary
expenditure for civil space exploration will be challenging
unless there is a clear rationale linking such efforts to
broader national interests that could be supported in a
bipartisan manner over many years.
What I hope to convey in my written testimony was that
while NASA faces serious challenges, particularly in human
space exploration, a way forward does exist to put the agency
on a more stable and sustainable foundation that will advance
U.S. national interests. The seemingly separate threads of
human, robotic, civil, commercial and national security space
activities are in fact deeply intertwined with each other, both
politically and technically. The United States can best advance
its national interests to a more integrated, strategic approach
to its national security and civil space interests.
International civil space cooperation, space commerce and
international space security discussions could be used to
reinforce each other in ways that would advance U.S. interests
in the sustainability and security of all space activities.
It is well recognized that many of today's most important
geopolitical challenges and opportunities lie in Asia. Asian
space agencies have shown a common interest in lunar missions
as a logical next step beyond low-Earth orbit. Such missions
are seen as ambitious but achievable and thus more practical
than missions to Mars and more distant locations. They offer an
opportunity for emerging and established space-faring countries
to advance their capabilities without taking on the political
risks of a competitive race with each other. A multinational
program to explore the moon as a first step would be a symbolic
and practical means of creating a broader international
framework for space cooperation. At the same time, the geo
political benefits of improving intra-Asian relations and U.S.
engagement could support more ambitious space explorations than
science alone might justify.
Europeans are also interested in being part of a return to
the moon, and as recently as June of this year, Russia proposed
a lunar program with the United States and publicly supported
this position at international conferences. There are many
geopolitical, scientific exploration, commercial and
educational objectives that could be achieved at the moon, and
in contrast, the case for a human mission to an asteroid is
unpersuasive and unsupported by technical or international
realities. We should be visionary but focused on practical
actions.
The exploration and development of space is a reflection of
the values we hold as a Nation. It is those values that are
probably the most important to the long term for defining what
NASA is and what space exploration is truly about. It is not
just our DNA and our robots that go out there; it is our
values. We are a Nation not defined by blood, tribe or religion
but by conscious choice. Our choices are defined by adherence
to the Constitution and the values of a tolerant culture, a
democratic society and a market-driven economy.
In shaping the international environment for space
activities, the United States should seek to build a more
secure, stable and prosperous world in which our values are
taken beyond the Earth. In doing so, we should also exercise
some humility in face of the unknown. Did Thomas Jefferson know
the ultimate economic return or impact from the investment in
the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark expedition? Did
Teddy Roosevelt in sending the Great White Fleet and building
the Panama Canal? Did Kennedy with Apollo? In their time, these
projects were controversial and criticized in Congress but who
today would say that they should not have been done? Through
the long lens of history, we see that these efforts define us
as a Nation, a Nation that pioneers the next frontier.
Let me conclude by observing that we are all in this
together: the White House, Congress, U.S. government agencies,
our international partners, Space Station, science community,
universities, research centers and the many U.S. companies that
create and operate our Nation's capability. Thus, I really
commend and thank this Committee for holding this hearing
today. Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pace follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hall. And we thank you, Dr. Pace. I thank all of
you for your testimony, and I remind Members that Committee
rules limit questioning to five minutes for each of us. I will
open the round of questions and recognize myself for five
minutes.
As I sit here, I don't ever like to say it is my last day.
This is the last day for this week, at least. I don't like
anything last. I don't even like for them to call an airport a
terminal. That doesn't sound good to me at my age. I was just
thinking of the really wonderful testimony all of you all have
given and the time that it took you to gather to have that and
then to gather up on it and then deliver it to us. It is really
great of you and generous of you.
I go back and I glean from each of you that there is need
for more funds. The Norm Augustine committee recommended, if
you remember, Bob, $3 billion additional for NASA per year.
That wouldn't have even brought us up to one percent of the
overall budget. That is a shame. Three Presidents turned their
backs on us on that when we asked them for that additional
money. Things could be different today, I think, had we been
able to edge that into the budget for NASA. We needed it.
Bob, you suggested several modifications, and Administrator
Blakey, thank you. I have a question or so.
General, let me ask you, General Sega, what reaction, if
any, has your Committee received from the Administration with
regard to the recommendations you lay out? And I liked your
recommendations. Specifically, you cite a need for a new
national consensus for NASA's future. Does the Administration
agree with such a consensus is needed, or can you answer that?
General Sega. Mr. Chairman, the report was briefed last
week to a NASA administrator and staff, and I believe it was
well received, and we have not briefed any other elements of
the Administration besides NASA.
Chairman Hall. Okay. Let me ask Dr. Pace----
General Sega. Excuse me. I stand corrected there. We also
have briefed Dr. Holdren at OSTP.
Chairman Hall. Okay. What was their reaction? They kind of
speak for the President, I think, sometimes.
General Sega. Correct, and they were mostly in a listening
mode, and again, they hadn't gone through it in detail, but we
did present our recommendations and so we would await their
reaction.
Chairman Hall. Okay. Dr. Pace, your testimony points out
how potential international partners have been confused by lack
of clear space goals and priorities and especially by the
cancellation of plans to return to the moon without a viable
alternative. Why don't you elaborate on why the moon is a more
appropriate step for our international partners than an
asteroid or Mars? To me, the Space Station is number one. It is
so important. If we can't do that, we can't do anything, and we
would absolutely lose our international partners. That is the
next thing that everybody points out. But how to keep them? We
need more money. I think it is too late to ask for that
additional billion or that that would help us, the $3 billion
that was suggested by the man that has led every study I guess
that has ever been made for this Committee. Does the
Administration--you will know whether or not the consensus is
needed. Does NASA believe that a consensus is needed?
Dr. Pace. Sir, would you like me to answer the
international question or the NASA question?
Chairman Hall. The NASA question.
Dr. Pace. Well, I think that not being with NASA, of
course, today, as I look at NASA from the outside, I think that
they in fact do feel frustrated by the disconnects between the
White House and Congress. They of course would like to have
some clearer direction and support. But I think that if you ask
them as representatives of the Administration, I think they
would say well, we have a direction, we have a policy, and we
are trying to execute that policy as best we know how. The
problem is I think, particularly in civil space exploration, is
disconnected from technical and political realities. I
completely agree with you that the Space Station is the most
vital immediate thing we have to be focused on. But then we
have to be looking, what comes after the Space Station, and
this is where I think our international partners feel a bit
left out because Mars and asteroids are extremely challenging.
They are extremely challenging for us. And as a result, when
they look at themselves and they look at their own agencies,
they don't see a way for meaningful international cooperation
with us on those programs, certainly in the manned side of
things. And therefore they are left really without a way
forward to work with us.
I think that hurts us because the consensus I think in the
U.S. community is that international cooperation is essential
to any exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Nobody thinks we are
going to repeat the Apollo program going there by ourselves,
and so it makes sense to ask what could our international
partners do, what are they capable of doing, and we really
haven't provided a hook for our partners in the current policy.
That leads to the disconnect with larger geopolitical interests
which then leads to the sense of drift that I think NASA feels.
Chairman Hall. We know we can go to the moon. How do you
feel about putting major emphasis on the Space Station and not
forgetting that we want to go to Mars or that we intend to go
to Mars and keep an ear open to that but not to be asking for
vast, expensive and great amounts of money that it is going to
take to do that until we perfect reaching our own Space Station
and claiming back our Space Station that we are almost turning
our back on by having to beg the Russians for a trip up there
and back?
Dr. Pace. No, I think that if one does not support the
Space Station, anything else is kind of meaningless. In the
aftermath of the Columbia accident, we had very serious
conversations with our international partners as to whether or
not they wanted to stop and just simply call it a day, and they
were very, very clear that we had to continue with the Space
Station, they had made these commitments to it, it was not
practical to talk about other international cooperation if in
fact we failed at the station. So I think the number one issue
and I think also as part of my written testimony, utilization
of the Space Station is the near-term issue. Ensuring access to
the station with high reliability is the top issue for ensuring
utilization.
One of the concerns--this is maybe a whole separate
discussion--is on the sustainability of the station with the
rather fragile logistics support that we have right now. The
new commercial cargo capabilities that are coming online are
extremely critical, extremely necessary. If there is any
faltering or delays in that, we are going to be looking at the
potential for having to maybe reduce the manning on the Space
Station, and if that happens, then we are going to be looking
at our utilization going down.
Chairman Hall. I thank you, sir.
My time has expired. At this time I recognize Mrs. Edwards
for her--Ms. Johnson for her five minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, and let me thank each of
the witnesses for extraordinary testimony.
I am sitting here in sort of a state of frustration. I
think that this Committee is expected to be a visionary
committee and also I feel very strongly that our future in
research, development and innovation rests with what we
recommend or what we do, and our opinion. We are not
appropriators on this Committee but we are very mindful of the
fact that we have very little money. But I still think that
with the help of experts, we can at least lay out what we
consider the vision for our country's research and innovation
through space research, and then allow the Administration or
the appropriators to determine what we can and cannot do. I
think that currently there is so much frustration as to where
NASA is concerned that they really don't know what is coming
next.
Just looking at what has happened so far in space
exploration research, it is clear to me that where we are now
came almost exclusively but certainly from space exploration
research. I believe that to stop and decide we can't afford it
is simply saying to our future, we won't be there. We won't be
there for our young people, we won't be there for the
inspiration, we are just going to take a backseat and watch the
rest of the world. We won't need to educate our young people if
we are not going to give some opportunity for participation.
So I guess my question is, how would you help us come to a
real recommendation that speaks to what we consider to be the
needs in the future rather than just the money? We know it
costs, but we have got to make some real serious decisions, and
I don't think we have half-step it. We have got to decide that
we are going to invest in our future and eliminate the need for
food stamps or whether we are going to continue to pay for more
and more and more food stamps. And so I am very, very concerned
because I know that we are very sensitive to the cost on this
Committee, and we should be, but we really are not the
appropriators; we are the visionaries. We are the people who
are supposed to be looking to see what our Nation needs to keep
pace and to continue to be leaders. So I need to know if you
would give me some of your opinions on where you really think
we ought to be if we were brave enough to say this is what we
need, take it or leave it, Mr. President. Anybody? Mr. Walker,
why don't you start?
Mr. Walker. Well, I agree absolutely with your premise, and
I think that the role that the government has to play in NASA
is to assure that its missions are future-oriented, and I think
we have spent an awful lot of money in recent years on
essentially operational issues and so on. What this Committee
could do is give us a sense of direction. I mean, do we go back
to Mars, do we do some of these kinds of things, but in order
to do that, then you have to commit yourself to some high-risk
technologies because in my view, it is extremely important that
you, for instance, reduce the time that it takes to go to Mars
if you are going to do it. The only way it is politically
viable is if you can go there in weeks rather than years, and
the fact is, we could develop technologies along those lines
but it is going to take the Committee's decision in your
authorization process to give NASA those kinds of instructions
to move it forward. And what I was suggesting in my testimony
is that there are ways to reach out for some of the other
things that you are doing for money.
Since I left Congress, I have been involved with an FFRDC.
You will notice that in the Aldridge Commission report, they
recommended at least some of the NASA centers move to that kind
of model. Why? Well, because at that point you can have both a
government funding stream going into the operation as well as
outside money coming in to the operation to do other things,
and that allows you then to have some streams of money that do
not necessarily depend upon the appropriations process. I don't
know if that is exactly the right model for NASA but it seems
to me that this Committee working could come up with something
along those lines. That allows you then to look forward as well
as find the resources necessary, not wholly government
resources, and that is what I am trying to suggest in the
testimony.
I think that is possible. I have worked with a number of
these start-up companies that are looking to do really exciting
things. They would love to have NASA as a partner, and you have
got to figure out a way to find ways for NASA to be able to do
that partnership on a very, very routine basis.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. I know my time has expired, but
yours have not, so I will relent and let them answer.
General Sega. If I could follow that comment, our study
task stated that any recommendations made by the committee will
be predicated on the assumption that NASA's outyear budget
profile will be constrained due to continuing deficit
reduction, so we looked at a budget-constrained environment. We
do believe, and we concur with what you were saying in terms of
the long-term view, and strategic goals and objectives are a
starting point and that there is a consensus about those
strategic goals and objectives. For example, as we had many
witnesses and did our work, we found little evidence that an
asteroid mission, for example, is widely accepted, whether
inside of NASA, outside in industry or internationally, and so
it is important that there is clarity in terms of the direction
and NASA's strategic plan can in fact with clarity identify
what the trades are in that portfolio going forward and there
is a starting point upon which some choices can be made.
Ms. Blakey. I think you will find industry also joining
with others on the panel saying that absolutely partnerships,
the ability to bring together public and private sector and
international or conjoining resources is certainly an excellent
step in the right direction, that if this Committee through the
upcoming reauthorization process, because I would remind us all
that it is not so far away again, that you all are going to
have to tackle that would be excellent.
I also would say that regardless of destination, because
there are conflicting views about destinations--you even hear
them on this panel--let us keep in mind that building the
capabilities to get into deep space, the ability, both in terms
of heavy launch as well as crew capsules and tackling some of
the research that is daunting right now still. We don't have
all the answers on deep space radiation, for example, and
issues of bone density. So there is some critical research that
has got to be continued, but remember, when they supported the
F-1 rocket back in the 1950s, they didn't know where they were
going to go but it made all the difference, so bear that in
mind.
Dr. Pace. Well, actually I was motioning to my colleague
because I thought that he put his finger on it in terms of the
people, that is, the combination of small satellites,
suborbital missions, zero-G aircraft, things that provide
really tangible hands-on experience is the most crucial thing
to give people a sense of the future. Sometimes when it is said
to me, ``we have been to the moon already,'' I usually have to
respectfully say, well, my father's generation went to the
moon; we have not gone to the moon. That generation is past. We
need to build and rebuild the people with the expertise.
One of the most exciting things about the commercial
industries and the partnerships that Congressman Walker noted
is that opportunity to provide for hands-on, real hardware and
real flight experience, for which there is no substitute. And
so I think the building of capabilities, whatever destinations
we want to go, obviously I am a partisan of a particular
approach, none of that is possible without hands-on expertise,
and I thought my colleague really nailed that one.
Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back her time. I think
that was a very good question that you asked, and I am sorry
that that question wasn't put to the President of the United
States before he ran a line through Constellation or he hadn't
have talked to Bob Walker, General Sega, some of you who know
much about what is going on, Norm Augustine, for one, who
always said what we needed the funds for it, and the funds we
needed and were requested were turned down. So we go from that.
At this time I recognize Mr. Sensenbrenner for five
minutes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NASA was created in the 1950s in reaction to the Soviet
Union launching Sputnik I, which ignited a Space Race beginning
with the Mercury program. NASA's focus on putting humans into
space served as its most high-profile and arguably the most
exciting facet of the agency. Mission-oriented manned space
programs have been the prism through which we judge the agency,
and mission orientation back 40 years ago excited a group of
students to go into STEM education, which we now call it today,
and got us a generation of scientists and engineers.
The space shuttle, however, flew its last mission in 2011
and there is now a gap in domestic spaceflight capabilities.
Instead, we rely on the Russian space agency to ferry American
astronauts to the space station. The Bush Administration began
the Constellation program to serve as the shuttle's successor
but President Obama canceled the program. Fortunately, Congress
has continued to see the importance of a heavy-lift rocket
system and mandated the Space Launch System and the Orion
program in the 2010 NASA authorization bill.
Dr. Pace, I appreciate your comment. The stimulus act
appropriated more funds in one act than this country has spent
on NASA since its creation in 1958, and budgets and spending
are an example of priorities, and in terms of having to seize
the continued United States' preeminence not just in manned
space programs but in terms of science and inventions and
everything else that goes along with it ended up being washed
away in the flood of stimulus funds.
Now, as this hearing has highlighted already, the
President's approach to human spaceflight lacks a clear
mission, and he is relying on the success of commercial space,
which I agree is vital, but has dragged his feet on pushing
human spaceflight at NASA. I strongly support a public-private
partnership for our country's space policy. However, it is up
to NASA to develop the heavy-lift rocket because the private
sector doesn't have enough funds to do it by itself, and that
heavy-lift rocket needs enough thrust to overcome the
Administration's shortsightedness.
Now, by canceling the Constellation program, NASA has lost
its international partners who supported a mission to the Moon.
President Obama has taken a ``been there, done that'' approach,
but we haven't been there for 40 years, and the international
partners that would have helped us have never been there. If we
cannot lead the world in space, China and Russia will
inevitably feel the void that we left behind, and that will
have a trickle-down effect on the number of people that we
train as scientists and engineers to keep America's preeminence
not in space but in practically everything else.
So Dr. Pace, would you please discuss the problems caused
by the cancellation of the Constellation program, and what is
needed from Congress in this current fiscal environment to
ensure the success of the Space Launch System and Orion?
Dr. Pace. Thank you, sir. That is a tall order. I think one
of the crucial things that the Constellation program was
supposed to do was to provide a smooth transition for the
workforce and for the capabilities the Nation had off of the
shuttle program to whatever came next.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. And we have lost that now.
Dr. Pace. And we have lost that, and the deep integration
between low-Earth orbit and farther destinations that was hoped
for I think is also gone. So I would first say that 2012 is not
2008. We are in a different and new situation today, and we
have to look at going forward.
The primary--one of the primary problems, though, with the
end of Constellation was again cutting ourselves off from our
international partners who didn't see how they were going to
participate, increasing risk to the International Space Station
because while we certainly hope for and encourage and want to
see the private sector take over that work, if there are
delays, if there are problems, we don't really have a fallback
option, so we are down to really a few critical paths for
supporting the station. So the complementary nature between
commercial programs and the Constellation program I thought was
one of its strengths.
The lack of a clear rationale for human exploration beyond
the International Space Station is another serious problem. The
Administration's approach of being capability driven, while it
has a certain logic to it, also has a lot of vulnerabilities,
and historically, I think that a more strictly geopolitical
approach such as I have talked about a post-Cold War approach
for leading international cooperation would in fact be a better
approach for the United States. There are some others that one
could take but simply talking about capabilities absent a
strategic rationale that is integrated with other U.S. national
interests I think is a very, very fraught path as we are seeing
today.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you. My time is expired.
Chairman Hall. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Funding for NASA is very important for many reasons but
especially investment in NASA creates jobs. If we want to
increase funding to NASA, we have got to speed up our Nation's
economic recovery, and I have a couple of bills that I believe
provide a very cost-effective way to strengthen our economic
competitiveness, and that would be to invest in the city that
symbolizes both U.S. manufacturing and has the assets to help
make our country's economic capability stronger, and that is
the city of Detroit. The city of Detroit is currently in fiscal
constraints. It is facing its own fiscal cliff. I will be soon
introducing a bill that will allow the city to refinance its
considerable debt at a lower interest rate, saving money and
likely stabilizing that city's financial situation.
Furthermore, I am proposing to eliminate the capital gains tax
on income on investment made in that city as a way to spur
investment.
Saying that, in the city of Detroit, we have an
extraordinarily high number of people who have lost hope
because they are not working, yet throughout the metropolitan
Detroit region, we have many employers who have thousands of
jobs that are going unfilled because they can't find people
skilled and qualified to be hired into those jobs. We have a
skills gap in metropolitan Detroit as well as in this country.
Dr. Zurbuchen, from the University of Michigan, I know that
you understand these economic challenges that we are facing in
southeastern Michigan. How do you believe that investing in
NASA innovation could help us close that skills gap?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks so much for this question,
Congressman.
I am the first university graduate in my family. The only
reason I studied science, which is what I did, and the only
reason I came to this country is because of the investment this
Committee or committees ahead of it have made decades ago and
because of the inspiration that came from the Space Program. I
believe that that power of inspiration and investments that
comes from this has a tremendous effect on the youth, the young
high school student who is making decisions for her career and
the future she has in front of her seeing that it is possible
to make these dreams a reality.
So I do believe the inspiration aspect of NASA is a really
important part and remains a very powerful force that this
Committee should consider. Once we get them through the high
schools and into our universities, I believe the kind of
diverse portfolio that I mentioned, the hands-on experience
explains to our students that technology and progress is not so
much just about talking about ideas; it is about making these
ideas happen.
And you should be interested in knowing that, for example,
at the University of Michigan with--this last year, something
like 5,000 engaged students in activities, aerospace is the
third-most represented theme following only biomedical and
computer science, the ones you would have guessed perhaps
initially. Aerospace is hugely represented because of the
reasons that Congressman Walker and others have mentioned the
tremendous power of the ability of actually putting these
companies out there, trying to have new approaches of landing
that rover on Mars. Some of my students were engaged in that.
So I believe the hands-on experience that comes from the
programs from NASA are a second aspect on a very important
solution that you were mentioning.
The shops are coming. We have startups in aerospace. Some
of these really surprising kind of changes from technology that
was developed under NASA, for example, technology that they are
now investigating under city sewer systems using robotics
technology that was developed in NASA. General Motors, a
company that you are very much aware of having tremendous
autonomy, lessons learned in collaboration with NASA through
these public-private partnerships that led to the robot on the
space station. So I believe that there is multipronged aspects
that relates directly to the bottom--not just to the bottom
line, to the top line to what our economy does and how--what
the shops are that are being created both in Michigan but they
are all over the country.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Chair, do I have time for another question?
Chairman Hall. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Clarke. I yield back my time.
Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Chair now recognizes Chairman Smith for five minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Sega, let me address my first question to you. Your
report showed that there is not much support in the scientific
and space community for a mission to a near-Earth asteroid in
2025. Is such a mission absolutely necessary to help us get to
Mars or are there alternatives? And are there alternative
missions as well to replace that mission to the asteroid?
General Sega. As we look at the human mission to an
asteroid that is in 2010 National Space Policy of the United
States, in addition to not being widely accepted, there were
some shortcomings noted by some of the people that appeared
before the Committee. A note is that as we look back in time,
there have been several Presidents that have talked about Mars.
The rhetoric toward that as a destination was noted by the
Committee. We also recognize that there are different paths
that one could go if that was in fact the chosen destination
for a human mission and that it would maybe look at integrating
some of the other aspects of NASA's work. For example, if that
was the strategic goal, then you would look at the robotic
missions that would support going there.
Mr. Smith. General Sega, do you think we should reconsider
that mission to the near-Earth asteroid?
General Sega. The Committee didn't address that directly
but there were many questions that concerned that as the path
forward.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
General Sega. Other work in terms of technology,
aeronautics, getting to the atmosphere of Mars, out of our
atmosphere in science could be focused on the strategic goals
and objectives.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you for that.
Dr. Pace, what do you think the American people would like
for us to do in space? Obviously, the Hubble is a popular
curiosity that generated a great amount of interest. More
specifically, how do you determine that coincidence between
popular support and missions that are scientifically justified
and missions that can be just abide by budget constraints as
well?
Dr. Pace. Sure. One of the patterns you see in public
opinion is U.S. public opinion has been actually remarkably
stable for space activity. It was never as large as people
thought it was during Apollo and it has never been low as
people thought about afterwards.
So the American public have sense, I think, that we are an
exploring nation, we are a pioneering nation, and they expect
or assume that our leadership is in fact doing that and working
on it and they trust that that is happening. So when things
like the shuttle program ended without really a clear path
after that, there was somewhat a sense of shock or concern, not
because they agreed or preferred one path or another but
because they sensed, well, wait a minute. Isn't someone working
on this? Isn't there a path forward.
The--getting to specific missions, I think what you see
over and over again is people have an interest in life. They
have an interest in people, the sense of direct--so when there
is the possibility of organic life on Mars, you see lots of
interest. Much to the disappointment sometimes of the
geologists who think they are doing important work, too.
Mr. Smith. Right.
Dr. Pace. But life science and that sense of personal
connection, space tourism which is talked about, that sense of
personal participation and connection is what I think the
American people are----
Mr. Smith. Would you put in that category Earthlike planets
as well?
Dr. Pace. Absolutely. Absolutely. The growth of a number of
Earthlike planets----
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Dr. Pace. --to the Kepler mission has been very, very
exciting. I think that with the James Webb Space Telescope to
see deeper into the galaxy and things we have never seen before
will inspire that sense of wonder that the American people
assume that their country is going to be a leader in doing.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I agree with that. Thank you, Dr. Pace.
And Congressman Walker, final question for you. How do we
determine the balance between robotic and human missions? There
are advantages and disadvantages to both, but is there any way
to try to achieve a balance?
Mr. Walker. Well, I think clearly there needs to be an
understanding of what humans can do best and what robots can do
best. The robots give us tremendous amounts of information, but
in general, they find what we sent them there to find. It is
based upon our belief of what they might be capable of finding.
Humans have the advantage of going and finding things that we
never expected to find and never expected to see. Someone said
the other day that the two small rovers that were on Mars for
many months did, in the whole time that they were there or the
whole time that they have been there, about the same amount of
work one human could do in a day-and-a-half because is it in
fact--it is the human ability to process information in
remarkable ways that is needed.
And so I think you do strike a balance. The precursor
missions are always going to be robotic probably. There are
tremendous science missions that you can do with robots. But in
the end, you want to put humans into a place where humans can
find only those things that humans are capable of finding.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. I am aware of Mr. Walker's problem space and
time-wise. We excuse you at this time.
Mr. Walker. I am fine, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Hall. You are okay?
Mr. Walker. I have had my office tell my appointment that I
will reschedule with them and so on, and so I am fine for the
moment.
Chairman Hall. Okay. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Curson, for five minutes.
Mr. Curson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
you that testified with this excellent testimony.
I am from an industry that has benefitted much from NASA
and the technologies and everything that they have spawned from
their research and the brilliance that has come out of there--I
come from the auto industry and everything from metals to paint
to weight, and I truly hope that NASA gets a long-term presence
that they are looking for because it benefits this entire
country. But also the stimulus that we have talked about that
has been kicked around here a little bit saved that same
industry that I came out of, and had it not been for that
stimulus, we have might have been in a depression and not be
able to talk about any funding.
So with that out, I would like to direct a question to
General Sega. You testified that NASA needs personnel
flexibility, including the ability to conduct reductions in
force and hire contractors rather than civil servants in select
instances. I would like to know if this is because there isn't
a long-term commitment to the program and you need to be
flexible bringing people in or out, or do you believe even if
there is a long-term commitment if that would be your strategy
on personnel? And what provisions can NASA make for the
retraining of those highly educated NASA scientists and
technicians if you end up with a glut of those people, which
there is going to be right now from what I understand? And is
the commercial market large enough to absorb these scientists
and these highly skilled people that were trained with tax
dollars and they are going to carry knowledge that nobody else
possesses that could be valuable to our country? Can the market
absorb those?
General Sega. Congressman, one of our tasks was to examine
NASA's organizational structure and identify changes that can
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the mission
activity, so that is how we address that.
As you arrive at new strategic objectives and goals and
then NASA creates a strategic plan to accomplish those, we
recommend the flexibility, not necessarily, how it would turn
out in terms of the ability to look at personnel in
infrastructure aligned with the strategic goals and objectives
in an implementation plan.
So we did note that the jet propulsion lab is an FFRDC-type
structure and it is contract folks there that are engaged in
many aspects of research development and operations for their
satellites. So in different centers have a different mix in
terms of contractors and civil servants. There were about four
of them that were about 50/50. There is about three of them
that were quite high in terms of contractors to NASA civil
servants, one that was higher in terms of civil servants than
contractors, but there is more of that flexibility of doing
what that center would be expected to accomplish in a more
integrated way. And so it was the flexibility rather than a
specific solution that we are recommending.
Mr. Curson. Hnot to be aow do we ensure that NASA's
research talent pool and facilities are not acquired by foreign
interests that may be harmful to our national interests? I
guess the General, I direct that toward you again.
General Sega. That was not addressed in our study in terms
of the United States versus foreign ownership of companies.
Mr. Curson. And I believe you testified in your written
statement that NASA's infrastructure flexibility--the ability
to dispose of property it no longer needs. Would this be
included and what could be purchased by foreign countries?
General Sega. I don't really recall that we have specified
or even considered in our deliberations the nature of the
entity that would be a potential buyer of the facility. I do
want to give you an example of a visit that I made to Plum
Brook--it is in Ohio--where they have a large chamber and they
test fairings separations. And they--a great facility. Some of
NASA's missions need that, but it is a facility that also has
the capacity for other work. And so it was ESA that looked at
doing some work in that facility. They were also discussing
with JAXA and SpaceX to do work in that facility. And so it
would be--some aspects may be appropriate for a sale, but
others may be just greater utilization of the facility in more
creative ways.
Mr. Curson. Thank you.
If I may, one question to Congressman Walker. You talked
about the possibility of for-profit companies joining in with
NASA on particular research. We all know there are great minds
out there right now thinking about farming in space and mining
in space, which would be great projects to work together. Are
there really companies out there that could afford the funding
to do that research to join in with NASA to help NASA become a
viable program for the long-term?
Mr. Walker. Absolutely. I mean you have companies right now
that are creating spacecraft that you do have working
relationships with NASA but we would love to have closer
relationships and look toward the future. We announced a
company just last week that is looking to go to the moon.
Certainly, NASA's expertise in that area would be invaluable.
And these are companies who are perfectly prepared to pay NASA
for utilization of their facilities and utilization of their
talent. And so there are lots of opportunities out there that
could be expanded even more into the future.
You mentioned the automobile industry. The automobile
industry is in the process of developing autonomous vehicles.
Nobody has done more elaborate work on autonomous vehicles than
NASA has done. My guess is that there have been some
partnerships in that, but those are partnerships that could be
expanded.
Mr. Curson. Yeah. Thank you, Congressman.
And I yield any time I might have left.
Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.
Palazzo, for five minutes.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Chairman Hall.
The hearing today is especially appropriate considering the
upcoming NASA reauthorization of some of the recent bills we
have passed, including the indemnification bill that so many on
this Committee wanted to see and supported.
As has already been expressed here by other Members and our
witnesses, I am concerned with the vision for NASA going
forward and the budget issues that are causing such grief in
our short- and long-term programs and missions. What are our
long-term goals for NASA? How will we form a strategy that
takes into account all NASA initiatives from space and earth
sciences, human space exploration, and aeronautics to STEM
education? The NRC report attempted to answer these questions
and discuss some of the paths NASA could take. None of them
will be easy and our job will only become more difficult as
budgets shrink.
NASA, the Administration, and Congress must do a better job
of informing the American people about the important work NASA
does and the overwhelming benefits our society reaps as a
result. Maintaining our space leadership in the world is
extremely important and is worth investing in, but we must not
forget that an investment in NASA is also an investment in
research and development for future technologies. NASA has a
proven record and thousands of examples in everyday
technologies we simply could not live without in 2012.
I would like to remind everyone the speech that President
Kennedy gave at Rice University in 1962. He addressed the U.S.
effort to put a man on the moon and used that famous line--and
I am paraphrasing--but Kennedy said we did these things not
because they are easy but because they are hard. The questions
we must answer and the choices that must be made are anything
but easy. But like Kennedy, we should not shrink back from them
simply because they are hard.
NASA must step up to this challenge or it risks its legacy
of success and leadership in space. That is not an outcome that
anyone in this room wants to see happen. So I thank you all for
sharing your comments with us today, and I believe I may have
time for one question.
So Ms. Blakey, given the end of the shuttle program and a
lack of a clear strategic direction, how does the uncertainty
threaten our industrial base and can you characterize the
capabilities that are at risk and perhaps even give us some
examples?
Ms. Blakey. Well, certainly, the cancellation of
Constellation was extremely disruptive from the industrial base
standpoint. At one point, we had more than 12,000 contractors
working down there. At this point, it is right at 1,000 and
diminishing. All those people, their skills, expertise go
elsewhere and frankly may very well go into other industries.
So we are extremely concerned that there be the kind of
stability, the kind of long-term programs, and ones that really
do tap the outer edge of design talent, the kind of R&D that is
really fundamental for us to maintain our global leadership,
because that is what is at stake behind the many, many
companies, universities, et cetera, that are all combining to
support our space program.
Mr. Palazzo. How do you replace that lost talent? Is there
a cost in--financial cost and is there a cost in time as well?
I mean will there not be a gap before we could possibly replace
that talent?
Ms. Blakey. There could very well be and we are quite
worried about that because as much as we support STEM programs
at all levels of education, you still have to have the
opportunities for young people to see in front of them that
appear to be important and exciting. And if those opportunities
aren't clear when they are making choices, whether it is high
school, graduate school, et cetera, they will definitely go
elsewhere and we do not see the kind of upsurge that we should
be seeing in engineering and other science talent right now. It
is a problem. And we have a huge amount of retirees in the
industry. We have an aging population. So we are going to see a
real bathtub if you will where we don't have the kind of people
we need, especially as we have to step it up.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for your answer to my question.
I would like to just--in all fairness, I do have a couple
more questions but I am going to yield back my time. But I
would like to say I do agree with our colleague from Detroit. I
believe he stepped out. I am all in favor of eliminating the
capital gains tax but not just for Detroit but for every
American. So thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Hall. Okay. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bonamici
of Oregon for five minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to all the witnesses for your testimony.
I wanted to follow up on some of the discussion we have
already been having about education, especially STEM education.
And Mr. Clarke brought up the skills gap. But I also want to
talk a little bit about the importance of educating the public
about the benefits of the Space Program, and there are some
testimony that has been provided that begins to touch on this.
Ms. Blakey, you talk in your testimony about how Space
Programs have improved our lives from vaccination research to
guiding first responders to weather satellites and missile
detection satellites. And then Dr. Zurbuchen--I hope I got your
name right or close--you talk about how do we define the
purpose and meaning behind exploration in space within a
society that does not always see a tangible benefit. And Dr.
Pace, you say that in today's environment with massive debt and
an anemic economic recovery sustaining discretionary
expenditures for civil space exploration will be especially
challenging unless there is a clear rationale linking such
efforts to broader national interests that can be supported in
a bipartisan manner over many years.
Now, I know there has been some discussion already about
the skills gap and of course STEM education. I want to point
out that the role of NASA in promoting STEM education should be
more clearly articulated in NASA's strategic plan. But what I
would like you to talk about is what, if anything, is the
industry doing to convey to the public the benefits of space
exploration? In other words, how can the contributions of our
Space Program to national interest be communicated not just to
stakeholders but also to the public at large?
And Ms. Blakey, if you would like to start, please?
Ms. Blakey. Well, I thank you very much for the opportunity
to expand on that a bit because we did put a great deal of
effort into this brand new report called ``Space in Our World''
which, believe me, we will make certain that every Member of
this Congress and the new Congress has a copy because you are
all ambassadors on this front. But we have also looked at the
fact that through social media this could be accessible to
every American. We have been Tweeting it, we have been putting
out specific nuggets if you will of examples. We are looking to
excite young people at the universities because there are
examples in here of where work in a variety of universities and
the private sector have kicked off enormous benefits for our
society.
So I simply would say that it is something that I think we
need to do a good job on because I do not believe the public
has any idea how, in their daily life, everyday life, they are
over and over again using the work that comes out of our NASA
programs and our Space Programs broadly, including NRO and some
of our classified programs. It all moves out eventually into
the economy and it has been a huge spur for the economy.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I look forward to seeing the
report.
Anyone else care to add to that? Dr. Pace?
Dr. Pace. I would say from experience of being at the
university--I teach both graduate and undergraduate students--
and many of them come and take courses in space and space
policy who are not space enthusiasts. They are international
affairs students, political science majors, economics people.
And to me it is always very gratifying as they hear about the
relationship of space to the economy and the relationship to
our international relations just how critical they realize this
subject is.
Many of them will come and say after going through the
course they walk outside and they have a new perspective on the
sky above them. They had no idea that all these things were
going on overhead--remote sensing, GPS systems, communications
satellites--how deeply embedded space in the entire critical
infrastructure of the planet. And it is almost invisible. But
then once they realize that is there, they take on a new
appreciation for it. They take on an appreciation for the
immense symbolism that space has and how it represents our
strategic relationship with our allies which is Japan and
Europe, how the Clinton Administration used brining the
Russians into the Space Station program--very controversial--
but as a way of symbolizing a post-Soviet relationship with
them.
So the really macro sweep of international affairs, the
centrality to the economy is something that students then come
to know and appreciate. And I don't know how to do that for the
public as a whole but I know we can certainly do it for
students and it happens over and over and over again as soon as
they see that and as soon as it is laid out for them.
Ms. Bonamici. Well, thank you.
And Major General, go ahead. I have a few seconds left. Go
ahead.
General Sega. Okay. I just wanted to note that our
committee did look at that as well and NASA in our view is
making some very positive steps in communication with regard to
social media for example and their STEM programs. I personally
was one of those that was inspired as a young boy living in
northeastern Ohio during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo
programs to studying math and science and ended up taking my
first airplane ride of my life from Cleveland, Ohio, to Denver,
Colorado, to go the Air Force Academy. I had never been in an
airplane prior to that time.
But in our study, we also looked at the events that are
clear and compelling such as landing the Curiosity that the
communications to the public was outstanding. And so in route
to identifying clear strategic objectives and goals and then
developing a strategic plan for NASA, some of that story
becomes clearer and easier to tell.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Thank you.
I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back her time.
Congressman Brooks from Alabama, five minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Zurbuchen and also Ms. Blakey, your testimony--in
particular, Dr. Zurbuchen--highlights the importance of
maintaining the pipeline of engineers and scientists to ensure
that we continue to innovate in the future. With respect to
both of you, what are your recommendations for a program that
provides opportunities to our graduate and post-doctoral
students to the benefit of future U.S. leadership in space?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks so much, Congressman. My personal
feeling is that such a program would be hugely advantageous for
this Nation and could in many ways in fact enable ideas that
were talked about on this panel. I think in general we have
tremendous interest in our talent--in some of our talent to
really engage in this, and such a program that you mentioned I
think will be very positively reacted upon.
Ms. Blakey. I must also tell you because I have had the
opportunity to go to almost all of NASA's centers around the
country as a member of the NASA Advisory Council, I have been
very, very impressed with the degree to which local university
talent is integrated into many of the NASA programs. JPL, there
is practically no one under 30 it appears as you go around the
entire facility. So I mean there is a big emphasis on trying to
pull in young people both at the undergraduate and graduate
level.
I will also recommend this: if you all haven't seen two
videos that are out there both stemming from the Curiosity
rover, I would recommend them. One of course is ``7 Minutes of
Terror,'' but it has relatively young engineers talking about
that 7 minutes when they did not know whether in fact the
Curiosity rover was on Mars. And the other one is a very funny
rap video, again done by young people in the NASA framework,
all about how exciting it is to work at NASA and how exciting
it is to be involved in the space program. Those things are
getting millions of hits on YouTube. So there is a lot going on
that some of us--at least I don't often see.
Mr. Brooks. Do you have any specific suggestions of what
the Federal Government should be doing to encourage STEM
education at the collegiate level or postgraduate level?
Dr. Zurbuchen. My personal recommendation would be to focus
on these modest and small-scale programs with tremendous
emphasis and really make sure that, for example, suborbital
programs and programs that support small-scale missions, as
well as explorer programs and so forth are funded at the level
that really makes the substantial impact that it can have
towards talent development. In my opinion, there is no other
investment at the collegiate level that will have more impact
relative to just a hands-on experience in the development of
talent for industry and for NASA than investments like that.
Ms. Blakey. I also would say that you see a great deal of
emphasis now in industry on pairing with universities on
specifically focused programs that often involve research for
undergraduates that can take them all the way into the graduate
level with internships in the summertime in those companies and
going back into the university where the curriculum is also
tailored to becoming a professional with a high degree of
expertise in one or another of these subspecialties. So there
is a lot more that is no longer generalized but is really going
into the engineering schools and saying let us help you teach
so that people come out with very concrete interests and
ambitions at the end that are highly marketable.
Mr. Brooks. All right. Congressman Walker, General Sega,
and Dr. Pace, briefly, legislation has been introduced calling
for lengthening the term of the NASA Administrator as a way to
help stabilize NASA's strategic direction. Testimony that we
have heard makes it clear that the largest problem is not at
the NASA level; it is a problem with national leadership and
coming to a consensus between the White House and the Congress.
In your judgment, would a longer term for the NASA
Administrator have a positive effect on NASA?
Mr. Walker. I think separating the NASA Administrator from
the political structure of the country would be a mistake. I
think that that kind of a situation would keep NASA out of the
mainstream of where political thought is going and I don't
think that that would be the wise course for the Nation at this
point.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you.
General Sega?
General Sega. Sir, our committee did not address the term
of the NASA Administrator.
Mr. Brooks. Do you have a judgment--an opinion?
General Sega. I don't.
Mr. Brooks. All right.
General Sega. I haven't thought through it.
Mr. Brooks. That is fine. Thank you.
Dr. Pace?
Dr. Pace. As an academic, I would answer it depends. I
would say that I think a slightly longer term or a set term
could be useful, but I share Congressman Walker's concern about
making sure that there is acceptance of that on both--the part
of both the House and the Senate--if that was the judgment of
both House and Senate that a longer term would be part of that
stable approach, then I think yes. If there wasn't such
agreement, then I don't think it would be terribly useful for
the reasons he described.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time allotted.
And also thank you for the opportunity to serve under your
leadership over the past two years as Chairman of this
Committee. It has been a real pleasure.
Chairman Hall. I thank you. And that might be one thing the
House and Senate could agree on. They would both be against it
I think.
I recognize Mr. Miller, the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Pace, the answer ``it depends'' would also qualify you
to be a lawyer.
Congressman Walker, I was interested in your idea of
corporate sponsorships. I am kind of old-fashioned. I liked it
when taxpayers built stadiums that were named after our honored
war dead instead of selling naming rights. And I just can't
quite imagine that picture of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on
the moon or Ed White walking in space in spacesuits that made
them look like NASCAR drivers. So a part of me rebels at it in
the first place, but second, I worry about the stability of the
funding. We have heard a lot today about the need for stable
funding and stable leadership at NASA. Sponsorships, naming
rights tend not to be a particularly stable source of funding
because corporations merge, they get acquired, they run into
trouble, they have to scale back. Will that be a stable source
of funding?
Mr. Walker. Well, certainly, there is instability in that
but, look, the appropriations process has also been a very
instable--or unstable source of funding for NASA as well. And
so, this is one way of reaching out to bring additional
resources into NASA. And it goes further than that. These are
industries that take a huge interest in NASA's activities.
People who provide sponsorships then build out. We have been
talking here at this table about the need for NASA to be
recognized broadly in the community. It is a way of assuring
that.
You mentioned NASCAR. The companies that provide those
sponsorships take a huge interest in what happens in NASCAR and
particularly with the teams that they sponsor. And they are a
part of expanding the acceptance of the NASCAR racing well
beyond the day's activities on a Sunday at the racetrack.
And so this is an opportunity for us to have an outreach
that goes to people who actually then have some skin in the
game and I think it could be an extremely important way of
bringing resources into an agency that is badly in need of
significant resources for the future.
Mr. Miller. I want to make it clear I wasn't picking a
fight with NASCAR. I am from North Carolina.
Mr. Walker. I didn't think you would.
Mr. Miller. I didn't run for reelection but I do want to be
able to go out in public.
There has been a lot of discussion of public-private
partnerships. Obviously, we do need to think about commercial
applications of our space technology and our capabilities, but
I worry. We have had proposals, discussions in this committee
of privatizing the national weather service, which is entirely
built with taxpayer-funded research. It is a capability that
has been entirely provided as a public service built by
taxpayer funding. And the proposals seem to be coming from a
company that wanted to buy the National Weather Service, have
monopoly power, and sell the data for a profit. Since there is
not an active market in National Weather Services, pricing it
seemed to be kind of hard and the public--the problem of having
that information provided for profit by somebody with a
monopoly power--worried me.
It struck me as what happened with the sale of state-owned
enterprises in companies--industries in--as the Soviet Union
dissolved to oligarchs. I want to make sure we are not taken.
How do we make sure that we are not taken in these public-
private partnerships and that we aren't giving a monopoly power
for something that perhaps should be provided as a government
service?
Mr. Walker. Well, I would remind you that one of the
problems we have with the Weather Service right now is the fact
that they haven't been able to fly their new modern satellites
and so on, and we risk a gap in a lot of valuable information
going forward because the government hasn't been capable of
moving forward. And so, there are problems on both sides.
I would say to you that that is where the whole issue of
oversight of all these activities where this Committee would
play an extremely important role in assuring that the kinds of
private-public partnerships that were entered into would in
fact be in the public interest. And there are a number of ways
that you can write bills to assure that kind of activity. As I
mentioned before, you can do it through an FFRDC kind of
mechanism where the Federal Government remains actively
involved in what those companies are doing, how those companies
are doing their job, and in fact provides an annual stream of
funding so that there are ways of structuring this that would
assure that the public interest was still maintained.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired.
Chairman Hall. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me also echo the gratitude that I have for having
served with you and you have provided excellent leadership to
this Committee and it has been--over the years, just an honor
working with you and with those who will be leaving us as well.
From our last question, let us just note that we have a
trillion dollars that we are spending more than we are taking
in. One-third of the federal budget now is debt. I mean we are
increasing in debt. Thus, if we are going to do things in the
future and if NASA or any of the things that we are going to do
in the future are to survive and/or to actually play an
important role in our country's future, we have got to be
creative. We have got to be creative and we have got to find
new approaches, and that I think is the number one commitment
that we have got, because otherwise, it is just going to fall
apart.
And I have a lot to say. That when you have a trillion
dollars more in debt that you have to deal with, I don't
believe the American people are going to put NASA on the top of
their priority list, which means we have to be even more
creative for those of us who do believe the importance of
space-related assets.
Let us just note that for the hearing today we have already
talked about how this infrastructure, this invisible
infrastructure that we depend upon--I mean I remember when
telephone calls cost so much money. It has been space-based
assets that have brought that down. GPS--people have no idea
the potential--even future potential of GPS. We are just now
experiencing that. And of course our national security,
weather, all that has been talked about. These are all things
that deal with space-based assets and I believe that NASA
should be the one who actually is pushing the envelope and what
space-based assets will benefit humankind in the future.
Let me just note that one thing that is sure, if you are
going to have space-based assets, we have got to have an
environment in space that is capable to use. And today, that is
under threat. And if there is anything that NASA--that I would
see that NASA can take a responsibility for along with a
partnership, a global partnership and lead the way, it is
making sure that we clear the debris from space so that we can
have space-based assets. If we don't clear the debris, the
debris will clear us out of space eventually. And we haven't
really focused on that. And I think that is something--maybe
that is one of those challenges that young people and everybody
else can understand.
The other challenge perhaps, I don't know if anybody
noticed--let me see if I have the actual number--yes. Did
anyone notice 2012XE54? Anybody notice that? Well, that
happened to have been an asteroid that was discovered Sunday,
and yesterday, flew between the Earth and the moon. That
asteroid had the same destructive power as the Tunguska
asteroid that destroyed hundreds of miles of Siberia about 100
years ago, yet we didn't discover it until Sunday. Now, those
are huge challenges that we need to take up. We are not going
to have space-based assets unless we clear the debris, and we
are not going to have a safe planet unless we can detect and
deflect these type of challenges.
I would hope that NASA, Mr. Chairman--if I have any say in
it, NASA should be taking up that challenge so that we can use
space for the betterment of mankind in the future. And you have
got 45 seconds to comment on my pontification. Bob, do you want
to----
Mr. Walker. Well, certainly, the issue of space debris is a
crucial issue. The commercial industry is facing all kinds of
problems these days with monitoring that, and much of what we
monitor is larger than some of the particles that could
actually cause real damage in space. And so that is a real
problem that needs to be addressed. And there are actually some
people out there in the private sector that have some
interesting ideas about how we could do that.
General Sega. As our committee looked at the issue of
asteroids, I commented on the human mission to them, but I also
recognize the importance of increasing our understanding of the
asteroids, and currently, there is a satellite that is in that
area.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much.
Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. I don't believe
we--well, yeah, we have one more here.
The Chair recognizes Mrs. Edwards from Maryland.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to echo how delightful it has been to have
you as our Chairman for the past couple years. I really both
enjoyed your company and your service on the Committee and so I
thank you for that and for tolerating me occasionally.
I was just--I am a Twitter follower of NASA's and I noted
that NASA has about 3.2 million followers, which is not
insignificant. It is not as much as the President or Oprah, but
it is more than the First Lady and RG3 and NASCAR. And so there
are people out there who really have an interest in NASA and
value NASA and how we can capture that I think so that it also
translates into support on a fiscal level I think is the
challenge given the range of activity that we expect of the
Agency. And just this--you know, over those last couple hours
or so as I am following my Twitter feeds, then I noted that
one, NASA assures us that the world is not going to end on
December 21 in case anybody wondered, and that the hashtag
Curiosity was the fifth-most followed or used hashtag over this
last year, which says to me that, especially the Curiosity
rover--it is striking some kind of chord in the public. And I
think that is actually a good thing for us because I think it
is important for the public to embrace NASA.
When I was growing up, our embrace of the Agency was
because of the Apollo missions. It was sitting in, you know,
kindergarten and 1st grade and whatever those other grades and
watching the liftoffs. And that inspired a generation and
inspired a nation. And I think Administrator Blakey, you
pointed out that it requires that kind of public inspiration in
order for us to generate the support for the other areas of the
work that the Agency does.
I want to think outside the box in a way about what it is
that we can do to strengthen the fiscal house of the Agency,
and one of the things I would like to look at, especially where
science is concerned, is that the difficult the Agency has in
doing science on a year-by-year basis, it really doesn't make
any sense. It is not what you generally find in university and
other kind of research where you know as an investigator where
you are starting, what your resources are over a period of
time, and then you can plan out the investigation.
And some of what we saw, for example, with the James Webb
Space Telescope is that with all of these different--and there
were a lot of problems--but all of these different levels of
funding from one year to the next year and not knowing and
reprogramming and things that, in fact, you have instruments
that sit around that aren't supposed to be sitting here because
they are supposed to be up there, and then you actually end up
over a course of time spending a lot more money. And so I
wonder if I could hear from any of you about the idea with
respect to scientific funding, agency funding, that if we went
to, you know, a two year, a multiyear funding stream just for
these programs understanding that it is different than funding
other kinds of things that the government does. And I just
wonder if you have some comments about that?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I have currently eight Ph.D. students who
are supported by funding streams that you are talking about. I
know firsthand the difficulty of managing these young people's
lives in an environment in which decisions can happen at--on a
week-to-week basis and all of a sudden their certain funding
stream disappears. Once we lose a Ph.D. student like this, for
example, we will do whatever we can as a university to cover
that Ph.D. student through, but we have many cases, especially
kind of in areas where space interacts with biology in the past
where we lost something like 30--just in our university alone
30 Ph.D. students in a queue that never came back. And so tools
that will create stability in that regard would that be
tremendously I think considered a potential fashion from people
like me and others.
Ms. Edwards. Congressman Walker, I wonder if you could
comment. You have been in this place on an idea like that and
where we might be able to take it.
Mr. Walker. Well, I have long believed that we do great
damage to our science programs with annual appropriations
process. The fact is that you do have to have a long-term
outlook when you are doing science whether it is space science
or bench science. And so we have a real problem in that we have
too often scrubbed the authorization process in favor of the
appropriations process. I mean one of the great reforms around
this place that would work would be to actually enforce the
rules of the Congress that say that you have to have an
authorization in place before you can pass an appropriation
because the fact is we need to have the stability of long-term
set policy in order to do science well. And by abandoning
authorization process too often, we have put the policy
decisions in the hands of the appropriators and they have a
one-year horizon. One-year horizons do not work in science.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Blakey. If I might, I would mention one other thing
because there is good precedent for this in terms of some
defense programs. The industry would like to see more use of
multi-year in terms of complex development programs, but when
you look at those in the DOD arena, you do see that it has been
an excellent force for holding down costs and having the kind
of stability that is needed. So there is precedent.
Chairman Hall. The Chair at this time recognizes I believe
Mr. Hultgren of Illinois for five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you so much. And Chairman, I just want
to also thank you for your great service and your great work as
Chairman. I think it has been really a good couple of years. I
have sure enjoyed my time on the Science Committee and wish I
could stay longer.
I also have enjoyed seeing you each time in Committee. It
reminds me of my funeral director father, what he often says is
that it is always better to be seen than to be viewed. And so I
appreciate your--that is my dad's line--but great to be with
you and appreciate all that you have done for us and for our
Committee here.
I also want to echo and agree with my friend and colleague
Congresswoman Edwards that we have got to start thinking more
long-term when it comes to NASA and science. I think it really
puts us at a disadvantage to so many other nations who are
thinking 5, 10, 20 years in the future, and we are lucky if we
are talking one year. More oftentimes, we are talking about 90
days. You know, like the continuing resolution that is just
kicking something out a little bit further. We have got to
change that and we have got to reach across the aisle to make
sure that that happens.
So thank you all for being here. This is such an important
discussion and something that I am passionate about. I do want
to just ask a couple quick questions with the few minutes that
I have. First, General Sega, I wonder if I could address to you
your thoughts. Would the NRC report have had the same tenor and
conclusions if President Obama had not cancelled the
Constellation Program four years ago?
General Sega. The factors that brought us to a point that
we talked about in terms of transition was also the--
terminating the shuttle program and then something else follows
it, and the ability to have a consensus on strategic objectives
and goals, this longer-term thinking is important and--to be
able to have it for long-term. Clearly, it costs us
Administrations; it costs us terms in Congress. And so I--the
study was prompted by Congress, clearly, to NASA and then to
the NRC, but the issue of the longer-term piece, I think that
would be an enduring theme regardless of some other events.
Mr. Hultgren. I wonder if I could ask the other folks here
starting with Dr. Pace if you wouldn't mind your thoughts of
how you think these results and conclusions would be different
if the Constellation program hadn't been cancelled.
Dr. Pace. Well, I think there is really two parts to the
disruptions that occurred. One is the Constellation program
itself and the industrial base impact, and I think certainly we
would have had maybe a slightly different tenor if that program
had not been cancelled. But the deeper problem really is the
policy. Okay? The National Space Policy in 2010 I think is
actually quite a good document. I think it is very thoughtful,
very balanced; there is a lot of good material in it. The part
that, as a policy professional, sticks out for me is the
section on civil space exploration, the asteroid and Mars
aspect of it, which to my mind really comes out of a bit of
left field. It didn't have an international context. It didn't
have a commercial context. It wasn't mindful of the industrial
base realities. And so it is really distinct from the rest of
the policy.
I think if that mistake hadn't been made, I think you could
have had a more rational discussion about how to either
moderate, change, turn, revamp the Constellation program into a
way that would have been acceptable to the Administration going
forward. So as in most things, it is really policy choices that
are at the root of the issue. What is the strategy you are
following? Then, the programmatic outcomes and the budgetary
outcomes really follow from that. So that is where I would
really point.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. I ask the other three members if
you would have any thoughts on that. I have just about a minute
left but----
Ms. Blakey. Certainly, the variables at the industrial
base, the companies involved that have had to deal with this,
it has been very difficult. We feel very strongly moving
forward that it is important to maintain both the emphasis on
commercial crew, commercial resupply for ISS--we have got to
keep that on track--and at the same time have the ability
through SLS or Orion to get to deep space. Those two things are
parallel tracks and they are both very important.
Mr. Hultgren. Yes.
Mr. Walker. I just would comment that I think it has to be
recognized that financially, the Constellation program was an--
in an unsustainable cost profile and it was about to eat alive
the science programs and a number of other things inside of
NASA at the kinds of costs that it was accumulating. And so,
you have to look at it in terms of where would we be in terms
of those costs undercutting other NASA programs if it had not
gotten the kinds of money that Chairman Hall referred to
earlier? Of course it could be done if you gave NASA an
additional $3 billion. No one believed that NASA was going to
get $3 billion at that point.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, again, thank you all for being here. I
think these are important discussions. My hope is that we can
continue those and really have a great vision for NASA and from
NASA into the future. So with that, I--again, Chairman, thank
you for all that you have done for us. I appreciate your
service so much and your friendship and look forward to working
together for a long time to come. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. You have my assurance that we
will work together. And for your undertaker father, let me pass
on one to him that my undertaker uses on me. He says don't
worry about it; if you don't like flowers, they will finally
grow on you.
Now, I think Mr. Clarke has asked for recognition.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the
opportunity. And I briefly wanted to ask everyone for their
comment on how NASA, long-term strategically, can work more
effectively with the private industry. That is an open-ended
question but I will focus on two specific areas: one, with
technology transfer on how the transfer of NASA's research to
private industry, maybe to other federal agencies could play a
larger role in our strategic vision for NASA. General Sega, you
could also address that if you wish. And the other issue is how
we can best restructure NASA in a way that would likely need
Congressional authorization. These are issues that were raised
by Chairman Walker with his illustration of let us say a
sponsorship of one of our missions, although I prefer the
wolverine rover painted in maize and blue I think would be more
appropriate than the Go Daddy rover.
But in any event, Congressional authorization needed to
restructure--to promote the restructuring of NASA that could
lead to more effective private partnerships and how do we
strengthen the role of technology transfer in NASA's strategic
mission?
Mr. Walker. Well, quickly, I will give you one. There are a
number of ways that you could do this, but the Aldridge
Commission recommended that the centers be turned into FFRDCs
like operations, that they would have to be modified, that not
all centers do research and development. So that they would be
structured in a way that would allow them to receive both
public money and private money into their operations. And I
think that something like that is certainly one of the places
it has to look. Look, I mean one of the things that the NRC
said was that the alternative to that may have to be the
closing of some of the centers, or, the reduction of the size
of NASA. This is the way that you can begin to look at how you
keep the centers in place, how do you make them into viable
economic units inside the communities that they have and for
the Nation? And, I think that this Committee needs to look at
how you might restructure them in a way that allows them to
attract both private and public money.
Chairman Hall. All right. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chair, before I do that, I wanted to thank
Ranking Member Johnson for her steadfast leadership providing
me the great opportunity of participating as a freshman Member
of this panel. Chairman Hall, you are a true gentleman in every
respect in how you have governed this Committee in a fair and
balanced way. It has been an honor to serve with you and all of
you in this country. Thank you so much.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. Ms. Johnson, I agree with you
completely. You are a gentleman. Thank you.
Now, the Chair recognizes Dr. Harris for five minutes.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panel for being here today to review
really what the strategy is going forward. I am going to ask
for comments on a very particular aspect, and Dr. Zurbuchen and
Dr. Pace really, and it leads off what Chairman Walker had said
that at some point there is important input from manned
missions. But to be honest, a lot of the critical things that
we are doing defense-related, weather-related, really there is
no manned input necessary. And I am an anesthesiologist. I work
in the operating room. The robotic surgery we are doing you
literally could do from around the world. You could have the
surgeon sitting around the world from where that machine is
actually performing an intricate operation with tactile
feedback. I mean--and I don't remember the fancy scientific
name for it, so you actually feel what the tissues feel like, a
lot of inputs that the Chairman indicates that human input
actually now is being gained. I mean there are robotics classes
and then clubs in their high school. I mean this is to some
extent the future.
Given the expense of the redundancy necessary in a manned
program and our need to get the most training and research and
engineering experience knowledge for the dollars we spend at
NASA, isn't it time to say that maybe manned programs should be
really rare and reserved for rare occasions because they just
don't deliver the bang for the buck--I am talking about basic
science knowledge.
And, Dr. Zurbuchen, your testimony is excellent. I think it
points out that we need to know these things and there are
other societal benefits. But to the two doctors on the panel,
isn't that really the way we ought to be thinking of going if
our basic expansion of knowledge with--through a government-
funded entity like NASA--and of course preserving defense-
related, weather-related, all the other things that we do, is
that the way that we should go?
Dr. Zurbuchen. My personal feeling is that there is
tremendous value over time that has come both from the manned
and from the robotic-type missions. I do believe that robotics
will have --on the time scale of the next 20 years or so
probably if we make predictions, which as you know is always
hard, but if you make predictions, will have more economic
impact on how we are going to drive our cars, how we are going
to fly our planes, and how surgeries are being performed and
human space missions. It is my belief, though, that if you go
to a time scale of 30 or more years that that prediction is
going to be a lot tougher to make. I believe that in many ways,
once you put the human in the loop and especially if you go to
places where you do not know where you are going, kind of the
true exploration, that things happen on the innovation front
that really help us uncover aspects of our experience and also
aspects of technology that will have tremendous impact in long-
term.
The same certainly happened on the Apollo side. It is not
the case that even though the examples you are mentioning are
truly compelling, there are many aspects to our lives that did
come from the human side of NASA as well. So basically, if you
asked the question as clearly as you did, should we just kind
of forget all about it? I certainly would not subscribe to that
kind of recommendation.
Dr. Harris. And I want to emphasize not forget it but lower
the emphasis a little bit is really--Dr. Pace.
Dr. Pace. Sure. I think first of all you have to make a
distinction between sort of science and exploration. I mean
NASA is more than just a science agency. It also is an
exploration agency. It is a tool of U.S. foreign policy. So it
does a whole bunch of things other than just science. If we are
just looking at science as defined, say, in the decadal
surveys, then it is really straightforward. Okay, robotics
systems are what you do. But the reason why you do humans in
part is for exploring the unknown, by literally putting people
in an unusual or an alien situation, you learn things that you
wouldn't learn if you stayed at home.
There is a wonderful example of looking at salmonella
viruses and how they have become more virulent in space in
zero-g, and these are experiments to be done in a space
station, and this means there is a gene sequencing issue. And
if we can figure out how to control that, we can have a
potential vaccine for salmonella. Okay. That is not something
that would ever really have emerged in a ground-based
laboratory. It emerges when we put life sciences, people in a
very, very different environment to go into the unknown.
Human space flight is probably the most interdisciplinary
scientific and technical activity that this country can engage
in, much broader than biotech, IT, any of the other particular
fields because you really have all fields have to come together
to pull off a successful mission. It is incredibly, incredibly
hard. But that is where really the benefit is from pushing into
the unknown. So I would say as part of your portfolio of
activities that humans have to be part of it because they do
represent this really challenging interdisciplinary problem
that is really unique. And it should be part of our national
portfolio because there is nothing that replaces the symbolism,
the emotion, the connection that it makes not only to the
American people but also to our partners around the world.
The International Space Station is not only an engineering
triumph but it also a massive diplomatic triumph that has paid
great benefits I think for this country already in terms of
building relationships around the world.
So the question for NASA and human space flight is what do
you want it to be? What national interests do you want it to
serve? If it is only science as defined in the decadal surveys,
then I think you can go down a purely robotic path. But I think
the vision for NASA is much bigger than just that. It is a
science agency but it is also so much more.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. And I thank the panel and
thank the Chairman for the opportunity to serve on the
Committee.
Chairman Hall. I have a feeling that General Sega wants to
add something. You can't turn a general down.
General Sega. Well, thank you. I just wanted to add to--the
question itself poses one of the key points of our study is
that national consensus determining the strategic goals and
objectives are important, and from that would flow then the
balance and integration perhaps of exploration, science,
technology, and aeronautics for NASA.
Another point as--Congressman Walker talked about a report.
I just want to clarify. One of our options was to institute an
aggressive restructuring program to reduce infrastructure and
personnel cost and improve efficiency. We didn't go into any
detail of whether that was an option one would choose or how to
do it. So thank you very much, sir.
Chairman Hall. I thank you very much. And the gentleman has
yielded back.
I want to thank everyone. Thank you for your time of
preparation, travel, and presentation. And all the staff here,
I want to thank these wonderful staffs that make this world go.
And I would like to ask unanimous consent that as we close
today that we close in memory of the life of Gabrielle Giffords
on her life and remember the death of Neil Armstrong for a
moment of silence. Amen.
We are closed.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Maj. Gen. Ronald Sega
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by The Honorable Robert Walker
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by The Honorable Marion C. Blakey
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Scott Pace
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted Statement for the Record by Representative Jerry Costello
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 states that ``The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration is and should remain a multi-
mission agency with a balanced and robust set of core missions in
science, aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration.''
Last week, a National Research Council (NRC) panel found that
NASA's ability to sustain that balanced portfolio is in jeopardy. This
should not be a surprise. As this Committee has reiterated on multiple
occasions, for the past several years, NASA has been underfunded.
There is a mismatch between what we expect NASA to do and how much
we fund it.
This is unfortunate, because NASA is a critical part of the
Nation's research and development enterprise, as well as a worldwide
symbol of American technological prowess and the global leader in space
and aeronautics. That status is no longer assured.
More troubling is the NRC panel's conclusion that ``The approach to
and pace of a number of NASA's programs, projects, and activities will
not be sustainable if the NASA budget remains flat, as currently
projected.''
I understand that we are in tough economic times. But I hope that
this hearing will illustrate how NASA provides a sizeable return on the
taxpayer's investment through its balanced portfolio. So I am eager to
hear from our witnesses on how we can ensure that NASA maintains its
leadership in space science, aeronautics research, and human space
exploration.
In my final days as Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee, let me say that over the years, I have seen NASA do great
things supported by a dedicated workforce and able contractors.
If we in Congress do our part, a flight test of the Orion Capsule
in 2014, initial test of the Space Launch System in 2017, launch of the
James Webb Telescope in 2018, and completion of critical R&D in support
of NextGen by 2018--among other important tasks--are all possible and
NASA will continue reaching for the stars and helping to improve life
here on Earth.